Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

trouble13 said:

So charge more for cars in california or abandon that market if its an unobtainable standard thats cost effective. Thats the logical response.

Suggesting Trump is causing a problem in the industry for not making that same new standard a federal one is illogical to me.

Thats why i feel like i am missing some key element to the story

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You are missing something.

The issue is not the President reducing the final numbers, it's California having the power to set their own, and with the size of the market, establishing standards the rest of the Nation must live by.

In the end, changing the standards could have no impact whatsoever on the auto industry, if they chose to ignore them.

There is no requirement that automakers can't exceed the regulations the EPA sets. They can ignore the changes that are being proposed and build cars that meet California's unilateral demands.

What automakers want is to strip California of their singular status.

The draconian California Air Resources Board shouldn't have the ability to set national standards. It's just an unintended twist in the law that granted such status that allows them to do so.

dcsports said:

That would be the free market approach... just let California cars cost more. However, it will still likely drive up overall prices.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the free market approach. The free market approach is to do whatever maximizes profits. Having one set of standards reduces expenses and maximizes profits

Sure, they could raise their prices in CA, but that would depress their sales in their biggest market-- a sure way to reduce their profits

sangha said:

No, that's not the free market approach. The free market approach is to do whatever maximizes profits. Having one set of standards reduces expenses and maximizes profits

Sure, they could raise their prices in CA, but that would depress their sales in their biggest market-- a sure way to reduce their profits

Click to expand...

That's true, to an extent, but what they are attempting to do is to adjust the government interference to minimize it's impact. The bottom line is that California is being unreasonable, and auto makers want the federal government to pull them back from the cliff. That may not be possible.

We could let California have the higher standards, making those cars a lot more expensive, and cars in other states somewhat more expensive. No question that would increase costs for everyone, but most of the impact would be on people in California, and eventually either that state would back off to something more realistic, or the federal government would change the law to remove their power.

In the short term, California needs to negotiate, or they'll lose their ability to do so. Long term, this is clearly a place where the federal government should control the standard.

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

OscarLevant said:

Actually, some people did die.

Catalytic Converters Tied to Sharp Drop in Poisoning Deaths

Click to expand...

The introduction of catalytic converters coincided with the phaseout of leaded gasoline as mandated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. Every car in the country was required to have one, no matter where it was sold. I'm not against pollution-control equipment. I AM against California de facto making the decision as to what pollution-control equipment will be required for every vehicle sold in the entire country.

OscarLevant said:

Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber, is a libertarian. One of his stated objectives for starting Uber was to make riding in an Uber cheaper than owning a car.

yeah, a real frickin' liberal he is. Hah !

In fact, progressives have issues with the "gig economy". So, you are incorrect that liberals want no one to own cars.

Click to expand...

So liberals don't have a problem with poor people using greenhouse gas belching beaters to get to work?

MTAtech said:

I'm not an expert either but according to the car corps, satisfying different requirements is more expensive.

Click to expand...

I know they are claiming that im just curious how? On its surface it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

dcsports said:

That would be the free market approach... just let California cars cost more. However, it will still likely drive up overall prices.

Again though, I don't think auto are suggesting 'Trump is causing trouble'. That was more the OP's interpretation. They were asking the current administration to negotiate a compromise with California at something between the most recent standard and powering cars by unicorns and rainbows.

Click to expand...

Oh i must of missunderstood i thought car manufacturers were saying that lower standards would cost them more.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

dcsports said:

You can't raise the cost of a car by X to increase profit by X. That's 'spreadsheet math'. In reality, people are going to buy another car, you sell fewer, spread fixed costs more, and get less profit.

Click to expand...

Thats true i oversimplified the answer. Competition will ultimately set the price of the product.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

dcsports said:

That's true, to an extent, but what they are attempting to do is to adjust the government interference to minimize it's impact. The bottom line is that California is being unreasonable, and auto makers want the federal government to pull them back from the cliff. That may not be possible.

Click to expand...

The CA state government is doing what it's constituents want it to do. There's nothing unreasonable about that

We could let California have the higher standards,

Click to expand...

Unless you're a resident of CA, you have no say in the matter. CA doesn't need, nor want, your permission

making those cars a lot more expensive, and cars in other states somewhat more expensive. No question that would increase costs for everyone, but most of the impact would be on people in California, and eventually either that state would back off to something more realistic, or the federal government would change the law to remove their power.

Click to expand...

CA has already decided. They are willing to pay more for cars that are cleaner.

It's going to happen. Your approval is irrelevant. The issue is what will wrt the cars made for sale in other states.

In the short term, California needs to negotiate, or they'll lose their ability to do so. Long term, this is clearly a place where the federal government should control the standard.

Click to expand...

CA doesn't need to do anything. They have nothing to lose other than pollution and the health care costs associated with that pollution

CA has had the power to regulate standards for cars sold there for many years. That's not about to change

ocean515 said:

You are missing something.

The issue is not the President reducing the final numbers, it's California having the power to set their own, and with the size of the market, establishing standards the rest of the Nation must live by.

In the end, changing the standards could have no impact whatsoever on the auto industry, if they chose to ignore them.

There is no requirement that automakers can't exceed the regulations the EPA sets. They can ignore the changes that are being proposed and build cars that meet California's unilateral demands.

What automakers want is to strip California of their singular status.

The draconian California Air Resources Board shouldn't have the ability to set national standards. It's just an unintended twist in the law that granted such status that allows them to do so.

Click to expand...

Ty for clarifying that

That being the case i would side with california in this situtation despite the fact that i may not agree with the higher standards. If they want to set a higher standard in their state they should be allowed to do so.

Conversely if automakers dont see a viable market there they are free to not sell their cars in that market.

That is an issue that they need to work out among themselves. The feds should stay out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

dcsports said:

You really should read the article you posted.

Trump isn't 'slashing' the regulation. He's freezing it at 37 mpg for cars, which is still at a level very few cars currently can achieve. The Obama standard included an increase to 54.4 mpg, which everyone knows is not realistic, and car manufacturers begged the Trump administration to change.

The issue is that California continues to insist on the higher level, and they have the power to enforce it due to a provision in the 1970 clean air act. Manufacturers are concerned about returning to a split market where they have to produce different cars for California, manipulate prices to change the mix in that state (i.e. sell electric cars at a loss), and deal with cross-state sales for cars with different standards. They are NOT wanting the administration to put in place the Obama standard. The letter is asking him to negotiate a deal with California on a middle ground.

Personally, I like the plan C floated by the Trump Administration... strip California of the ability to set different standards, and have one national standard. That's probably going to happen at some point, especially since the California government is being insistent on the unrealistic level. Having two standards makes no sense, and this is without question an issue of interstate commerce. They can even increase the standard for the future to a middle ground, provided it's realistic.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Excellent post.

sangha said:

The CA state government is doing what it's constituents want it to do. There's nothing unreasonable about that



Unless you're a resident of CA, you have no say in the matter. CA doesn't need, nor want, your permission



CA has already decided. They are willing to pay more for cars that are cleaner.

It's going to happen. Your approval is irrelevant. The issue is what will wrt the cars made for sale in other states.



CA doesn't need to do anything. They have nothing to lose other than pollution and the health care costs associated with that pollution

CA has had the power to regulate standards for cars sold there for many years. That's not about to change

Click to expand...

eh. They're doing what some residents want to do. However this is political... not grounded in reality. The 54.4 MPG standard isn't realistic. Even the article points out that the only theoretical way would be to shift the mix of cars, selling electric cars at a loss (due to the games played with those numbers). As for the last part, it's questionable how much this marginal change would really impact pollution. But when they feel the cost of this decision, I think you'll see some more outrage.

And they do have the power to do this now, and it's unfortunate because of their impact on the rest of the market. But again, if they stick to their guns, I think you'll see pressure to change this from all sides. This is the start of that pressure.

dcsports said:

eh. They're doing what some residents want to do. However this is political... not grounded in reality. The 54.4 MPG standard isn't realistic. Even the article points out that the only theoretical way would be to shift the mix of cars, selling electric cars at a loss (due to the games played with those numbers). As for the last part, it's questionable how much this marginal change would really impact pollution. But when they feel the cost of this decision, I think you'll see some more outrage.

Click to expand...

IMO reasonable people can disagree over just how strict the standard can and should be. But in a democracy like ours, those decisions are made through the democratic political process.

And they do have the power to do this now, and it's unfortunate because of their impact on the rest of the market. But again, if they stick to their guns, I think you'll see pressure to change this from all sides. This is the start of that pressure.

Click to expand...

When it comes to predicting the future, again, reasonable people can disagree. I don't find your speculation outrageous but in the past, the nation has tended to follow CA and not the other way around when it comes to issues like this

In the end, you may be right. Or maybe not. Who knows?

But CA has the right and the power to make its own decisions and that is what they are doing

dcsports said:

You really should read the article you posted.Trump isn't 'slashing' the regulation. He's freezing it at 37 mpg for cars, which is still at a level very few cars currently can achieve. The Obama standard included an increase to 54.4 mpg, which everyone knows is not realistic, and car manufacturers begged the Trump administration to change.

The issue is that California continues to insist on the higher level, and they have the power to enforce it due to a provision in the 1970 clean air act. Manufacturers are concerned about returning to a split market where they have to produce different cars for California, manipulate prices to change the mix in that state (i.e. sell electric cars at a loss), and deal with cross-state sales for cars with different standards. They are NOT wanting the administration to put in place the Obama standard. The letter is asking him to negotiate a deal with California on a middle ground.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

You are missing something. The issue is not the President reducing the final numbers, it's California having the power to set their own, and with the size of the market, establishing standards the rest of the Nation must live by. In the end, changing the standards could have no impact whatsoever on the auto industry, if they chose to ignore them. There is no requirement that automakers can't exceed the regulations the EPA sets. They can ignore the changes that are being proposed and build cars that meet California's unilateral demands. What automakers want is to strip California of their singular status. The draconian California Air Resources Board shouldn't have the ability to set national standards. It's just an unintended twist in the law that granted such status that allows them to do so.

Click to expand...

Yeaaaah, I doubt that. :roll:

A "bifurcated market" of differing standards across state lines is almost certainly not what American, Japanese and European auto manufacturers truly fear. Rather, it's that stringent clean air standards produces a truly effective 'market barrier' that which has the effect of (1) hindering new market entrants and (2) puts the USA-market out of reach for global (China, India, etc.) auto-manufacturers.

Besides, cleaner air is a healthy, happy, feel-good issue.

trouble13 said:

Ty for clarifying that

That being the case i would side with california in this situtation despite the fact that i may not agree with the higher standards. If they want to set a higher standard in their state they should be allowed to do so.

Conversely if automakers dont see a viable market there they are free to not sell their cars in that market.

That is an issue that they need to work out among themselves. The feds should stay out of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

To your point about not selling. Of course that is true. However, it's the largest market in the United States. Abandoning it would most certainly have a devastating impact on US based auto manufacturers.

California needs to be stripped of their special status. That would solve the problem equitably for every consumer and autoworker in the United States.

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

brothern said:

Yeaaaah, I doubt that. :roll:

A "bifurcated market" of differing standards across state lines is almost certainly not what American, Japanese and European auto manufacturers truly fear. Rather, it's that stringent clean air standards produces a truly effective 'market barrier' that which has the effect of (1) hindering new market entrants and (2) puts the USA-market out of reach for global (China, India, etc.) auto-manufacturers.

Besides, cleaner air is a healthy, happy, feel-good issue.

Click to expand...

Umm. No. You are wrong.

What is a bifurcated market?


California is the only State in the United States that can set it own Clean Air Standards. Because of the size of the California market, they effectively drive the National Standards all citizens of the United States must live by, no matter how outrageous those standards are.

The auto makers are simply trying to get the Feds to strip California of this special status, which absolutely should be done.

ocean515 said:

To your point about not selling. Of course that is true. However, it's the largest market in the United States. Abandoning it would most certainly have a devastating impact on US based auto manufacturers.

California needs to be stripped of their special status. That would solve the problem equitably for every consumer and autoworker in the United States.

Click to expand...

Yup californias size give its a lot of influence in the market place. Imo that is not a valid reason to force them to surrender their sovereignty over to the federal gov.

What i would like to know is what cslifornia would do of people bought the lower standard vehicles out of state then brought them scross the state line?

I dont think this particular mandate would work out for california but they should be free to try it out if they like

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

trouble13 said:

Yup californias size give its a lot of influence in the market place. Imo that is not a valid reason to force them to surrender their sovereignty over to the federal gov.

What i would like to know is what cslifornia would do of people bought the lower standard vehicles out of state then brought them scross the state line?

I dont think this particular mandate would work out for california but they should be free to try it out if they like

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by California surrendering it's sovereignty. California has been given special priveledges no other State is allowed to have. As such, it exerts undue influence on the economies of the other 49 States.


Vehicles purchased outside the state, and not meeting California smog standards can be designated as non-compliant and would not be allowed to be operated in the State for longer than a short period of time. That law exists today.


Non-compliant vehicles are allowed to visit the state, but they are not allowed to be operated for extended periods of time.


FFVR 29



California New Vehicle Registration Guide | DMV.com

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

ocean515 said:

I don't know what you mean by California surrendering it's sovereignty. California has been given special priveledges no other State is allowed to have. As such, it exerts undue influence on the economies of the other 49 States.


Vehicles purchased outside the state, and not meeting California smog standards can be designated as non-compliant and would not be allowed to be operated in the State for longer than a short period of time. That law exists today.


Non-compliant vehicles are allowed to visit the state, but they are not allowed to be operated for extended periods of time.


FFVR 29

Buying a Vehicle From Out of State - Can You Register It in California? (FFVR 29)

The Bottom Line

If you are a California resident and acquire a new car, truck, or motorcycle from another state, it must be certified to meet California smog laws to be registered in California. This includes certain diesel-powered vehicles. DMV cannot accept an application to register a vehicle in California that does not qualify for registration (California Health and Safety Code §§43150 - 43156).​

California New Vehicle Registration Guide | DMV.com

State law requires you to get a CA vehicle registration within 10 days of obtaining a new or used car. If you fail to pay the applicable fees within 30 days, you will be subjected to certain fee penalties. If you are a new state resident with an out-of-state vehicle or a current resident who has obtained a vehicle from outside of California, you must pay the applicable fees within 20 days of their due date.​

Click to expand...

What i mean is they should not need special permission to set a regulatory standard in their state. Its an infringement on the sovereignty to do so.

If they want to set the standard too high then they wont have cars in their state. They will need to figure out an alternative. Msybe that works great or maybe its a disaster but they should be free to try.

Just because californias minium requirement exceeds the federal one does not mean other states must match it and it does not mesn car manufactors have to comply either. There is 49 other states they can sell their vehicles to.

Codes and standards vary from state to state as it is. Its not a special right that california has. Its gommon practice

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

Ahlevah said:

The introduction of catalytic converters coincided with the phaseout of leaded gasoline as mandated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. Every car in the country was required to have one, no matter where it was sold. I'm not against pollution-control equipment. I AM against California de facto making the decision as to what pollution-control equipment will be required for every vehicle sold in the entire country.



So liberals don't have a problem with poor people using greenhouse gas belching beaters to get to work?

Click to expand...

They do, but that was not my point.

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

ocean515 said:

The 91 has never reached Torrance. Not in the 70's, and certainly not today.

Click to expand...

Artesia Blvd, but I meant 91 through Compton on the way to Torrance.

While your description of the Air Quality in Southern California is for the most part accurate, it fails to connect to the current issue. The standard the new regulatory standards are seeking to establish are already more stringent that called for today.

Click to expand...

Well, I've not had a problem buying a car and I don't make much, and the cleaner the better, in my book.

You claim the air is clear in California because of it's Progressive policies. Why would the air get worse with more stringent standards?

No other State in the United States has the ability to set it's own Air Quality standards.

Click to expand...

The state is the 5th largest economy in the world. It's a veritable country. It is only just that it should control it's own standards.

As such, as the Automakers have explained, it has the ability to harm thousands of jobs and a major industrial sector of the United States. through it's unilateral actions.

Click to expand...

Without health, a job won't do you much good. Sorry, not buying that argument, and I doubt it is even true.

The rest of the Nation is being held hostage by California.

Click to expand...

So?

As for unemployment rates, Progressives running California have placed California as the home of the highest poverty in the Nation.

Click to expand...

Unemployment is slightly behind the national stat, at about 4%. That's still a good stat.

39 million people choose to live here, far more than any other state. CA is the 5th largest economy in the world. CA has a long, beautiful coastline, many parks, redwood forests, etc., and a climate to die for.

If I were poor, if I were homeless, I would choose to live in California, for the same reason 39 million other people choose to live here.

There are more destination weddings in CA than any other state. I've lived here since 1960 and part of the 50s . I've also lived briefly in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, and NYC. I'll take CA over those, any day of the week.

This is a beautiful state. There are many large urban centers in the south, and some in the north, and most Urban cities have their problems, but because of that fact, those numbers are going to be higher and render stats disproportionally, especially because so many people want to live here.

One thing the CA haters seem to forget, more people love my state than they do yours (assuming you do not live in CA ).

Damn liberals, screwing the National Economy, and creating poverty in it's citizens.

Click to expand...

Drivel.

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

OscarLevant said:

Artesia Blvd, but I meant 91 through Compton on the way to Torrance.



Well, I've not had a problem buying a car and I don't make much, and the cleaner the better, in my book.


The state is the 5th largest economy in the world. It's a veritable country. It is only just that it should control it's own standards.


Without health, a job won't do you much good. Sorry, not buying that argument, and I doubt it is even true.


So?

Unemployment is slightly behind the national stat, at about 4%. That's still a good stat.

39 million people choose to live here, far more than any other state. CA is the 5th largest economy in the world. CA has a long, beautiful coastline, many parks, redwood forests, etc., and a climate to die for.

If I were poor, if I were homeless, I would choose to live in California, for the same reason 39 million other people choose to live here.

There are more destination weddings in CA than any other state. I've lived here since 1960 and part of the 50s . I've also lived briefly in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, and NYC. I'll take CA over those, any day of the week.

This is a beautiful state. There are many large urban centers in the south, and some in the north, and most Urban cities have their problems, but because of that fact, those numbers are going to be higher and render stats disproportionally, especially because so many people want to live here.

One thing the CA haters seem to forget, more people love my state than they do yours (assuming you do not live in CA ).



Drivel.

Click to expand...

I'm a 5th Generation Southern Californian. My ancestors came here in the 1870's.

It says I live here in my profile. Something else you failed to notice.


California is crushed by debt, is reeling for an income disparity that is probably second to no other state. It's poised to collapse economically when home values plummet.


It encourages the influx of low income, low educated residents, many in the country illegally, and penalizes the very people it depends on for revenue to sustain it.


California has a large economy primarily because of two business sectors. Tech, and Hollywood. It's ranked as one of the worst States in the Country to do business.


And the list goes on.



All brought to it's citizens exclusively by Liberal Progressives who control everything in California.


At least when the collapse comes, the entire country will see what a plague Progressivism is.

KevinKohler said:

Because then they would have to sell cheaper cars.


Man, you gotta stop crusading for the wealthy, bro!

Click to expand...

Depends

As California and a few other states have their own environmental regulations for cars, developing two separate environmental systems for the same car, could very well increase prices for all to cover the development costs. California is a large car market and so are some of the other states. Of course a company could not develop cars for those markets and just make high polluting cars, but that will ensure that company has a limited market, in the US and internationally. Eventually that company would go the way of BMC

Re: Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profi

ocean515 said:

The 91 has never reached Torrance. Not in the 70's, and certainly not today.

While your description of the Air Quality in Southern California is for the most part accurate, it fails to connect to the current issue. The standard the new regulatory standards are seeking to establish are already more stringent that called for today.


You claim the air is clear in California because of it's Progressive policies. Why would the air get worse with more stringent standards?

No other State in the United States has the ability to set it's own Air Quality standards. As such, as the Automakers have explained, it has the ability to harm thousands of jobs and a major industrial sector of the United States. through it's unilateral actions.

The rest of the Nation is being held hostage by California.


As to unemployment rates, Progressives running California have placed California as the home of the highest poverty in the Nation.


Damn liberals, screwing the National Economy, and creating poverty in it's citizens.

Click to expand...

The companies can either decide to build cars to California standards, or not sell cars in California, the rest of the nation is not being held hostage. It is a choice by the automakers

MTAtech said:

Automakers Tell Trump His Pollution Rules Could Mean ‘Untenable’ Instability and Lower Profits

---

The knee-jerk response to slash regulation on the presumption that it is "pro business" is a fallacy. Here we have the automakers themselves telling the government that they shouldn't cut back on the pollution regulations.

Click to expand...

The first is irrelevant BUT the second is compelling.

apdst said:

Making cars cheaper to build, therefore cheaper sticker prices, therefore easier for folks to afford, will hurt profitability? Um...:lamo

Click to expand...

You don't need all of those high priced extras (like brakes, lights, turn signals, mufflers, seat belts, safety glass, bumpers, and the like) on cars so the onerous and evil government regulations that force automobile makers to put them on MUST BE REPEALED IMMEDIATELY - right?