California Leads States In Suing the EPA For Attacking Vehicle Emissions Standards (theverge.com)

California, along with seventeen other states, announced a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency today over its recent rollback of Obama-era vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards. The states argue that the EPA "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in overturning the previous administration's decision. The Verge reports: The standards in question were drawn up in 2009 and adopted in 2012. They laid out a path for automakers to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by reaching an average fleet fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2024. Since the program was charting a course that stretched out more than a decade into the future, it was written into the rules that the EPA would have to perform a "mid-term evaluation" before April 1st, 2018. This review would serve two purposes: assess whether automakers were on track, and then use that information to determine if the last section of the standards (which apply to model year 2022-2025 cars) were still feasible.

The EPA, under Barack Obama, kicked off this review process ahead of schedule in the summer of 2016 when it published an extensive 1,200-page technical assessment that analyzed whether the standards were working. In January 2017, the outgoing EPA wrapped this evaluation and determined that the bar was not set too high. In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant. The Trump EPA's decision in April did not set new standards -- it simply argued that there were problems with the existing standards. In the meantime, the agency and the Department of Transportation are currently working together to craft and officially propose new standards. But the previous standards that the EPA said were inappropriate will technically remain in place until that happens.

Comments

Bull

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The last election's consequence is a return to normal policy with input from all stakeholders, including manufacturers. This is contrasted with policy dictated by zealots and academics with no skin in the game.

Not to let the facts get in the way of hyperbolic partisanship, but...

(1) The Obama decision was made with input from (and the endorsement of) car manufacturers.

(2) Long term plans and regulations, as a matter of both law and public policy, are not subject to the chief executive's whims. This makes sense, because how would business proceed if regulations were substantially overhauled every 4 years?

(2a) Just because someone doesn't like a deal, doesn't mean it wasn't accomplished and cannot be backtracked on.

Re: Really?

[Darinbob]

New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.

Re:You're right about him not being king

[thrich81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Total number of executive orders:
G W Bush: 291
B. Obama: 276
R. Reagan: 381

Avg number of executive orders/per year:
G W Bush: 36.4
B. Obama: 34.6
D. Trump: 55

Re:Who was the real attacker

[Gravis Zero]

The EPA set overly high emissions standards to begin with, the EPA now is just settling on a more realistic goal and letting that sit for a few years so companies can adjust

Nope. Electric cars are the future because they don't put out any pollution. Get with it, you rube.

It was the original goals that were an attack on the auto industry,

LOL! Who needs to attack the auto industry when they needed to be bailed out by a democratic congress and president?

The only thing being attacked here is people who profit from polluting the environment.

You're super when it comes to bullshit but not so much with common sense.