By Bryan Williams

The news of General Motors retreating from the Trump Administration’s fight with the California Air Resources Board and joining Ford, BMW, VW, and Honda isn’t a surprise. President Trump was peculiarly involved in the auto industry. 

He berated the domestic brands for outsourcing assembly to other countries, especially Mexico. He also fought my home state of California over its stricter-than-federal fuel economy standards. Taking a hardline pro-business stance on the auto industry was supposed to win Trump votes in Michigan in 2020. We know how that turned out.

GM bailing out of Trump’s legal efforts against the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to me is just a business decision to curry favor with the next administration. That Detroit automakers have been based in otherwise deep-blue Michigan, complicit in union inefficiencies for decades, and receptive to government bailouts – three realities that follow the Yellow Brick Road to a preference for the Democratic Party -- is a story for another day.

But what about two sets of fuel economy standards? When President Obama abruptly dictated an astronomical increase in fuel efficiency, I thought there was no way the automakers could meet them by 2025. How do politicians expect a business with such long development time, such as the auto industry, to turn on a dime when platforms and engines are designed for seven- to 10-year product cycles? 

There should be one national standard, and it could be the California standard as long as the automakers are given enough time to implement them, without throwing mandates or lawsuits around in an attempt to appease the political base.

The auto industry will be able to meet the California fuel economy standard, which at 51 mpg by 2026 still reflects a bit of a break from the Obama administration’s 54.5 mpg by 2025. But let’s choose one national mandate and stick with it for a while. It would provide the regulatory stability businesses need.

—–