Gabbing on Gas: White House and California Still On Speaking Terms

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Despite the growing animosity, both California and the Trump administration are still willing to discuss the country’s changing emission regulations. The state is currently heading a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming it “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” in overturning the previous administration’s decision to maintain Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

While the proposals issued by the current administration will eventually see those targets rolled back, a final decision has not been made. The White House claims it wants to maintain an open dialogue with the Golden State, hoping to reach an agreeable solution, but the California Air Resources Board has argued it doesn’t seem to be acting on those assertions. Meanwhile, EPA head Scott Pruitt maintains that the state will not dictate federal fueling rules as automakers beg the government to do everything in its power to ensure a singular national mandate.

It’s an ugly situation, which makes news of a new round of meetings all the more surprising.

The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, part of the Office of Management and Budget, will meet separately with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the California Air Resources Board. According to Reuters, these interactions are scheduled to take place next Tuesday.

During the meetings, the automotive alliance will likely press for lowered targets while claiming a cohesive national standard is the most important outcome. While many manufacturers have come out publicly to support sticking with the existing environmental standards, business is still business. Having the flexibility to make cars less efficient for the American market in the coming years is something they’d all be pleased with. But they can’t do that if California and a handful of other states adhere to different standards.

What’s less clear is what the California Air Resources Board will ask for. While the group has shown a willingness to bend in the past, the most recent draft of the Transportation Department’s proposal recommends freezing fueling requirements at 2020 levels through 2026 and barring California from setting stricter standards than the federal government. It may pursue an all-or-nothing approach and hope it can fight to maintain its waiver to self regulate if it can’t negotiate a good deal.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 25 comments
  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Jun 15, 2018

    What is the problem? Do not sell gas powered cars in CA and thats all. Sell only hybrids or electric versions. When I was shopping for Ford Fusion there were considerably more hybrids available at Ford dealerships than gas powered. it was difficult to find Fusion with gas engine - very limited choice.

    • See 2 previous
    • DenverMike DenverMike on Jun 16, 2018

      @ect It's a "standard" that would drastically alter or collapse the US car market. Either that or automakers would face fines in the billions. CARB states would win either way. The fines are relatively small, per violating vehicle, except they would be on higher profit vehicles. This isn't about clean air, CARB just wants the monumental cash grab. If CARB truly wanted cleaner air, they'd attack the dirty, gross polluting train, military, aircraft and oceanliner industries. Except CARB hasn't come forward with what that "standard" would be, since they cannot dictate mpg, only emissions.

  • ToddAtlasF1 ToddAtlasF1 on Jun 16, 2018

    Does anyone who supports Obama's CAFE standards realize that it was Obama's team who created the standards that are eliminating the most fuel efficient and affordable vehicles from our market? Under the old CAFE, the big three had to offer Escorts, Cavaliers, Horizons, and T1000s at low prices to offset the emissions and consumption of bigger, more profitable vehicles. Under the Obama footprint model, the bigger the vehicles you make, the lower the bar gets. Bye bye affordable and efficient new cars. I'm all for selling people what they want to buy. The old CAFE was wrong for making the automakers sell cars people weren't willing to pay for. The new CAFE is wrong for eliminating cars people were paying for by setting their consumption standards impossibly high. If anyone really thinks Marxists are better than markets, we should ship them to Venezuela instead of allowing them to bring Venezuela here.

  • SilverCoupe Tim, you don't always watch F1 as you don't want to lose sleep? But these races are great for putting one to sleep!I kid (sort of). I DVR them, I watch them, I fast forward a lot. It was great to see Lando win one, I've been a fan of McLaren since their heyday in CanAm in the late '60's.
  • Cprescott The problem with this fable by the FTC is:(1) shipping of all kinds was hindered at ports because of COVID related issues;(2) The President shafted the Saudis by insulting them with a fist bump that torqued them off to no end;(3) Saudis announced unilateral production cuts repeatedly during this President's tenure even as he begged to get them to produce more;(4) We were told that we had record domestic production so that would have lowered prices due to increased supply(5) The President emptied the strategic petroleum reserve to the lowest point since the 1980's due to number 3 and then sold much of that to China.We have repeatedly been told that documents and emails are Russian disinformation so why now are we to believe this?
  • Ollicat Another Biden attempt to say, "Look over there!"
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh Who cares. Price of gas is not the issue. spending an extra 100$ a month over 4 tanks of gas is not the issue.this a political scam to distract really dumb people from the real issue. if rent and house payments were not up by 50% to as high as 150% higher in a ton of locations, then paying an extra 100$ in gas would be annoying but not really an issue. But the real-estate market with hedge fund investors, power-relator groups bought a ton of houses and flipped them into rentals and jacked up the rates uplifting the costs on everything else. and ironically no-one seems to be in any hurry to build more houses to bring those costs down because supply and demand means keeping less houses available to charge as much as you want. It is also not the issue as a secondary issue is child care costs and medical... again 100$ extra per month in gas is *nothing* compared to 800$ a month in ''child care'' and 300$ per visit to the doctor office, 300$ for a procedure less dentist trip..
  • Ajla Is there something proprietary or installed on the moon with these that I'm not aware of?
Next