EPA and NHTSA Threaten California GHG And ZEV Regulations

AUG 3 2018 BY WADE MALONE 95

In addition, the proposal would freeze federal fuel efficiency standards and restrict the ability of the California Air Resource Board to regulate Greenhouse Gases.

It was pretty much a given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were going to propose a freeze of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel economy standards. There was even plenty of speculation that the federal government might challenge California Air Resource Board’s (CARB) ability to regulate green house gases. As expected, the current preferred proposal revealed on Thursday would freeze federal standards at 2020 levels and challenge CARB’s emission standards.

E"P"A Fuel economy levels will freeze at 2020 levels.

However, the attempted challenge to CARB’s ZEV mandate came as more of a surprise. According to the 1,217 page document released on Thursday:

In this proposal, EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG and ZEV requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program

(…)

Attempting to solve climate change, even in part, through the Section 209 waiver provision is fundamentally different from that section’s original purpose of addressing smog related air quality problems. When California was merely trying to solve its air quality issues, there was a relatively-straightforward technology solution to the problems, implementation of which did not affect how consumers lived and drove.

Such a challenge to precedent would be difficult to argue. Even divorced from the greenhouse gas and climate change argument, it is not possible to claim that a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) would not improve air quality. In addition, waivers on the ZEV mandate were granted under the Barack Obama, George W Bush, and preceding administrations. According to the EPA in 2006:

By this decision, issued under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, (hereafter ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today has determined that provisions of the California Air Resources Board‘s (CARB’s) 1999–2003 amendments to the California Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulations as they affect 2006 and prior model years (MYs) are within-the-scope of previous waivers of federal preemption granted to California for its ZEV regulations. In the alternative, EPA is also granting a waiver of federal preemption for these MYs. EPA is also granting Californias request for a waiver of federal preemption to enforce provisions of the ZEV regulations as they affect 2007 through 2011 MYs.

For a bit of history on the Clean Car Standards and the California Air Resources Board, we recommend this series of tweets from CARB Chair Mary Nichols. Follow the link in the tweet for the full string:

Freezing fuel economy standards for the sake of “safety”.

Despite the claim that an efficiency freeze is in the best interest of consumers and automakers, neither seems enthusiastic about the move or the coming legal battle with California. Automotive unions believe this will make American manufacturing less competitive in the global landscape.

According to Vox, Wade Newton, a spokesperson for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer stated:

While we have said that re-opening the midterm review was the right thing to do, the Alliance has long said that we support year-over-year increases in fuel economy.

Tesla spokesperson Gina Antonini told Vox:

Fuel economy standards should be strengthened, not weakened  (…) This is overwhelmingly the opinion of the scientific community.

Following the official release of the proposal, the Alliance said in a statement:

We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America’s drivers.

The proposal did garner unbridled praise from one lobbying group, however. Thomas J. Pyle of the oil and gas lobbying group American Energy Alliance trumpeted:

What started as a mandate in the mid-1970’s to reduce foreign imports of oil morphed into a costly and unworkable environmental regulation thanks to bureaucrats in the previous administration and in Sacramento. (…) President Trump should be commended for standing up for American consumers by reducing the regulatory burden placed unnecessarily on automakers.

However, consumers across party lines overwhelmingly support increased fuel economy standards. According to a Consumer Reports survey of 1,094 licensed drivers, 85% of Americans support continued improved fuel economy for all vehicle types. Only 43% believe that automakers are currently succeeding at making fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps this is why the EPA and NHTSA instead chose to frame high fuel economy standards as a threat to the safety of drivers.

There is very little supportive evidence for the often debunked safety claims made in their proposal. However, if you’d like to read the “SAFE” document it is included below.

According to several reports, even within the Trump administration, there is dissent. The Houston Chronicle states that top officials in the EPA do not believe the justifications presented will stand up to legal scrutiny. According to the Washington Post, officials at the Office of Transportation and Air Quality state that the proposal contained “a wide range of errors, use of outdated data, and unsupported assumptions.”

We expect a long and drawn out legal battle should the administration move forward with this proposal.

CARB and federal agencies will soon begin negotiations. It should go without saying that we here at InsideEVs support the mission of CARB, the ZEV Mandate and the continued increase of Clean Car Standards.

New EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler recently overturned a Scott Pruitt reversal on dirty “glider” trucks and the agency has indicated they are open to alternative proposals. If you would like to make your voices heard, the comment period on the proposed rules will be 60 days. You can submit your comment at regulations.gov.  You can also follow this link to comment.

The full 1,200+ document and California Waiver Withdrawl FAQ can be viewed below:

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule

Proposed California Waiver Withdrawl

Sources: Consumer ReportsVox

Categories: General

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

95 Comments on "EPA and NHTSA Threaten California GHG And ZEV Regulations"

newest oldest most voted
jelloslug

States rights (only when they apply to things you support)!

Will

Hypocrisy

SJC

The clown is such an evil jerk.

William

Now your just being too nice!

Next time, please try and refrain from Lumping the tRump-ster in with the well loved, and highly respected Clown Community,

Vexar

Proper clowns, anyway. Ones that have slapstick, comedy, and dexterity skills. The cake make-up and hobo clothes types are what I like to term “clown cosplay.” Show me someone who can jump rope while balancing on a unicycle. That’s a real clown. Calling EPA leader Andrew Wheeler a clown gives him undue credit.

It doesn’t take courage, training, and strength to go out and make a fool of yourself. It does take courage to be a proper clown.

TwoVolts

It is not clear why any state should need a waiver from the feds to enact more stringent local regulations. The folks in California should stick to their guns and tell the feds to get lost.

Robert Weekley

California Started before the EPA, Regulating Air Quality Related to Vehicles, as I Understand, hence when the EPA started into this game, they let California Hold their Own Court on this matter!

Trump Wants to Take that Away, ignoring, once again, that the Fed’s Can’t always Lead, Since they are not always out front of things, so – since they want to turn the ship around, they think they will be leading by going backwards, how I see this Process!

Mister G

Hey Trump supporters if this deregulation goes through get ready to buy more gasoline as you fill up your gas guzzlers of the future LOL and bring a photo ID to buy food lol

Ocean Railroader

Being that the oil company’s and car companies have a bit of a history trashing EV’s and Streetcars.

I really wouldn’t put it past those swine to get together and say hey let’s build all our cars were none of them get more then five to ten miles a gallon.

Also let’s throw are EV program in the trash now that we don’t have to worry about zero emission cars.

Granted if all cars got five miles a gallon and Tesla didn’t go belly up the Tesla population will most likely start reproducing really fast suddenly if all cars got ten to five miles a gallon.

Mister G

And trump supporters will go out and vote against their own interest LOL

Patonthebeach

Trump supporters are like turkeys voting for Chrissmas

M Hovis

“What started as a mandate in the mid-1970’s to reduce foreign imports of oil morphed into a costly and unworkable environmental regulation thanks to bureaucrats in the previous administration and in Sacramento. ”
Quick! Somebody send an alert to the 420,000 Model 3 reservationist that your auto is an unworkable solution.

Will

Yelp what an idiot

Some Guy
I think it is funny that the new EPA boss, a guy that has taken serious money from big coal, and thus should be in favor of increasing national electricity demand by any means deals the cards against electric cars and towards big oil, thus hindering electricity demand. If I was big coal, I’d want my bribes back. Also, all manufacturers that do not have compelling EV offerings will feel some hurt in the short term, as they will have trouble selling them now. Tesla will not really be affected, as people buy Tesla because the cars are awesome and fun to drive, as well as cheap to operate. That they are environment friendly is an added bonus. GM and Ford will loose their export competitiveness, and some years down the road, some hitherto unknown Chinese companies will set up shop in the US and take over the market with superior EVs. I wonder if Ford and GM will be bailed out again, then. European manufacturers will be happy, because they can export the old polluting ICE crap that they can’t sell in Europe or China anymore to the US, similar to the situation with Chinese two stroke scooters that… Read more »
Anton

I’m eternally confused about coal-people hating EVs. They should want everyone to have EVs, right now. More demand for electricity, at least in the short term, might raise their revenues and slow down the demise of coal. This is not to say that I want EVs to be powered by coal, merely that if there was a sudden uptake of EVs, much faster than we have seen, coal would probably be able to hang on for a bit longer.

Robert Weekley

And Coal Companies should start Putting Up Wind Turbines, and Solar Farms, for Generating Income by Directly Powering The Grid, instead of going though Power generating Companies supply Chain dynamics, as much as they can! That would be the fastest way to get to “Clean Coal Power!”

rad
Ron M

Trump wants to weaken fuel economy standards so his favorite industry oil can sell more gasoline diesel and are able to raise prices. Great for the oil industry not good for consumers of gasoline. However Trump supporters will still support Trump.

EVShopper

A possible silver lining is that oil demand may go up, which will increase prices at the pump. High gas prices are good for EV adoption rates.

Benjamin Novida

Russia sells a lot of crude oil!

Robert Weekley

Not many EV’s yet in Russia, and I think only 1 private Supercharger there, so far, too!

The Model 3 in July made a Bigger Punch in the Hole of ICE’s in America, than anything so far to come in the game of EV’s – even more so than the Tesla Roadster, Model S, and Model X! More Model 3’s delivered in their 12th Month of Deliveries, than there was total Model S Reservations before Deliveries began! And – this is still “Just Getting Going!”

So – As American Gas Prices Go up from the mess this fight will cause, the more people will want EV’s, so a process to push folks into EV’s becomes an Accident that trump will later Take Credit for? Nice!

Will

Got it. Putin love this, more oil money from US

Alexander

Russia’s economy is entirely dependent on fossil fuels, which constitute more than 90% of their exports. While EVs do not yet materially affect oil consumption, they are an existential threat in the medium term, as sales of EVs are growing exponentially.

Putin must be very happy with this development. He made an investment in 2016 and -at least on this front- it is paying out handsomely.

William

The entire Russian economy, is only 3/4 the size of the economy of Texas.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/04/17/which-has-the-bigger-economy-texas-or-russia/amp/

It might be important to note, how many EVs that are charged up daily, by Gazprom (over 50% Russian state owned) natural gas deliveries, that are imported by Western Europe. Also, BP is a 20% owner in Rosneft (3rd largest Russian company).

So Putin has many thankful European Oil and gas customers (aka EV drivers), along with many BP shareholders, here in the US, that also own and drive EVs, that run on mostly Natural Gas.

Alexander

Gas, including Russian gas, is important for European electricity production, but is not the most important source. For example in Germany renewables contributed 41.5% of net electricity production in H1 2018, in Spain 45.8.

Vexar

So you’re saying Russia won the election?

William

Some other International O&G Corps., for instance BP, would also like to take credit for installing our POTUS “tRump-Turd”, while riding around with “Big Bad Vlad”, doing a victory lap on the back of the Russian Bear.

Mister G

BIG LEAGUE

Benz

Donald Trump doesn’t deserve to be re-elected as President of the US.

Bunny

He didn’t deserve to get elected the first time!

Robert Weekley

Trumps Biggest Problem in the Run Up to the election, was his Opposition, was not of a high enough Caliber!
They Could Not Shoot him Down! Their Bullets had Wet Powder, and Bad Loads!

That was the case in both Parties! Republicans had a Raft of Players that Couldn’t stop Trump, and Democrats put Hillary in front of him at the end, and she got shot down by Trump. Hillary couldn’t get anyone from that “Basket of Deplorables” to Vote for her, for sure! And her Incredibly “Honest” Actions led to her success in failing to take the House (White House)!

But, hey, They Say you get the best Election Money can Buy, and since Hillary Spent the Most, she should have won! But it was not to be so! Trumps does some C-R-A-Z-Y Stuff, but we might want to ask, where we would have been by now with the other Clinton in the House?

Pushmi-Pullyu

He doesn’t deserve to remain in office even a day. He should have been impeached the day he was elected, on violations of the emoluments clause.

It’s absolutely shocking to see the level of cowardice in Congress, in not moving to impeach or at least strongly resist him. He has already done far, far more damage to America than Tricky Dick ever did, and he’s going to do more… as this latest attempt to sabotage enforcement of the Clear Air and Water Act shows. Yet not a single GOP member of Congress is even talking about the possibility of impeachment. Remember, it was the GOP that moved to impeach and then remove Nixon from office.

Today, cowardice as well as complete abandonment of legislative and moral responsibility runs wide and deep in Congress. And I don’t mean just among the GOP members, either.

William

Note to self:

The One Hundred Fifteenth United States Congress, of which has 535 (100 Senators & 435 Representatives) voting members, is running like a well oiled machine.

“The farce runs deep in this one”!

Robert Weekley
Congress? Is it not THEY that gave up the Governments Rights to your Money in America, when they let some Foreign Banksters set up Shop, right in their House, and Take over the Money Control? Think – How can you have a National Debt, if the Money is yours? How can you “OWE Yourself” Anything? Since “The FED” is a Foreign Banking Institution, Allowed to Take over the Monetary Control, You might need to go Way Back to see what started Screwing Americans! OH, and when this Money Snake Got a Home in America, it was the 3rd Try! Trump is just a Player, Annoyed as hell at *Shite* in America, that Never Quite Figured he would get Elected, but was in it for a good Run, and Since his Opponents did not offer a strong opposition by dumping Hillary in front of him, instead of Bernie, they got what they got! Now Trump has had to get all Presidential in a whole new way, without much preparation! No Doubt, he is going to get Schooled in a bunch of new things, as President, and have a lot of learning to do, in that America is ‘Not His Company’, to… Read more »
Robert Weekley
Congress? Is it not THEY that gave up the Governments Rights to your Money in America, when they let some Foreign Banksters set up Shop, right in their House, and Take over the Money Control, just over a Century ago? Think – How can you have a National Debt, if the Money is yours? How can you “OWE Yourself” Anything? Since “The FED” is a Foreign Banking Institution, Allowed to Take over the Monetary Control, You might need to go Way Back to see what started the Theft from Americans! OH, and when this Money Snake Got a Home in America, it was the 3rd Try! Trump is just a Player, Annoyed as any in America, that Never Quite Figured he would get Elected, but was in it for a good Run, and Since his Opponents did not offer a strong opposition by dumping Hillary in front of him, instead of Bernie, they got what they got! Now Trump has had to get all Presidential in a whole new way, without much preparation! No Doubt, he is going to get Schooled in a bunch of new things, as President, and have a lot of learning to do, in that America… Read more »
Will

But you know he’s going to win. Unless the economy goes to crap he will win. No democrats are well like and able to draw people

Stimpacker

Our politicians are owned by big money, be it from big corporations or unions.

This change is driven by big oil and the automakers. Don’t be fooled by what the alliance said. It’s PR to avoid pissing off the public. Our automakers would much rather sell you a pickup truck or SUV. Just ask GM, Ford or Dodge.

Fuel efficiency standards will kill their trucks and SUVs. So they had to kill the fuel efficiency standard first before they die. Their BEVs are a money losing joke.

William

“They had to kill the fuel efficiency standard” to remain profitable, in the near term, to satisfy their existing shareholders. They can’t build or scale battery factories, at the rate needed, because these companies would have to suspend dividend payments to shareholders. Take a look at the recent GE shareholder dividend dilemma, and subsequent stock price readjustment, for a clue of where Ford is headed with their latest corporate “strategy”.

Scramjett

Yep. The OEMs would have to shut off the dividend spigot (among other shareholder rewards) to invest in electrification. But that would piss off the investor class and cause a shareholder revolt.

Scramjett

I believe what the alliance said, because they represent the automakers’ employees, not the executives. I don’t know if auto execs have been quoted on this, but I suspect not. Likely for the reason you stated: they don’t want to piss off the public. CR says it all, that vast majority want better standards but a solid majority believe the automakers ain’t pulling it off! So the execs are probably secretly hoping the standards die but won’t say anything publicly about it.

The fact that so many automakers are killing off their car lines says it all. They don’t pay that much more to produce Trucks and SUVs, but there are huge markups on those vehicles relative to cars. In other words…CHA CHING! Needing to improve fuel efficiency on those vehicles would require electrification (hybrids, PHEVs, BEVs) and that would cut into their profits big time, which would piss off the investors. This is the result when everyone focuses on short term gain and companies stop investing in themselves. The desire to make good products that are safe, healthy and reliable gets thrown out in favor of PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS!!!

ffbj

It’s laughable. I saw a Trump crony defending this, saying the price of cars will go up by $2,500 if we don’t do this. Hey isn’t that just about what Trump tariffs added to the price of a car, and that’s just the steel/aluminum ones, not the imported auto ones.
This president is a real piece of work, he claims credit for everything, but takes no blame for anything.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Meh.
What one prez does usually get’s undone by the next.

Hopefully this wakes people up and decide to go against this grain and say Eff U to Oil or Trump and buy an EV.

Let’s twist this story around and tell everyone to buy EV to hurt his OPEC fiends (or him if he holds stock in it) in the petrol biz if you hate Cheeto-Trump!

Buy EV!
Buy EV!
Buy EV!

Robert Weekley

I would wonder how many people would switch to EV’s and How Fast, if their Vehicle Exhaust Pipe was positioned slightly differently…. Like, Say, Where the Speedometer Is Normally Situated?
🙂

Mister G

Some Trump supporters would be happy to inhale dirty toxic air LOL

EVShopper

Please update the article to provide the link for public comment, and perhaps a suggested response.

https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/forms/contact-us-about-regulations-emissions-vehicles-and

I submitted about how we are ceding cheap transportation technologies and innovation leadership to foreign countries as well as increasing healthcare and transportation costs to our citizens. Additionally addressing concerns about national security issues. And to keep it relevant to the main mission of the EPA, expressed my concerns that these new rules do not seem to be protecting the environment.

There’s one link to follow in the site for comments. I added the other. Thank you!

BoltEV (was SparkEV)

“Freezing fuel economy standards for the sake of “safety””

Anyone who claims to be conservative should look at this nanny state claim and shun the Republiturds we have in office now. What are they going to do next, ban or freeze number of motorcycles? Ban backyard swimming pools, because they are leading cause of accidental deaths for kids, almost 100 times worse than guns? Ban guns next? Repukely-turds are becoming worse than liberal loons in expanding the nanny state.

Pushmi-Pullyu

Republiturds? Libtards?

Divisive, hateful labels like this help no one but Vladimir Putin.

Let’s remember that very nearly all Americans* want what’s best for America; we just disagree over exactly what that is.

*Not including The Orange One

William

Maybe we can somehow get the “Orange One”(Cheeto in Charge), to sprinkle a fresh batch of Cheetos down “both sides of the aisle”.

Hopefully this well placed Cheeto trail, can get these partisan fat cats back together again, at the feeding trough, that is the U.S. Congress.

BoltEV (was SparkEV)

“Divisive, hateful labels like this help no one but Vladimir Putin.”

If you’re for expanding the nanny state, you are more like Putin and Dump, because both of them think they know better than you. Calling those who say they’re protecting you from yourself as Repukely-turds, libtards, liberal lunatics is completely warranted, because it is true that they are pukable turds, tards, loons.

Seven Electrics

If this goes through, expect a large increase in state gas taxes. Or, as is being considered in WA, a fee on carbon.

Vexar

They’ve been considering it for years now. I wish they would vote on it already!

Seven Electrics

The WA fee will be on the November ballot.

SolarEnergyConsultant

States rights will still allow DMVs to levy higher registration fees for polluting ICE cars, which should be the recommended action by environmental advocates.

Chris O

If the ZEV proposal holds than along with more lenient emission/MPG mandates that will be the end of compliance cars I suppose. No more GM Bolt, oh no!

Well only if the industry can get rid of Tesla as well, it just can’t afford to sit on it’s hands while Tesla is gobbling up market share. Curiously, the need to confront Tesla should make the lower MPG/emission mandates irrelevant for the industry as companies will have no trouble meeting more stringent mandates with all the Tesla fighters they need to be selling so I don’t really see the point of this exercise.

Anton

Calling a Bolt a compliance car is trolling. A Fiat 500e is a compliance car. I couldn’t buy it at my local dealership no matter how much I tried, unless it was a rare used model that had somehow made it here. However, I can walk into almost any Chevy dealership and, if I were inclined to do so, drive out in a Bolt.

Chris O

But very few people actually do, do they? Your need to ask yourself why Bolt is barely produced beyond compliance numbers and availability outside CARB states is limited.

I’m not saying compliance is Bolt’s only mission, but all the signs are it’s its main mission.

Generally the very concept of Bolt spells compliance car: there is just not all that much demand for $40K compact hatches, meaning it will sell in small numbers and if incentives are applied (in CARB states) at a loss according to production cost analyses that were done by third parties. This was not designed to make money, except where ZEV credits are to be earned or generous subsidies are applied (South Korea) or people are prepared to pay crazy MSRP because of the tax system(Norway).

Spider-Dan

There was a time not too long ago, right after the Volt won a raft of accolades and was the most-awarded car in GM’s history, when GM was prepared to produce 100k Volts per year. Then market reality set in: EV demand simply is not there yet.

Bolt production keeps up perfectly well with consumer demand for the car, as does production for the Volt and Leaf. It is not a situation of, “If you make more, people will be compelled to buy them.” Anyone who wants a Bolt, Volt, or Leaf can easily get one.

Djoni

Does the guy in the picture look like he’s having a lot of fun??

Okay might not, but he’s trying hard to look like a clown for the world.

A sad clown of course!

Pushmi-Pullyu

No, an evil clown.

William

Of course a Clown has to frown, it’s part of the job description!

Now, an Evil Clown is, well, just plain Evil”.

Sy Gung Ho
This is actually good news if you have confidence in the technology of EVs. I would hope that by 2020 all auto engineers would stop working on ICEs and focus on EVs since ICEs will soon be obsolete. When batteries are below $100/KwH and worldwide production is in the tens of millions per year, EVs will be superior in every way: cheaper to buy, cheaper to fuel, cheaper to maintain, longer lasting, better acceleration, better torque, speed of light response, greater safety, lower center of gravity, fewer moving parts, and MUCH quieter. Plus, one need not go to smelly gas stations and get your hands full of smelly gasoline ever again. Oh, I almost forgot, and they are better for the environment, creating almost no CO2, NO, or NO2, etc, if you buy renewable energy at home, as I do (and so does my employer). Maybe it will be in 2022 or maybe 2026, but at some point soon, it will be absolutely clear to all that you have to be out of your mind to buy an ICE. And that goes just as well for sedans, SUVs, pickup trucks, vans, semi-trailers, buses, boats, and even some planes. So, I… Read more »
Erwin

The actual problem is not what the “whole world” will be.
The blond one wants to isolate the US from the rest of the world.
He likes a US that looks like the NK today.

Sy Gung Ho

Yes, the US could end up looking like North Korea, in that, if we don’t start complying with the Paris Accord and future accords, the rest of the world will have to apply sanctions on the US similar to what we apply to North Korea or Iran when they do not comply on nukes. Both nukes and greenhouse gases put the Earth at serious risk, so it makes sense. Luckily the US has made progress on renewables, despite the US Fossil Fuel Party (also known as Gazprom Obeys Putin (GOP)), thus far.

silversod

The mere sight of this mans face and all his hideous short sighted polluting decisions induces retching.

Robert Weekley

Just a bit More Self Control seems needed by some, more than others, in such events! Since, “retching” can be Painful, it is not recommended!

CDAVIS

The huge irony here is that relaxing USA fuel economy standards will hurt (not help) traditional car makers.

Why?

Because the existing stringent fuel economy standards are what have thus far forced traditional car makers to develope EVs… a relaxation of fuel economy standards will remove some of that pressure which may have some short term cost savings benefits for them but longer term it further puts them behind being able to compete against Tesla which arguably Tesla is morphing to be their biggest single competitor in USA.

Also, internationally the fuel economy rules are increasingly tighting up in several large countries including sunset ban dates for ICE in some of those countries.

So relaxing fuel economy rules in USA does not help traditional car makers when looking at it longer term on a global scale… it will though help Tesla’s sales… again the irony.

So who benefits relaxing USA fuel economy rules?

Not the oil companies… the transition to EVs is going to happen irrespective of fuel enconomy rules… in fact ICE cars having lower fuel economy may help excelerate the transition to EV… again the high irony.

CDAVIS

These countries plan to ban gas and diesel cars:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/autos/countries-banning-diesel-gas-cars/index.html

What benefit is there to loosen USA fuel economy rules for those traditional car makers wanting to make product that can compete globally? Make a less fuel economy compliant car for USA and export the better fuel economy cars?

Robert Weekley

And Follow that up with making said more fuel efficient American Made, but Exported Vehicles, not allowed to be re-imported back into the States, would be the next smoking nail in their Exhaust pipes! Watch for IT!

Pushmi-Pullyu

“So who benefits relaxing USA fuel economy rules?”

Russia, the OPEC countries, and of course Big Oil… which is pretty openly bribing many if not most members of Congress. Of course, they call it “campaign contributions” or “soft money” instead of bribery.

CDAVIS

@Pushmi-Pullyu said: “So who benefits relaxing USA fuel economy rules…Russia, the OPEC countries, and of course Big Oil… which is pretty openly bribing many if not most members of Congress…”
————

Sometimes getting what you wish for (or bribe/soft-money pay for) has unintended negative consequences. I think this is one of those cases.

Abscent Tesla & BYD perhaps the calculus would be different.

Robert Weekley

Even with Tesla, just without the Model 3, it would be different! And we haven’t even seen the effect a whole wack of $35,000 Model 3’s getting shipped to US Buyers will do.

Robert Weekley

If yo donate a $ingle Buck or $10 to a ‘Campaign Contribution’ – can you get an opportunity to see who you fellow contributors are, or is it something requiring some fancy FOIA Requests?

Mister G

I hope your analysis is correct because I can see many Americans buying gas guzzlers that get 10-15 mpg and when oil prices spike Trump will release oil from strategic reserve to lower oil prices and Trump wins again, I mean Putin wins again.

Erwin

Wade, I am afraid people focus too much on this stuff of fuel economy standards.
This is exactly what the blond statesman’s staff wants.
Unreported side effects of this EPA-initiated decision are apparently that more Americans will die in the coming decades for air pollution.
This is not as bad as it looks like… at least if you believe in “make America great again” mantra.
In fact, given the same amount of resources, if you “reduce the population”, you get more resources per capita. As simple as a mathematical division!
You can hardly make the blond one accountable for increased air pollution (and more dead Americans) in 10, 20 years. Statistics and science are not for prime time.

HVACman
Well, it seems our current emissions are still a major cause of foul air up here in northern California – throat-burning smoke. Western Shasta County in far northern California – where I have lived for 25 years – just burned up in a massive wildfire that is still raging . over 131,000 acres and still growing. Over 1,000 homes lost. Six people killed. That is a huge loss in a rural area like ours. The state and federal fire officials have said they’ve never seen a fire behave as ours did – their in-house meteorological staff are telling them this may be the “new normal” for rural northern California. Waves of of successive winter droughts that stress or kill large stands of timber and brush, followed by summers of relentless 100+ F heat with almost zero % humidity – turning the dead vegetation and any exposed wood construction into a bone-dry explosive fuel that burns with unstoppable “firenado” force, generating localized whirlwinds that can wrap 2″ steel pipe around trees, even though the prevailing wind is just a light breeze. Like Alaska’s recent boiling summers and the polar ice cap’s record melting cycles, eventually repeated short-term weather patterns start to… Read more »
William

Northern California has just experienced REAL Category 4 Hurricane force localized “Firenado” winds, in an area that has never seen a Hurricane of any magnitude, in the course of recorded human history.

Northern California has only experienced a tropical cyclone, but that particular recorded event, dates all the way back to 1854.

MDEV

Putin orders!

Nix

I hate to break it to a bunch of EV fans for a number of companies, but this proposed regulation wasn’t written by the current President, or even by Pruitt or any EPA lackeys. They were all simply the bag men for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers who actually wrote this.

And who is the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers?

Honda
Aston Martin Lagonda
BMW
FCA US (Jeep/Chrysler)
Ferrari
Ford Motor
General Motors
Hyundai
Jaguar Land Rover
Kia
Maserati
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Porsche
Subaru
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo

When you are done writing comments for the EPA, contact the REAL authors of this monstrosity and TELL THEM YOU WILL HOLD THEM PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE AS A COMPANY if the regulation passes, and you will never buy their products. If fans/customers of these companies don’t hold them accountable, yelling at Trump is pointless.

Mister G

Both parties are personally responsible

Nix

True to a certain extent, but ultimately the voters are personally responsible for those they elect into office. Either through our votes, or by not voting.

Mister G

Agreed

Mark.ca

Is there any ev manufacturer that’s not on that list other then Tesla? This list makes it really hard to buy anything else for an ev advocate. Just sad!

Nix

For those who say “heck, the free market should take care of this, I don’t have to act”, be very clear about one thing. The goal of those behind this change is not just to get rid of pro EV rules and regs. Their goal is to actually PUNISH the owners of EV’s (and solar) for their choice, and to hurt them for daring to get off ICE/gas dependence.

This isn’t conspiracy theory, this is actual strategy that has actually been successfully put into law in places. From solar fees that penalize home solar, to EV registration taxes far far higher than an HD Diesel pickup would pay in a year of gas taxes, their legislation is very clear in their goals. It is to penalize green energy and green cars.

windbourne

CARB does have another solution that they can apply and trump/EPA can do NOTHING about.

Simply stop new registrations of vehicles that get below a certain MPG.

At the same time, the state then passes a law that says that the state will confiscate any vehicle that is rated below a certain MPG, and is not grandfathered in, and has been in the state longer than 6 months.

BTW, in the ideal situation, the state will offer a minimum $ for grandfathered cars once they hit 10 years, and then require that once they hit 15 years, they are no longer eligible for registration.

Nix

They actually can’t do that under the Clean Air Act. They have to get a federal waiver first.

Everyone thinks Nixon passed the Clean Air Act and started the EPA because he was somehow backing clean air. It couldn’t be further from the truth. It was so that 25 more California CARB’s didn’t pop up in a bunch more states. The Clean Air Act federalized emissions with only the limited ability for CARB waivers that other states could choose to also follow. But at the core it gutted state’s rights to control pollution in their own states.

Robert Weekley

Yes, They can Change from Carrots, to Parsnips, and from Sticks to Machine Guns, too!
Removing ones Car would be like the Machine Guns, as in Quite damaging, and benefiting EV’s, would be like Parsnips, best once Frozen! CHP’s could be given extra powers to detain you in you old cars, and Department of Transport tow Trucks Called to impound your old clunker!

Or they could just increase the Road Fees for Medical Related Illnesses tied to ICE Vehicles, kind of Like School taxes: Add a New Line – and a new Mill Rate!

koz

Disgusting, distorting, disturbing. D inmates running d asylum

BillT

This is making me re-consider my decision to maintain my frugal ways and wait for a used model 3 to replace my 2014 Volt. I think I will be pulling the trigger on a model 3 LR. Time to vote with the wallet because I think Tesla is the best hope for driving the industry towards a more efficient future. Not to mention I like the idea of sourcing all my “fuel” locally and minimizing money going to countries that aren’t exactly our friends. Finally EVs will help drive cost reductions in batteries which will then start a virtuous cycle of home energy generation via solar and storage via batteries becoming less expensive. In the end, l want to use capitalism as a weapon in driving down fossil fuel use. I guess a nice side benefit is I will get to drive a model 3. Is anyone buying my self-justification for buying a model 3 sooner than planned?

peter904

Maybe Washington has a point. Who needs clean air, clean water, more efficient vehicles, better designed vehicles? I worry our “Leaders” are leading us astray.

Have you noticed how few American cars are being exported? Have you wondered why the US imports so many cars? GM, Ford, FCA are discontinuing most of their sedans in favor of large pickup trucks, CUV/SUV, and muscle cars. Ever wonder why the price we pay at the pump for gasoline is half the price of “every” other industrial country in the world.

ffbj

So it’s not enough to have CA burn, no climate change, you also want them to choke to death.
But no worries it will be in the court for years, as it’s illegal, but then if it ever gets to the SC, it will probably be upheld ,as the SC is stacked right-wing.