I do not want California to impose its will on the entire country. This will help keep vehicles affordable for all Americans. Hopefully they will do the same for gas and reduce the number of blends required (and therefore improve refinery efficiency). The average price of a car is approaching $50K. Gas is $1.50/gal more in California than the national average. It's become ridiculous.
Congress removes CARB and other state's ability to set emissions standards
- Thread starter ripcord
- Start date
I dont see much changing except maybe we can get a real fuel can now.
The California standard is the world standard and manufacturers only want to build one drivetrain for world delivery.
Back off the California standard and you basically lose the rest of the world and have to make multiple cars.
The California standard is the world standard and manufacturers only want to build one drivetrain for world delivery.
Back off the California standard and you basically lose the rest of the world and have to make multiple cars.
You do realize there are other (14-I believe) states that have adopted the same standards...don't you?
Last edited:
Can't really comment other than the fact that there are catalytic converters that are different because they have to be CARB certified. Don't know if they are physically (internally) different-allowing less pollution or it's a certification.
https://www.performanceracing.com/magazine/featured/08-01-2022/special-report-getting-carb-certified
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/new-vehicle-and-engine-certification
Does this mean no more smog testing every 2 years? I certainly hope so. I have one coming up next month.
May want to hit the brakes on celebrating...
The advisory bodies to congress advised them that the process they used in this vote likely is not legal and will be tossed when it goes to court, which is a guarantee.
On top of that, so many posters above seem to think this means everything CARB goes away and then some - which is NOT what was voted on and will be subject to litigation.
Any state that decided to follow the CA standards did so voluntarily - under the administration of each state at the time. The hang wringing about California imposing this on the rest of the county ignores reality - other states that have done so did that on their own.
Automakers can make choices on what to sell where so long as it meets the law. Where they've decided to sell CA compliant cars in markets where it is NOT required, automakers made that choice too.
In other words, we are for local control (at the state level in this case) except when we aren't...
The advisory bodies to congress advised them that the process they used in this vote likely is not legal and will be tossed when it goes to court, which is a guarantee.
On top of that, so many posters above seem to think this means everything CARB goes away and then some - which is NOT what was voted on and will be subject to litigation.
Any state that decided to follow the CA standards did so voluntarily - under the administration of each state at the time. The hang wringing about California imposing this on the rest of the county ignores reality - other states that have done so did that on their own.
Automakers can make choices on what to sell where so long as it meets the law. Where they've decided to sell CA compliant cars in markets where it is NOT required, automakers made that choice too.
In other words, we are for local control (at the state level in this case) except when we aren't...
Last edited:
f355spider
$50 Site Donor 2025
That is up to each individual manufacturer to decide. As they should.
Yes.....your post is one of the few rational well thought out ones for sure.
Most of that was from unburned hyrdocarbons and the large industrial based that used to inhabit S. Cal which has long since left. Closed loop did far more to lower emissions than did CARB. No one is going back to open loop so this is a false strawman argument in 2025.
Most of the cost is in the certification. The Cats may have more material - depends on the car. Its doubtful at this point for a "Federal Approved" GDI gasoline vehicle new off the lot would actually not meet CARB at this point. Diesels would be different.
If the EPA really cared about our health they would ban Leaded fuel finally, and congress would quit flying around on jumbo jets by themselves. But rich people own piston powered airplanes and the cons like to be opulent, so it continues. Rules for thee.
I did not make the argument for 2025. I made for the 60's. You can draw your own conclusion when that cycle turned and autos were not one of the major sources of pollution. Other than that-we can disagree.
What about states rights?
As another poster said-we all want state rights....until we don't!
Nope. Testing is not affected, except perhaps that the standards might be different for new cars.
Big winner: The API. They bought themselves a win.
Big losers: Voters (this means you). Your voice, as spoken through your elected representative, is weaker because of this.
This was passed using the Congressional Review Act, which is a statute that allows the Senate to nullify rules issued by federal agencies with a simple majority vote. This was done solely to get around the filibuster. Republicans in Congress knew they didn't have the 60 votes necessary to push it through the proper way, so they used the Congressional Review Act.
Why is the Congressional Review Act improper? Because the EPA waiver is just that, a waiver, not a rule or regulation. The Government Accountability Office had already defined this in 2023.
Running this decision through the Congressional Review Act in direct defiance of the Government Accountability Office is a setup for a court showdown.
This is a play to nullify the filibuster and consolidate power. It has very little to do with California or emissions.
Big losers: Voters (this means you). Your voice, as spoken through your elected representative, is weaker because of this.
This was passed using the Congressional Review Act, which is a statute that allows the Senate to nullify rules issued by federal agencies with a simple majority vote. This was done solely to get around the filibuster. Republicans in Congress knew they didn't have the 60 votes necessary to push it through the proper way, so they used the Congressional Review Act.
Why is the Congressional Review Act improper? Because the EPA waiver is just that, a waiver, not a rule or regulation. The Government Accountability Office had already defined this in 2023.
Running this decision through the Congressional Review Act in direct defiance of the Government Accountability Office is a setup for a court showdown.
This is a play to nullify the filibuster and consolidate power. It has very little to do with California or emissions.
You are not wrong; would you rather the filibuster go away entirely? Both parties are flirting with that idea.
Yeah, just stay calm while this gets settled. BITOG will celebrate our 35th anniversary about then.
As I posted above - the EPA is patently unconstitutional on its face. Read Article 1 Section 1 again. So allowing the EPA to exist makes the constitution weaker.
However I agree with you - states should be able to pass whatever emission laws they want, or ban cars completely if they choose. There choice. I will say however that California was fooling themselves on EV's because they simply ignore the carbon produced in Asia to get the minerals and such to build them. Still, there choice.
This is crossing the line into politics, so let's not discuss it here. Thanks
Excellent. As a delivery driver subcontractor in California, I applaud. My vehicle runs very clean, thank you. I abhor the totally unnecessary upcharges we are subjected too. Common sense is uncommon.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
