https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... ions-rules
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05 ... 8-arb.htmlCalifornia ARB readying regulatory options to maintain state LDV GHG standards in event of Federal change
In April 2018, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed the Midterm Evaluation (MTE) process for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2022-2025, and determined that the current standards are not appropriate and should be revised. (Earlier post.)
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) GHG standards allow manufacturers the option to comply by meeting the US EPA greenhouse gas standards through model year 2025 as currently defined (referred to as the “deemed to comply” provision). CARB disagrees with the April EPA decision, and may consider amending its regulations to clarify that the deemed to comply provision applies to the current federal GHG standards, should US EPA change the standards for any model years.
Under this approach, CARB would not change any of the regulatory requirements in the LEV III GHG regulation. CARB would, however, take regulatory action as needed to clarify that the compliance with any weakened federal standards will not be deemed compliant with CARB standards for the specified model years.
CARB is soliciting public input on potential alternatives to this amendment. . . .
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... -rollbacksState officials telegraph looming fight to proposed federal EPA rollbacks
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and state attorneys general from California and Maryland said Friday that they will vigorously fight proposed rollbacks by the EPA to federal emissions standards ahead of public hearings scheduled for next week.
"We’re not interested in taking a punch. We want to counter-punch," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Friday.
For three days beginning Sept. 24, federal officials will hold public hearings about the proposed rollback to federal fuel-economy standards offered by President Donald Trump's administration. Included in the proposal from the EPA, which aims to freeze federal fuel-economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026, is a revocation of California's waiver to set its own emissions targets, which 12 other states and the District of Columbia currently follow.
Connecticut and Maryland both follow California's more stringent emissions standards.
Malloy said federal officials plan only to rush through the public hearings, which are scheduled Sept. 24-26 on consecutive days, held in Frenso, California; Dearborn, Michigan; and Pittsburgh respectively. The panel of elected officials said the EPA's public comment period was unnecessarily short and frivolous. On Friday, federal regulators from the NHTSA and EPA rejected requests from state attorneys general, lawmakers, and automakers to extend the public comment period.
"They didn't have to do it that way," said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.
Malloy and the attorneys general said automakers who pushed for the relaxed standards, then publicly distanced themselves from the proposal, share blame with the administration. . . .
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/03/07/whi ... ds-freeze/White House to automakers: Side with us on emissions freeze, ignore California
Not to mention the 20 other states who are backing California in the fight
The White House is pressuring automakers to back its effort to roll back Obama-era fuel economy standards and bar California from setting its own emissions standards or requiring electric vehicles, sources with direct knowledge of the talks said Wednesday.
Last Friday, White House officials met with senior lobbyists from General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler and urged them to back the Trump administration's effort.
Last month, the White House said it had ended talks with California aimed at trying to reach a consensus on fuel efficiency requirements. . . .
GM spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said the company "appreciates the administration's efforts to continue dialog with automakers. At the meeting General Motors stressed the importance for one national program as well as our commitment to an all-electric future."
Ford and Fiat Chrysler declined to comment.
Some administration officials have suggested the White House could abandon the effort to freeze the Obama rules if automakers are not supportive, but others are skeptical the administration would drop one of its most important deregulatory measures.
At least one automaker at the meeting urged the White House to reopen talks with California, but administration officials said they did not plan to do so. In February, the administration held a call with a wider group of automakers and urged them to side with the administration rather than California.
Automakers have publicly stated they do not back a freeze but think the requirements should rise but be reduced to account for changes in oil prices and consumer demand.
According to people briefed on the meeting, some of the auto officials expressed some support for preempting California's rules, but to date no automaker has publicly endorsed the idea.
Some administration officials have questioned why automakers have not been more supportive of eliminating significant regulatory costs.
California Air Resource Board chief Mary Nichols said last month the Trump administration decided "to put an end to any effort to find common ground - but it is a signal to us to stand our ground. . . ."
Some automakers are also pushing the Trump administration to leave in place or boost credits for building electric vehicles, but some administration officials do not like credits because they think it unfairly gives certain vehicles advantages over others.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... -standardsEPA finds its Trump-era fuel-efficiency rulemaking flawed, as it prepares tighter standards
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/0 ... nhtsa.htmlNHTSA proposes to withdraw its portions of Trump SAFE rule; enabling states to set GHG standards and ZEV mandates
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed to withdraw its portions of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule issued under the Trump Administration (earlier post), which, among other things, sought to preempt states, including California, from issuing their own greenhouse gas emissions standards and zero-emissions vehicle mandates.
The regulatory action proposes withdrawing NHTSA’s regulations and legal analysis regarding preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. NHTSA is seeking comment on whether the SAFE I Rule, which was finalized in 2019, fell beyond the Agency’s statutory authority by purporting to impose broad preemption requirements.
If finalized, the action would wipe clean the regulatory slate. NHTSA’s actions in the SAFE I Rule would no longer be a potential barrier to states implementing their own greenhouse gas and zero-emissions vehicle regulations.
Comparable action from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to follow.