The person with the most power over the US auto industry is not an auto executive or union leader – not a member of Congress – not anyone in the Obama administration.
Thanks to President Obama’s decision to allow states to impose their own emissions standards, the most powerful person in the industry is a former Clinton appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency: Mary D. Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board.
On Monday, President Obama directed federal officials to approve requests by California and other states to impose their own fuel-efficiency and emissions standards.
Since no automobile company will build one car for California and another for the rest of the country, the standard set by California and its 13 or so allies will become the standard for the whole country.
Ms. Nichols is the person who will be directing those standards. Appointed to her job by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007, Ms. Nichols has spent a year writing rules and regulations with a goal of reducing greenhouse emissions by 30 percent.
Ms. Nichols has consulted widely with industry and other interest groups. But of course, Ms. Nichols is accountable only to one state government out of 50. By subdelegating the job of environmental enforcement to her, the Obama administration has cut a majority of states out of the enforcement process entirely – and by the way, executed an end run around the federal notice-and-comment rules that give all Americans, not just Californians, an opportunity to be heard.
In another speech that same day, President Obama said: “We will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead.” In autos, at least, the sentence would read more accurately if he had deleted “America” and substituted “California.”
12 responses so far
1 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I suppose this is part and parcel with Anton’s “Californication”, or fear of the nationalization of some of California’s programs. Maybe some of them are to be feared, but automobile standards are hardly it.
I heard an interview Ms. Nichols on NPR recently, and it seems that the fuel-efficiency standards set by California are exactly in line with the next 3-5 years of development plans for all the automakers. Beyond that, the rules take into account the increase in plug-in hybrids that will be available late in 2010. Far from extreme, it seems that the new “car czar” will be working within the accelerated framework developed by an industry already desperately trying to claw its way back to profitability. Since Big Auto’s bailout hinged in large part on their shifting over to greener standards, this seems an apt, and hardly illegitimate, fit. Best to keep our tax money working in a way that was promised.
2 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm
If anything, the czar’s unique position will allow her to push for faster adoption of plug-ins with increased tax incentives for the purchase of these cars. From a national security/energy security policy perspective, you need a hawkishly green person in there anyway, and aren’t Californians supposed to be about as green as you can get?
3 P. Aaron // Jan 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm
This will result in more pollution, not less. The enviro-wack’s short-sighted desire to regulate everything automotive will result in an increasing value in used cars that of course are regulated by yesterday’s pollution regulations.
I am laughing at the idiocy of the O-bot legion. But I am saddened for the working guy and the entrepreuner who has to suffer this administration of fools.
Goin’ broke goin’ green!
4 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Mmm yes, the Obots will get you. Nice one. Look into the regulations, they’re pretty long term and not all that excessive, when you consider the tech has been there for awhile to make cars greener. The market’s already moving in that direction, and if the standards do anything they’ll nudge along what’s already happening naturally. Even if the standards were a little higher, I’d argue that if we’re going to be bailing out the automobile industry (and we have) we should be extracting and following up on these kinds of demands anyway. Additionally, these statutes do nothing to harm entrepreneurs or unionized working guys.
5 larryo // Jan 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The “most powerful person” in the industry? Don’t you think that’s a little extravagant? As for unaccountability, it’s not as if she is Henry Paulson, is it?
6 JoetheVeep // Jan 28, 2009 at 8:30 pm
It’s bad enough Calfornia’s bankrupt (didn’t Gray Davis get recalled for that?). Sad, but they brought it on themselves. Now they have to export their dysfunction nationwide? At a time when the Big Three are going bankrupt? In addition to being a shabby trick by Obama to avoid responsibility while paying off a constituency, nobody will ever again listen to Schwarzenegger railing against economic girly men.
7 gospelance // Jan 28, 2009 at 10:55 pm
now is not the time for oppressive new regulations. thank you Governor Shriver. I’m sure glad I’m not down there waiting for my tax refund.
8 Oneon1isto // Jan 28, 2009 at 11:44 pm
At this point I’m trolling this blog post, but come on. They’re not oppressive new regulations! They’re not even progressive! We can’t even fully agree on the need for higher fuel economy standards? You’d think we were under Soviet Russia from the rhetoric bandied about at times round here. They’re rules for cleaner, more fuel efficient cars and you’re complaining!
9 JoetheVeep // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:12 am
Howdy Onewhatevah. No trolling here. Big tent and all. But I think it absurd for us to lament the bankruptcy of the Big 3 while demanding unfunded mandates for them to retool their production lines. And then impose those mandates on the nation without a national consensus. Rules have costs, and California doesn’t seem to care about the costs. Odd, considering that they themsleves are bankrupt.
10 gospelance // Jan 29, 2009 at 6:55 am
well, since my state is part of the Global Warming initiative or whatever they call it, I worry that my now-compliant vehicles won’t get thru new smog regs. As a one-income family, I just can’t afford it. I’m all for clean air, but can’t afford a new car or expensive emissions upgrades.
11 nealjking // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:03 am
The history of the auto industry is paved with statements about what would bankrupt the business: reduced pollution emissions, improved mileage standards, seat belts.
When allowed to do whatever they wanted to do, the Big 3 drove themselves into a ditch: the endpoint of the big-car/low-mileage/hummer mentality.
Think a little bit further into the future: A future in which US car manufacturers make cars that people actually want to buy.
12 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:07 am
Ms. Bagley is incorrect when she claims that cars can’t be designed somewhat differently for California than for the rest of the nation. It’s been done before: In the 1950s, the PCV valve was introduced on cars sold in California, before it was introduced on cars sold elsewhere. In 1966, California passed the first auto emissions legislation, again before Washington made that mandatory for the entire nation. Today, if there is some relatively straightforward fix (analogous to the PCV valve) that could reduce carbon emissions, it’s certainly possible that it could be introduced into the exhaust system of cars sold in California but not yet elsewhere.
You must log in to post a comment.