• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

EPA Tees Up Response To California’s Fuel Economy Deal With Four Carmakers

by Abby Smith
September 19, 2019, 3:50 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
3

honda civicThe Environmental Protection Agency is questioning whether California has the legal authority to strike a deal with four automakers on fuel economy standards stronger than what the Trump administration will set.

The Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to California air regulators earlier this month asking the state to outline a legal justification for altering its vehicle greenhouse gas limits, pursuant to a deal the state struck with four automakers, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said during remarks Thursday at agency headquarters.

Those automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW — went around the Trump administration in July, agreeing with California regulators to follow standards weaker than the Obama-era rules but much more stringent than what the Trump administration proposed.

That deal infuriated the White House, and the letter from the EPA appears to be the latest in a series of threats from the Trump administration against the Golden State and the four automakers teaming up with it.

Earlier this month, in retaliation, the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into those four automakers to explore whether they violated federal competition laws by teaming up with California.

Wheeler’s remarks came during an event at which he and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao formally announced the agencies’ move to eliminate California’s authority to set its own greenhouse gas limits for passenger cars stricter than federal limits.

California has had the special ability under the Clean Air Act to set its own tailpipe pollution limits since the law was written in the 1970s, so long as the EPA grants the state a waiver.

But if it wants to change its state-level rules, to accommodate the deal made with automakers, California needs to apply for a new waiver from the agency, EPA general counsel Matt Leopold told reporters Thursday.

“California knows this full well,” Leopold said. “We haven’t been contacted by California to seek any waiver, so we question the legality of that.”

It’s unlikely the EPA would grant California another waiver to alter its greenhouse gas limits to match the deal the state struck with the four automakers.

Leopold said he wouldn’t speculate on whether the agency could bring an enforcement action against California.

“But I will say that the law is clear that absent a waiver from the EPA, they can’t adopt or attempt to enforce — that’s the language of the statute — standards,” he added.

As the EPA explores whether California’s actions are unlawful, Democrats and environmentalists are urging more automakers to sign onto the deal.

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate environment committee, told reporters Wednesday he and his staff called nearly a dozen automakers individually to urge them to join California.

“You don’t have to stay stuck in neutral,” Carper said he told automakers. “It’s time for all companies to really take a stand.”

The action from the two agencies to withdraw California’s existing waiver follows a tweet Wednesday from President Trump announcing the administration would eliminate California’s vehicle greenhouse gas authority.

Trump tweeted the move while traveling in the state, timing he told reporters late Wednesday was “really a coincidence.”

Without a waiver, the Golden State won’t be able to set or enforce stricter greenhouse gas standards for cars in the future, which could be a critical blow to California’s ability to meet its long-term climate goals.

“The one national program will ensure there is one, and only one, set of national fuel economy standards as Congress mandated and intended,” Chao said in remarks Thursday at EPA headquarters in Washington.

“No state has the authority to opt-out of the nation’s rule, and no state has the right to impose its policies on everybody else and our whole country,” Chao added.

California regulators, though, have already promised to challenge the administration’s move in court.

Read rest at Washington Examiner

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Bipolar

New Study: Ice Core Data Shows Modern Warming Is Statistically Unremarkable

Mar 05, 2026
Energy

Climate Science’s Biggest Shift In Decades: IPCC’s RCP8.5 Is Officially Dead

Apr 29, 2026
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024

Comments 3

  1. David Lewis says:
    7 years ago

    The new regulations by California are clearly illegal without another waiver which they will not get. However, this doesn’t matter at all to liberals. If it is for one of their “worthy causes” then it is justified. This will probably work its way up the Supreme Court where California will lose.

    Agreeing to more stringent fuel economy measures are not in the best interest of auto makers. In order to give the pubic the larger vehicles that are in demand, many small vehicles need to be produced to off set the fuel economy average. This process has drive the cost of the larger vehicles up and would do so even more under California emission requirements. Auto makers that don’t go along with the excessive requirement will have an advantage

    Reply
    • DGSchroder says:
      7 years ago

      Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is here. Federal standards cover things like maximum pollution emission levels and minimum fuel economy levels. If 4 automakers (or any number) choose to build cars that are much cleaner or much more fuel efficient than the minimum, so what. They still meet the national standards.

      Reply
  2. Amber says:
    7 years ago

    A California deal like the shit show with Volkswagen .
    Fleet sales numbers for tiny box cars to average numbers down
    and subsidies from the democratic clown show that will run California into bankruptcy .
    How much did California pee away on a bullet train blank ?
    California the land of virtual signalers where honest politicians are as
    rare as grizzle bear sightings that last occurred in 1911 yet is still on their flag .
    At least color the bear red or pink to represent the true nature of California politicians .

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected!

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Get notified when new posts are published!

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Recent Posts

  • jena griswold coloColorado AG Frontrunner Vows More Climate Litigation – With Or Without The Governor
    Jun 25, 2026
    Climate litigation is a key issue in the Colorado attorney general race, with all Dem candidates supporting Boulder’s lawsuit against energy companies. […]
  • oil tanker gulf coastExperts Warn Ro Khanna’s Gas Export Ban Will Backfire On Americans
    Jun 25, 2026
    Experts warn Rep. Ro Khanna's Gasoline Export Ban Act would backfire, raising prices and hurting the truckers and farmers it claims to help. […]
  • cartoon amoc collapsePeople Don’t Fear An AMOC Collapse Because The Science Doesn’t Add Up
    Jun 25, 2026
    The AMOC evidence problem isn't about imagery — it's about two decades of contradictory science and unverified collapse predictions. […]
  • gretaFLASHBACK: Fact-Checkers Furiously Spun Greta Thunberg’s 2018 Eco-Apocalypse Tweet
    Jun 24, 2026
    Critics revisited a deleted tweet from 2018, prompting fact-checkers to defend Greta Thunberg saying humanity will get wiped out in five years. […]
  • stormy pacific oceanNew Report: From Hurricanes To Global Disasters, ENSO Leaves A Costly Trail
    Jun 24, 2026
    A new report examines how El Niño and La Niña cycles drive U.S. hurricane damage and global disaster losses — and what it means for 2026. […]
  • Antonio Guterres speaks at London Climate Action WeekU.N. Chief Demands $1.3 Trillion A Year To Fight ‘Climate Chaos’
    Jun 24, 2026
    U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres demands $1.3 trillion annually from wealthy nations to fund climate initiatives worldwide. […]
  • nuclear plant constructionTrump Pledges $17.5 Billion In Loans To Build 10 New Nuclear Reactors Nationwide
    Jun 24, 2026
    The Trump DOE will issue $17.5 billion in loans to fund construction of 10 new nuclear reactors, backed by Westinghouse's AP1000 units. […]
  • antarctic peninsulaWhile Headlines Screamed Antarctic Heatwave, The South Pole Hit -100°F
    Jun 23, 2026
    While media hyped a warm spell on the Antarctic Peninsula, the South Pole was simultaneously hitting -100°F. That's not a climate crisis — that's weather. […]
  • plastic bottles storeThe Plastic Crisis Narrative Collides With 50 Years of Research
    Jun 23, 2026
    Decades of peer-reviewed research challenge claims that plastics and microplastics are the environmental menace we're told. […]
  • earth sun spaceSunshine, Not CO2: New Research Finds Clouds Are The Real Climate Control Knob
    Jun 23, 2026
    3 new studies link recent warming to increased sunshine from declining cloud cover—not CO2, which contributes just 3.6–6% to temperature trends. […]

Books You May Like

Cold Facts About the Great Global Warming Scam

Climate prn book

Sunset on Net Zero

Canary in a Climate World

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky