California, allies ready for emission-law war with Trump EPA, CARB head says

[GRA]

While we're at it, I'll point out that high density (along with mixed-use zoning) allows decreased use of cars rather than an increase, because not only is everything packed closer together, but the greater population density can support better public mass transit - NYC has the lowest rate of car ownership (and also the lowest per capita energy use) of any city in the country because of this. The problem in greater LA is that it's medium density, not just in LA proper but in the surrounding suburbs, or as I've seen it described, "LA surrounded by LA".

The rest of the problems with air pollution, as has been pointed out, are due to a high population, high car ownership, and unfavorable topography combined with the climate, and would be far worse if California hadn't taken the steps we have over the years thanks to laws which allowed us to set higher standards for ourselves, as well as other actions. Any other location dealing with the same issues would be worse off than us, if they lacked the authority we have to take more rigorous measures.

[Oilpan4]

I think they should be able to screw up their own state as much as they want as long as it doesn't effect other states.

If the fed pulls their ability to set their own emissions standards since they had 50 years to make it work and they are still in last place it will just hasten their transitioning to electric or at least all hybrid car sales that much faster.

[GRA]

I think they should be able to screw up their own state as much as they want as long as it doesn't effect other states.

If the fed pulls their ability to set their own emissions standards since they had 50 years to make it work and they are still in last place it will just hasten their transitioning to electric or at least all hybrid car sales that much faster.

Your "reasoning" is an example of cognitive dissonance. The only reason YOU could buy a BEV in the US is because of California's imposition of a ZEV mandate. As I understand it, you are claiming that the federal government (under the Trump administration?) will reduce air pollution in California more by loosening the more stringent standards we now have. Does this argument make any sense to you? If so, please do explain why, because it's nonsensical.

Then please also explain why, as you are so against tighter government environmental regulations in your state, you are apparently for even tighter environmental controls in California, including on who can move here, zoning* and so on. These positions, along with the one above, are inherently contradictory.


*Re zoning, I'm with you there, and after a long fight against developers, NIMBYs etc. we're finally starting to win that battle and allow or require higher density, mixed-use development, although at the moment here it's driven more by housing shortages and consequent high housing prices than environmental concerns. But ideas about urban density and related issues are becoming more widespread - here's an example being built in Arizona:

Culdesac Tempe is a car-free housing development for the 'post-car society'
Residents won't be allowed to drive or park personal vehicles on the property

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/12/01/cul ... free-city/

[Oilpan4]

Yeah that's what I want. All the positives, none of the negatives. I don't think that's unreasonable.
California paves the way for cool new electric vehicle tech, proves wide scale adoption is possible, the state uses less petroleum and everyone benefits.
Seems like an opportunity to lead by example and show the better way instead of leading by force and threat of litigation.

They had their chance to make up their own rules for half a century and they still own the top 6 spots for worst air quality in the countey.
Doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanely.

If the fed lights a fire under the state and throws out their half baked emissions standards. Which are only successful if you consider always coming in last place as being successful then they might actually accomplish something.
They're not going to depopulate the areas around the city, they can't afford to loose the tax revenue so let's be real, that's not happening. That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg and sank. Plus how they zone is very unlikely to effect anything 2 states away.
They can screw up their own state as much as they want as long as it doesn't effect other states.
So it's back to finding a technological solution that doesn't involve hydrogen.

Culdesac tempe sounds pretty cool. If you want that, you should be able to go some where that has it.
Sounds a lot better than endless urban sprawl around a huge city with Carmageddon every single day.

[GRA]

Ah, well, I'll stop wasting my time; pretty much everyone else already has. One point, for those who may find it informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)

[GRA]

GCC:

California ARB approves air quality plan for South Coast Air Basin ahead of 2023 deadline; calls for Federal action

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... 5-arb.html

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to approve an updated plan for the South Coast Air Basin aimed at further cutting smog-forming emissions to attain the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The air quality plan is the most stringent in the nation.

In order to address some of the country’s highest levels of smog, the plan includes new strategies to improve air quality, ranging from a new statewide locomotive regulation to more stringent off-road diesel engine standards. The plan also includes current efforts to transform California’s vehicle fleet to zero-emission.

Combined, these measures will provide an additional 25 tons per day of NOx reductions that can be credited toward the 108 tons of NOx per day reduction that is still needed to attain the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2023. The remaining reductions are reasonably available from further action at the federal level, CARB said.

CARB estimates controls on these sources for which the federal government is primarily responsible—e.g., interstate trucks, planes, trains and ships—could lower NOx emissions in the South Coast by more than 60 tons per day. Even while calling for more action by the federal government to reduce pollution, in taking its action, CARB underscored that it will continue to use its authority to the fullest extent to achieve more reductions from pollution sources it regulates. . . .

The US EPA first established the 80 parts per billion 8-hour ozone standard (80 ppb averaged over 8 hours) in 1997. Since then, CARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have together achieved NOx reductions of 900 tons per day. Sources under state control have been reduced by between 70% and 90%, while sources under federal jurisdiction have been reduced by only 16%, and some federal sources of emissions are growing.

While much progress has been made to clean up the air in the South Coast Air Basin—home to more than 17 million people in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside counties—the air basin still has the worst smog in the country.

Yeah, let's let the feds do the job, they've been so much more effective than the state.

[Oilpan4]

Maybe they wont hold the 6 top spots for worst air quality in the country if it works.
But not holding my breath.
Best bet is probably ZEV and export the pollution out of state if their electrical infrastructure doesn't burn down the whole state.

[GRA]

ABG:

Trump's reduced fuel economy rules sent to White House for final review
Automakers anticipate annual fuel efficiency increases of about 1.5%

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/01/15/tru ... ite-house/

New rules enacting President Donald Trump's reductions in fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles through 2026 moved closer to reality on Tuesday when U.S. agencies sent proposals to the White House for final review. . . .

Final rules are expected as early as late February or March, officials said. . . .

he Trump administration proposed in August 2018 freezing fuel efficiency standards at 2020 levels through 2026, erasing the increases the Obama administration enacted, but officials will not finalize that proposal. . . .

EPA said the final rules "will benefit all Americans by improving the U.S. fleet’s fuel economy, reducing air pollution, and making new vehicles more affordable for all Americans."

The administration has argued that the rollbacks are necessary for economic and safety reasons, but California and environmentalists reject that analysis, saying consumers would spend hundreds of billions more in fuel costs.

The administration's 2018 proposal would have resulted in average fuel efficiency of 37 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2026, compared with 46.7 mpg under rules adopted in 2012.

The Trump administration's "preferred option" would have hiked U.S. oil consumption by about 500,000 barrels per day by the 2030s but reduced automakers' regulatory costs by more than $300 billion. . . .

In November, California and 22 other states challenged the administration’s decision in September to revoke California’s authority to set stiff vehicle tailpipe emissions rules and require a rising number of zero emission vehicles. They also vowed to sue when the administration finalized the new requirements.

Major automakers — including General Motors, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles — backed the administration’s effort to bar California from setting tailpipe standards.

I'm bolding the company names in case anyone wishes to vote with their wallet.

[Nubo]

I'll have to read that but all my time is taken up flushing the toilet 15 times per visit.

[GRA]

GCC:

Consumer Reports calls on automakers to drop support for rollback of federal gas mileage standards

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/0 ... -crfe.html

Consumer Reports sent letters and a consumer petition to the leaders of General Motors, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, Hyundai, Kia, and Mitsubishi, calling on the companies to drop their legal attack against America’s Clean Air Act, and instead support Clean Car standards that help drivers save money on fuel and reduce air pollution.

75,364 consumers signed the Consumer Reports petition demanding these actions from automakers.

A Consumer Reports (CR) analysis finds that a full rollback of America’s Clean Car standards would increase the cost of owning a new vehicle by $3,300 by 2025, and cost American consumers about $460 billion in total. Even a partial rollback could add $2,100 in net costs per vehicle. . . .