CEOs Of GM, Ford, and FCA, Call Again To Review Emission Regulations

3 months ago by Steven Loveday 139

General Motors CEO Mary Barra is part of the effort to squelch the EPA's emissions regulations.

General Motors CEO Mary Barra is part of the effort to squelch the EPA’s emissions regulations.

Recently, CEOs from a total of 18 automakers delivered a letter to President Trump and the new administration, requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency’s early midterm review of emissions regulations be revoked and a new review reinstated to take place at a later date.

Sergio Marchionne also met with Trump recently and is advocating for relaxed emissions regulations.

Sergio Marchionne also met with Trump recently and is advocating for relaxed emissions regulations.

The EPA performed its review – well ahead of the April 2018 deadline – during the closing days of the Obama presidency. The agency determined that the regulations set for 2025 would remain in place, with no changes needed, based on its research and analysis. The lengthy 1,000-page report aimed to prove that there was nothing found that should lead to any amendment.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers disagrees with the EPA ruling. However, the group is insisting that it doesn’t disagree with the agency’s rules or findings, but instead, is concerned with the way the situation was carried out. The automakers believe that the midterm review was forced into action prematurely and that the new administration should be involved.

The letter, undersigned by 18 automotive chiefs – such as Mary Barra from GM, Ford’s CEO Mark Fields and Fiat’s Sergio Marchionne, explained (via Bloomberg):

“As recently as late last fall, EPA assured us that the MTR would not result in a final determination before the next administration came into office.”

“We are committed to continued gains in fuel efficiency and carbon reduction. At the same time, ignoring consumer preferences and market realities will drive up costs for buyers and threaten future production levels.”

A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Gloria Bergquist, explained that the auto industry hopes to “put the review back on track and have the data drive the outcome.” She continued:

“What we’re really trying to do is just restore the process, and because the process was truncated, we don’t really know what the standards should be.”

Roland Hwang, Director of Energy and Transportation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, contested the automakers’ plea:

“We view this as the first step in the automakers’ attempt to weaken common-sense fuel efficiency and pollution standards, which would raise drivers’ fuel bills and threaten investments and jobs in clean-car technologies.”

The automakers are striving diligently to connect with Trump and his administration regarding these issues. Barra and Marchionne, along with Ford CEO Mark Fields met with the president during his first days in office. Trump has already said publicly that he plans to relax regulations, as he believes that many of the environmental rules have gotten out of control.

Source: Bloomberg

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

140 responses to "CEOs Of GM, Ford, and FCA, Call Again To Review Emission Regulations"

  1. G2 says:

    Koch suckers!

    1. AlanSqB says:

      ^^ Mazda, Volvo, FCA (Fiat), Jaguar, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

      1. peter says:

        AAM = BMW Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Car USA

        1. AlanSqB says:

          I admit to having hastily cut/pasted from an earlier article. Thank you very much for listing the entire group.

        2. mx says:

          FORD: Making ONCOLOGY GREAT AGAIN.
          Boy, Repubs Killing Repubs with Cancer.

        3. ClarksonCote says:

          Nissan is on the list too. I’m not sure why only a few were singled out in the title.

    2. DangerHV says:

      Ha, ha, ha +++++ Have’nt seen that one yet. Perfect!

  2. Gael says:

    If the old US automakers can’t adapt, they will go extinct replaced by the Tesla-like new companies, the Chinese ones and the few that understand that they need to adapt (nissan, VW). Trying to delay the change by bad politics will just make them extinct faster. It’s evolution.

    1. John says:

      Unless Johnny Q. Taxpayer gets forced to bail them out again.

    2. Kdawg says:

      I think they all see the writing on the wall, but want to maximize their profits. Sort of like the oil industry in general.

      1. no comment says:

        the “writing on the wall” that the automakers are seeing is regulations, not market demand. what the auto makers want in this review is for the EPA to declare “practical” emissions goals. presumably the “practical” emissions goals would allow the automakers to keep selling the products that they are currently selling. that’s why the snippet cited in this article uses the wording that you see.

        you can see the underlying reasoning for wanting a delay in increasing emissions goals. the automakers are going to argue that the low demand for electric vehicles shows that forcing automakers to increase new product introductions of *EVs would constitute: “ignoring consumer preferences and market realities”.

        1. Kdawg says:

          Whether it’s regulations or market demand, the result is the same. But they want to slow the roll (or keep it slow) until they are in the best positions to maximize profits.

          1. no comment says:

            no, it is *not* the same. if there were market demand from *EVs, then automakers would want to accelerate the deployment of *EVs. on the other hand, if it is regulatory demand, then automakers want to slow walk the deployment as you stated.

            1. Kdawg says:

              I said the result is the same, which is an EV future.

            2. Mikael says:

              No, not really. There is plenty of demand for EVs. But the offerings are not there since the car manufacturers don’t profit as much from them.

              That is why regulations are needed to force them to offer models that they don’t want to offer even though the demand is there.

              1. no comment says:

                with *EVs accounting for less than 1.5% of US auto sales (according to insideevs), there is simply no evidence of this “plenty of demand” to which you refer. there are enough *EVs on the market that people could buy them in larger numbers than they have if there really was strong demand for *EVs among general public.

                1. PK says:

                  so the 400k reservations with $1,000 paid up front are not an indication of demand?

                  1. no comment says:

                    a deposit isn’t a sale, and who knows how many individuals are behind those 400,000 deposits. so we’ll see how many of those deposits turn into actual customers.

                    1. floydboy says:

                      Whether you believe in the validity of the numbers or not, they represent something. the fact that many placed orders for the car sight unseen, means that there is something to this. These kinds of numbers aren’t an anomaly.

                      A desire for an electric car, a need for the latest technogadget or simply a belief in what Tesla is trying to accomplish, or all of the above, the out come IS the same.

                      There are going to be a LOT more electric cars rolling on the streets and the other manufacturers risk being also-rans by being stagnant!

                    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      Now you’re moving the goal posts.

                      Man up, and admit you’re wrong. 400,000 paid reservations is a very strong indication indeed that there is a market for BEVs which are better than current offerings at a “semi-affordable” price.

                      And of course, the market will grow even faster once prices come down far enough for auto makers to offer truly affordable long-range BEVs.

                    3. no comment says:

                      @floydboy,

                      even setting aside potential manipulation of the number of deposits by tesla shareholders, you had people standing in line overnight to make a reservation. there is, without question, something to this. the question is: what exactly is it? to be sure, whatever it is, looks nothing like the usual process for buying a car.

                      there is a certain “cult” element when it comes to tesla followers. you see it on this forum, where some of the most active proponents of tesla are not people who are actually going to buy one. you never know, maybe many of the people who made a deposit aren’t actually going to buy a model 3, but wanted to help their hero by making a deposit, as you suggest.

                    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      Tesla bashers have taken to calling fans of Tesla Motors a “cult” with little or no justification; as though being a fan of Tesla cars was different in some fundamental way from being a fan of Ford or Chevy or Nissan cars.

                      With 400,000 paid reservations for the Model 3, it certainly looks like our “cult” is growing very rapidly indeed!
                      😀 😀 😀

                      But there is a cult here; the cult of anti-Tesla bashers who use the “cult” label as an insult… and as FUD.

                2. TomBrown says:

                  Most new vehicles sold are those costing less than $35K, SUVs, and pickup trucks. There just haven’t been equivalent EV’s in those segments – especially if one factors in driving range on a full “tank” of ICE vs the EV clone – ie Spark vs Spark EV. Also some compact EV’s werent even offered in a majority of states. In addition, the Tesla Model X is unfortunately at least $30K more than say a Ford Expedition.

                  One cannot simply state the demand is not there simply because the cheaper ICE cars and ICE pickups/SUV’s sell so well because there is no competitive EV in those segments for the buyer to even consider.

                  1. philip d says:

                    Exactly. There isn’t even a full sized EV segment that is affordable yet much less SUV or CUV.

                    The Bolt is just now hitting the streets and it is barely a midsize if you look at passenger shoulder and hip room and the overall width of the vehicle. It does have a decent price and good performance and range though.

                    The Tesla 3 will be the first real test for demand in the somewhat affordable midsize segment. Even after the tax incentive (which won’t last long) it still is a premium for a midsize sedan but it will at least perform like a premium midsize and have enough passenger room and range.

                    To compare demand in the real wider market you at least have to have a product that is comparable in all the metrics like price, performance, size, etc.

        2. mx says:

          If the Repubs put down their 40$ per ton carbon tax, these guys will have killed themselves as all carbon prices will rise.

          The incompetent and lazy just don’t win in a Capitalistic society.

          They seem to think polluting cars are Not a Social Problem.
          Or, even in society. And society has NO RIGHT to Clean Air, if it hurts their profits a tiny bit.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Well put. The latest seems to be a “get with the program” effort, in line with the Trump Administration. That is, not to deny what pollution is, but to constantly sue, or challenge rules as too expensive, or hasty.

        3. Samwise says:

          The writing on the wall they are seeing is climate change which doesn’t give a flying f*ck about consumer demand or regulation…

          1. no comment says:

            i certainly agree with you that the writing really is “on the wall”, and in blatantly obvious terms. unbelievably, however, some people deny that such is the case. unfortunately, it appears that many in the current administration seem to agree with that “unbelievable” viewpoint.

        4. JimGord says:

          And how many ads that point out the advantages of electric vehicles have you seen?

    3. WadeTyhon says:

      GM and Tesla have probably the best Plug-Ins in the market. (Fords and FCA range from good to meh depending on the model.) In the case of GM and Tesla, their biggest Plug-In models to date were released or announced before the 2011 agreement was made in the first place.

      They certainly have yet to be eclipsed by foreign automakers. Especially from companies like Mazda, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Mercedes etc who have delayed releasing quality plug ins as long as possible.

      Nissan and BMW do have good EV offerings, but so far Mitsubishi’s Outlander PHEV still hasn’t made it to our shores.

      1. mx says:

        So, Tesla and GM should not be in this coalition.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          Tesla isn’t, of course.

          GM has essentially been a part of it for about a century. 😉 (About 2 decades in it’s current incarnation) They ain’t gonna leave now over this.

  3. walter says:

    Ok, that’s it. No bolt for me. I wait for the next gen leaf!

    1. Gasbag says:

      @Walter

      You won’t have to wait long. Next gen leaf will be available Q2 2017.

        1. Alan says:

          It’s a fair bet it’s VERY imminent !

          http://pushevs.com/2017/02/10/second-generation-nissan-leaf-spy-shots/

          They have been around since last Friday.

          1. Just_Chris says:

            I’m not going to be able to afford a new car for a while, but I wonder if Nissan are going to start selling the black cover for those of us stuck with the “polarising” looks of the first gen model.

          2. tosho says:

            http://pushevs.com/ is a really bad source of information. It’s basically just a passive-aggressive dude who voices his personal opinions as facts…

            1. Alan says:

              Clearly you didn’t read the article, it’s source was autoblog and has also been on green car news & various other sites.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                I’m sorry to be unkind, Alan, but most of what you post simply isn’t true. So your preferred sources of info are highly suspect.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    Those are much more reliable sources of info. Good to see that you recognize the difference.

      1. BenG says:

        I’d bet on 3rd quarter.

    2. AlanSqB says:

      Good for you. Anybody who believes the Bolt isn’t just a vehicle created to generate credits to allow continued production of High CC ICE vehicles by Chevy is delusional.

      1. AlanSqB says:

        Actually, looks like Nissan is in on the alliance now also.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          The automakers to avoid are the automakers who *don’t* make EVs in significant enough numbers and instead have to buy credits from other automakers such as Tesla. GM will probably be doubling their plug in output this year over last year. The new Leaf should be out hopefully this year as well.

          It makes no sense to punish GM or Nissan or BMW who have good quality EVs out there and have had them for years longer than they needed to.

      2. Dav8or says:

        So answer me this- Why would GM spend so much money developing the Bolt when they could just keep building the Spark EV until the end of time and get the same credits? (Like most other car makers do)

        Then answer me this- What is the point of all these goofy credits if not to persuade companies to invest in and produce green products?

        If you really believe your own nonsense, you should be thrilled. The credits are working!! They have forced the big greedy, corrupt car company that hates electric cars to actually produce more electric cars.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          GM can’t get the same number of credits from the Spark EV. That was a compliance car, designed and priced to be sold in small numbers at a loss.

          Contrariwise, it looks very much like GM has designed and priced the Bolt EV to actually make a narrow profit. That means they won’t lose money on every one on a per-unit basis, as they did with the Spark EV*. So GM will be making the Bolt EV in much larger numbers than any mere compliance car, and they might actually ramp up production somewhat, if they need more carbon credits. Even though the Bolt will almost certainly make a significantly smaller profit than most of their gasmobiles, at least that way they won’t have to pay for some of Tesla’s carbon credits.

          *Some so-called “analysts” use kindergarten-level accounting and lump the sunk costs of the Bolt’s “skateboard” design and BEV powertrain development in with the car’s per-unit costs, and so incorrectly claim GM is “losing money” on every Bolt made. This is almost certainly not true, and it is astonishing that anyone calling themselves an “analyst” would use such absurdly oversimplified analysis.

          1. Dav8or says:

            “…and they might actually ramp up production somewhat, if they need more carbon credits.”

            This is ridiculous. GM will do what it always does. It will sell as many Bolts as people want to buy. They’re not likely to build a lot more than people want to buy and they sure won’t restrict production on purpose. LG Chem might restrict them though.

            Trust me, the high profit vehicles are trucks, SUVs and luxury cars. Nobody is cross shopping these vehicles with the Bolt. The Bolt is no threat to these sales what so ever, so there is no need to restrict production, or down play the car.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “LG Chem might restrict them though.”

              And that’s why we can be very nearly absolutely certain that GM will not “sell as many Bolts as people want to buy”. The reason there is any doubt whatsoever is that we can’t be sure of demand, but all indications are that demand will significantly exceed the a-bit-over-30,000 that GM plans to make in the first year of production.

              But it’s easy to see that GM has no intention of building long-range PEVs (Plug-in EVs) in large numbers… by which I mean 60,000 per year or more. GM isn’t yet even talking about plans for building their own large battery cell factories, as many other auto makers are… and as Nissan and BYD have already done, and as Tesla is currently doing.

              It’s amazing how many wildly unrealistic claims there are about production of the Bolt EV, on both extremes of the spectrum. Some GM bashers are claiming the Bolt EV is “just a compliance car” or “little more than a compliance car”, while overly enthusiastic fans of the Bolt claim GM will build to meet demand.

              In both cases: No. Just no. The Bolt EV is being built in numbers far in excess of any mere compliance car, but GM is developing the car mostly as a hedge to the future, when we’ll see exponential growth of PEV sales, and not as a high volume seller.

              There are several signs that GM has no intention of ramping up production of the Bolt EV in the short term… by which I mean, not over at least the next couple of years. Making the production dependent on LG Chem’s battery cell supply is one; making the entire EV powertrain production for the Bolt EV dependent on a single source which is brand new and untried — LG Electronics’ new automotive division — is another. A third indicator is that GM isn’t making any left-hand-drive Bolt EVs. But by far the strongest indicator is GM refusing to even consider building its own battery factories!

              Those who think GM has some magic dial it can just turn to cause LG Chem to crank up its supply of those new, cheaper li-ion batteries… are living in a fantasy world. LG Chem has many customers for those batteries, and is adding to that list rather swiftly. LG Chem makes contracts for delivery of its battery cells two years in advance, and GM will have to settle for just a slice of LG’s “pie” of battery supply.

              We will know that GM is getting serious about making and selling long-range PEVs in large numbers when and only when they move to start building their own battery factories. I do expect to see that happen within a few years, but it’s not happening yet.

    3. ClarksonCote says:

      That would be misguided, given Nissan is also one of the 18 automakers that sent the letter.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-vehicles-idUSKBN15R0U9

    4. DonC says:

      Not sure what they think can happen. Or to put it differently, what part of “Final” don’t they get? Asking an agency to “go back to the original schedule” AFTER a final determination has been issued is absurd.

      The EPA will have to restart a rule making process. Will take years AND they’ll need to substantiate the changes. Not happening but if they try it would be great. Keep them occupied doing something fruitless. LOL

      1. Lad says:

        Trump and the Republican’s EPA is being headed by an ex-gas and oil lawyer. Look for the EPA to, as a minimum, drop as many regulations as they can under the laws. In fact the Republicans may even try to remove the EPA. No EPA = no pollution regulations…lots of pollution…more dead Americans; but, more money in the pot!

    5. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “Ok, that’s it. No bolt for me. I wait for the next gen leaf!

      Did you read the article?

      Nissan is part of that alliance too asking for review of the regulation.

      Then again, you probably didn’t read, that is why you said LEAF… LOL.

  4. John says:

    Sooooo….the US automakers will probably lobby and win…because that’s how this country works.

    Meanwhile, the foreign automakers will create ever better EV’s and high MPG vehicles, and while they will cost more due to import fees, their overall cost of ownership will be much lower.

    And finally, when gas prices spike again, all of the US automakers will only be making large low MPG vehicles and will go bankrupt. That’ll be GREAT for American jobs and cities…

    Ugh.

    1. AlanSqB says:

      These US automakers:

      Mazda, Volvo, FCA (Fiat), Jaguar, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

      It turns my stomach thinking we will be bailing them all out again in a few years without our consent.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        Nissan sent the letter too. While not a US-headquartered automaker, it seems silly to give them a free pass here.

    2. SparkEV says:

      Tesla is US automaker. Fortunately, they don’t go along with this nonsense.

      1. Dav8or says:

        Probably because they don’t have to. Since we’re on the subject, why don’t we ask the EPA to mandate that all BEVs have a 400 mile range by 2020 and 500 by 2025? No excuses, just do it.

        1. Samwise says:

          Because 90% of the population don’t want to pay for that extra range…
          If there is one thing in BEV’s that should be determined by consumer demand it is definitely battery size, building cars that go further than people would ever drive them is just stupid and inefficient.

          1. Dav8or says:

            Oh, now we’re going to use the free market to decide??! No that just won’t do.

        2. philip d says:

          If anything less than a 400 mile EV was causing massive environmental damage when sold in the millions then yes I would agree.

          As it stands now that is not the case. But ICE cars that have lower mpg ratings when sold by the tens of millions have a massive impact on the environment.

    3. Just_Chris says:

      For reference see

      “The Australian car industry – a legislative guide on how to f**k an industry by doing exactly what it tells you”

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Well said, sir.

        There are certainly cases where government regulations are good for consumers. For example, mandating use of seat belts and air bags in cars. Auto makers resisting making those available in most car models, and the governments had to step in and mandate them.

        But in general, government mandates are a very poor substitute for market competition. Government mandates for EV ranges would definitely be counter-productive. Competition is already pushing ranges higher; what benefit would there be to a government-imposed mandate for that?

        If there is a market for sub-200 mile BEVs and sub-100 mile PHEVs, then that market should certainly be served. Personally I’m appalled that auto makers continue to offer PHEVs with an electric range of 25 miles or less, but I think competition will drive those out of the market, and hopefully soon.

        1. Just_Chris says:

          IMO, it’s not about government regulation vs free market economics. These standards do not restrict the market. These targets just define what is an acceptable average for a given vehicle. There is still plenty of competition in the market and plenty of choice on how to meet the targets. It is not a ban on anything and it is perfectly achievable with very little change in the auto-world.

          IMO those that are currently ahead should just go for it. Endorse and support the targets and push like hell to crush the opposition. Nissan and Toyota could easily fill the hole left by Chrysler but they need to develop a bit of self belief and see the opportunity.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            @Just_Chris:

            I think I did not parse correctly your sentence “…legislative guide on how to f**k an industry by doing exactly what it tells you”. I don’t know what’s going on with the auto industry in Australia, other than it being reported that it’s not doing well, so your meaning escapes me.

            My apologies if I put words in your mouth; that was not my intention.

            1. Just_Chris says:

              No offence taken, I can be somewhat obtuse in my posts. I think you’re right about the positive effect on people’s well being of legislation. The point I’m making is only a subtly different, and that is that long term stable targets for an industry are good thing with strong economic benefits, they drive innovation and benefit everyone in the long run.

              The Australian auto industry will stop on October 3rd this year when the last plant closes. It is generally accepted that one of the things that killed it, in particular for Ford, was that the cost of bringing their engines up to a level that would be acceptable for export was prohibitively high. Essentially with no legislation to compel local manufacturers to build cars that were efficient they didn’t bother. the end result was bigger and bigger chunks of the market shifting to more efficient and advanced imported Japanese and European cars as the difference in performance got bigger and bigger. Since the cars made here couldn’t compete internationally either the result was inevitable. The Australian car industry was a victim of its own success in blocking tax on fuel and blocking of legislation on emissions. It’s oil refining business is about to go the same way.

              The “hard work pays off in the future but laziness pays off now” attitude will only get you so far in life.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Thanks for explaining, Just_Chris.

                This goes along with what I’ve said many times: What we need is not a “free market”, but rather a competitive market. From what you said, Australian auto makers successfully but foolishly lobbied for protectionist laws or regulations, and so eliminated themselves from true competition… which doomed their own ability to compete in the highly competitive international first-world automobile market.

                Well, here’s hoping that Australia’s economy and job market aren’t so heavily dependent on the automotive trade as America’s was until recently; here’s hoping that those auto makers going out of business isn’t going to crash Australia’s economy.

  5. AlanSqB says:

    Every time this alliance is mentioned, the names of the manufacturers should follow.

    Mazda, Volvo, FCA (Fiat), Jaguar, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

    These are the brands that want to stay in the past. Using “consumer choice” as an excuse to not fully invest in innovation and improvement.

    None of these will ever see another dime of my money.

    Mazda, Volvo, FCA (Fiat), Jaguar, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Toyota. Stuck in the past. Beholden to oil.

    1. Yogurt says:

      I dont know why you are singling them out but here is the official list of their members…
      https://autoalliance.org/connected-cars/automotive-privacy-2/participating-members/

      And the reality is that most legacy auto makers (and other companies) put profits ahead of polition, global warmiming and the lives of their customers as numerous scandals have proved over the years…
      The lawyers and mathmaticians just do a cost benefit analyis of what the risk rewards are and chance of getting caught and go from there…

      1. AlanSqB says:

        Thanks for the link to the complete list. Looks like I’m missing a couple from what was originally listed.

    2. ClarksonCote says:

      Given that every traditional automaker is on the list, I would consider a different approach.

      Purchase only plug-ins, and only from the companies in the list that have developed honest attempts at a viable plug-in vehicle.

      So many on that list have token offerings not intended to compete with traditional vehicles.

      GM, Ford, and Nissan are three that stand out as bucking that trend. If you support them with plug-ins, you’re showing them that there are viable economics in place TODAY for these vehicles.

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        You got it. Nissan and GM in particular had awesome plug ins out before the efficiency rules agreement was even reached in 2011. From Bloomberg:

        “Automakers agreed to the 2025 efficiency rules in 2011 in a landmark deal brokered by the Obama administration to boost fuel economy to a fleet average of more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025. The deal aligned greenhouse gas limits set by the EPA and California’s Air Resources Board with fuel economy regulations governed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”

        I think the EPA made the right call last year, and it’s being proven possible by several legacy automakers in addition to Tesla. But all industries push back against regulations at some point. And I think we can safely say that some automakers are more reluctant to this high efficiency/EV future than others. (VW, Honda, Fiat, Suzuki, etc)

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Hear, hear! Boycotting long-range EVs from legacy auto makers will only reinforce their claims that there is no market for them.

        Legacy auto makers aren’t fighting higher CAFE standards and trying to put the brakes on the EV revolution because they’re evil. Despite what some say, they’re not actually in bed with Big Oil, which really is evil.

        No, the reason why legacy auto makers are fighting against the transition to EVs is because they make more money selling gasmobiles than EVs. What’s going to change that isn’t government regulation, but rather advances in EV tech and EVs becoming cheaper to make… and therefore more profitable for the legacy auto makers.

        Much as we’d like, nobody can create advances in EV tech with government mandates.

  6. SparkEV says:

    Automobile emission is like someone taking a dump in front of another’s front door, just because right outside the door is public street. That’s not legal, yet ICE cars are allowed to take a dump that leach into our lungs every day.

    1. AlanSqB says:

      And a loud dump at that. Audio pollution is another mostly-intended consequence of the antiquated combustion engine. I’m personally sick of hearing my neighbors mustang start up and idle for 10 minutes before blaring off every morning.

      1. Lad says:

        You and many others; the real law breakers are the Harley motorcyclists. All Harley’s come from the factory fully legal; but, these guys can’t wait to blow across the street and have an open exhaust rigged on so they can join in on the…wait for it!…theeee Harley Thunder…sick people who never got out of high school!

    2. Nick says:

      +1

      This is the only reason customer choice should not be the only concern here.

      1. AlanSqB says:

        “Customer choice” is a BS arguement anyway. How much customer choice did Jobs and Apple provide as they created their world changing lineup? How much choice did Musk provide in what has become the most desirable car around.

        Sometimes you have to tell people what they want so they don’t stay stuck where they are. That’s what visionaries do.

        1. AlanSqB says:

          Customer Choice = What color would you like your horse-drawn buggy in sir?

          1. philip d says:

            Too bad, they only come in black. But I really stand out from my neighbors though because I have a spotted horse and he wears a hat.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          AlanSqB said:

          “‘Customer choice’ is a BS arguement anyway. How much customer choice did Jobs and Apple provide as they created their world changing lineup?”

          No B.S. at all there.

          Apple offering new choices such as the iPod as competition to the Walkman, and the iPhone as competition to the BlackBerry, created very real consumer choice, far greater disparity between products — and thus more choice — than had existed previously!

          Apple succeeded with the iPod and the iPhone precisely because those did offer wider choices to consumers.

          Ditto Tesla with the Model S vs. BEVs such as the Leaf.

      2. SparkEV says:

        Customer choice is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Automobile emissions directly hurt others, sometimes kill.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          As an asthmatic I agree and thank goodness I wasn’t around in the 1970s for those smoggy, pollution filled cities. 😛

          I hope the administration doesn’t give in… but let’s be honest, this is the Trump administration. He is no friend of the environment or regulations.

          If something happens to weaken CARB or CAFE I think we all know which automakers will instantly kill or reduce their EV and PHEV offerings in the US. (Honda, Fiat, Ford and Toyota) and those that will maintain or double down on EVs (Tesla, Nissan, GM, BMW)

  7. toshp says:

    And that’s why my money will end up in mr. Elon Musk’s pocket!

    1. Dav8or says:

      As though it wasn’t going to anyways.

  8. georgeS says:

    Fine go ahead and let them off the hook. Eliminate CARB. I don’t care. It just puts Tesla even farther ahead.

    1. AlanSqB says:

      Don’t give them any ideas. I’m sure they’re going to try to get the Trumpsters to find a way to get rid of CARB just as soon as they’re done getting rid of the EPA.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        CARB is already done. It took Obama about 6 months, to re-instate the waiver and will take about as long for Trump to have Pruitt kill it for ZEVs, etc. CARB will be left suing in a holding pattern as he exercises federal fiat (and gets cheered for being a champion of states rights for OK, TX, ND, KY…).

        It should never have been called “CARB”. “Right To Breathe” states would have been more like it.

        “RTB” – CA, RI, ME, MA, OR, CT, FL, MD, NM, PA, NY, NJ..

    2. DonC says:

      No cARB no Tesla. Tesla’s business model is predicated in selling ZEV credits. Nothing wrong with that but pulling the rug out now would have serious financial consequences.

      FWIW I don’t see CARB going away. You need 60 votes in the Senate for that.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        DonC said:

        “Tesla’s business model is predicated in selling ZEV credits.”

        So it was claimed in the “Tesla Death Watch” series.

        How many entries in that series were published before it was finally cancelled out of embarrassment? Too bad that you anti-Tesla FUDsters are immune to the embarrassment of how you almost always are proven wrong.

      2. pjwood1 says:

        Pretty sure the waiver is at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, not Congress. That’s why the exchange between Sen Markey and Scott Pruitt:

        CARB survives, if not waived, but cannot be more strict than federal emissions standards. Sort of perplexing from the guys who want to dissolve EPA.

      3. philip d says:

        Once Tesla has the Model 3 in full production and the gigafactory producing at full capacity for EVs and energy storage then losing ZEV credits won’t stop them. It certainly won’t help though.

  9. Kdawg says:

    Brace yourselves for the release the alternate facts.

    1. Just_Chris says:

      +100

      Apparently there is no consumer demand, really? could you imagine Ford selling even 1 conventionally powered Focus if it was a special order only? or Tesla taking 10% of the large luxury sedan segment if the model S was a diesel? Could you even imagine someone waiting 3 months for delivery of a Diesel sports sedan? Could Nissan have sold as many Leafs for over $30k if they all had 1.6 l petrol engine?

  10. speculawyer says:

    Here we go again.

    They will demand that the regulations be weakened. They’ll go back to building gas-guzzlers. Then there will be a terrorist attack or war in the mid-east causing the price of gas to shoot up to >$5/gallon. The sales of the gas-guzzlers will crash and we’ll have to bail them out again.

    :-/

    Can’t we ever learn?

    1. Yogurt says:

      I used to think that gas was going to hit 5 dollar a gallon in 2015 but it never happened and never will in the US without taxes due to 7#@53 fracking and EVs worldwide aong with diesel and oil energy plants being converted to solar and wind…

      Americans already went back to gas guzzlers while oboma was president in that SUV sales are putting a world of hurt on car sales due to obomas fuel regulation having loop holes you can drive an SUV through litterly…

      And no we will never learn but I do think that EV sales and solar will take off in the next five years regardless due to the almighty dollar…

      1. ffbj says:

        Pretty much the case. The Saudi Gambit was a failure. Gas prices should remain low for quite a long time, barring some major warfare breaking out, in one of the big producers.
        Evs, are here to stay and getting stronger every day. Foolish apologist legacy makers who have not a clue, are going to get taken to he cleaners soon enough, if they continue to only just pay lip service to the ev revolution. It can’t be real because we said it couldn’t be, since we are the experts.

        Malbranche was right, we cannot look inside ourselves and see what we are not.

      2. speculawyer says:

        That oil to frack was there when oil hit $147. It takes a while to ramp things up. Granted, they will be able to ramp up faster but if we have some war or terrorist attack, it will be a while before the frackers are up & running big time. Plus they have already hit the best sweet spots such that it is not as easy as it was.

  11. LOL says:

    The only cure for those gents and. ladie s would be wireless and transistor. Once that is fully released all ICEs are immediately in the junkyard, that’s why they call for abolition. I wouldn’t swap places with them …

  12. Mister G says:

    Elections have consequences and American voters really screwed up by voting for Trump.

  13. Mister G says:

    Send a big middle finger to fossil fuel industry by buying or leasing an electric vehicle today.

  14. Bill Howland says:

    Doesn’t seem like such a horrible situation to me – the automakers are only asking for a return to the original schedule.

    Seeing as not many purchase plug-ins (only 1.5% of vehicles sold in the states – admittedly there aren’t any Trucks from major manufacturers which is the type of vehicle most people want, or indeed, need for work), a sales advantage for plug-ins may be lost if the ICE vehicles get ‘too good too fast’.

    As an example, the new Diesel Cruise gets 52 EPA MPG Highway miles with the standard transmission. And meets all emissions requirements without deceptive software controls – I feel comfortable saying that because GM surely knows regulators will be very closely examining the car under real world conditions.

    An EV competing with this relatively low-cost product would have a VERY hard time convincing most people they should drive something else.

    And 52 miles traveled on 1 gallon of #2 Fuel Oil is certainly not guzzling anything.

    Although it still can’t beat my ELR in cold weather – even though I can’t use the heater to do it and have to suffer along with a cloudy windshield, I can usually get 100-200 mpg premium gas for anything other than short trips even though the car forces the engine to run.

    I’m in the minority here in that, while I make choices such as 100% plug ins for myself, and substantially solar power for my electrical needs, I draw the line when forcing my neighbor to do likewise should he not be so inclined.

    1. no comment says:

      if your next door neighbor was smelting lead in his backyard, i doubt that you would be so libertarian in your views, because you would see the immediate harm of your neighbor’s actions to you. to a certain extent, it’s the same with automobiles; it’s just that the immediate harm of any one automobile isn’t as apparent.

      my personal attitude about it is that the government should stick with the current plan. after all, the risks to the environment seem to be accelerating, so at some time we need to quit screwing around and deal with reality when it comes to the environment. the government can assist by extending existing incentives, if necessary.

      alternatively, the government can institute carbon taxes. in some respects, i think this is an even better idea because it encourages people who do continue to buy ICEVs to at least by smaller vehicles. this means not only that people would buy less expensive vehicles, but they will also produce less pollution when driving their vehicles.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Cars are currently way down on the list of poisons that I am forced to imbibe.

        Europe made the Great-Brain choice to use low “Greenhouse Gas” particulate-rich Diesels that ended up making Paris and London children sick.

        1. Nick says:

          What’s higher on the list?

          Cars are one of the few things emitting PM2.5 right at ground level all the time where I breathe.

          Do you live next to industry or something? That’d move the needle.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Indeed, gasmobiles are pretty far up indeed on the list of things forcing all of us to breathe in poisons and carcinogens on a daily basis, even if Bill refuses to recognize that reality.

            Diesel ICEVs are even worse. All those school buses burning diesel is likely a major contributing cause to the rise in chronic asthma among school kids.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            I can see my comment brought the other clown out (not you Nick).

            Planting more trees would greatly ameliorate the existing polutants from cars, which I didn’t say wasn’t a problem I just said it was down on the list which it is.

            Autism from excito-toxins, I’d say is a bad problem since the problem went from around 1 in 40000 to 1 in 80 and dropping.

            Lack of nutrition has been a problem for at least the past 100 years but few pay attention to it. Europe to date has banned GMO’s, but we still have to deal with the stuff here.

            Excessive Pharmaceuticals is a problem for many, not for me since I don’t take them.

            I remember the famous olympic skater advertising Merck’s VIOXX on TV around 15 years ago, and then MERCK took it off the market (FDA was intentionally asleep) – after they did the death rate went way down (over 100,000 per annum) – of course that is just a coincidence.

            West Coast radiation is going to be a larger problem than it already is – I wonder if there were any discussions of the problem when ABE and Trump were talking. – But other than many famous people selling their ocean front real estate, I don’t see many people in general worried about it.

            Those are a few issues that I pay more attention to, while being in general frugal with resources myself so as not to contribute to the problem. My utilities follow the average European usage which is much less than the Typical American.

            1. Just_Chris says:

              Just for my 2 cents worth.

              If car companies can meet the CAFE standard in 2025 by making a car more efficient then that is fine by me. We need to be limiting the amount of oil we are burning for pollution, economic and Geo-political reasons. You might put the various issues caused by the oil and gas industry pretty far down your list but they are pretty near the top of mine. The main reason I think we should tackle oil first is because it is the low hanging fruit – the effects are well known and it makes sense to make cars more efficient. Japans energy issues by comparison are much more complex. Shutting the nuclear power industry in Japan has big implications for the nation and it is unclear if it is really causing all that much damage to the rest of the world.

              How we reduce oil usage is neither here nor there, I have my preferred pathways but that is not what we should be deciding for people. The proposed CAFE target seems sensible, why waste millions of dollars debating it again.

              The simple reality that I think people need to come to terms with with respect to all of these targets is, in general, we could almost all reduce our energy or fuel use we just choose not to. Efficiency is a good thing but you need long term certainty to give industry the confidence to invest in new technology.

    2. Dav8or says:

      A shocking dose of reality and level headed thinking!! Who would have thought on this site?

    3. pjwood1 says:

      The automakers are asking for slack on specifically the 2022-2025 ratchet of the CAFE standards. The “original schedule” is what EPA’s ruling upheld.

      You can’t drive an SUV through these standards.

      -Light duty vehicles are split into two, passenger and light trucks.
      -The light truck standard is more relaxed than for passenger cars
      -CAFE fleet economy applies to basically everything sold below 6,000lbs.
      -The 2022-2025 period schedules in faster fuel-economy improvement for light trucks, than for cars. They two standards begin to converge, in mpgs.

      Beyond preferences, manufacturers amplify a “You want that SUV” mentality, so they end up in the less expensive light-truck parts bins. Fighting commercially viable tech, for profit, is how you fill the swamp.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        corrections invited!

        1. DonC says:

          Each vehicle gets its own footprint based on its width and length. It’s not just trucks and passenger vehicles. It’s subcompacts, and compacts, and mid size, and luxury, and compact SUVs, and standard SUVs, and then of course different sized trucks.

          And the standards definitely don’t converge. Different sized vehicles have to hit different targets all the way to 2025. In fact this is why the TAR concluded the 54.5 MPG target would not be hit and the actual MPG would be 50-52.6 MPG — more people buying larger vehicles which have larger footprints and hence have to meet lower MPG requirements.

          Note there is a difference between CAFE MPG and EPA sticker MPG. 51 MPG for CAFE would equate to something like an EPA sticker of 37 MPG.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Thanks, Don. I wasn’t aiming to imply actual convergence. Just that I think the light truck YOY gains go above 4% within the 2022-2025 frame, while cars rise more slowly.

            1. DonC says:

              Sort of bounces around. A Camry from 2017 to 2025 would have to go from 38.4 MPG to 53.8 MPG. That’s a 40% improvement. A Ford F-150 would have to go from 25.1 MPG to 30.2 MPG, a 20% improvement. But as you mention from 2017 to 2021 the Ford F-150 would only have to increase its MPG from 25.1 to 25.3. Hardly a big increase, but it has to make up for that after 2021. After 2021 the percentage increases are similar.

    4. DonC says:

      It’s actually beyond absurd. The idea that you’d go back to the “original schedule” means you deviated from it. The EPA most certainly DID NOT deviate from the original schedule. The EPA said it would reach a final determination on the technical assessment not later than April of 2017. Since January of 2017 is before April of 2017, the schedule was adhered to. Nothing suggests nor requires the EPA needs to wait until the last possible day to make a determination. Given the TAR process literally took years, we should applaud the EPA for getting it done sooner rather than later.

      It’s like complaining road work was finished before the due date for completion and under budget.

    5. Just_Chris says:

      Any fleet emission standard is not a ban on anything. These standards are perfectly reasonable, they are not a ban on trucks or sports cars. People who need a truck for work would still be able to buy a truck for work, probably for the about the same equivalent price in 2025 just as they can in 2017.

      What would the new car mix have to be by 2025 to meet the standard? Not looking in too much detail at the figures, I think it is around 20-30% EV and PHEV in the mix by 2025 – roughly equivalent to the European standard for 2020 or Norway in 2015. That is not a big ask. If you give the automakers 8 years to do it then I can’t imaging there being a problem. The issue will come with uncertainty and that uncertainty will harm the US automakers most in the long run. The only thing currently stopping China and India from flooding the US market with cheap cars is the current emissions standards and the various safety standards. The idea that the US auto makers can stand still and not be overtaken by foreign rivals is simply not true.

      We should not confuse short term gain with long term prosperity – the CEO’s of the various automakers, their board, people who want to buy a new car today and current share holders will gain most from minimizing investment in R&D and the car makers selling what they have already developed but all that leads to is the situation we saw in the lead up to 2008 – fuel prices spike, the automakers are unprepared for it, had no models developed and the whole thing falls apart. What would happen in 2019 if we get a price spike in fuel? There are now options, the development and commercialization of those options was largely driven by government incentives, CARB legislation and long term emissions standards.

      1. DonC says:

        There really isn’t a “fleet standard”, at least not as this term was used under the old CAFE standards. Each vehicle gets its footprint, so a “fleet standard” will be different for every manufacturer, depending on the mix of vehicles they sell. Sell only large trucks and your fleet standard will be 30 MPG (25 MPG sticker). Sell only subcompacts and it will be 58 MPG (49 MPG sticker).

  15. Anon says:

    And amazing example of greed over species survival. I don’t get it…

    Then again, too many people voted poorly (or not at all) in this last election, too.

    1. no comment says:

      think in terms of malthusian outcomes and maybe you might start to “get it”…

  16. CLIVE says:

    Bless their little hearts 💕

  17. CLIVE says:

    Mary needs to fire the botox doctor.

    What a photo!

    1. DonC says:

      When we first saw that interview I pointed out how bad the lighting was for her. You don’t want the angle to be that steep and you don’t want broad face lighting. On a taller guy it would be OK. Even good. But on a shorter woman it’s deadly.

      Don’t blame the doc. The person(s) in charge of lighting should be counseled.

      1. CLIVE says:

        Take another look…

        I blame the Doctor 100%

        To much BOTOX in one spot is what the picture clearly shows

  18. DonC says:

    I get Ford. For sure I get FCA. Those companies are going to have a hard time meeting the new regulations. I even get Toyota (which has lot its way apparently) and Honda, neither of which are have demonstrated any chops making ZEV vehicles. But GM and Nissan? Both those companies are well positioned for both CAFE and ZEV. The largest consumer group going forward is Millennials, and the biggest concern of that group is climate Change. What are those morons thinking? That it’s a good idea to alienate customers with stupid letters?

  19. Ol says:

    this is what happens after the execution desires of those that want to Review Emission Regulations :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxbDJlruQ-4

  20. unlucky says:

    Pretty funny the Ford exec pictured is in front of the Ford GT.

    Yeah, emissions standards are so awful that they can barely figure out how to get a 647HP barely homologated track car into the US market.

    We’ve had such an insane power war in the US car market since the mid 90s that it sure seems like crocodile tears when the car makers act as if the regulations are direly constraining them.

  21. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Dear Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers:

    You need to give the Trumpsters some time here. They’re pretty busy, what with shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, setting up a police state to spy on Muslims and deport “Mexicans” en masse, and rigging taxes and the banking system to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

    No doubt they’ll get around to what you want; it’s just not that high on their priority list.

    Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I’ve got my country’s 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I’m swamped. — Prince Humperdinck, “The Princess Bride”

    1. CLIVE says:

      Only wonder wtf will happen to banking

      1. Just_Chris says:

        “deregulation” of the banking system will cause the same thing it did in the last decade. I am going to refer to it as the “weeeee, spat effect” due to the 2 noises are released in the banking deregulation process. One that the bankers make when riding the wave of capital that is unleashed in a totally uncontrolled and corrupt fashion, and two, the noise the rest of us make with our hand on our face.

        Maybe we should release all the bankers and CEO’s that we imprisoned the last time this scandal unraveled, perhaps even give them back the money we fined them……. oh that’s right we never did either of those things, we just fined the companies who passed those fines onto Joe public.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Elizabeth Warren put it very bluntly when Jon Stewart interviewed her on “The Daily Show”. Looking back at U.S. history, we had banking or financial system crises about every 15 years until strong banking regulations were put in during the Great Depression. We then didn’t have any serious banking/financial system crises until regulations were seriously weakened; then we had the S&L crisis of the 1980s and 1990s; and of course the “great recession” caused by the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

        As Warren observed, we have two choices: Either put back in place those strong bank regulations, or continue to have financial crises about every 15 years.

        Current financial regulations in the USA are considerably too weak, and the Trumpsters plan to weaken them even more.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          “deport “Mexicans””

          FUD

          I like how you deliberately fail to call it what it really is.

          “Deport Illegal aliens that committed a Felony”.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Would-be dictator El Trumpo called a third-generation American judge a “Mexican”, and claimed his ethnic heritage made him unable to properly judge the fraud case against Trump University.

            Regarding El Trumpo’s remarks, GOP Speaker of the House Paul Ryan rightfully said “Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

            And of course, El Trumpo has repeatedly defended his Big Lie that most or possibly all “Mexican” (i.e., Hispanic) immigrants are “criminals” and “rapists”.

            So Trollnonymous, I think you see a distinction there which El Trumpo does not. El Trumpo’s racist remarks and xenophobia are by no means limited to criminal illegal aliens, or even to Hispanics in general; nor are they restricted to only Muslims and People of Color. He’s made anti-semetic remarks too. He’s a full-spectrum, equal-opportunity racist and wannabe fascist of the sort we’d expect from someone who endorses and supports neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and their rhetoric of hate.

            * * * * *

            Germany, circa 1937:

            First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

            ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            United States, circa 2018:

            First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Muslim.

            Then they came for the “Mexicans”, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not Hispanic.

            Then they came for “the Blacks”, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Person of Color.

            Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

            (Credit where it’s due: The first section was written by Pastor Martin Niemöller)

            * * * * *

            The Nazis had the Brownshirts, and later the Waffen-SS, to round up people to be sent to concentration camps.

            The Trumpsters will have their “deportation force”.

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/donald-trump-deportation-force-debate-immigration/

  22. blandman says:

    Sooner or later, BYD, Hyundai, Tesla, etc. will walk away with the new car market with their EV offerings. Hyundai is playing for keeps in this market.

  23. Just_Chris says:

    Caption on first picture should read:

    “Emissions? what emissions? can you prove the air didn’t always smell like this?”

    1. ffbj says:

      Yes you can actually, but I get it. You are mocking politicians who make up things.
      Like the one idiot, a new spokesman for Trump,
      apparently a requirement, who said there was massive voter fraud and no one can dispute that.

  24. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Remember, vote with your wallets. Every product you buy from the members list below is direct funding to fight the EPA and Tesla sales model.
    https://autoalliance.org/connected-cars/automotive-privacy-2/participating-members/

  25. Steve Withers says:

    These automakers need to feel the anger of people who see the evil they are seeking to do in the name if their own short term vested interests.

    Just not buying their cars won’t be enough. We must not vote for anyone who supports this stupidity. We must obstruct the plans of those who do.

Leave a Reply