You can respectfully disagree, but that doesn't mean you're correct.

Here's how it's set up.

Each vehicle on sale in California has a C02 rating much like an EPA rating. California also divides vehicles into classes. Passenger cars and light duty trucks. Heavy duty trucks (ironically, like the 5000lb+ GVW Hummer) are exempt. Like the Federal CAFE ratings, it's based on average based on vehicle sales, not each individual model. Anyone thinking that this rule is going to mean California is going to mandate every vehicle get the same CO2 rating has spent too much time reading blogs instead of reading what's actually in the bills and CARB's report (which I'm including for those who have extra time and want to know what's REALLY in those standards).

1493 was passes back in 2002 and sought limits on GHG from vehicles by 2009, while AB 32 seeks to roll back GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

No plans have been finalized.


AB32: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/..._chaptered.pdf

CARB Report:http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/report...eyaddendum.pdf

Carb report 2: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/report...rtfeb25_08.pdf

This is probably the best summary of what the California bill is or isn't:


Bottom line, skipping all the horror stories, internet rumors, scaredy cats, and just simply bogus information is this:

1. It does NOT stop the sales of cars, especially Mustang GTs, Camaro SS, Challenger R/Ts. It MAY make SRT8s, Shelby GT500s, and ZR1 Corvettes more expensive due to a sort of "Gas Guzzler's tax", or restrictions from car manufacturers wanting to keep their GHG numbers low.

2. Light trucks (meaning pickup trucks) fall under an entirely different class. Keep in mind that California has the largest agricultural business in the United States, and the assembly knows this (and it's impact on the California economy). Only a handful of very vocal treehuggers in the Legislature ignore this. Fortunately, they make alot of press, but don't have alot of votes.

3. If you read the bill, California didn't expect the final CAFE rules to be as aggressive as they turned out. As a result, there isn't that much difference between what Cali wants and what CAFE delivers.

The issue is exactlly what I said before. The EPA doesn't look at CO2 as an emission, and therefore shouldn't be regulated by California. California sees CO2 as an emission, and feels it should be regulated. Since lowering CO2 requires burning less fuel, the car makers see that as a state making fuel economy rules which only the EPA has jurisdiction. There is the rub.

If California gains the ability to rule on CO2, then California has a defacto ability to rule on fuel economy. That item (not California's actual CO2 rules for the next 10 years) is the point.

California's real CO2 rules start kicking in at 2020, which seek to reduce GHG by 50% by 2050, therefore giving California (not the Federal Government) the ability to dictate fuel economy for the next 40 years.

If Cheney hadn't gone in there and simply steamrolled the EPA, I suspect this issue would have been solved naturally. But, like a guilty party that was abused, the whole conviction is likely to be thrown out the window.

Not a doomsday scenario, just a disturbing precident.

 

The fleet average is also how the traditional pollutants have been regulated for some time. California uses HC and the feds use NOx, but the results are the same.

It doesn't stop their sales, but automakers may have to stop building them if they're not meeting the standard. If they're not meeting the standard, then a subsidy of low CO2 cars will be necessary, and that subsidy will need to be built into the price of high CO2 emission cars. That's probably not a problem for a high price low volume car like a Corvette or Porsche, but for a car like the Camaro, which doesn't have a high margin and is expected to sell at least in the high five-digits, that could be a problem. It definitely does not help the business case for a next generation.

I don't know if you meant to imply that these rules would have no effect on cars like the Camaro SS, or if you just meant to say they wouldn't be outright banned. The latter isn't true, but neither is the former.




When you wrote 'emission' above, you meant 'pollutant', at least from a technical standpoint. They're often used interchangeably, but that can get confusing....

And the Supreme Court forced the EPA to look at CO2 as a pollutant, whether they wanted to or not.

 

On a board where conservative policies are generally well accepted, I'm shocked that you all are against free market and the rights of states.

If people in California can't buy cars there any more - they can move to another state where they can buy whatever the hell they want. This is one of the wonderful advantages of having states decide what's good for them, and not having the federal goverment stick their noses in. I for one am all for it.

And if California on it's own is a big enough piece of hte pie that auto manufacturers based their decisions on that alone...well then what's the problem with that? And if everyone in california goes out of state to buy their new cars...california will be out of sales tax revenue and have to adapt.

 

What conservative policies are you talking about?? The issue here is car policies. If you want to talk so-called conservative policies, the lounge is the place to go.

When you talk about the rights of states, do you mean that each state should have the right to set their own regulations on the automobile? Your very own state of Arizona has chosen to follow California's pollution standards instead of the Federal standards. Arizona is hardly a state of treehuggers.

As for free market, there are times and instances where that idea is trumped. Anything that has an adverse affect on the population at large trumps any Free Market principles. Anything that involves interstate commerence is a Federal, not State, issue.


I am by no means a treehugger, but it makes us all look like a bunch of retards when on one hand we slam countries like Venzuela that undermine us as much as they can, and OPEC which has held our economy hostage many times over, while on the other hand we buy up every oversized SUV we can find that we don't need, ensuring that we continue putting money in the hands and banks of those countries that undermine us.

I have just literally put up the actual California CO2 rules. The link is right there, so there isn't even the need to google it. Now, if you can go in there and find anyplace where it says that we in California won't be able to buy cars anymore, then I'll be glad to retract everything I've posted on this subject.

But you won't find it..... it isn't there.


The issue here (again) boils down to a point of jurisdiction, not some draconian, out of this world standards that regulate the automobile out of existence. Everytime someone comes along and uses that scenario, it does not help. That's not the subject, and that's not the issue automakers have with the rule.

The issue is precident. If California gains the right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, then states get a entry on regulating fuel economy... something that is done by the EPA (which is restricted by Federal Law to avoid throwing undue hardship on automakers).

Thats what it's about.

 

Correct on both counts.

Pollutant is the item I meant, not emission.

The Supreme Court forced the the EPA to recognize CO2 as a pollutant. At that point, the EPA should have created a national standard or worked with the state of California to standardize requirements, or at the very least began a study to find a way to implement or given a limited waver. Instead, Cheney steped in and had the EPA flat out deny California's waver with no debate or reasoning, opening up a major backlash when it was overturned... and it would have been in court, make no mistake about it.

 

Bush EPA reasoning was that CAFE changes made additional EPA regulation unnecessary and that California didn't have a case for its own CO2 regulations since CO2 emissions don't affect local air quality. That is, reducing CO2 in China helps L.A. air quality just as much as reducing it in L.A. does.

I do have to say that both sides make good points. There are several ways to argue this, and I could play devil's advocate with either side. I'd like to see the EPA come up with a single set of national CO2 regulations and dump CAFE, myself, because I believe that's the most effective way of handling this.

 

Appreciate the reading material. The only source provided that indicated a "fleet-average standard" was the Wired magazine blog... not what I would consider any better source than the "horror stories, internet rumors, scaredy cats, and just simply bogus information" that you quote as being unreliable. I'm not convinced that the Cali rules wouldn't severely limit consumers right to choose.
What I did learn was that the new CARB regulations would apply to any vehicle under 10,000 lbs. And that it would reduce GHG by an amount greater than the federal regulations. I also noticed that they conveniently left out any percentage reduction of total national or global GHG reduction their new regulations would (supposedly) accomplish.
I believe that these regulations would effectively do away with anything approaching what Americans consider a "normal" automobile and would limit their choices to small vehicles of limited horsepower. Unless, of course, you are rich. In which case you will be able to afford to circumvent the rules (as usual). Anything with more than ~200 hp would be effectively banned, as manufacturers would have to severely limit production on anything more powerful in order to achieve compliance. And we all know what happens to the price when availability is severely limited. Could manufacturers afford to produce a product whose market would be so severely limited due to these standards?

 

NY has talked about things like No sales tax for vehicles that get over 40mpg, I'd like to see more policies like this than encourage the public to buy the more fuel efficient cars. No sales tax on a Ford Fusion hybrid would bring the final cost down to about that of a V6 car.

You are assuming that technology doesn't change. By 2020 things will be very different. A plug-in hybrid Camaro might have a 1.4L I4 and massive electric motors that get it from 0-60 in 5 sec. while still achieving 50mpg on a 6hr road trip. Don't even get me started on cutting weight to save fuel and increase speed.

We might even have 400HP V8's that get 40mpg hwy if AFM is perfected. 4.0L V8 = 2.0L I4 on the hwy I'm sure people in 1982 never thought an engine like the LS1 or LS7 could be built.

 

No, I am assuming that such technology will be too expensive to be commercially feasible in the average auto. The economics of these new policies are what I believe will bring about the demise of the afforable performance car.

Of course, you know what happens when you assume...

That said, I appreciate your optimism, and I hope such a thing is possible.

 

I'm wondering how the California State Budget issue plays into all this. One of the discussions currently on the the table is the republicans in Sacramento are willing to accept some tax increases (from the democrats) in exchange for relaxing some "environmental" regulations. Right now the discussion has primarily been involving speeding up construction projects, however its not far out of line to think that vehicle emissions regulation could also play a part in all this. Additionally, if the State goes bankrupt, will CARB even be allowed to bring on new regulations that they have no funding to support?

On a side note, Duraflame is suing CARB for restricting fireplace burning.

 

It took 20 years for AFM to go from "worst idea ever" to "actually getting results without pissing off the driver"

 

I have some concerns, personally, with any positive signs from the federal government in regards to any issue which seems to encourage the notion of "states rights". I seem to recall a bloody deal in the 1860's that took any real gravitas to a notion of states rights off the table.

I just don't see the feds giving up jurisdiction that doesn't actually benefit them.
Call me paranoid. I can deal with that.

This all seems to smack of instituting "carbon taxes" once you peel back the rhetoric.

I just don't see the special interests with sway on the central government all for surrendering authority unless there's something in it for them. I'm betting it's more about establishing precedents. Playing one interest group < enthusiasts > against another < greens > is quite in vogue.

It seems to be about a new avenue for taxes, not air quality.

Anyone recall the condition of dropping any legal action in regard to state air quality legislation for any chance of loans to auto manufacturers?

It strikes me that there is a very expensive game afoot in all this.

 

If they want to control CO2 will they impose compoast regulations? Cattle emission regulations?

If Cali wants to control mpgs why not just increase their gas tax?

 

I think the tech will go mainstream, but we might have a few dark years while the tech catches up.


Computing power improved a lot didn't

 

Indeed. Also thanks to this computing power we have DI gas engines with learn-burn modes as well.