See Hitman, CARB does too have a heart.

[rn79870]

WASHINGTON -- The head of California's Air Resources Board said she was willing to talk with automakers about modifying one aspect of the state's landmark tailpipe emissions regulations.

Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, speaking to reporters at the SAE Government/Industry meetings on Monday, said she was open to discussing setting "regional" rather than state-by-state standards for tailpipe emissions.

The consideration comes after California auto dealers expressed concerns that automakers could be forced to stop selling larger less-efficient vehicles there because of the state's proposed strict regulations, which could encourage customers to buy larger vehicles in another state.

A regional approach would largely protect California from this issue.

Dealers' concerns stem from a regulation California adopted in 2002 that will require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions by 30 percent by 2016.

To do so, automakers would have to boost fleetwide fuel economy to 36.8 mpg; 43.7 mpg for passenger cars. Thirteen states have adopted California's requirements and three others are in the process.

Automakers filed suit in three states to block the rules -- losing in Vermont and California -- contending California's rules would require them to meet a patchwork of regulations among the states. A third lawsuit in Rhode Island is pending.

The National Automobile Dealers Association said the "California approach, which is untested, fails to look at the impact on the national economy, limits consumer choice and ignores concerns about passenger safety," said Andrew Koblenz, NADA vice president for legal and regulatory affairs.

In December, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected California's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act to impose the rules. The states have sued to overturn the waiver and bills have been introduced in Congress to overturn it as well.

Nichols rejected a suggestion to allow only California to retain the rules and not the other states. "We do not want to negotiate away other states' rights," she said.

Automakers said they were more hopeful that a compromise will be worked out.

Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents Detroit's Big Three, Toyota and six other automakers, said the companies were reaching out to California.

"We can have a national fuel economy policy and still allow California a role as a laboratory for innovative approaches to reducing carbon dioxide emissions," McCurdy said, stressing that a national approach is better.

"We're not whining and we're not complaining."

Still, both sides are far apart on the issue.

Nichols downplayed the impact of the rules, saying most of it could be accomplished with a small increase in costs and "a little bit of creative repackaging." She also said the board was working on setting even higher standards between 2016 and 2020, with plans to unveil a proposal before year's end.

"We're not talking about pushing beyond the limits of what the industry can do," she said.

GM has said the California rules could force it to stop selling 80 percent of its vehicles in California and add thousands of dollars to the cost of every vehicle.

All three major presidential candidates have agreed to support California's request.

Underscoring the industry's willingness to compromise, McCurdy noted automakers met with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week "to open a dialogue and find common ground."

You can reach David Shepardson at (202) 662-8735 or [email protected]. ________

With all three candidates favoring California's request, I'll sleep nights.

[krimsonviper]

this is insane. I mean, really? This sounds like it'll impact the economy immensely(sp?) WTF is this state thinking? Why not actually take out vehicles that keep receiving those temp reg cards? After the 1st one, i think that vehicle should either pass and stay on the road or fail and be taken off the road. Im pretty sure that will help

[Jager]

Ive read this a few times and i continually seem to get the same vibe, CARB thinks it should not only make policy in california, but should have control in some way shape or form over a regional area? way to blatantly disregard the right of other states to do what they want to do. I am not really comfortable with CARB itself and its less then always honest or open policies/results, I hope virginia decides to keep it sane with emissions regardless of what cali does.

[rn79870]

CARB has spread and is spreading. The way to combat it is to become active and promote what you feel is sensible. If you wait I can guaranty you CARB will get there. "Thirteen states have adopted California's requirements and three others are in the process". It is pulling in one state at a time, and sooner or later, all 50 are going to be part of it.

[Jager]

well not that i normally split hairs, and I may jsut be reading this incorrectly, but adopting California emissions laws is one thing it means the state has a chance to say yes or no on its merits

This article seems to suggest that states actually might have to follow CARBs stance on something because CARB would control a region. in effect its no longer CARB, it is say the greater western region air resources board.

states being able to choose what laws they adopt from other states is something I dont mind, It allows me to vote or vote against the law or the representatives of that law. I dont see how we could vote CARB or its regional equivalent out. I am not opposed to smart thinking environmental solutions, Im not even opposed to bureaucracy being involved, though generally those two points of view are mutually exclusive under even the best of circumstances. however CARB is more and more a political body that does NOT answer to the people but retains the power to remake california in all aspects from businesses to the economy to consumer choices.

what I worry about is that in a world where we already dont get vital information and so many things can be bought by plain hard cash (votes, opinions, juries, politicians) CARB's stance of pay up front and we will "test" and potentially approve your product versus the if we dont you can never sell it seems draconian and more orson wells 1984 federal government at this point. at least with the Feds we can attempt to make a difference every election.

This seems to be more an end around the constitution and a very big power play by people we cannot remotely control, Im very surprised this is not more fleshed out and debated, but maybe the thread just needs more time.

I apologize if I am misreading the spirit of the article, but that seems to be where that is pointing, CARB can bring the big 3 to their knees at their whim, and they want to expand their sphere of influence....

[AZhitman]

I don't give a DAMN what they force automakers to do.

You know my position - Leave the ENTHUSIASTS out of it.

When you punish 1% of the population unnecessarily to cater to the politically-fueled whims of an overfunded and mismanaged agency with minimal oversight, that's not required to regularly show EMPIRICAL proof of their positive effects, then I have a HUGE issue with that.

Hey Arnie, here's a hint: Take some of that pissed-away CARB money and fix the goddam roads in CA - I guarantee you the net impact on overall pollution will be greater.

[rn79870]

Morning Greg. Somehow I thought you might notice this thread...

[rn79870]

It's a two sided sword. CARB can force the automakers into tighter standards, and the Automakers can respond with selling only a few of the cars that they make, those that meet CARB standards. But then, how is a greater CAFE going to hurt the US.

The point of the OP was really that ALL three current presidential candidates have endorsed the CARB proposal. The underlying warning is that CARB is growing stronger and reaching to 13 and possibly 16 states now. That is 30+% of the states. 1 in 3 roughly. It won't be any time at all before CARB becomes the federal standard in the auto field.

If anyone objects to this, it's time to start writing letters. There is a sticky at the top of this forum regarding who to write.

[audtatious]

3 Presidential candidates and not a damn one of them a Conservative. Of course they will approve anything that will help save the poor environment for us humans.