Auto standards in the new administration


#1

I’m speculating whether President Trump will roll back the planned fuel economy targets and the tightening emission regs. Ronald Reagan did just that when his administration took office.

Any comments?


#2

Maybe. Are his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate pushing for it? I haven’t heard that they are. He and the auto industry aren’t on the best of terms at this time, and that may play into it. I suppose it might come down to what he can trade for relaxing fuel economy standards, like small car manufacturing in the USA.


#3

Total confusion


#4

One down-side, reducing mpg requirements could cause gasoline prices to increase, if there’s more demand for gas but not a corresponding increase in supply. It’s hard to say at this point tho, just a guessing game, not a lot of consistency yet coming from the policy discussions.

On the radio they said the auto companies had requested the new admin look into the issue, hoping presumably for some add’l flexibility of mpg requirements.


#5

deleted by poster


#6

I hope so.


#7

Given campaign promises are already being broken, and president elect trump has flipped floopped so many times already, and he has opposition in his own party I am not sure what to expect, but there does seem to be a general consensus of the elected powers to decrease anything considered green.


#8

Since the emission standards are nothing but carbon dioxide emissions, that really is a red herring, in my opinion. Fuel economy and CO2 are intrinsically linked. Higher MPG’s mean lower CO2 emissions so we are really only talking about fuel economy standards.

The standards were put in place by the EPA and the DOT without any congressional action. The agencies can set the standard, if they wish, without the passing of any law by Congress. Quite wrong in my opinion, but that is the system we have created.

That said, Yes, I think Trump will roll back the increased CAFE standards.


#9

Congress did allow the EPA to set some standards, so it is approved by lawmakers. If every change had to be enacted, changes would not take place. Congress recognized this and took measures to avoid these problems. Now they operate by exception. If Congress sees changes they don’t like, they can enact legislation to roll back changes if discussions with the administration don’t get the desired changes.


#10

Just a reminder, Trump has been elected to the office of the President, not to the office of the dictator of the United States.
Perhaps Congress will enact legislation to roll back the CAFE standards and Trump won’t veto it.
Obama continually complained about how weak the office of the President actually was, as if that was a bad thing.


#11

The President can direct the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the CAFE level, since the responsibility for setting standards rests with NHTSA. Congress can change the present law if it wishes.


#12

I seem to recall from Civics class that all the “alphabet soup” gov’t agencies are considered part of the Executive Branch. That would seem to indicate the Administrator of the FDA, FAA, EPA, DEA…etc serve at the pleasure of the President. And that the president can order any such organization, at the least to “not enforce” certain things, and acting contrary would technically be insubordination.

…I agree the President doesn’t have the power many think he has, but “Lord of the Alphabet Soup” WAS one of those powers, I thought.


#13

Article II. Section I of the Constitution states: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation; - I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will failthfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Two of the primary means given him to do this are regulatory and law enforcement agencies. Ordering agencies and/or agencies under his domain to ignore the laws is a violation of his oath of office and of the Constitution’s mandate of his responsibilities.

The rest of Article II clearly defines his responsibilities and his authorities, many limited by the Amendments to the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment (often called the “states rights amendment”) states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

In short, the President has an obligation under the Constitution to uphold the laws. Ordering an agency to not do so is a violation of that obligation. The Constitution is good reading, as are the papers of its founders. I recommend reading them.

Regulatory standards implemented and/or modified through executive order are unconstitutional and should be repealed. Changes to the law must be done through the vetting of the legislative process. The founders specifically created the Constitution this way to ensure against the development of a monarchy or tyranny. The Declaration on Independence of 1776 was written to free us from just such a tyranny, and an eleven year war followed to ensure this that cost an estimated 25,000 patriots their lives. Our freedom was gained with their sacrifice.


#14

Presidents usually want Congress to ratify what they propose. Declaring war is the most extreme example.

Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Climate Accord, but could not get it past a Republican Congress. So it died on the vine. The Prime Minister of Canada signed it and could have implemented it with his majority in Parliament, but he did nothing. The signing was a sort of a one upmanship between him and Clinton.


#15

From Wikipedia:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) establish standards separately for passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and nonpassenger automobiles (light trucks) at the maximum feasible levels in each model year, and requires that DOT enforce compliance with the standards. DOT has delegated the responsibilities to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Through EPCA and EISA, U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) also preempts state or local laws: “a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards.”

Thus, MY reading is all congress did, was require the DOT establish SOME SORT of CAFE standards, with wide latitude as to exactly what those standards ought to be. Seems any administration has wide latitude to craft standards they prefer without violating congressional law.


#16

Reminds me of the old adage, the only rule is there is no rule.


#17

Exactly. We have no idea what to expect. The only one who will, is the lást person to speak to him just before he signs a bill.

States will have more control too so it will matter what state you live in…California still has a huge influence on many standards so expect a holding pattern IMO.


#18

Only the Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section VIII, “The Congress shall have the Power to lay end collect taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises
[etc. etc., a list of powers follows including]
To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisals, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”

The Constitution under Article I, Section II declares "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States [read: national guard and reserves].

Nowhere in the document does it give the president the power to declare war. Oddly, however, he does have the power to command the military, including the reserves and national guard, in service of the U.S. That is why Vietnam and Korea were officially called “police actions”. Note that I believe much more clarification needs to be amended in, but that’s what the Constitution says on he subject.


#19

I expect it will be interesting times ahead

I fully expect that Trump will not . . . for various reasons . . . do everything he promised, thus disappointing and/or angering some of his supporters

But that also means he’ll do some of the things he’s promised to do, which will cause you to smile or cringe, depending on your particular position(s) on things

As with any incoming president, hope for the best, plan for the worst

That goes for ANY incoming president, democrat, republican, or what have you

I believe my statements up to this point were fairly neutral, but maybe somebody’s going to jump down my throat, anyways

Just to keep this car-related . . . I hope Trump doesn’t somehow propose or suggest that every state should 100% remove any and all emissions testing. IMO that might be appropriate for some states, but not for very populous states, such as New York and California. I personally cringe at the thought of everybody running big blocks and straight pipes. I think such an event would eventually result in Beijing-like air quality :fearful: Furthermore, I feel anybody that doesn’t even partially believe that may just have their head stuck in the sand :blush:


#20

There are already nineteen states without annual emissions testing.

IMHO emissions testing was absolutely necessary in the early days of the EPA, however I believe it’s outlived its usefulness and now causes more problems than it solves. Mandates to the manufacturers force them to sell vehicles that are emissions free to the extent that the pollution levels of the type that come from automobiles actually drop every year. It’s time to stop the constant ratcheting up of emissions requirements, the burden borne by the vehicle owners to no gain.

There are better places to invest our dollars. Frankly, it seems inconsistent to keep hammering on vehicle manufacturers and owners to get rid of that last hydrocarbon molecules while at the same time supporting nuclear power plants, the potential environmental disaster of which has already been demonstrated at Chernobyl and Fukishima. And the waste of which cannot be dealt with and has a half-life of millennia.

I know this perspective will cause some to contest the premise. But I think it’s time to inject some reasonableness into the equation.