Automakers Ask Trump To Ease Emissions Rules, EV Mandates – Get Ready For A War

1 year ago by Jay Cole 172

BMW part of a large automotive group looking for a rollback of mpg and emission standards through 2025

BMW part of a large automotive group looking for a rollback of mpg and emission standards through 2025

It didn’t take the “Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers” long to cobble together a lobbying request for President-elect Donald Trump to roll-back emission mandates and “alternative powertrains” (think plug-in electric vehicles) requirements.  Just ~48 hours after Hillary Clinton ceded the election to Trump, the group has put together a eight page letter (PDF here) for the new administration to consider.

And who is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers?

Not part of the Alliance - Nissan

Notably NOT part of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers?  Nissan

Pretty much every automaker that has been spinning the positive virtues of their plug-in offerings over the past few years, but is too afraid to sign their own name in person – including General Motors, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Mazda, Volvo, Fiat and Toyota (ok, well maybe Toyota and Fiat didn’t promote EVs all that much – so they get a pass on any ulterior motives).

The letter asks Trump’s White House to find “a pathway forward” on setting final fuel efficiency standards through 2025 (something that has already been long planned out), saying Trump’s administration should now “harmonize and adjust” the rules.

Basically, they want the old, stricter rules ripped up (such as the 50 MPG fleet requirement), replaced with new lax ones, complete with compensation riders for electric vehicle production put in their place.

The petition goes on to ask for a advisory committee to “coordinate auto sector regulators”, but with an ultimate goal of putting in a place a new set of regulations for the last four years of the current program.

The current program was put in place in 2011 (for 2012 model year vehicles through 2025), but has a “mid-term review” allowance provision that was put in place by automakers when agreed to – likely with the hopes of finding a new, more lenient administration in the future.

Unfortunately the timing for that review is in 2017, and indeed the administration’s take on the environment has changed.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now have until April 2018 to finalize the regulations for the period between 2022 and 2025 model years – both for fuel efficiency and emissions.

Alliance CEO Mitch Bainwol stated in his organizations letter to Trump (via Automotive News):

“We live at a moment where technology and change are swamping the regulatory capacity to manage our emerging reality. Reform is imperative…As car prices rise, it becomes vital to look at the full cost of regulatory initiatives.  Well-meaning regulatory action risks increasing compliance costs to the point that additional safety and fuel-efficiency technologies put new vehicles out of financial reach of the average new car purchaser.”

Not surprisingly, Tesla - exclusive maker of all-electric vehicles, and lead by Elon Musk (Climate Change believer) wants the opposite of what the Alliance

Not surprisingly, Tesla – exclusive maker of all-electric vehicles, and lead by Elon Musk (Climate Change believer) wants the opposite of what the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers does – more regulations against emissions

Alliance boss, Bainwol also warned that even the standards of today are suppressing the automakers’ ability to build inexpensive vehicles, and could lead to hefty fines for non-compliance.

“This regulatory friction is already occurring, driving up vehicle costs, and will become even more counterproductive as the regulatory requirements become more stringent in future Model Years.  Potentially billions of dollars in fines under the NHTSA CAFE program are anticipated.”

But worse still for the electrification movement, is that the letter asked for a “robust examination” of the impact of “uncoordinated regulatory oversight” by at least 10 federal and state agencies.

Yes, even GM with the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV and all-time US sales leader Volt already under its belt is part of the group looking to take down fleet mpg and emission requirements

Yes, even GM with the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV and all-time US sales leader Volt already under its belt is part of the group looking to take down fleet mpg and emission requirements

Basically, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers wants allowances for the costs incurred from CARB’s zero-emission sales mandates to be taken into considered when evaluating the national mpg/emission program – of which they are not included today.

Then they take it a step further (why not ask for everything?) – to control and contain CARB’s actions in the future.

“We recommend that the White House lead efforts with EPA, NHTSA, CARB and the automakers on finding a pathway forward regarding the standards for 2022 MY and beyond prior to publishing the NPRM and preliminary determination. 

We also recommend that the Trump Administration support the administrative and legislative reforms necessary to achieve harmonization. This includes approving the petition that the Auto Alliance filed with EPA and NHTSA on June 20, 2016 regarding certain harmonization gaps that exist that can be addressed administratively.”

The letter further adds another note on containing CARB, but buried amongst a field of other less aggressive agencies.

“The number of government regulators (state and federal) who are interested in or currently oversee the automobile sector (U.S. DOT, NHTSA, FCC, FTC, DHS, NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce, CFPB, EPA and California ARB) continues to grow. A robust examination of the combined impact of such uncoordinated regulatory oversight on the auto industry and the American consumer is warranted. As car prices rise, it becomes vital to look at the full cost of regulatory initiatives. Well-meaning regulatory action risks increasing compliance costs to the point that additional safety and fuel-efficiency technologies put new vehicles out of financial reach of the average new car purchaser. “

Naturally, the answer suggested by the Alliance is to just have a Presidential committee bring everyone under one easy to control hat:

“Establish a Presidential Advisory Committee to Coordinate Auto Sector Regulators. Such an advisory committee would help reduce regulatory friction and confusion among federal agencies and departments and could potentially result in recommendations for a new paradigm for vehicle regulation.”

CARB initiatives force real change in the US for EV adoption beginning in 2018 (2% ZEVs) - climaxing in 2025 (15.4% ZEV)

CARB initiatives force real change in the US for EV adoption beginning in 2018 (2% ZEV mandate) – climaxing in 2025 (15.4% ZEV)

For 2018, CARB (and 9 other “CARB states”) require that 2% percent of sales in their states to be zero-emission vehicles (it’s actually more like 1/3 that number based on the way the ZEV credit system works, but we digress), but then scales up 2% per year through 2025, reaching more than 15%.

U.S. Plug-in car sales are rising, and we'd like to keep seeing that (through Oct 2016)

U.S. Plug-in car sales are rising, a trend we’d like to see continue (through Oct 2016)

Failure to hit these ZEV requirements results in a $5,000 fine per vehicle (or rather ZEV credit) not earned.

“The Administration should engage as appropriate to help address these ZEV issues — especially to help avoid the creation of a patchwork of requirements that will frustrate the overall intent of the ‘One National Program,’” Bainwol said in the letter to the new administration

With the review process on the near term horizon, the Alliance argues that the final determination should be left to Trump’s administration, and should only happen after the automakers and the new regulators once again discuss the final years of the program, which currently require a 50 mpg fleet average.

Despite a recent EPA report that automakers were currently already on the right path to hit 2025 benchmarks, including the rapid adoption of plug-in technology, the Alliance states that the Technical Assessment Report by the EPA “over-projects” the benefits of alternative technologies.

“The combination of low gas prices and the existing fuel efficiency gains from the early years of the program is undercutting consumer willingness to buy the vehicles with more expensive alternative powertrains that are necessary for the sector to comply with the more stringent standards in out-years,” Alliance CEO Mitch Bainwol stated.

As of yet the Trump administration has not commented on the letter from the 12 major automakers, but the potential reaction is quite likely to be favorable to the Alliance’s interests, as President-elect Trump has stated his non-belief in climate change, and has already promised during his campaign to roll back the EPA’s future targets for emissions (as well as drastically reduce the headcount employed at the agency), and put a moratorium on any new programs during his term.

Meet the opposition

Meet the Alliance and Mr. Trump’s #1 opponent – CARB Chair Mary Nichols.  It’s go time!

Automotive News reports that that environmental groups are already gearing up to put up a strong opposition to any changes in the Obama administration policy that was put in place 5 years ago.

“If the Trump Administration seeks to roll back fuel efficiency standards, which are highly popular with the American people and even have been supported by the auto industry, it will find us standing in the way,” Luke Tonachel, director of the Clean Vehicles and Fuels Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an e-mail.

Naturally leading the other side of this fight will be Mary Nichols.

As the chair of California’s Air Resources Board (and basically the force behind any and all plug-in vehicle adoption we see happening today in the US and many other places around the world), Nichols recently stated that CARB’s 15.4% zero emission requirement for 2025 might not be stringent enough, and is considering upping the requirement which is also set to be revised.  A stance which is sure to be a popular with the new federal government.

In October, Ms. Nichols stated  during “The Road Ahead” (which was a recent advanced clean-car symposium) via Wards Auto:

“If anything, I think it will move further and faster (ZEV regulations), not move in the other direction…we can’t take our foot off the accelerator.”  While adding,2030 is the next milestone, (and) we continue to double down on policies that got us where we are today,” Nicholls said at the conference.

One can almost hear the war coming already…and it’s going to be ugly.

Full PDF Of Alliance LetterAutomotive News, Reuters, Wards

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

172 responses to "Automakers Ask Trump To Ease Emissions Rules, EV Mandates – Get Ready For A War"

  1. OntarioLeaf says:

    It’s back to the future. We’ll see federal tax credits for the Hummer again.

    1. James says:

      He will force GM to make the Hummer again, and then mandate we all drive one.

    2. Lad says:

      I think we can dismiss the Federal Government from any green incentives in the future; the Republicans have little opposition from the weakened Democrats. They own the Presidency,the Congress, the Supreme Court and control the media and the Armed forces; Only the states stand between them and absolute control of our country.

      Looks a lot like Germany in pre-WW2 when Hitler took over.

      1. As a Canadian, with an interest in what is happening in the USA as a Land Owner and Property Tax Payer – I have concerns as well. Co – Let’s take a look at what DJ Trump is posting on his website – regarding Energy.

        First Line says:

        “Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources. We will unleash an energy revolution that will bring vast new wealth to our country.” – from – https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy/

        Combine that – with this – “Documentary : The renewable energy breakthrough! (finally).” – https://youtu.be/BV8VJMMtjlk

        And make sure we hold his feet to the Fire on this!

        When Donald says “Declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.” – Remind him of this video: ‘The WORLD has made a Deal’ (Not China – The WORLD)

        “This is a Story of Money” (Something Donald says he understands!) “Imagine, this is – in the GULF – you are generating Solar Power more cheaply than you can generate with Gas” – from the opening minute of the Video!

        The Problem with Trump – is the next line in his Energy Policy:
        “Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.” in that he thinks ‘Coal’ can ever be ‘Clean’, or – that Coal Miners Son’s want to only be Coal Miners, when – most likely – they just want the Fat Pay Checks that they got (or might get) with being in a Coal Mining Job!

        For more info on this documentary – http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/19/documentary-the-breakthrough-in-renewable-energy-vpro-backlight-video/

        Further – since people want Jobs – the Donald – should note this – “Renewable energy provides more jobs than fossil fuels” – “This is because $1 million dollars worth of oil and natural gas output directly creates 0.8 jobs, and $1 million of coal produces 1.9 jobs. Compare that to building retrofits for energy efficiency (7 jobs per million), mass transit services (11 jobs), building the smart grid (4.3), wind (4.6), solar (5.4), and biomass power generation”

        That needs to be pointed out to Trump, particularly when on his same Energy Policy Page – there is this paragraph on the right: “I also want to thank the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, and the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association for inviting me to join you here today. Your organizations represent tens of thousands of jobs for hardworking Americans.”

        And this: “Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.” – May 25, 2016. “The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.”

        Here is how to contact the Trump Campaign:
        https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contact/

        1. sault says:

          What you are saying about renewable energy is correct. But the e-Cat is a complete scam. We can’t be fooled by too-good-to-be-true claims thinking they can magically save us.

          1. SJC says:

            The U.S. has been talking about “energy independence” since Nixon. Republicans talk about it just like the deficit, but they do NOTHING to actually make it happen.
            Democrats had Pay As You Go, Republicans destroyed that then the deficits ballooned.

        2. bogdan says:

          Clean coal? What about clean diesel?
          Or clean coal miners!

      2. Texas FFE says:

        The Bush administration enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which has had a far greater impact on reducing emissions of all kinds than anything the Obama administration did. Your making a mistake selling the Republicans short.

        1. TeV says:

          Let’s revisit your statement in four years and see if you’re right.

          Personally, I think your faith will be shown to be wholly unfounded – but I desperately hope I’m wrong.

        2. sault says:

          First of all, the 2007 bill was drafted in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Bush signed the law, but his administration definitely dragged its feet on vehicle efficiency standards.

          Would like to see the numbers you used to calculate how the bill has led to more reductions than ALL of Obama’s policies. Keep in mind, Obama built on the higher efficiency standards in the 2007 bill to craft a lot of his policies and executive actions. And the 2007 bill has had more time to play out as well. And now that the GOP has complete control over the federal government, don’t think they will just roll back everything since there’s nothing to stop them

    3. Mo says:

      I wouldn’t mind easing regulation if they increased the 7500 Fed credit by 50%. Then everyone would get what they want.

    4. SJC says:

      The red states just elected Biff from Back to the Future II.

  2. Unplugged says:

    It will be an interesting battle. The “new” EPA will certainly try to assert full control over emission programs and preempt the CARB. This will Congressional action because CARB was carved out of the EPA enabling legislation under the Nixon administration.

    The question is whether Congress will be able to pass legislation that will end CARB. That might be a difficult fight. My strong suggestion is for those who reside in a state with a GOP Senator, they try to pin down their Senator to reject any legislation that would undermine CARB.

    What we need to see is whether so-called states’ rights is just a dog whistle for discrimination, or a real Republican doctrine. Most likely, the hypocrisy will come shining through.

    1. Nix says:

      The libertarian viewpoint is that the free market will magically make the air cleaner and improve gas mileage because car companies will be punished by consumers if they don’t.

      If you believe in that libertarian principle, then there is only one answer.

      General Motors, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Mazda, Volvo, Toyota and Fiat (and their sub-brands) have to suffer for their choices if the free market is supposedly the answer to clean air.

      All of the automakers who are part of this are all now officially dead to me.

      1. Nix says:

        oops! I didn’t mean that to be a reply to you, unplugged.

      2. Independant Observer says:

        I am a libertarian. Personally I choose to ride my bicycle to work about 75% of the time. My carbon footprint is small, more out me being cheap than anything else. Bottom line is that 60,000,000 people voted “D”. Maybe if they would actually buy an EV instead of whine, the problem would solve itself.

      3. bogdan says:

        I guess BMW, Mercedes and co. are already scraping their plans to build long rage EVs in the future. It’s not the first time though.

    2. georgeS says:

      @unplugged
      It does seem to boil down to a states rights issue.

      Do the states have a right to set stricter emissions controls if they choose?

      I think the Republican parties platform is in favor of states rights. They want the Feds to stand out of these decisions and let the states deal with the issue. -yes?

      That said, it’s certainly a very scary prospect. No CARB could be the end of Tesla Motors.

      1. sault says:

        The GOP is only in favor of states’ rights when the states agree with them and when they don’t hold the presidency. Just like they only care about debt when they don’t hold the presidency. Back in the day when some states were legalizing gay marriage, they wanted a constitutional amendment to stop it. When some states were decriminalizing pot, the GOP-controlled federal government was doing everything it could to disrupt things. And now that the GOP has nothing stopping them, they will find a way to gum up CARB and other state-level initiatives that displease their fossil fuel donors.

        1. Independant Observer says:

          The Dem’s only care about state’s rights when it suits them. They are okay with states setting stricter limits on environment, Soda Tax, Banning smoking, etc. It is okay for a woman to have the right to choose, yet if I wanted to opt out of Social Security tax, and go on my own. I do not have the right. Both sides are “F’ed” up.

          1. georgeS says:

            @IOberver
            you never answered the question:

            “Do the states have a right to set stricter emissions controls if they choose?”

            1. Independant Observer says:

              I would be very happy if the states truly had the right to set laws based on the will of the people in that state. Alas, neither party will allow that.

          2. super390 says:

            Republican Kris Kobach, Kansas’ sneaky bastard Secretary of State, has pushed the legal doctrine that his state can take the right to vote in state elections away from people who can vote in Federal elections. Literally, that you can be a Federal citizen yet not be a citizen of Kansas (or any other state). That’s taking States’ Rights right back to their Jim Crow apex.

          3. Unplugged says:

            I don’t think anyone ever claimed that Democrats believe in states’ rights. It’s hard to be a hypocrite when you don’t claim to support the issue in the first place. On the other hand, those Repubs that claim “states’ rights” as their mantra should certainly be required to defend their hypocrisy.

  3. Miggy says:

    The first thing President Trump should do is increase the tax on Petrol / Gas as it is far too cheap.

    1. Nix says:

      Trump shows no signs of an such thing.

      In fact, his advisors said no in the Fox Business story below. Trump has no plans to raise gas taxes (AKA Highway Taxes) to shore up the US Highway Trust Fund. Instead he plans on allowing US companies to repatriate money back into the US by allowing them to pay a tiny fraction of the taxes they would otherwise owe on that money. That fraction of the tax bill they would otherwise pay would fund infrastructure.

      Trump plans to give out what are effectively massive tax cuts to corporations, not raise the gas tax.

      “Some industry lobbyists are pushing for a longer-term solution to the Highway Trust Fund’s woes, such as raising the federal gas tax and tying future increases to inflation.

      But Trump’s advisers aren’t “going to want Trump to sign onto big increases in taxes of any kind,” Poole said.”

      http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/11/trump-path-to-boosting-infrastructure-is-full-potholes.html

      1. philip d says:

        Why would they repatriate with slightly lower taxes when they pay almost no taxes in the countries where they are currently operating?

        They also are getting a cheaper labor force abroad. Will Trump also demand lower wages here to lure these corporations back?

        Simply lowering corporate taxes to repatriate companies is an old oversimplified fiscal conservative talking point.

        1. philip d says:

          Strike that. Misread that you were talking about repatriating overseas sheltered money not the corporations themselves.

    2. Leptoquark says:

      The only real solution to fix declining gas tax revenues is to make the entire system mile-based, rather than consumption based. Not that there’s much chance of it happening now.

      Oregon is piloting such a system (www.myorego.org/) Without a mechanism like this, gas tax revenue will continue to fall due to increasing mileage standards (it will take time for Trump et al. to water them down).

      Don’t be surprised either if proposals for fees on plug-in cars start to appear, to address alleged problems with them “not paying their fair share for the roads”, conveniently ignoring their wider benefits. And yes, the fee will probably be a one-time charge of something like $7500 per year.

      1. Nix says:

        mile based systems assume that somebody driving around a Humvee does the same amount of road damage as a Smart car. A fuel tax system takes this into account, because of physics and all.

    3. Live amongthewealthy says:

      Raise the price of gas will just hurt the poor/middle class. They can’t afford to live near where they work. No real transit is being built.

      O.K. Trump lowering the fair taxes for the wealthy. They will be getting a free ride on his back.

      It’s time to time to tie certain commodities like all natural resources(price at the pump), state/federal government fees, and fines to income. Switzerland ties income to many fees fines, and many taxes.

      You make $1 million a year, you pay a bit more at the pump.

      You make $1 million a year, you pay more for a moving violation, or parking ticket.

      (We have the technology to implement such a system. Where I live, the poor/middle classes are being decimated by all sectors of life.)

      I’m for Trump cutting back on regulations, but they don’t seem to benefit the poor/middle class.

  4. RexxSee says:

    Isn’t weird to see “President” and “Trump” together !

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Weird” isn’t the word I’d use to describe the worst thing to happen to the USA since the Civil War.

  5. Loboc says:

    I was afraid this would be on the table.

    Emissions standards are fought (or ignored) in TX even though Dallas air is brown and toxic. Gulf area, where producers are, is even worse.

    Trump is a potential disaster for environmental progress.

    1. Nix says:

      “Trump is a massive disaster for environmental progress.”

      Fixed.

      Here is Trump’s view on green energy:

      “Green energy is just an expensive feel-good for tree-huggers ”

      http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Energy_+_Oil.htm

  6. James Spearman says:

    Car companies wasted no time. I have also wasted no time in deciding that I will not by a car from any of those companies. Chevy Bolt? No way now.

  7. tosho says:

    “including General Motors, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Mazda, Volvo Fiat and Toyota” at least, now I know what my next car isn’t going to be …

    1. William says:

      No Honda?

    2. DNAinaGoodWay says:

      Not on the list: Tesla, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia.

    1. Nix says:

      They won’t care. These are the people to write to:

      https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

  8. Warren says:

    If cars must go back to being toys for the rich, so be it. If that is what it takes to slow climate change, what are your grandchildren worth? Ride an electric scooter you selfish SOBs.

    1. Just_Chris says:

      Don’t fall for this nonsense.

      If they were really concerned about cars being unaffordable they would be pushing for an exemption for lower priced vehicles but they are not. You could change the law tomorrow and cars would cost exactly the same as they do today but there would be a greater profit for car companies. The emissions standards in Australia are much weaker than in the US or EU and the cars here are more expensive even after they remove the technology that turns a CAT6 Diesel engine into a CAT5 Diesel engine you still pay more.

      1. warren says:

        Yes. I totally understand. We live in a global system which worships profit over all else. We count good, and evil as equal when calculating GDP. We know the value of family….down to the penny.

      2. sault says:

        Conversely, higher fuel economy standards have forced automakers to build more small economy cars to meet standards. This is the exact market that lower income folks gravitate towards. So the CAFE standards have given them more choice and less pain at the pump. The cost argument is non-existent because the price of cars, especially economy cars, is down over the last 20 years when adjusted for inflation.

  9. Social Media:
    @MaryNicholsCA
    @CaliforniaEPA
    @AirResources – CARB
    https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaEPA/

    Their web pages need work.

  10. CLIVE says:

    Boycot them all !!!

  11. Nix says:

    This is just the beginning. There are similar stories for the solar and wind power industries too.

    This will be a repeat of Ronald Reagan removing the solar panels off of the White House just to spite Carter’s green energy initiatives.

    1. Nix says:

      Here is an example of proposed legislation to ban green electricity generation mandates in states:

      https://www.alec.org/model-policy/electricity-freedom-act/

      This isn’t conspiracy nutter stuff. This is actual model legislation that lobbyists are pushing. And it will be wrapped in innocuous sounding legislation that doesn’t sound bad, but very much is very bad. Just like the law that was narrowly defeated in Florida that would have used punitive solar panel fees in order to enforce electric company monopolies on power generation:

      http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/florida-voters-reject-misleading-referendum-that-sought-to-tax-solar-energy/

      These laws are going to just continue to keep coming out of the woodwork.

      1. Leptoquark says:

        Which is why we need to keep a weather eye on ALEC and loudly broadcast their every move in this space. They thrive on secrecy and spiking bills in legislatures, so the more exposure they get the more constrained they become.

        The reason the anti-solar amendment was voted down in Florida was because its true purpose became widely known.

        https://thinkprogress.org/florida-amendment-1-fails-52e07bb50adf#.dnbwhd820

    2. pjwood1 says:

      Legislated initiatives, such as ITC/PTC for wind and solar and the EV tax-credit, will be a tougher climb for Trumpists than the Executive initiatives of CAFE. WSJ and Inside EVs have previously put these “50mpg” standards in real terms of ~36mpg. I think current fleet economy is somewhere around 28mpg, just to put “the ask” in perspective.

  12. Dee says:

    Is this really happening? Are people really going to let this happen? Its unbelievable..

    1. Nix says:

      Unbelievable? I don’t know what is so unbelievable. Lots of us here have been warning that this would happen for over a year, before Trump was even selected as the nominee of his party. Elections have consequences.

      All we got in response was to be told that we were alarmists and that because some member’s of Trump’s party drive EV’s, that there was nothing to worry about.

      People have effectively ALREADY let this happen through their electoral choices (or decision to not vote).

      You can contact your Congress members, but this is a purely administrative action that this lobbyist group is trying to influence. It happens purely within the EPA, and Trump has full authority to tell his political appointee that will head the EPA to do whatever Trump wants, regardless of what Congress says.

      You could march in the streets, like others who want to block potential Trump policies. But that’s just sheer desperation to try to close the barn door after the horse has already left the barn.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        EPA transition looks to be in the name of Myron Ebell. One DOE consultant looks to be Harold Hamm.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Dee asked:

      “Are people really going to let this happen? Its unbelievable…”

      What do you mean, “let” it happen? People voted for this to happen. Obviously a lot of them didn’t realize what they were really voting for.

      What is unbelievable is that any person who is neither crazy nor a racist would vote for someone as clearly unfit to be President as Donald Trump. Once the result of the election became clear, that not only will Trumpians control the White House, but that the GOP will also control both branches of Congress, we shouldn’t be surprised at what will inevitably follow.

      1. Rightofthepeople says:

        You mean lower taxes, less government regulation and greater opportunity and prosperity for all Americans?

        🙂

        1. Hugh says:

          @Rightofthepeople

          How will it be “greater opportunity and prosperity for all Americans”?

        2. bogdan says:

          Lower taxes and less government regulation means: take it from the poor and give it to the rich!

      2. Mister G says:

        Many people in rust belt were angry and voted out of anger for Trump. It is never good to make decisions while angry.

  13. DonC says:

    Seems like a very bad idea for the car companies. To begin with, the Millennials are the biggest demographic cohort in US history, and their biggest concern is climate change. Hard to find a better way to alienate the future voter base, and your future customer base, than this.

    Second, changing the TAR will be difficult. It’s already completed, and I believe CARB guaranteed a role in issuing it.

    Third the whole world is headed down the same path as CAFE. In the US there is CARB, but China is ramping up the regulations and the EU is also trying to make its regulations consistent with China and CARB.

    Good news for Tesla and Nissan though! Definitely going to set themselves apart.

    1. Nix says:

      These car companies are more focused on big profits on SUV’s and trucks sold to the parents of Millennials that have huge profit margins.

      “The average new car buyer is now 51.7 years old”

      http://www.autonews.com/article/20150804/RETAIL03/150809938/car-buyers-getting-older-richer-nada-economist-says

      So while they may throw Millennials a bone once in a while, the car companies would rather sell SUV’s and overpriced trucks for as long as possible, even if that means damaging the environment. Besides, they figure as long as they all work together through a lobbyist group, that none of them can be blamed.

  14. ffbj says:

    California will not go quietly into that black, smoky, (from the ff) night.

    1. Live amongthewealthy says:

      No, it won’t, but CARB is loaded with problems that affect the poor/middle class driver.

      I went to automotive school, and see first hand, how people are being failed in their bi-annual smog checks over a flawed system.

      The biggest problem right now is CARB only requires one refrence book for the Smog Technicians. It’s a manual that tells technician/customer what smog components their vechicle is suspose to possess.

      It’s a little over $100 a copy. It’s called Motor Emission Standards. It is loaded with wrong information. It’s is very rarely corrected, or updated.

      Most of you will never quite know why your vechicle failed smog, but you are being taken advantage of by a inefficient, but powerful bureaucracy.

      I am not bashing federal CAFE standards. I’m just not in favor of seeing four bangers whom fail smog by a mistake in a manual, or being slightly out of specs. delegates to scrap yards.

      (While I’m at it, tie smog checks to Income. The time has come.)

  15. DNAinaGoodWay says:

    Nissan’s not a party to this? Guess I’ll lease another Leaf until the Model 3 gets here. Was seriously thinking about a Bolt, but **** that now.

    1. CLIVE says:

      Correct.

      Vote with your wallet.

      “I am the boss…”

      “I am the boss because I can fire everybody from the CEO to the mailroom clerk, buy taking my business, spending money elsewhere”

      1. Rich says:

        “Vote with your wallet”

        This is the answer. +1000

    2. Rich says:

      In addition to Tesla and Nissan, Hyundai and KIA are not part of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

      1. fotomoto says:

        But shouldn’t we only reward them IF they don’t go along with the lower regs (assuming they are enacted)?

        1. Rich says:

          Of course. Leaders or followers makes no difference.

  16. flmark says:

    I wrote this up four weeks ago in an attempt to get out the EV vote.
    http://insideevs.com/op-ed-how-the-rest-of-the-world-views-your-electric-vehicle/

    Some of the commenters never did get it…like the guy who said he drove his Model X to go vote for Trump.

    It took just THREE DAYS to, unfortunately, be proven RIGHT. So it seems appropriate to just repeat how I closed that op-ed:

    ‘…and for those who never want to drive electric, make sure they don’t get more input at the ballot box then their narrow minded mentality deserves. The current mouthpiece, and dismantler, of the party has a following as dogmatic and determined, as they are hostile. Given that they are already stating that they might lose…because the system is rigged against them…you can believe that every one of them will vote- so you must, as well.’

    May God have mercy on us all…

    1. flmark says:

      And to James in particular,
      I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

      Hatred of Hillary provides insufficient justification for pulling the lever for a man so predictably expected to yield these kinds of environmental results. It took just THREE DAYS for the Sith Lords of automobile production to bow down at the feet of Palpatine and begin the carnage.

      1. Anon says:

        Votes cast out of Spite and Ignorance, are never in one’s own best long term self interests. Most people with education beyond High School, understand this.

        Unfortunately, Stupid Won. And we’re all in the same boat now.

        Personally, I’m tempted to send another $1k to Tesla for a second Model 3 reservation, just so they have more cash to work with. As late as it is, might be able to roll it over for a Model Y?

        Any BEV and Solar purchase is a vote against Trump / Fossil Fuel Industry / Regressive Politics / Short Sighted Legacy Automakers and Utilities Corporations.

        “I like clothes from the 1860’s– not the culture.”

        1. Mister G says:

          Michael Moore predicted it…rust belt Americans are angry and they are voting for Trump.

          1. Hugh says:

            @Mister G

            Yes Michael Moore predicted it. I have sympathy with the rust belt belt worker.

            When American companies first started relocating to China for cheaper labor I saw that it was a foolish move for several reasons. This backlash, however, is one I didn’t for see. The amount of intellectual property lost to China is astronomical. How could American business owners be so stupid?

  17. Nigel says:

    Here is a positive outlook for Tesla from Bloomberg:
    Tesla’s Future in Trump’s World:
    Elon Musk is up against a starkly different agenda, but the energy transition he invigorated can’t be stopped.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/tesla-s-future-in-trump-s-world

    1. georgeS says:

      Excellent link. Everyone should read this one if you are down in the dumps about what will happen to our movement.

      Here’s a good quote:

      “Under Trump, the role of cities and states in regulating pollution and expanding clean energy will increase. So will the disparity between states that prioritize the issue and those that don’t. But again, don’t expect the energy revolution to follow rigid red-state, blue-state definitions. The states producing the most wind power in the U.S. include Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. For solar, Arizona, North Carolina, and Nevada are among the top ten. Of those, Hillary Clinton won only Nevada.”

      1. Hugh says:

        I thought residential solar was dead in Nevada.

        1. quartzav says:

          It looks to be that way till 2023 until something is done to the Nevada PUC. The question 3 to break up NV energy’s monopoly by changing NV stated constitution is passed and will need to be approved again in 2018 and then the stated legislators have 5 more years to put the rules in place.

  18. pjwood1 says:

    ” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers” is about to find itself the modern equivalent of the American Legislative Exchange Council.

    ALEC, and especially its members, were called out until they hit the exits under public pressure. Even oil companies like BP recently left them. What is so different today than when the EV1 was crushed, is the effectiveness of social media and the sustainability movement. It was great to watch ALEC disintegrate into how much less it is today. Money will grow them another head, and groups like NRDC and some more public operators will cut it back off.

  19. *EV* says:

    OK, almost 60 million people voted for Trump but the world population is nearly 7.5 billion.
    I wonder if the General Motors, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Mazda, Volvo, Fiat and Toyota top managements really think this was a good idea by the “Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers”.
    Just think about all the badwill they will get from the world citizens that don’t believe global warming is a hoax.

    1. Hugh says:

      @EV

      Instead of using the terms “global warming” perhaps “human caused climate change” would resonate better with a broader audience. Many informed people would argue that global temperatures have not risen but would accept the premise that humans have influenced the climate.

  20. Alaa says:

    Once the price of a kWh of the batteries drop to between $50 and $100 there will be no contest between a gasoline car and an EV. If an EV has a 100 kWh battery and the price if the car will be $10,000 to $15,000 then it will be impossible for any one to make a gasoline powered car for that money. Not to mention that the performance of the EV with a 100 kWh battery will by far superior to the most expensive sports car. So the bottom line is Trump or no Trump it is way way too late.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Sure, the EV revolution will eventually make gasmobiles obsolete. Eventually.

      But near-term, the Trumpians and the GOP can slow the EV revolution quite a bit here in the USA. And they almost certainly will.

  21. Scott Franco says:

    Under Trump and the republicans it would be a logical move to scale back the EPA. This is an agency that has classified naturally occurring dust and co2 as emitted by animals as pollutants. If the EV credit gets scaled back/out, EVs will survive, and the lack of federal support will likely reduce prices of EVs and make them more affordable.

    In short, EVs will survive the Trump administration because they are a good idea. Ditto for solar.

    As for the rest of the (standard) nonsense in this thread, comparisions to Hitler, etc. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I am not holding my breath.

    1. Anon says:

      You are correct: Hitler was never that Orange.

      But Hitler set a bar for deplorable human behavior, which later became a cliché in internet arguments when someone didn’t like someone else. Sad. The truth is, Hitler is still a valid basis of comparison for politicians that act against the best interests of their own species for their own agendas; let alone the world at large.

      But comparisons between Hitler’s Hate Speech and Trump’s tactics, policies and populistic rise to power, are not invalid simply because you disagree with them. The striking similarities between the two during their rise to power– justify such an examination.

      Guilt doesn’t enter into it.

      1. Rightofthepeople says:

        And all of that gets you what? Nothing. Yell and scream about Trump being like Hitler and all the rest, it will yield zero positive results. Franco made some valid points, most importantly (and I agree) that EVs are here to stay because they are better than ICE cars. Pandora’s box has been opened.

        Look, I didn’t vote for Trump because I think he’s an arrogant blowhard who has no business leading our country, but I do agree with several of his policy proposals b/c I am conservative. Like Trump, I am skeptical as to the human role in climate change, and most of the comments I am reading here invoke (in one form or another) the climate change argument for EVs.

        If you all (my left leaning friends) want to win over conservatives to your cause, might I suggest the energy independence and national security angle. This is what won me over! All of our electricity is produced domestically by hard working Americans (remember, Trump wants more American jobs) while we still import a significant amount of our oil from foreign countries, some of whom hate us and help to fund terrorist organizations that want to kill us. Should we drill and frack more? You bet we should! But that should not be the only tool in the toolbox. Let’s continue to promote technology that frees us from dependency on oil, especially foreign oil. The fact that EVs also help with clean air standards is a YUGE bonus. You don’t have to believe in AGW to understand the benefits of clean air, and you don’t have to be a genius to understand EVs are better for the air than ICE cars.

        If you are going to write your Congressmen about this, then I suggest you take the above approach. Mentioning climate change and global warming will only appeal to a small percentage of people, and definitely will not win over many of the Rs in DC.

        1. Warren says:

          What does it mean to be “skeptical” in the face of overwhelming evidence, compiled by thousands of scientist from all over the world, over the last fifty years?

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Please list these “thousands of scientists over the last 50 years”, and let’s see what their views really are.

            Many IPCC writers have asked to be removed from the UN’s conclusions since it took what they said out of context. Some even had to the threaten litigation.

            Here’s a link from comments 3 years ago:

            “…
            ·@Benjamin Nead

            I suppose after mentioning it, sooner or later I’m going to have to do it, so here’s a list of 13 Climatologists and/or IPCC Lead Authors:

            Prof Dr. Nir Shaviv – University of Tel Aviv “Three to Ten times CO2 in the past as currently”.

            Prof Dr. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, Winnipeg, “Most important Greenhouse Gas is Water, 95%”.

            Prof Dr. Ian Clark, Dept of Eath Sciences, University of Ottawa “Co2 lags temperature changes by 800 years, Co2 never drove climate change in the past”.

            Prof Dr. John Christy, IPCC Lead Author, Given award for developing new method for measuring temperatures in the atmosphere; “Water is the most important Greenhouse Gas”.

            Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action. Bet money against England’s pretigious Met office and Won cash, several times. “No changes in climate due to Co2 in the past 1000 years”.

            Prof Dr Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London, “London was much warmer in the middle age warm period, confirmed by Chaucer, than now”.

            Prof Dr. Paul Rieter, IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris : ” Malaria not a tropical disese, biggest outbreak reaching Arcangelsk at the Arctic Circle killed 600,000 in the early 20th century”. Also, ‘2500 of the world’s top scientists are bogus once you look at bibliographies, since the climatology scientific field is small. Plus if you disagree with the conclusions, it dosesn’t matter since they won’t take your name off the list”.

            Prof Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT ” Whenever you hear that all scientists agree and therefore you should too, in Science that is Pure Propganda”. “The one thing you Shouldn’t say, is ‘this may not be a problem’.” (!!!)

            Patrick Moore, Cofounder of Greenpeace, AGW nonsense is killing Africa, preventing life saving development.

            Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satelite Team Leader, NASA ” If it can be indicated that a catastrophe is near, then all kinds of money will flow to your research project”.

            Prof Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Services, University of Virginia, “Anyone who goes around saying AGW is responsible for the 20th century warming, hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.” , and, “Tens of thousands of jobs depend on AGW now, its a BIG BUSINESS”

            Nigel Calder, Ex Editor, “New Scientist”, “AGW is a religion”, and “the whole thing stinks”, and “its a Looney Idea”.

            Dr. Frederick Singer, Ex-Director US National Weather Service, “Computer Models of increased AGW are disproved by the temperature evidence”.

            Prof Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Resource Centre; “Co2 greatly increased between 1940 and 1975, temperature went way down”, and “Arctic Ice Extent is seasonal and will cause no problems”.

            This is a pretty good cross section of people, many with impecable credentials (such as John Christy, the very TOP of his field). who stated the “Inconvenient Truths”
            ….

            Now in the past 3 years there has been other stuff going on. For instance, where the Polar Bear population HAD been greatly increasing over the past 50 years, recently they are dying in huge numbers from cardiac arrest – what the Russians called Chernobyl Heart. Their fur is now falling off in splotches at a time and are indeed dying.

            I’m assuming this is related to the unprecedented West Coast die-offs due to Radiation in the Northern Pacific. Solar Radiation management programs, dropping 35,000 tons of Barium, Strontium, and Aluminum per year in the atmosphere worldwide I personally view just as serious pollution and/or contamination, that one must try and rid from our bodies since this stuff is extremely deliterious to my health, personally.

            I bring all this up since any RECENT Ice-melting concerns/issues are exacerbated by these 2 very unnatural phenomena.

            1. georgeS says:

              @BillH

              I had no idea you were a skeptic.

              I’m just curious: Why do you drive an EV and put solar panels on your roof?

              1. Jay Cole says:

                It is fortunate (or unfortunate depending on perspective) that when it comes to the stuff that comes out of the end of a tailpipe, everyone/100% of the population can at least agree that it is not good for them, or the people around them.

              2. Bill Howland says:

                I’m not skeptical…. I know as certain as I know anything else that its not important in the scheme of things.

                In a group of any people, there will be those who intensely worry about every little thing, while ignoring BIG, WORLDWIDE problems.

                As a health related matter, I’ve never had my cholesterol level checked, seeing as 1/2 of the people who die of their FIRST heart attack have had normal cholesterol levels.

                So, intense laser myopic focus on this one symptom is therefore wrong headed.

                Cholesterol is used by the body to repair capilary damage. Therefore, the effort instead should be to get your circulatory system (both of them) in good-shape, so that your body is not constantly fighting forest fires to the extent that plaque build up actually causes blockages and strokes. This is another issue I’m not skeptical about. I can’t help it that the official medical position is that Pop Tarts (which is all sugar) are “Heart Healthy”.

                A hundred years from now, people will laugh.

                1. georgeS says:

                  @Bill H
                  you never answered my question as to why you drive an EV and have solar panels on your house.

                  Why not just say: I think that man may be contributing at some level to global warming but I don’t think the government should be spending too much money on it. The solution should come from free enterprise. If the product is superior people will buy it.

                  That seems a lot more logical than just denying the science.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    Jay Cole answered it, to his credit.

                    What got me off the dime re: Solar Panels was the creepy policy of my ELECTRIC COMPANY (British Owned National Grid).

                    They are relatively low cost, plus I didn’t want to play in their sandbox any more. I only send them $15.67 every month ($17 meter-reading charge, plus taxes and fees). I resent their silly policies and profligate waste – needlessly driving up people’s bills.

                    And, hope against hope, I was hoping that the large coal fired power plant wouldn’t close down in my town, seeing as it contributed $15 million/year to the tax base.

                    Then our state dept of environmental conservation told NRG they can only run the plant at 15% output – a destructive output level for this plant, and inefficient besides. THE DEC action (probably calculated to:) caused NRG to Close, and soon, to demolish the plant.

                    I prefer coal powering my vehicle to gasoline. But I can’t live in NY State anymore if I want to do that.

                    1. Bill Howland says:

                      “Why not just say…”

                      I’m not ‘saying’ since I don’t believe the premise. People can tell me 2 plus 2 equals 5 all day, and I won’t change my mind.

                      It is not that I’m stubborn: Look, people learn by way of MODELS.

                      Lets try an example:

                      Say your old gasoline powered car won’t start. The next door neighbor comes over to offer ‘expert advice’.

                      1). “The ashtray is filled with cigarette butts – it needs cleaning”.

                      2). The floor mats are dirty – clean them.

                      3). “The Oil Intensifier needs its PITHAL valve cleaned”.

                      Your response: “Such a valve has yet to be invented!”.

                      Now how did you know these very reasonable suggestions should be dismissed out of hand? Are you an argumentative person?

                      No, its just because of your familiarity with the basic way a car works that none of the suggestions are germaine.

                      Its the same thing with other subjects one comes across in life. Things that violate my known models I dismiss out of hand. Everyone does, as my example illustrated.

                    2. Rightofthepeople says:

                      The gosh darn Germans got nothin to do with it!

                      (Bill said, “No, its just because of your familiarity with the basic way a car works that none of the suggestions are germaine.”)

                      Just trying to lighten the conversation. Cheers Bill. 🙂

            2. Just_Chris says:

              Hi Bill,

              I find it interesting that you first comment talks about taking things out of context and then you proceed to take a whole list of article titles out of context as evidence of scientists being 2 faced.

              In particular the reference to water being the strongest gaseous driver in climate change. This is of course absolutely true, and is one of the strongest arguments put forward against deforestation which results in less H2O in the atmosphere. Reducing the level of H2O reduces cloud cover which leads to more warming. It is also a great example of why the whole debate is more complex than one gas. Any serious debate should be about CO2e not CO2. The former being a standardised metric similar to GDP per capita with the later being a gas that varies in concentration across the globe and throughout the year. It is important to talk about CO2e because cutting down a forest and burning all the wood might not result in a lot of CO2 being released but it might have a much stronger effect because it alters cloud formation.

              Just as with GDP, CO2e is not a perfect metric and doesn’t account for how sever an effect a single activity will have on the climate it just provides a guide that is useful for developing macroeconomic policies. I really like the GDP / CO2 comparison because it highlights what is, IMO, the biggest problem with the climate change debate which is that it is constantly multiple debates on different topics, which leads to the solutions proposed being not suitable for the problems identified. A farmer might only care about rain fall, where as a polar bear has a vested interest in temperature.

              I should imagine if the medical profession took the climate change debate approach a visit to a GP would go a bit like this.

              Dr: what seems to be the problem?
              Patient: I have a headache.
              Dr: ok, I am proscribing you a 1000 mg of vitamin C per day
              Patient: You barsted, you are only prescribing that because you get a massive kick back from the vitamin industry
              Dr: thousands of scientists have come together and decided that vitamin C is an effective treatment for scurvy, what are you some sort crack pot scurvy denier.
              Patient: Why do you always want to talk about my scurvy, all I want is something for my headache
              Dr: Your scurvy is clearly your biggest medical problem
              Patient: my scurvy is not a problem today but my head really hurts
              Dr: your scurvy will eventually kill you.

              I could go on but I think I have reached the point where I am making less sense with every additional word I write.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Ugh. Puter died after a 2 page extended comment.

                Executive summary of the former: I tire of the BUSH, and Clinton crime families.

                I also like Trump’s idea of making nations who want our warmaking to COMPENSATE US FOR IT.

                (There will be far fewer innocent people dying if the people wanting the death and destruction have to pay for it).

                (I’ve never even discussed my position with Mr. Cole. The fact that he deduced this just from my comments to date shows his notable perspicacity.)

                I’m sorry Chris. No offense, but Climatologists who have a PROVEN record of accomplishment have the superior Gravitas.

                I think I’ll listen to them, instead.

              2. Ambulator says:

                Water vapor in the atmosphere causes warming, not cooling. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

            3. Warren says:

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

              Thirteen scientists is a tiny fraction of 1%. Even 3% would be many more than you list.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Early 20th century GERMAIN scientific consensus to a Mr. Albert Einstein:

                “We the 200 foremost scientific minds in Germany discount your Theory of Relativity, and consider it just ‘Jewish Science’ “.

                AE: “Do you have ONE of your notable group who can PROVE otherwise than what I’ve stated?”.

                1. It’s not everyday that I bump into somebody admit to being a climate denier. I always love the dancing around the issue, allegories, and outright “batshit crazy”.

                  Anyhoo, thankfully facts don’t really care what you believe. They remain facts, nonetheless.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    “Facts remain Facts”. Yes, that is exactly correct.

                    There were too many facts, incidentally that other nations are aware of, yet Boobus Americanus is too lazy to look for. Like NATO putting missile batteries on Russia’s borders.

                    Putin was at wit’s end the last time he talked to an international group of reporters.

                    “Why don’t you tell your readers what is being done in the name of your country? If NATO attacks us, we will HAVE to respond!”

                    Putin popped open a bottle of champagne when Trump got 270 electoral votes, and was the first foreign leader to congratulate him. The head of the Russian Duma (Congress), Sergei something, said that now WW3 has been averted.

                    This is another big reason I voted for Trump, since I fully expect he will cool things down.

                2. Warren says:

                  The vast majority of scientists understood Einstein was right. You are making my point. Your handful of climate denier scientists, are like the Nazi scientists you mention, blinded by superstition, and ideology.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    I wish the people who promised to leave if Trump got elected were true to their word.

                    I wonder how Cher is gonna like Jupiter?

                    I agree that there is plenty of Ideology and Superstition here.

                    But its not what you think.

            4. bogdan says:

              That means exhaust gases are clean after all.
              Now I see your point.

        2. Hugh says:

          @rightofthepeople As the world’s oceans absorb CO2 and become more acidic they will become giant dead zones unable to support the life that we all depend on. The oceans can’t absorb CO2 forever. They become saturated and then the CO2 in the atmosphere will skyrocket.

          1. Yep. The oceans “filling up” is scary like hell.

            Here is an angle to play with climate change skeptics – look at the insurance companies. They are all conservative, for profit, companies. They are all assuming big impacts from climate change. Even if you think it is possible that humans are not the leading cause for this change, the conservative approach is to give a probability to that cause and do the numbers: compare the (probabilities of the) total cost of doing nothing to the (probabilities of the) total cost of getting rid of fossil fuel.

            Sure, getting rid of fossil fuel will impact the oil companies, but that is just one of the components in the total cost.

            Anyhow, EVs are here to stay, among others because they are more fun to drive, open more car design opportunities, are simpler to maintain, and (soon) going to be cheaper to manufacture. Pushing against this is shortsighted and is only going to guarantee that eventual failure. And I don’t think the public will be interested in another Detroit bailout.

          2. Rightofthepeople says:

            I guess you missed my point Hugh. You are welcome to beat your head against the brick wall of trying to convince me AGW will destroy the world one day (soon I guess, according to some of you). That will be about as productive for you as pissing in the wind.

            Or, if you want to get people like me (conservatives) to actually join you in pushing for more EV friendly policies, then push the energy independence and national security angle.

            In the end you need to decide, do you want to be right (about AGW) or do you want to effect some change?

    2. Dan Hue says:

      Saying that CO2 from fossil fuels is not pollution because it is “naturally occurring as emitted by animals” is like saying that draining the Aral sea is not an environmental disaster because “evaporation occurs naturally”.

      The issue is the change in atmospheric composition, *not* the chemistry of the gas itself. And yes, even a trace gas at (now) 400ppm is a problem because it is the *amount* of the gas that affects the energy balance of the earth, not its concentration (in relation to other, neutral gases).

      1. philip d says:

        Unfortunately you’re wasting your time. People on the other side of this issue have already made up their minds and won’t be swayed by obvious facts like the ones you presented.

        You will get some rebutal like “more CO2 is actually good for plants and crops”

      2. pjwood1 says:

        The psychology of looking past what people are starting to say “we could have done something about” was discussed pretty well in this piece:
        http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/7/13533108/next-president-climate-change

        To summarize, the realities of climate change are “complex, uncertain” science, and that leads to “dread” in the minds of those content to focus only on what they can see.

        Sort of like the old ladies in the VW TDI ad, with the handkerchief. If you can’t see anything, it must be good. Forget NOx (haze), CO2, etc. This is part of the insidious corporate pathway Trump is all about. I have been in meetings with utility CEOs, who it’s pretty obvious buy into “if you can’t see it…”.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Scott Franco said:

      “As for the rest of the (standard) nonsense in this thread, comparisions to Hitler, etc.”

      There’s nothing “standard” about Trump being so successful in using Big Lies and whipping up hatred of minorities to propel himself to the pinnacle of power in a great nation. We haven’t seen that since Adolf Hitler.

      The conventional wisdom is that once you use Hitler in an argument, you’ve lost. But conventional wisdom never predicted that a majority of American voters would be so foolish as to vote for someone as utterly unfit to be President as Trump.

      The comparison between Trump and Hitler is all too accurate. Campaign built on Big Lies? check. Relentless anti-immigrant and racist propaganda? check. Utter indifference to truth and facts? check. Making promises based on simplistic and unrealistic solutions to complex problems? check. Willingness to destroy any and every democratic tradition and principle in their rise to power? check.

      Scott, I suggest you pull your head out of the sand, and realize just what a disaster Trump voters have inflicted on the USA.

  22. Terawatt says:

    Prepare for a war? What war? Trump will be president, and the reds control the house and the senate. Soon they have the supreme court majority again as well.

    The small progress that has been made on the regulations side will be demolished. California is the only hope left in America on that front.

    But enough people care that market forces will continue to work. Progress will be slowed down, not halted.

    Trying to fight this politically is the most important. But the only way it can be done is by educating the electorate about the issues – both the scientific questions and the moral perspective.

  23. Some Guy says:

    I think this Alliance overlooks one small detail: Even when they weaken the regulations so they can pollute more and produce cheaper (without cheating like some companies already do) their products will never be half as awesome as Tesla vehicles are.

    Also, they should rather worry about their investments in Mexico, where they produce millions of cars for the US market using cheap Mexican labor. Will there be gates in the proposed wall to let these vehicles into the US without insanely high import tax, when NAFTA has been cancelled? Doesn’t affect Tesla that much, having their entire production state-side…

  24. krona2k says:

    So it’s to make cars affordable again? Surely being in the industry of mass produced goods they know that you can’t lower the cost of something that you don’t mass produce?

    So how will ‘alternative’ power trains ever become affordable if there’s no incentive to get them into mass production?

  25. Pete says:

    What the f.. thats why I will buy a Renault or Nissan EV, no OPEL from GM, keep this s***.

  26. Vexar says:

    So, I take it Tesla did not sign the lobbying letter, then? As we all get excited about new EVs coming out, please, let’s remember who was and was not on the signatures. Which companies are making EVs for regulatory compliance’ sake, and which ones are making EVs because they know they need to stop making ICEs for the sake of environmental (and human) health.

  27. Just_Chris says:

    I think it is worth pointing out that Trump hasn’t agreed to this it is just a letter to him. I suspect he’ll be bad but there will be silver linings to his clouds. A 45% tariff on foreign made cars would be a pretty nice incentive for Tesla and the leaf. Especially if the EU responded with a reciprocal tariff but exempt zero emission vehicles….. I think that is wishful thinking but it would be nice.

    1. philip d says:

      The flip side is a 45% tariff on imported cars will certainly end with a trade war where all those other cheap goods coming from that same country that makes the car that we slap the tariffs on will now cost twice as much.

    2. super390 says:

      Except that we can’t change the world unless there are many, many brands of EV for sale, built in many countries. If the US “protects” Tesla and Nissan’s EVs with tariff barriers, other countries will hit our EVs with tariffs – but that leads to a future where no car company will invest in building an EV because it can’t be confident that it will be able to export it.

  28. David Cary says:

    A reminder to so called alarmists. Nothing has actually changed yet. New coal plants will not be built just to be shut (potentially) in four years. EV’s will not be scrapped as international incentives continue and CARB is still around.

    Anticipating the future is tough. We are seemingly going forward with increasing polarity. States will strengthen and state’s rights is a deeply held principle for many on the right.

    I expect CARB or equivalent to expand to more states.

    Makes no sense to make big automobile manufacturing decisions based on 60 million Americans – many of whom care about the environment or want a Tesla anyway.

    Go back to motivations for buying an EV beyond the environmental ones. All electricity is a domestic product. Collapse the price of oil and you strengthen America’s stability. Oil at $10 a barrel means we only need to worry about China (N Korea). There will be no hostile countries with any money to worry about.

    Stop significant trade with China and they too might collapse. Think of the environmental benefits of that!

    Uncertainty breeds anxiety. Even if Trump is crazy, it doesn’t mean the entire Republican party is. And remember, a pretty significant amount of the party elites don’t trust him and didn’t want him to win. That is hardly a setup for control of the legislature.

    Financial conservative, 2 EV’s and solar, voted for HRC

    1. Rightofthepeople says:

      I agree with everything you said, except the “voted for HRC” part. I could not bring myself to vote for such a terrible person. I voted for Johnson.

      1. flmark says:

        The last I saw, Johnson captured 3% of the vote…and DJT carried a number of states by just 1%. Don’t fool yourself. In our two party system…YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP.

        1. sault says:

          Plus infinity!

          I would also like to add that Jill Stein voters made up basically the entire margin in Michigan and Wisconsin and 80% of the margin in Pennsylvania. While Stein was not the definitive spoiler like Nader was in 2000, 80% is pretty darn close. Those people helped elect Trump, somebody who is way more opposed to their policy goals than Clinton would have been.

          1. Warren says:

            I voted for Sanders in the primary. I shook hands with Stein at a rally. I caved, and voted for Clinton. I am ashamed of my cowardice.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          There is nothing I find more arrogant and selfish than for a person to tell someone else they “should” have voted for a major party candidate, just because their candidate lost.

          If you want some place to direct your ire, direct it where it belongs: At people who actually voted for Trump, and at Hilary supporters who couldn’t be bothered to actually vote.

          I didn’t vote for a third-party candidate this election, altho I certainly have done so in the past. I, for one, won’t misdirect anger at those who chose to exercise their franchise by voting for their principles in preference to practical considerations.

          In fact, if more people had voted for their principles, rather than giving in to Trumpian fear and anger, then Trump would never have achieved the GOP nomination, let alone the Presidency.

          1. flmark says:

            I wrote a few simple sentences. YOU inferred anger. REREAD the above. It is MATH.

            You discuss emotion, and much emotion was considered in, most probably, EVERY vote cast. When the net favorable rating of each major party candidate is NEGATIVE…and then we still vote- there is a whole lotta emotion there. And to direct that emotion as to somehow alleviate the conscience by selecting a candidate who has ZERO (realistic) chance of winning…that means it was an EMOTIONALLY cast vote…to that third party…away from one of the two candidates who had the realistic chance of being elected. In the end, my pragmatic statements above, and SIMPLE MATH means that ANY vote not for Hillary WAS a vote for Trump. Denial or delusion doesn’t change that one bit.

          2. Rightofthepeople says:

            This! Thank you PP, the more comments of yours I read the more I feel a kinship with you, despite the fact that you and I probably agree on the issues very little.

            In the weeks leading up to the election, I had countless conservative friends trying to convince me that my vote for Johnson was in fact a vote for Hillary. Some told me I was wasting my vote, others told me I would be held responsible once Hillary was elected b/c it would be my fault! To all of them I said basically what you said, that voting for the person you believe to be the best candidate was the only patriotic thing to do. And to the crowd who said it would be my fault if Hillary was elected, I told them they should instead blame all of those who voted for Trump in the R primary and gave us the worst candidate of my lifetime.

            I am still amazed at the way the election turned out.

    2. We need CARB to stay untouched. I’d focus foremost on that.

      BTW, CARB was created by Ronald Reagan.

  29. Texas FFE says:

    I wife has very bad asthma, had to quit working and go on full Social Security disability. Easing emission control is going to cost the administration and the country, not save it money. I hope Trump or one of his family members has asthma so he has first hand knowledge of how air pollution is crippling America.

  30. This is Exactly the part of GM my eyes were opened to when we leased the Volt (that little voice said “DO NOT buy this car” ) The good part was the Volt was the best GM product we ever had. But the bad part was the dealership and GM corporate experience was simply disgusting.

    The Volt, Bolt, Spark whatever name you give them, all are compliance cars. GM dealers hate them, GM corporate hates them.

    And then GM fronts money and lawyers to fight Tesla.
    !!!!!!!! GM you are Pathetic !!!!!!!!

    After decades of owning GM products. We will never own another much less step into one of their dealerships.

    1. georgeS says:

      My sentiments also Older than Dirt.

      If you are going to spend money on an EV , why give it to a company that makes EV’s just because they have to. Send the dollars to Tesla.

      1. Stuart22 says:

        What a shame, for GM is making some pretty damn fine cars now.

        Mary Barra needs to make a public statement denouncing GM’s support for what this letter is asking. With the Bolt about to hit dealer showrooms, this letter’s effect will be similar to what Comey did to Hillary 10 days before the election.

  31. Following is a short(er) letter (than the 8 pages the Automakers sent) I just submitted to trump via his website form – https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contact/

    ———————————-
    Dear President-Elect Donald John Trump, first – I want to congratulate you on making it from the beginning, least likely, to now President-Elect!

    I would like to say, that – as a Property Holder in Texas, within vision of the Rio Grande, that while the opening lines of your (as presented) Energy Plan sound good:

    “Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and protect clean air and clean water. We will conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources.

    We will unleash an energy revolution that will bring vast new wealth to our country.” – it goes quite against the paragraph that follows – “Unleash America’s $50 trillion
    in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.”

    First – I worked a number of months simply beside the Coal Transfer areas where coal came by rail and was stored while in transit to Ships. There is not such thing as Clean Coal – to say such is to say that ‘Black is White’ and it is a lie based on funding, to say so.

    My mother had a saying – ‘Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil!’ While in California, before I was born, My Mother (A Canadian) held a job as ‘Civil Defense Sector Warden’ – that is how highly regarded she was by her local peers. And – my Father served in the US Military – as Flight Engineer on Bombers, and as a Aircraft Mechanic, also serving in Germany. He was one of the Youngest Hydraulic Instructors in his day.

    You might not be aware that Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S. as noted May 25, 2016, and having grown up on a Farm, and Learning to Fly just 1 year after beginning my working life in Construction, where no one else from my school before me became a pilot, I would not class myself as back woods, since – instead of Television (The Social Media of the day) I learned from Family, Encyclopedias, and Real Reading and working, and currently work in Aerospace.

    Even Aerospace Leaders like those in Boeing are seeking to move away from Pure Fossil Fuel Operations. As in the days of the first Automobiles, buggy whip makers had to decide – fight the movement and loose their business, or learn to make Fan Belts and survive.

    Please review the video “Documentary : The renewable energy breakthrough! (finally).” found at https://youtu.be/BV8VJMMtjlk and realize that Fossil Fuels never allow progress beyond repetition because – once you burn them – you have to go and get more, but wind, sun, tides, continue – whatever we do!

    So – to accomplish the first part of your plan, and protect clean air and clean water, focus a larger portion of your efforts on improving access to Solar Power and using the Sun to provide Clean Water.

    While removing incentives for Solar and Wind, might sound like things to save money on, they do not help to balance the scales of the many times larger incentives, Tax Credits, Favored Funding, and financial rules that still benefit the Fossil Fuel Industry, and Clean Air is not something invented by the Chinese to destroy Jobs in America! All America Needs Clean Air, and Air Pollution and Water Pollution are Destroying the lives of Millions of Americans, Young, Middle Aged, and Old!

    When I was a child – children did not use ‘Inhalers’. They were healthy, and only those who had lived lives as Smokers needed them, but now – Elementary School and High School Children need help with breathing in hundreds of cities.

    Toxic Water is destroying peoples lives in more cities than you would care to count, and simply putting making Massive Profits ahead of peoples lives does not make a country ‘Rich’ or ‘Great’!

    Wind, solar, and biomass generate 2.5 – 9.25 times as many jobs as coal, oil, and gas for every $1 million contribution to GDP. Oil and gas producers by contrast have slashed 351,410 jobs worldwide since prices began to slide in the middle of 2014, and the Saudis, for one – are not wanting America to leave them as the major Customer, hence they make it less and less profitable to be in that business – by pumping more Oil! But – they can not change how much Sun and Wind we have!

    While Wind Turbines my interfere with some birds lives, Solar actually can enhance land use when properly integrated, increasing Bird and other lives. As More companies now seek to reduce the cost of Energy Storage by reducing the cost of Cells and Batteries, Solar will become the more predictable energy source, and more manageable.

    “The continued job growth in the renewable energy sector is significant because it stands in contrast to trends across the energy sector,” said Adnan Amin, director-general of Irena, which is based in Abu Dhabi.

    By the way – I am already in your contact database, possibly at one of my other addresses in the world.
    ———————————-
    They also have a phone number – Contact The Campaign – Privacy Policy – Tel: 646-736-1779

    I am sure each reader here can put his own message to Trump and his team in a similar fashion, or even go with a hand written and post delivered message – for maybe more impact.

    1. John C says:

      Lovely note, but for DT its TL;DR

      He will leave the reading of this to the new Energy Sec’y, Harold Hamm. Can you convince HH of your argument?

    1. Jay Cole says:

      …something I should have hot-linked right at the start of the article. Will do that now, thanks for reminding me John!

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        Based off of that graph on EV sales. The number of EV’s will hit 100,000 to 110,000 EV’s sold in the US.

        2017 EV sales will be 150,000.

        1. Jay Cole says:

          Already past that number for net plug-in vehicles sales, ~120,517 sold through October…we should end up around ~155,000 (+/- 5k)…with ~82,000 of them being BEVs (+/- 2,500)

          Most predictions put PEV sales at ~225-250k in 2017 for the US, with ~140-155k being BEVs.

          Here is another chart of the US PEV sales over time for “fun”:

          Considering CARB’s 2025 mandate, and assuming ~20 million light passenger vehicles sales nationally at that point in time, BEV sales (if spread out evenly among regions and OEMs) would need to be around ~900,000 to cover the numbers across the US, which is an annual growth rate of 25% from 2017’s expected result.

          In actual fact the net number/percentage would be less, as the CARB mandate only applies to select states, so OEMs are not required to sell to those volume nationally. ie) California already has a plug-in adoption rate of ~3.5% in 2016, and of those more than 2% are BEVs (as compared to the national average of .81% and .43% respectively)

          Not all ‘that’ tough actually, which is why CARB has been hinting at the desire to make the target benchmarks harder in the future. Put another way, all the other 18 major nameplates need to do is sell (on average) as many EVs as Tesla will this year….but in 2025.

  32. Mister G says:

    ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES…I guess America needs to see and feel polluted air and water to wake up and oppose gas guzzlers.

  33. Texas FFE says:

    Take heart insideevs.com readers. We can’t change the results of the elections and we may not be able to control future government policy but we can control the choices we make. There are more electric vehicles models on the market today than there ever were before and that number is sure to keep growing regardless of who is the president.

    EVs are inherently better vehicles than ICEs. Once enough people have experienced the advantages of EVs then EV adoption will excelerate and the demise of ICE vehicles will soon follow. As long as we keep making purchase choices we believe are good for the country and the environment, we are making a difference and making an example for others to follow.

    1. Mister G says:

      You’re an optimist, the driving force behind EV transition is government policy, once government policy is reversed, EV transition will be reversed. America really screwed up by electing Trump.

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        The only thing stopping me form buying a EV right now is the low range and me living in a other suburban rural area with the possibility of a 30 mile commute to work.

        Once a EV can do that I can afford I will dump the gas car.

        1. Mister G says:

          Listen a Leaf can do that commute easily..I leased a 2012 Leaf in 2012, now I lease 2016 Leaf SV and range is much better my payment is $321 per month and I didn’t haggle much, I bet you can lease a Leaf for $200- $250 per month. I have 11,572 miles on it and only needed tire rotation that cost $1 at Jenkins Nissan in Lakeland Florida. We are a 2 car family, second car is a gas guzzler.

      2. Texas FFE says:

        I disagree with your comment on many levels. I don’t believe the government is going to back track on ZEV policy, at least not very much. And you are not going to be able to make the 500,000+ plugins on the road today just disappear.

        The gates are open. Nobody will be able to stop the flow now. EVs are far more capable and affordable than they have ever been.

        Optimist? No. Realist? Yes.

        I use to be very anti-EV but introduction of the lithium-ion batteries in EVs really changed my thinking. EVs are just better no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. I concede that the government has been very instrumental in accelerating the expansion of the EV market but that doesn’t mean EVs would not have prevailed without government intervention.

        If a cheapskate like me can afford an EV then almost anyone can afford one. I can understand the fear the rapid change posed by the demand for electric vehicles creates in the auto manufacturers. But the change is coming whether the auto manufacturers want it or not and they better get on board or get out of the business.

        1. Mister G says:

          Do the math, 1% ev market share today that will be squashed with the reversal of government policy,1% is not much lol. If ev market share were 25% I would be more positive and agree with you. But I hope you’re correct and I’m wrong lol

          1. Yogurt says:

            EVs are not just a US thing they are world wide and the Chinese will not be stopped…

            China is now by far the worlds largest car market so EV tech will continue to be developed…

            If EV mandates in the US are destroyed and automakers in the US stopped selling them here it would probably be a huge boon to Tesla allowing them to grow and expand much quicker along with any Chinese companies that make EV cars here…

        2. Lindsay Patten says:

          I tend to believe that if you canceled the CAFE requirements and the $7500 tax credit, and removed the CARB mandates that most of the automakers would cease most of their EV programs. Obviously not Tesla, but even Nissan has said that government incentives were necessary to sell EVs. Some number of years down the road when the cost of batteries have dropped, support won’t be necessary, but we aren’t there yet.

          I will be hoping that at least CARB remains, and that the rest of the world has enough pull to keep production going until the economics have progressed.

  34. Ocean Railroader says:

    Isn’t it nice that the old gas guzzler automakers are laying their heads down on the railroad tracks for the electric streetcar to run them over.

    If I was a car maker I would be quite worried about the idea of 200 mile range EV’s for under $30,000 hitting the road.

  35. Jeff Songster says:

    Several thoughts…
    Odd that to solve the problem of too many agencies… is to create a committee.
    Best to buy EVs now… leases get crushed.

    California should simply ban cars that don’t meet its standards. If the feds downgrade that then the state should mandate only electrics in our public fleets. No gassers or diesels purchased new for muni fleets. This forces them to keep Tesla and Nissan’s efforts alive since this is where they sell most of the EVs anyway.

    Lastly… If we only made EVs… we would need no emissions controls… except maybe on a few hundred of the worst polluting generators.

  36. Yogurt says:

    China are Europe are the worlds real leaders for green technology and they will not stop with solar wind or EVs…

    If America goes backward on geeening energy and transportation we will fall further behind in competiveness with the world from a financial point of view due to higher energy costs and continuing to send our money to foreign countries…

    US cities and cities around the world can and some already have established EV only zones and this will not decrease either…

    CA also has the nuclear option if the Fed gov pisses them off to much which is to withdraw from the union and form their own country which would have one of the largest economies in the world from a GDP perspective…

    But in the end Trump might not be nearly as bad as it would seem as the article below states…

    ………..
    Trump Won’t Stop Global Climate Action, Might Accidentally Help

    https://cleantechnica.com/2016/11/12/trump-wont-stop-global-climate-action-might-accidentally-help/

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Yogurt said:

      “CA also has the nuclear option if the Fed gov pisses them off to much which is to withdraw from the union and form their own country…”

      Talk about wishful thinking!

      As a reminder, we had a minor contretemps between the States over that very issue; it was called the “Civil War”.

      Furthermore: “In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional…”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Texas_secession_from_Mexico

      1. Nobody in the California secession movement is suggesting either unilateral action, or by arms.

        But, there is movement, and Trump kicked it into gear.

        1. super390 says:

          There is a much sneakier weapon that might be employed by California and by liberal enclaves in Republican states:
          Split up your state.
          California could do it by mass consent, multiplying the number of Democratic senators to offset the built-in bias of the Senate towards the mostly-Republican low-population states.

          But where it really gets contentious is within the Red States. Far-right Texans keep making noise about their unique privilege of being able to split up Texas into as many as 5 states. Whatever the validity of that pre-Civil War claim, what if those new states were Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso? (the state capital Austin, I guess, can’t secede) Of course Texas’ Republican leaders know that would devastate the party nationally. However, those Republicans keep rural and suburban voters in their camp by cultivating hatred of city folk: gays, Moslems, feminists, Blacks, and with the rise of Steve Bannon, Jews. What if the secessionist movements went around these leaders and said the unthinkable: “You ‘real Americans’ want to purify your states of us subhumans? You think we’re parasites and you’re the only creatures of value in this state? Just Let Us Go.”

  37. TeV says:

    I just sent the following email to GM, and I would encourage others to do something similar:

    “Re: GM’s membership in the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and support for ‘The Automobile Sector — Forging Public Policy for Even Safer, Cleaner and More Transformative Mobility’ letter to President Elect Donald Trump

    I purchased a GM vehicle for the first time in my life – a Chevrolet Volt – because of your apparent support for alternative-energy vehicles, and was planning to purchase your next electric vehicle, the Bolt – you had a potential customer for life.

    However, I will never purchase another GM vehicle again – Bolt or otherwise – if you do not publicly withdraw your support from the AAM letter to Mr. Trump.

    Companies that support a truly sustainable future, like Tesla and Nissan, will be getting my business from now on; I’m placing a deposit on a Tesla Model 3.

    If not for profit, consider how your actions on this issue will be judged by your (potential) customers, your children, and by history. GM is gambling a lot on Mr. Trump’s ‘reputation’ as a businessman.”

    (That was the longest message their email form would let me submit.)

  38. California Air Resources Board (CARB) can’t / won’t be disbanded by any US federal agency. What might happen is what CARB Chairman Nichols said:

    “…we will continue to use our authority under the Clean Air Act”

    The only thing congress needs to do is simply make a law, “No state agency shall regulate or have authority under the Clean Air Act”.

    Problem solved.

  39. JimGord says:

    I would like to offer an alternative theory as to why there is “lack of consumers demand” for electric cars

    Auto manufacturers drive demand for their over-engined and larger vehicles through advertising. There are larger profit margins in selling overpowered and large vehicles than selling vehicles that are comfortably adequate for the consumer’s needs. I am not talking about advocating that cars with “sewing machine” motors but seriously is 400 hp needed in sedans, SUVs and light duty pickup trucks?

    Auto advertising emphasizes power, speed, and multiple exhaust pipes as proxy’s for personal; power, control and prestige. In this way the auto companies sell their higher-margined products but more importantly can complain that they cannot sell electric vehicles because of “weak consumer demand”

    Contrast this with the fact that there are virtually no ads for electric vehicles. Tesla does not advertise. Period. Kia did a few ads with some hip chipmunks, but there are no ads that point out the appeal of electric vehicles. Namely: 99% fewer moving parts to the drive line; one tenth the fuel cost, almost zero maintenance; four or five times the brake pad life, and impressive performance with their instant torque at zero rpm as well as many other advantages.

    Electric car chassis in low salt environments will last twice as long as fossil fueled car chassis because owners no longer have to deal with the inevitable loss of confidence in their vehicle as major components fail resulting in a premature decision to sell. With no transmission, fuel or water pumps, alternators or complex pollution system failures to turn on the dreaded engine warning lights, electric vehicles will last twice as long. The analogy is 75 year experience with electric vs diesel buses. Transit companies always kept their electric buses in service twice as long.

    Naturally, vehicle manufacturers are reluctant to promote vehicles that have longer life spans (lower sales) and that require far less maintenance let alone bring up the most important advantage of the electrics – the benefits to the environment.

    Almost everyone that has ridden in my electric car (it is not a Tesla) wants one including some folks that were die-hard fans of noisy gas engines.

    What is supressing electric vehicle demand is advertising that points out the advantages of electric propulsion and that is not hampered by the manufacturer contemplating lost sales of their fossil-fueled line-up. One can see this struggle playing out in the new Chevy Bolt ads. It is too bad that Tesla does not advertise.

    Electrification is inevitable as more consumers are exposed to the electric experience. The benefits are overwhelming and electric sales will take off just as they did for digital cameras and flat screen TVs.

    Meanwhile the auto manufacturers should not be allowed to use their “no consumer demand” ploy in place of (any) fair, objective, advertising promoting a superior product.

    What is needed are crowdsourced generic EV TV ads

    1. The auto manufacturer’s tried this previously on Oct 19, 2012, with their request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

      http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf

      “It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025.”

      That’s a whole lot of gobbledy goop to say, “keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states.”

      ******

      November 10, 2016, two days after the election of Trump, “Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers” request relief from California Air Resources Board (CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates, U.S. government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), plus weakening of autonomous car rules.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-regulations-trump-exclusive-idUSKBN1352EI

      **********

      CARB states – Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia.

      CARB-Zero Emission Vehicle states – California’s ZEV program has now been adopted by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. These states, known as the “Section 177 states,” have chosen to adopt California’s air quality standards in lieu of federal requirements as authorized under Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act. Additionally, California’s GHG standards are now spelled out federal law. Maine, Washington DC and New Jersey are participating with ZEV initiatives, but are not signatory CARB-ZEV states.

      http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/zev2014/zev14isor.pdf

      Currently, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are classified as large volume manufacturers (LVM), and are required to produce pure ZEVs for compliance. BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen are grouped with the LVMs because they are expected to transition to LVM ZEV requirements by the 2018 model year. Intermediate volume manufacturers (IVM) – Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, and Volvo – are also required to comply with the ZEV requirements, but are allowed to meet their obligation completely with Transitional ZEVs (usually plug in hybrids).

      *******

      1. Nix says:

        Actually, that word salad was there way of requesting that the EPA pull CARB’s authority to even enforce a ZEV mandate at all.

        How it works is that under the federal Clean Air Act, only the federal gov’t has the authority to set emissions standards. But California (and ONLY California) has the right to request waivers from the EPA so that they can set their own emissions standards.

        But they have to get permission from the Fed. Gov’t for their waivers to do things like mandate EV sales numbers. They cannot enforce an EV mandate without EPA approval.

        Other states can choose to follow the Federal EPA regs, or they can choose the CARB regs, but they cannot set their own rules.

        What they were trying to do there was to get the EPA to end the ZEV program by killing California’s waiver.

        This will likely be pushed again under the new administration. The EPA will likely kill California’s waiver and end the ZEV program. It will go to Court, and work up to the Supreme Court. What happens then will depend greatly upon who is actually in the court by then.

  40. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The real question here isn’t what the legacy gasmobile makers are asking for. Anybody with an ounce of sense won’t be surprised at the “asks” here.

    The real question is just how much the next U.S. Congress and the Trumpian administration will give them. Given the politics involved, it seems very likely that the gasmobile makers will get most of what they’re asking for.

    So, realistically, what is the upshot? The EV revolution will significantly slow in the USA, but not in other countries. Tesla Motors will survive, and I think it will continue to grow. But its rate of growth will slow because it will have far less income from ZEV credits.

    We EV advocates are going to have to face the grim reality that “green” tech, and the movement toward renewable energy, will be put on hold or rolled back in the USA during the next four years.

    And that should have been immediately clear, to everyone paying attention, as soon as it became clear that the GOP will control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

    We EV advocates need to face the reality that the EV revolution, and “green” tech in general, will be under siege for at least the next four years. We must resign ourselves to the reality that we must become the “loyal opposition” so long as the Trumpians are in power.

    1. Warren says:

      If the Republicans get two more on the Supreme Court, as many expect, we are screwed for decades, after which, it won’t matter. Physics will not be altered by rhetoric.

  41. comet48 says:

    States like CA and NY can kill anything the feds put in place. If you cant sell cars there, you are going out of business!

    1. New York follows California emission rules, granted under authority from the US government.

      That can get unwound real fast by the US government.

    2. Nix says:

      Comet — You have an incorrect understanding of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act gives the Federal Gov’t full authority to set all pollution and emissions standards.

      California can only request a waiver from the EPA to make their own revisions to the federal rules. They can never over-ride the federal rules on their own without permission from the EPA.

      New York is in worse shape. They are not even allowed to ask for waivers and set their own rules. Only California can do that, because California is the only state that had their own state emissions standards before the EPA was created. New York can only choose between the federal rules, or the California waiver terms. They can do nothing themselves and are completely dependent upon California and the EPA to set regulations.

  42. kubel says:

    Deregulation, even if it occurs at the Federal level, will not impact what California decides to do. No automaker can afford to cut California out of their sales. So if CARB has a mandate, automakers will likely build their cars to fit that mandate- and that will trickle over to the other markets.

    I wish people would stop panicking about what the Trump presidency means. It will probably be status quo for most things- including immigration, health care, and yes- electric cars.

  43. Hauer says:

    OK, here is what I sent (including the 8 pages) to my preferred manufacturers Austrian representation:
    ————————————
    Grüße nach Schwechat.

    Vielleicht können Sie das (samt attachment) ja an die Zuständigen in Schweden weiterleiten….

    Herzlichen Dank & LG
    Gerhard Hauer

    _______________

    „I happened upon this attached document only 3 days after the US selection. I causes me pain to see the Volvo name and the Volvo logo in a document that basically asks to reduce the requirements for emission reduction in the early 2020s, even explicitly attacking the Californian targets for ZEVs.

    Since the only thing I as a customer of (8 Volvos in my history, now company provided Mercedes, wife and daughter still driving their V50s) can do is tell you what I will and will not do in the future:

    1.
    I will not buy any ICE car in the future. That ship has sailed.

    2.
    I simply will not order a car produced by any of the manufacturers represented in this letter.

    Sadly this does include Volvo (Last months I tried to get any hint about the 2019ish all electric Volvo (60series??) but understood, it was still too early and Volvo could not even confirm there would be an all electric car at all.)

    3.
    My conclusion is that despite all the cool concept cars and stylish press releases (talk is cheap), these companies – including Volvo – are not really interested in a ZEV future.

    Yes, electric cars are a different business model than their ICE ancestors. But that’s why change is, well, change.

    Sorry for the long rant, but I am really, really disappointed.

    Thanks for your time

    Gerhard Hauer

    Disclaimer: Holder of a Tesla Model 3 reservation, and the way things are going it looks like I am pushed to make a second reservation soonish.

  44. Priusmaniac says:

    There are some positive things to Trump as well. Since we are now definitely not going to be in conflict with Russia and not face nuclear war, we will likely see an end to the meaningless sanctions against Russia and at contrary be able to resume normal trade with them. The wind power potential in Russia is gigantic and even photovoltaic has potential. All that market has been looked up by the Obama administration policy and the European governments followers. Now that Trump is in we can expect that to open up. Even Tesla can now envision to open a store in Moscow and Sint Petersburg without fearing reprisals from anti-Russian politicians (ia Hillary). The Saudi at contrary will lose their puppets and probably western markets and influence in the west. We will finally come to know the true implication of the Saudi in the 9/11 attacks and the Paris, Brussels and Boston bombings as well. With lower revenue from oil, they will be forced to look for other incomes amongst them renewable photovoltaics.

    In the same time indeed Europe is likely going to go on promoting clean mobility, so electric car producers will have a secured market here and Tesla will have still more success with the Model 3 since it is better adapted to the car size usually purchased on the continent.
    In America Trump will likely reduce help to ev but he is likely not against ev because his climate change denial is not genuine but opportunistic. In order to win against Hillary he had to collect the votes from as much people as possible. True climate change deniers are gone, what we have left today are only the ones that deny climate change out of interest. Like all Gore said it is very hard to recognize a problem when your revenue depends on not recognizing it.

    So all the people that have a direct interest threatened by climate change measures either in their business or in their job are in that case. Trump collected all those voices to win but now that he is elected he will probably give some symbolic gestures like some coal or pipeline but that may be it. Trump is interested in other things then making misery to ev or renewable like the fossils can be, so it is not likely that he will go much further on that. But that doesn’t mean ZEV credits or other help to renewable are going to be renewed when they come to their end. So indeed the ev and renewable will have to come up with their own improvements in order to be competitive on their own. But that is already or about to be the case. That is important because it means the argument that they are not economic will be over and when they compete on their own, Trump will see it as a business like all others, so he will help it with lower taxes as well. That will be a cost reduction that all electric car producers and renewable energy producers will benefit from.
    So, some good things are ahead too.

  45. Anderlan says:

    Next EV will only be a Tesla!

    Grandchild-hating big OEM bastards!

  46. Joshua Pritt says:

    Reminds me of when Carter installed solar panels on the White House then Regan tore them down. It makes no sense on why you wouldn’t want to save money on power bills paid by the taxpayers. We should put solar panels on every single government building and over every single government parking lot to save the money we are paying for the power bills. Panels are usually paid for by their savings in just 5-7 years then after that is just free energy for decades.

  47. Eric M says:

    “Not surprisingly, Tesla – exclusive maker of all-electric vehicles, and lead by Elon Musk (Climate Change believer) wants the opposite of what the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers does – more regulations against emissions”

    Why do you use the word believer? As if science has you believing in the easter bunny or tooth fairy.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      That’s what you came away with? A dis-satisfaction of a caption?

      Think maybe you are projecting something that isn’t there, especially given the context of the rest of the story, (=