Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

Trump administration’s drive to block California “clean car” rules moves forward

#Counter-Resistance speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SGkeFYMFNU

In April, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had taken steps to challenge California’s decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up a showdown between the federal government and the West Coast headquarters of the #Resistance.

Since then, the administration has prepared its plan to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions, included its mandate for electric-car sales, and is gearing up for its release.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the Obama plan, according to the people.

As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state, the people said.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) joins the EPA in this action, as the rationale for the revocation is enhanced safety.

The EPA and NHTSA revealed in a regulatory notice Friday that its upcoming proposal to reduce vehicle efficiency and emissions standards will be dubbed the “Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule,” indicating that administration officials will likely argue that stricter standards would compromise safety.

Then-EPA head Scott Pruitt formally declared in April that the Obama plan to make emissions and efficiency standards stricter through 2026 is not appropriate. It was the first step toward potentially rolling the standards back.

The agencies are expected in the coming days to float a proposal with a handful of ideas, including various levels of looser rules through 2026 and freezing the standards in 2020 with no additional ramping up.

The response from green justice activists is fascinating, especially their newfound love of federalism.

At this point, the green justice warriors may be regretting their decision to target Scott Pruitt so viciously. The new acting head of the EPA seems to have taken the driver’s seat and is speeding along a road called Regulatory Rollback.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 25, 2018 at 5:04 pm

BRAVO!

California needs to be cut off without recourse!

“…. the waiver permits California to essentially set the nation’s car-exhaust policies.

This, of course, forces the rest of the country to subsidize California’s environmental occultism, as the costs of these unnecessary abatement schemes

are lowered in cost because their R&D costs are shared by a nation which doesn’t need them, and California gets the savings of a massive economy of scale only by drafting unwilling Americans to be forced into being consumers of the products that they demand but which few others want…….

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=376260

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | July 25, 2018 at 5:07 pm

    TOUCHE!!!!!

    RE: “At this point, the green justice warriors may be regretting their decision to target Scott Pruitt so viciously.”

      amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change.

      What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
      What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
      What is the overlap?
      What does it mean?

      So Obama attacked water vapor? Really?

    Fair enough … then why should I pay for flood/tornado/whatever damage to houses when my house isn’t involved … why should I pay for (via my taxes) for projects in states other than mine … etc.

      Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:40 pm

      As Davy Crockett pointed out, federal disaster relief is indeed wrong in principle, but at least the system we have now applies in principle to anywhere that suffers a disaster, so when you pay for floods in some other state you know that when your state has fires or an earthquake or whatever the same system will be there for you.

      But CA has not been getting something that’s available to everyone else; it’s been enjoying a special exemption from the law that controls all 49 other states.

      And this was not to satisfy some special need that CA had, but on the contrary to cater to a stupid whim that was of no benefit to CA itself, let alone anyone else. The only difference is that nobody else even wants it, while CA imagines it somehow benefits from this special treatment.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 26, 2018 at 5:04 pm

        Unfortunately 13 other states have joined the madness and have adopted Kali emissions standards. This press release from the Environmental Defense Fund is mostly pure propaganda and bunkum, but the list is accurate.

        The waiver requests from these 13 states were denied under Bush, but Obama reversed the decision in 2009. Congrats, Milhouse. You live in New York I believe. If you buy a new car today, it will be a Kali compliant car.

        Which is why I have just contacted my state Senator and lower house representative and suggested they introduce a bill stating that any product sold in Texas must meet the relevant federal standard and only that standard. In this case, the vehicle must only comply with the EPA standard. No vehicle that exceeds the EPA standard to meet the Kali standard may be sold in this state. If other states pass similar laws then car makers will have to choose which market they will service. And states that have not and will not adopt the Kali emissions standard are far and away the bulk of the car market in the United States.

        Vehicle manufacturers used to make special Kali compliant cars when I was growing up. For instance, the only engine you could get in the Corvette in the late ’70s was the 305. The 350 didn’t meet Kali emissions standards. But now with 13 other states adopting Kali standards manufacturers can no longer afford to maintain two different assembly lines. I want to start a movement to force them to choose.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 8:11 pm

          You live in New York I believe. If you buy a new car today, it will be a Kali compliant car.

          On the other hand, living in NYC I’m very unlikely to buy a car. The public transport system is good enough that I have very little need for one, while keeping one parked legally (including moving it on alternate side days) is a huge time-consuming pain, and once it was parked legally I would be reluctant to move it, so I wouldn’t get much use out of it.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 9:24 pm

          Yes, Milhouse, I understand that you have little need for your own car. And that parking is like renting a second, more luxurious apartment. Even though I’ve never been to NYC, and no insult to you as I would like to meet you in person, I really have no desire to go. Chicago, too.

          I’m happy as a clam down here in gun-totin,’ Bowie Knife-hugging, sword-totin’…

          https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/us/texas-sword-knives-law-trnd/index.html

          … fly-over country with all the pretty girls and the tequila and everything from burritos to Zabaglione as I bow fish for Alligator Gar on the Trinity River.

          But we stinking, sister-marrying, NASCAR-loving hicks from the sticks are aware at some level in our lizard brains of conditions in your city.

          Maybe one reason is that we run institutions that are beneath you, such as the United States Navy. And when we got enlistees from NYC, and we were happy to have them thank you very much, the vast majority of them had never had a driver’s license. This caused real problems as we had a duty roster. And enlisted personnel were expected to perform those duties listed on the roster, one of which was duty driver. This was especially an issue when I was stationed in Japan. The Japanese allowed us to drive on their roads as long as the base certified us as “professional drivers,” similar the their commercial truck drivers. This was a formality as all we had to do was show we had a valid stateside driver’s license and they’d give us the card.

          How the hell do you do that with some kid from NYC who has never been behind the wheel in his life? Not to worry, us snaggle-toothed hillbillies found a way. And I’m not telling. Just be aware if you are from NYC you are still going to pull duty driver.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 26, 2018 at 9:27 pm

          It’s not fair to the other Sailors if you don’t. Everybody has got to pull their weight.

This is pretty funny – someone bleating about “states rights”, when in fact what they’re for is a “right” that only California has, and which the other 49 do NOT have. Why should the other 49 states put up with that?

But what I really love about this is how it makes liberal billionaires like Tom Steyer go insane with rage.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Tom Servo. | July 25, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    What The CA state has been doing is de facto “taxation without representation” for citizens of the other 49 states is it not?

      So … evidently you’re willing to allow higher smog levels in CA which cause more deaths than smog levels in your state … just so you can save a buck on your taxes? And the smog just doesn’t stay in CA ya know. No wonder CA flips you the bird.

        Tom Servo in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:30 pm

        That’s a completely insane comment. California can continue to regulate it’s air quality just like every other state can, as there are many sources of smog, especially industrial ones. California can do many many things to deal with their issues, and they don’t need to be The Great Enviro Dictator to the rest of the country to do it.

          Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 26, 2018 at 2:26 am

          So what you’re saying is, you don’t get it. You don’t why it’s wrong to give one state the veto power over what everyone else in the country can drive? That’s fine, Tom.

          Here’s where I demonstrate my value to my adopted yet always-home state Texas. My neighbors look at me askance and wonder what STDs (Statist Transmitted Deseases) I might have brought with me. The answer is none.

          Kali is the largest car market in the country. What state do you live in, Tom? I now proudly live in the great state of Texas. Don’t get me wrong, Kali was once a great state, until it decided to debauch itself. But why should the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) decide what everyone else can drive? Because that’s what’s happened.

          Since Kali is the largest car market in the country car manufacturers have found it the easy road to build and sell only Kali compliant cars. And force the rest of us to pay more for cars that should only be 50 state EPA compliant cars.

          This waiver gives Kali a stranglehold on what the rest of us can own and drive. I didn’t move to Texas for this. End it.

          Now, does anyone want to talk about the Barnett .50 cal. rifle?

          Arminius in reply to Tom Servo. | July 26, 2018 at 2:51 pm

          Sorry, Tom, I misread your comment.

        Milhouse in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 8:46 pm

        I thought the whole reason LA has so much smog is that it does stay where it is, due to the temperature inversions to which it’s prone. Once the stuff eventually disperses it’s not dangerous to anyone.

        puhiawa in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 10:01 pm

        California can regulate area specific smog if it wishes. But it should not be able to regulate my State’s vehicles. BTW, we have no smog.
        For example, CA could prohibit cars in various areas of Los Angeles.
        Should be fun.And on their dime.

        BobM in reply to PODKen. | July 25, 2018 at 10:22 pm

        California smog is a fraction of the problem it was back in the 60s, mostly due to improvements in cars, yes. But the politicians at this point are enacting standards far in excess of affordable tech. Poor people have as much right to affordable autos as rich Californians have to sushi bars and Starbucks.

        California is still free to enact anti-smog measures. They just will be more local burdens instead of a burden on areas where smog is not an issue. Too much car pollution in downtown LA? Spend YOUR money on local mass transit and tax polluters who want to drive in downtown LA. Don’t require a car owner in Montana or upstate NY to spend thousands more on a car to address YOUR problem.

In short, CA is allowed to crank their pollution standards some, but not to the nutty extreme that the High Environmentalists in their statehouse wanted.

So CA can be nuts, just not insane.

    Latus Dextro in reply to georgfelis. | July 25, 2018 at 5:41 pm

    Oh, the insanity remains.
    EV’s (Tesla 3) lugs 30% of its curb weight as dead weight battery for the duration of its existence (a factor of x10 greater than a similar gasoline vehicle only at the point the tank is full).
    First, what an insane colossal waste of energy. Inefficiency at its best.
    Second, CA will need to import more coal produced power to address a growing power grid shortfall.
    Third, more CO2 (albeit a theoretical non-problem) will result from the production and running of EV’s than their gasoline counterparts.

Hey I just had a really novel idea – rather than letting just one state set emissions controls for the entire nation, how about if we had representatives of ALL of the states meet together, where they could vote on the rules that would affect them all? We could call this kind of a meeting a “congress” or something, do you think it would work?

naaaaah, probably not.

So, ‘states’ rights’. Is that where California trumps 49 other states by requiring them to pay for additional emission controls on vehicles that they neither want nor need. Ha! Trump trumps California.

Real American | July 25, 2018 at 5:32 pm

hopefully, they’ll get rid of the communist green building code next.

If CA fights this and loses, then they need to adopt the most-permissive CHL policy in the country. You either have full states-rights, or none at all.

I’m all for it. The EPA should not be able to dictate mileage requirements to automobile manufacturers. Period. I don’t see where thay is authorized in the U.S. Constitution. Let the markets decide.

That being said, everyone would get a nice boost in mpg immediately if they would stop putting ethanol in our gasoline. And we would eliminate a pretty big subsidy and hidden tax as well.

    Dave in reply to Elric. | July 25, 2018 at 8:39 pm

    Great idea wrt to ethanol, but the farm state Senators and Congresscritters would clutch their chests and inhale loudly, followed by screeching the likes of which even CNN’s anti-Trump hosts haven’t reached were it even to be proposed officially by the Trump administration.

“The “state’s rights party” is dead.”

I guess he forgot that it was the Democrats that were the “State’s Rights Party” back when we had a war over it, because they didn’t want us to free their slaves.

This has nothing to do with “states’ rights.” States’ rights are composed of authority retained by the states because it was not granted to Congress by the Constitution (or specifically reserved to the states). The Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce, meaning that the states surrendered any authority they may have had over items moving in interstate commerce. Automobiles move in interstate commerce, so Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any regulations concerning their manufacture and sale, hence the exemption necessary for California.

BTW, this should also apply to firearms, making all state regulation as to types (e.g., “assault rifles”) and specifics (semiautomatic operating systems, magazine capacity limits, etc.) of firearms that may be sold and possessed in a state unconstitutional. If it’s a common article of trade moving in interstate commerce, the states have no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of said article. This same principle was invoked against Arizona when it tried to make and enforce its own immigration and border laws – the states have surrendered any jurisdiction they may have had over same to Congress, and Congress’ jurisdiction over the subject matter is exclusive.

    Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 26, 2018 at 11:30 am

    The Constitution gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce, meaning that the states surrendered any authority they may have had over items moving in interstate commerce. Automobiles move in interstate commerce, so Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any regulations concerning their manufacture and sale, hence the exemption necessary for California. […] If it’s a common article of trade moving in interstate commerce, the states have no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of said article.

    Your entire premise is wrong. The constitution does not give Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Congress’s enumerated powers are not exclusive. States are free to make their own legislation on those subjects.

    The only time they can’t is if Congress chooses to enact a comprehensive national regulatory scheme for some industry, that leaves no room for state or local legislation. In such a case the federal law preempts state laws that contradict it. That is the case with cars, which is why CA needed an exemption.

    Congress could enact comprehensive regulation of the gun industry (subject, of course, to the second amendment), but it hasn’t done so, so states and cities are free to make their own laws (subject again, of course, to the second amendment).

    This same principle was invoked against Arizona when it tried to make and enforce its own immigration and border laws

    No, it was not. That case had nothing to do with the interstate commerce clause, or any other enumerated power. The decision in that case was based on the principle that immigration, unlike interstate commerce, is inherently an area that belongs exclusively to the federal government. This was not based on anything explicitly in the constitution; indeed the constitution doesn’t give Congress any power over immigration at all. But in the late 19th century the Supreme Court declared that by its very nature immigration is a subject on which Congress has plenary and exclusive power, so no explicit grant of power is needed. Not very originalist, but it’s been the controlling precedent for over a century now.

nraendowment | July 26, 2018 at 11:28 am

Whatever happened to cost/benefit analysis? The automobile pollution controls that California put in place in the 60s and 70s made for an enormous improvement in air quality, but CARB does now has almost no benefits and is extremely expensive. Not to mention that most of what CARB wants is only related to the scientific fraud of “man-caused global warming,” aka carbon dioxide emissions.

CARB outlived its usefulness decades ago and is now just a tool for the global warming cultists.

    Arminius in reply to nraendowment. | July 26, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    Oh, CARB simply fabricates their cost/benefit analysis. As the saying goes, I s**t you not.

    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/phonyfraud-is-hallmark-of-california-air-resources-board-acts-as-scam/

    “Phony/Fraud is Hallmark of California Air Resources Board—Acts as Scam
    July 4, 2016 By Stephen Frank 2 Comments

    The decisions and “scientific” reports of the California Air Resources Board are based on fraud, corruption and mismanagement. Most of the decisions under AB 32 to kill jobs are based on a study by “Ph.D” that received his “diploma” from a diploma mill in New York—he is as qualified to do scientific reports as your beer drinking cousin.

    “Hien Tran, manager of the Health and Ecosystems Assessment Section in CARB’s Research Division, authored the 2010 report “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposure to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California.” Dr. S. Stanley Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences found the report too flawed to be done by a capable statistician, but according to CARB Tran had recently earned a PhD in statistics from the University of California at Davis. In reality, Tran’s PhD came from Thornhill University, a diploma mill located in a New York City UPS office.

    The falsifying of academic credentials is a serious matter and can easily end a career. CARB, however, did not fire Tran, opting instead for a suspension and demotion. And CARB used Tran’s flawed study in heavy-handed diesel regulations, a costly state policy.

    This fraud was not fired? The report was not thrown in the trash can? Any wonder the public distrusts government? Oh, UCLA Dr. James Engstrom, the professor that exposed the corruption, HE was fired—for exposing academic and government corruption. Sick world. Trust government?”

    There are many ways to commit environmental fraud. Hiring fake PhDs to head your research departments is just one way. Note the title of the paper that the fraud Hien Tran authored includes the term “premature deaths.” Who knows how many deaths are premature?

    I’ll have to find the article, but one of the people who exposed the perfidy of Britain’s National Health Service was head of the neurology department at the University of Kent. In other words he was no crackpot, and in fact was a consultant to the NHS. He personally rescued several people. One was a man who the NHS had condemned to death via the “Liverpool Care Pathway.” The benign name the NHS gave to executing patients by starving them and denying them water. The NHS doctors, who had financial incentives to rid the hospitals of “useless mouths” so they beds would be available for those who still had utility to the state.

    In the case I’m thinking of some doctor on the weekend shift decided that a particular gentleman had less than 72 hours to live and condemned him to the LCP. On one of his routine tours of the hospital the Professor from Kent saw this and called bulls**t. He took the man under his personal care, a man who did have significant health problems (therefore a cost the NHS didn’t want to bear, so it was cheaper to kill him) and he was discharged after 4 months into the loving care of his wife and devoted daughter. He died 14 months after he was discharged from the hospital, but that’s still over a year that the NHS would have denied him.

    But back to the topic at hand. As the doctor from Kent noted, no one can say how long anyone has to live. A doctor can’t say a man only has 72 hours to live when he still has a year left. It’s a sword that cuts both ways. A fraudulent PhD can’t tell you how many deaths were premature. But the frauds at the criminal conspiracies such as the EPA and CARB claim they can. This article hints at the key to the scam:

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/08/pruitt-is-overhauling-epa-cost-benefit-analysis-that-obama-used-to-justify-costly-regs/

    “…One such example is the Clean Power Plan, enacted under Obama to cut carbon emissions from power plants. When calculating the impact of the regulation, the EPA under Obama found the social cost of carbon to average $36 per ton.

    Economists criticized that measurement and others, alleging the EPA used metrics crafted to reach a certain outcome…”

    Despite the excerpt I chose, I’m going to focus on how government agencies calculate the social benefits of their regulatory schemes. They will simply assume, based on no evidence whatsoever, that their proposed regulations will provide certain benefits such as preventing chronic diseases. Also the big one, preventing “premature deaths.” Then they will survey people and ask them “How much would you pay to live ten years longer?” Then they total up all the amounts the people they survey would pay to live ten years longer, combine it with how much people would pay to avoid cancer or chronic lung disease, and report that the social benefits of their program outweigh the (woefully underestimated) cost of their new power grab.

    You can get any F’n number you want from the way gub’mint regulators do “cost/benefit” analyses.

    When the Kali gub’mint ran out of money due to their own overspending fault a few years back they sent their private sector contractors IOUs for bills they refused to pay. Then they turned around and demanded business taxes from the same contractors on their non-existent income. In real money.

    Always remember that as far as the government is concerned you are a cash cow to be milked for all you are worth but never fed or watered.

    Arminius in reply to nraendowment. | July 26, 2018 at 11:00 pm

    Found the article. Most of the basic facts I got right. I didn’t deliver the full force from memory.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11779213/New-death-guidelines-worse-than-Liverpool-Care-Pathway.html

The emission and performance standard rollback is much needed. Beyond a certain point, it is simply not possible to achieve the enumerated goals without engineering a less safe and efficient vehicle.

The revocation of California’s waiver, is simply the current administration sticking its finger into eye of the california political elite.

@ Arminius
Did you mean a Barrett .50-caliber rifle?

    Arminius in reply to paracelsus. | July 26, 2018 at 3:37 pm

    Yes. Sometimes my thoughts get ahead of my typing. What I wanted to mention is that after Kali instituted its .50 BMG ban, police were exempt. So Barrett sent an open letter saying it would no longer sell to or service any Kali police agency’s rifles.

    If only more manufacturers had that kind of integrity Kali couldn’t keep pursuing its insane policies.

    Of course, we can’t expect that amount of spine in most manufacturers. So I propose that we call our state legislature reps and Senators and ask them to pass laws stating that Kali-compliant products can not be sold in our states. I thought of this when Kali passed a law saying that handgun manufacturers must use technology that does not exist to microstamp cartridges in order to sell handguns in that state. Which is of course ridiculous. So I contacted my reps and proposed they pass a bill that any handgun manufacturer who continues to bid on police contracts in Kali after they can no longer sell to ordinary Kali citizens (the Barrett stance; the Kali Villista party is not as crazy as they seem, they are just evil authoritarians and they want their forces to be armed as they disarm the peasants) be barred from bidding on any state, county, or municipal contracts in Texas.

    This makes me think that I should think bigger. Any Kali-compliant product; handgun, vehicle, whatever, can’t even be sold in Texas at all. Only products that met the relevant federal standards can be sold here. If this caught on in more states manufacturers would have a real dilemma on their hands. And while a dozen or more states have adopted Kali emissions standards, I believe if manufacturers had to do the cost-benefit analysis they’d be forced to leave the Kali market.

    Which should make the Villistas running that state happy. Hey, no new cars can be sold in Kali! That makes Kali even more like Cuba.

Dilbert Deplorable | July 26, 2018 at 2:04 pm

Maybe we can get the Crazy Cali’s to back the abolishment of the federal EPA.

The special California existed so that California could combat smog in the unique Los Angeles basin. New cars are now clean enough to do that based on federal regulations; every new car is vastly cleaner than the California certified cars of the 70s 80s 90s etc. Federal standards are now clean enough to effectively combat smog in the LA basin, and California test each individual vehicle so that you some dippy’s poorly maintained polluter has to get fixed.

There’s nothing radical or dirty about this move, it is simply adjusting to today’s reality. We probably should develop electric cars, they are coming in the future, and if we are far behind we’ll end up buying them from China instead of meat here. No they are not ready to replace gasoline powered cars, not yet. But the California mandate, dreamed up by California bureaucrats, is not the way to go.

The special California — regulatory authority — existed …

@Latus. That Tesla turns battery stored juice into forward motion with over 90% efficiency, and it uses nothing at idle. It can also recapture over half of the energy from braking, while the typical car recaptures none. Unlike a gasoline engine, the tesla’s electric motor is efficient whether it’s running at full throttle or putting along at 10%.
The tesla 3’s battery pack stores as many BTUs as just over 3 gallons of gasoline, but the car can cover up to 300 miles on that energy store. That’s no waste of energy.

California gets their electricity from Hydro, nuclear, gas, and a little bit of coal. Due to their geography they also get a fair amount of solar and wind, which are not practical everywhere.

I don’t own an electric car and don’t want one, but the technology does have a number of inherent advantages. At least get the simple facts straight.

    Mac45 in reply to beagleEar. | July 27, 2018 at 1:15 pm

    The all-electric car is very efficient, energy wise, for travel within its range [less than 300 miles, sometimes much less than that]. However, it is more expensive to purchase [sometimes much more expensive than a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle], it has added maintenance costs and, its biggest failing, is the long refill [recharge] time, especially if high speed charging stations are not available. The lack of high speed recharging infrastructure is a serious problem for any long distance travel. If you run out of charge, you can not simply hitch a ride to the nearest charging station, purchase a jug of electrical charge, return, dump it into the battery in a matter of minutes and drive to the fueling station and top off the tank.

    All-electric vehicles may be practical in urban areas, but they rapidly lose their usefulness in suburban and, especially, rural areas.

This is the email I sent to my state rep., Jodi Laubenberg:

“A necessary suggestion to keep California madness out of Texas

Ma’am, I am prompted to contact you by a recent and welcome Trump administration move to revoke California’s waiver to set their own vehicle emissions standards. Because the Obama administration reversed previous policy and now 13 other states received waivers to adopt California standards.

This madness now effects us all because as I understand it vehicle manufacturers can not maintain two different assembly lines; one for the states that have adopted California vehicle emissions standards and one for those who simply require vehicles meet EPA standards. Vehicles that have to meet California standards require more emissions control equipment and are more expensive.

I have to stress that I am talking about a state’s rights issue. California has essentially put itself in the position to be the car and truck czar over the whole nation should they find the right activist judge. It is simply not right that they can dictate what cars can be sold in Texas. You, as a state legislator, and the body you serve in should have sole say in the matter. Texans should not have to pay thousands of dollars more for cars and trucks because California is ruled by a bunch of nutcases. I want you to know I was born and raised in California and it was actually a sane place in the ’60s and ’70a when I grew up. Now it’s the world’s largest open air sewer/insane asylum. Contrary to popular opinion I didn’t come to Texas to make it more like California. I want to make sure that never happens, and that Texas if anything becomes more like Texas.

Please consider legislation that only vehicles that meet EPA standards are sold in this state. No vehicles that exceed that standard to please some other state can be sold here. I also need to add that the California emissions standards provide no appreciable health or environmental benefits; once you get something clean enough, making it more clean doesn’t do anything except cost money. Hopefully more states will follow suit, which will force the issue as then manufacturers will be in a bind. So the courts will have to decide, who controls interstate commerce? Does the federal government, or does California dictate it?

I moved here to escape those people, and now they’re following me. At the state level you and your colleagues can do something about it.”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend