ABG: U.S. to propose revoking California power to set auto emissions rules It could increase U.S. oil consumption by 500

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
U.S. to propose revoking California power to set auto emissions rules
It could increase U.S. oil consumption by 500,000 barrels per day
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/07/23/epa-dot-california-car-emissions/

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected to propose revoking California's ability to set state vehicle emissions rules and mandate electric vehicles as early as later this week, a government official briefed on the matter said.

The U.S. Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency are expected to unveil a proposed regulation that recommends freezing vehicle emissions requirements at 2020 levels through 2026, the official said on condition of anonymity because it has not yet been made public. . . .

The proposal is sure to spark a massive fight with California and a dozen other states that have adopted the rules. Eliminating the mandate could hurt automakers like Tesla Inc and General Motors Co that are investing billions in EVs.

The proposal will seek to reverse planned hikes in fuel efficiency standards adopted by the Obama administration. Freezing the standards would reduce the average fleet fuel economy standard from a current projected level of 46.8 miles per gallon in 2026 and reduce it to 37 miles per gallon, according to an earlier draft obtained by Democratic Senator Tom Carper. . . .
 
GerryAZ said:
Too bad--if this administration has its way, our electric cars could become collector items in a few years instead of mainstream transportation.

This administration can delay the inevitable. Someday, the last oil well will deliver the last barrel of oil to the last refinery... Either because no more is wanted at any price, or because the cost to find, drill and pump oil has risen to the level where alternatives are better, or that the alternatives have gotten so good that they just win.

Oil has a "sell by" date. And the clock is not stopping the ticking sound.
 
Nubo said:
Even the Trump regime should think twice before going up against CARB.

I hope CARB fights all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. California's rules are why we have electric cars available from major manufacturers. Fortunately for those of us in other states, a few manufactueres are willing to sell electric cars nationwide. We don't have the selection available in CA, but at least we have Nissan, Tesla, and a couple of others available in AZ.
 
There are a few other countries that will be banning ICE. That still puts pressure on our global car manufacturers to produce electric vehicles even if our Republican government is bought by big oil.
 
Evoforce said:
There are a few other countries that will be banning ICE. That still puts pressure on our global car manufacturers to produce electric vehicles even if our Republican government is bought by big oil.
Big Oil has been against some of the administration's moves, e.g.: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26240

Shell and BP have been buying or affiliating with QC network companies and installing QCs at their stations, primarily in Europe for now. IIRR Total is also involved.
 
GRA said:
Evoforce said:
There are a few other countries that will be banning ICE. That still puts pressure on our global car manufacturers to produce electric vehicles even if our Republican government is bought by big oil.
Big Oil has been against some of the administration's moves, e.g.: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26240

Shell and BP have been buying or affiliating with QC network companies and installing QCs at their stations, primarily in Europe for now. IIRR Total is also involved.

Because Big Oil knows in other countries that the writing is on the wall. They are trying to figure out how to transition to continue to be relevant. At one time, BP got into solar manufacturing and sales. I think I remember seeing that they sold that division off, but I may be mistaken. I am glad to see that they are starting to admit man made climate change.
 
Evoforce said:
GRA said:
Evoforce said:
There are a few other countries that will be banning ICE. That still puts pressure on our global car manufacturers to produce electric vehicles even if our Republican government is bought by big oil.
Big Oil has been against some of the administration's moves, e.g.: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26240

Shell and BP have been buying or affiliating with QC network companies and installing QCs at their stations, primarily in Europe for now. IIRR Total is also involved.
Because Big Oil knows in other countries that the writing is on the wall. They are trying to figure out how to transition to continue to be relevant. At one time, BP got into solar manufacturing and sales. I think I remember seeing that they sold that division off, but I may be mistaken. I am glad to see that they are starting to admit man made climate change.
It was Big Oil that commercialized PV in the first place, in the late '60s/early '70s IIRR. The space stuff was far too expensive for terrestrial use, but Big Oil could use it on oil platforms, so Exxon, Mobil, ARCO, BP and Shell all had solar divisions at one time. AFAIK they were all sold off because there wasn't enough business or profit in it for them. A division of Exxon also commercialized the first Li battery in the '70s and the first Li-ion battery in the '80s, and that division was sold off for the same reasons they got rid of their PV division.
 
As expected, via GCC:
US EPA and DOT propose freezing light-duty fuel economy, GHG standards at 2020 level for MY 2021-2026 vehicles; 43.7 mpg for cars; 50-state solution
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/08/20180802-epadot.html

California's reply can be found here:
Governor Brown, Attorney General Becerra, and California Air Resources Board: At Every Turn, We Will Defend Our Nation’s Clean Car Emissions Standards
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/governo...fornia-air-resources-board-every-turn-we-will

. . . “For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere,” said Governor Brown. “Under his reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air. California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”

“The Trump Administration has launched a brazen and unlawful attack on our nation’s Clean Car Standards. The California Department of Justice will use every legal tool at its disposal to fight back,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Our nation’s Clean Car Standards save consumers thousands of dollars, protect our families’ health, and ensure that we continue tackling climate change, the most important global environmental issue of our time. We are ready to do what is necessary to hold this Administration accountable.”

“At first glance, this proposal completely misrepresents costs and savings. It also relies on bizarre assumptions about consumer behavior to make its case on safety,” said California Air Resources Board Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB will examine all 978 pages of fine print to figure out how the Administration can possibly justify its absurd conclusion that weakening standards to allow dirtier, less efficient vehicles will actually save lives and money. Stay tuned for further comment. Meantime, California remains fully committed to a rigorous 50-state program with a full range of vehicle choices. That program is in effect right now and will remain so for the foreseeable future.”

Additional statements from Attorneys General across the country are available. . . .
CARB's website seems to be having issues today, as it's very slow.
 
Via GCR:
California warns it won't follow lower EPA fuel economy, emissions rules
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...follow-lower-epa-fuel-economy-emissions-rules

In response to an EPA proposal to freeze emissions and fuel economy standards, California said it will not honor federal vehicle certifications if the proposal goes through.

"The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed amending the California Low-Emission Vehicle III Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulation to ensure that cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2022-2025 continue to meet California standards even if Federal standards are frozen," reads a statement from CARB reprinted in Green Car Congress.

Under a 2012 agreement with the EPA (which regulates emissions standards, including those of carbon dioxide) and NHTSA (which has statutory authority over fuel economy), California agreed that cars would be "deemed to comply" with California standards if they were approved by the federal agencies under standards as strict as the state's. Now the state says it will repeal that provision of its regulations if NHTSA and the EPA roll back increases that all three agencies and the automakers agreed to at that time.

"To ensure that the effects of any federal weakening for model years 2021 through 2025 are not felt in California, CARB is proposing amendments to its LEV III greenhouse gas emission regulations to clarify that the “deemed to comply” option is available only for the currently adopted federal greenhouse gas regulations," the statement reads.

This is the first step toward the divergence of federal and state standards that have been harmonized since 2012.

Automakers, which lobbied the Trump Administration to loosen the standards, insisted at the same time that their top priorities were to have a single national standard and to have regulatory certainty about what standards would be in force going forward.

Based on California's statement, it now looks like automakers may get neither.

Under California's new statement, If the EPA, and NHTSA succeed in freezing fuel economy standards, automakers may have to have to recertify cars in California that are already certified nationally. That's exactly the situation the automakers have said they want to avoid.

To address this problem, the Trump Administration proposal lays out a plan to rescind California's legal waiver to set its own fuel economy standard, which would render the California statement moot. California was granted that right in 1970 under the Clean Air Act, both because it has unique climate problems that trap smog in the air over California cities and because the state started regulating air quality and vehicle emissions before the federal government did. . . .

Also, via ABG:
EPA staff disputed claim that freezing fuel economy would save lives
By their calculations, plan would cost more in lives, money, lost jobs
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/08/15/epa-disputed-freezing-fuel-economy-would-save-lives/

. . . The Transportation Department under President Donald Trump has proposed rolling back Obama administration rules requiring tough fuel efficiency standards and backs freezing the standards at 2020 levels through 2026.

In a June 18 memo posted by the Environmental Protection Agency on a regulatory website on Tuesday, EPA staff said they believed the plan would increase traffic deaths by 17 a year from 2036 through 2045 because of an increase in vehicle travel, rather than reduce deaths by 150 per year over that time as the Transportation Department contended. . . .

Sen. Tom Carper, a Democrat, said the documents suggested the proposal is "based on bogus science and fundamentally flawed assumptions. The administration's own EPA itemized its technical concerns about the plan's baseless claims, but DOT and the White House seems to have willfully ignored much of it."

The EPA staff also concluded the plan would result in net societal costs of $83 billion, compared with the Transportation Department's estimate of net benefits of $49 billion.

EPA spokesman John Konkus said the documents showed only "a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule" and noted the government is seeking comments on a variety of alternatives. The final proposal did not adopt those EPA staff fatality estimates. . . .

Emails among the documents posted showed EPA staffers in meetings questioned modeling by the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In a June memo, EPA called the NHTSA model "indefensible" and based on "unrealistic" assumptions.

EPA and NHTSA clashed over estimates about the future size of the U.S. vehicle fleet, total vehicle miles driven, automaker compliance costs as well as how long it would take consumers to recoup costs of buying fuel-efficient models, the emails showed.

The EPA document said the proposal could result in the loss of 27,000 to 35,000 jobs per year.

NHTSA said in a July 12 email to a White House office overseeing the proposal that the EPA criticism relied on a "developmental version" of its model and defended its analysis. . . .
 
Via ABG:
Trump officials, California meet on vehicle emissions, mpg standards
Stand by for more meetings, but they hope to reach a common goal
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/08/29/trump-officials-california-meet-fuel-economy/

Trump administration officials and California clean air regulators emerged from a meeting on Wednesday saying they would keep meeting to work toward resolving their sharp conflict over vehicle emissions and they shared the goal of a single national standard.

The two sides discussed the proposed Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule that backs freezing national vehicle emissions standards at 2020 levels through 2026, and the federal government's intention to revoke California's power to set state emissions rules, known as the California mandate. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed maintaining strict Obama-era rules mandating rising fuel efficiency requirements annually through 2025.

The officials said in a statement they agreed to hold future meetings aimed at achieving national fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards that California and other states could accept. . . .

Automakers want less stringent increases in emissions standards because consumers now favor bigger cars that use more fuel, but they have not favored the administration's plan to freeze the standards.

California air regulators said after the White House proposal was published that they plan to keep tightening state vehicle emissions rules despite a Trump administration proposal at the beginning of August. California's air chief Mary Nichols told Reuters last month that she sees a "window" to make a deal this fall. . . .
 
Back
Top