Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    EPA Moves Forward With Locking In Emission Regulations By 2025

      The EPA is moving forward with the upcoming 2025 Emission Regulations

    The Environmental Protection Agency has today proposed to keep its vehicle emission targets through 2025, shocking a lot of people and possibly setting up a major fight between regulators and the automotive industry. 

    According to Automotive News, the proposal will now enter a 30-day comment period. After this period, the EPA administrator could finalize this proposal and begin enforcing these standards a bit quicker. By 2025, automakers will need to increase their  to 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers to 54.5 miles per gallon.

    Why move the proposal up now? A proposal was expected next year with a final decision in 2018. The EPA said in a statement their “extensive technical analysis” has shown no reason as to why the timeframe or standards should be changed. Also, automakers will be able to achieve those 2025 standards at “similar or even a lower cost”.

    “Due to the industry’s rapid technological advancement, the technical record could arguably support strengthening the 2022-2025 standards. However, the administrator’s judgment is [that] now is not the time to introduce uncertainty by changing the standards. The industry has made huge investments in fuel efficiency and low emissions technologies based on these standards, and any changes now may disrupt those plans,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a conference call.

    That analysis started back in July and is used to determine whether or not the EPA needs to make adjustments to the regulations or schedule.

    But there might be another reason. With President Obama leaving the White House on January 20th and President-elect Donald Trump, there are concerns that Trump's administration could challenge the regulations. By doing this now, it would make the process of undoing these regulations more complicated - notice and comment requirements, possible court battle with environmental groups, etc. McCabe denied this, saying the decision was based on analysis and a “rigorous technical record,”

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    The present EPA staff has been an activist staff. They have pushed  a very green agenda with no regard to cost to the MFG and or the consumer. 

    Their moved have even been un constitutional  at times. The Clean Air Act was written to exempt cars built with emission controls so they could be removed if they were used for off road use as in grassroots racing.

    The present EPA had taken it upon them selves to reinterpreted the law passed by the Senate and House to day it really meant to cover the off road use too. This means if you own a 2005 Camaro and you only drag race it you would not be permitted to put in a Big Block engine and you would be required to run full emissions on the car even if it never turned a wheel more than a quarter mile or a lap at a time.

    The RPM act is still floating out there and SEMA is working to make sure it gets passed to prevent appointed government agencies like the EPA from changing laws that were passed by a constitutional body.

    Look for more games like this from the outgoing progressive appointed agencies. They know much of their work will be over turned and they will try to do anything to delay that.

    This has been why so many are upset with the election results as with the loss of the house, senate and oval office they will lose much of what they have done in many areas and to the point they may not be able to undo much if and when they should get back into office.

    A lot of people were watching the moves Obama did with his presidential decrees but the appointed agencies were all busy out of sight and mind changing the laws from how they were intended to suit their own needs. We at this point do not know all the damage done yet. 

    Laws like these need to be passed buy the voting body not some appointed bureaucrat. No matter what side you are on you should never over step the constitution as it could be used against you too at some point. 

    The EPA has backed off but SEMA does not trust them and is still working to pass the RPM act. If you enjoy motorsports or actively participate you need to be aware of this.  

    Even Tim Ryan the Democrat from Ohio was against what the EPA was trying to do. He even dropped to my cubical one day at work. Too bad he did not displace Pelos.

    The staff at the EPA is dirty and need to be watch till they are replaced.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree, coercion is the worst use of government/regulatory powers.

    The miles per gallon metric is starting to cause some stupid comparison of vehicles.

     

    Like EV's and gas vehicles. The mpg-e is just a weird way to conform the efficiency of EV's with gas cars to make them comparable. But that's not how EV efficiency should be measured. If EV's become big, and ICE vehicles become smaller, say even 20% EV, 80% gas, it will eventually cause FE between the two to become totally lopsided in the favour of the EV's.

     

    Miles per kilowatt is a better measure of efficiency, because EV power density is measured in kilowatts, but that's not what they put on the moroney, they use mpg-e.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    they need to back off on this high CAFE and noose like emissions madness.  Take the hand off the throat for awhile and let the companies figure out how to make the newest stuff cheaper so the price of everything can not raise up so much. 

    At the same time, i'd enjoy seeing the focus move to incentivizing Volt like powertrains (energy diversity).  The real mpg increases are going to become incremental pretty soon, but plugging in as a choice and option will spur a charge network and in home infrastructure development across all manufacturers and globally.  Pure electrics too, but i think reality is we are 20-30 years away from electrics becoming wide spread and convenient still. 

    Of course GM has a leg up on pretty much everyone with electrics right now.  I don't count Tesla because they are not everyman's product.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, regfootball said:

    they need to back off on this high CAFE and noose like emissions madness.  Take the hand off the throat for awhile and let the companies figure out how to make the newest stuff cheaper so the price of everything can not raise up so much. 

    At the same time, i'd enjoy seeing the focus move to incentivizing Volt like powertrains (energy diversity).  The real mpg increases are going to become incremental pretty soon, but plugging in as a choice and option will spur a charge network and in home infrastructure development across all manufacturers and globally.  Pure electrics too, but i think reality is we are 20-30 years away from electrics becoming wide spread and convenient still. 

    Of course GM has a leg up on pretty much everyone with electrics right now.  I don't count Tesla because they are not everyman's product.

    Tesla is in deep crap financially, something people do not want to realize.

    We need to  top trying to slut shame people into change, and bring them actual options.  As Wings said in the fast charger thread, people in America will buy electrics when they become a viable option.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you really want to cut down on emissions, tax gas at $2-3 per gallon and people will flock to electric cars and out of 15 mpg trucks.  CAFE is a skewed number anyway, they can hit it with electrics and hybrids.  Car makers will still try to work cost out so they can sell cars.

    There are cities in Europe talking about banning diesel cars from entering the city by 2025, countries saying by 2030 gas powered cars won't be allowed to be sold.  If Europe and china ban emission producing cars in 2030, there would be no reason for an American car company to even develop a gas engine when it can't be used in 2 of the largest car markets in the world.  They will put ever dollar into EV.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/1/2016 at 7:39 PM, Suaviloquent said:

    Miles per kilowatt is a better measure of efficiency, because EV power density is measured in kilowatts, but that's not what they put on the moroney, they use mpg-e.

    I totally agree with the Miles Per Kilowatt. I think that would be a much better standard. I fear that because most buyers have a hard time changing their thinking from Miles Per Gallon to Miles Per Kilowatt since they want an equivalent comparison.

    EPA should have everything stated MPK on all EV systems and in the fine print say a MPK is equal to MPG formula. Let the consumer have the facts but this way it would then be able to phase out the comparison once we really make the switch over to EV everything.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here is the deal. 

    You can force higher refs but it will come at a high cost. Note no one is really making money on the new EV cars and they may not for g good deal longer.

    Also you raise taxes you just make people mad and you slow the economy and fail to get elected.

    The real deal is to get government and the automakers to work together. This was why I was glad Mary was asked to be an advisor. 

    This is a two way street wher it is in the best interest of all parties to work together for the good of the country. 

    The regulations should be brought up for review every so many years. This way it can be adjusted to real expectations and not destroy the automakers and still let people able to afford cars and own cars they really want to buy not forced to buy.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

    The regulations should be brought up for review every so many years. This way it can be adjusted to real expectations and not destroy the automakers and still let people able to afford cars and own cars they really want to buy not forced to buy.

    Reviewing regulations is crucial, and will have implications beyond the auto industry.

    There is such a thing as a proxy war...we are fighting a proxy war with Iran by arming the Saudi's to the teeth in their battle against the Yemeni Hoothi rebels, which are backed by Iran.

    It feels like we are fighting a proxy war with the German auto industry via diesel gate.  The punishment is way out of line with the crime, and will be much more environmentally damaging to crush half a million cars.

    You have an additional impact on our relations with Germany....

    We had an interesting dialogue at a debate tournament I judged/Coached this last weekend...between students and coaches of very liberal and very conservative as well as libertarian viewpoints.  We all were of the view that were society to more closely follow the ideas of Adam Smith we would be much better off.

    I think electrification is inevitable....but I am damn sure going to enjoy my ICE cars while they are around...and my electrics when they come.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • FYI - Using this story and my thoughts above, I wrote my House and Senate representatives on this and this is what I sent them:   Hello Suzan, Patty, Maria, Sam Graves, Republican for Montana and head of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is proposing a $250 annual charge for electric vehicles as part of an effort to shore up funding for the national highway system and other transportation projects. Graves stated that with the increase in electric, hybrid and just overall efficiency in internal combustion automobiles that the federal tax collected per mile traveled has dropped, making it a challenge to keep the Federal Highway Administration funded. With the new fees, Republicans hope to raise $50 billion in new funding over the next 10 years. The additional money would go to pay for highway repairs and additional funding for air traffic control. Republicans point out that since 2008, more than $275 billion has been shifted from the general fund to pay for road repairs.  The federal government has not raised fuel taxes, currently 18.3 cents per gallon, since October of 1993. The latest proposed fee schedule would be $250 per electric vehicle per year and $100 per hybrid-vehicle per year. An earlier proposal had the electric vehicle fee at $200 per year and also included a $20 per year fee for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.  The Federal fee would be on top of any state fees imposed. Many states have adopted EV fees to replace the loss in gas tax revenue at the local level. The federal fees are tied to inflation and would be recalculated each year and grow over time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has pointed out that the proposed $250 fee would require the average EV owner to pay the equivalent 1366 gallons gas tax while hybrid owners would pay roughly the equivalent of 547 gallons of fuel tax on top of paying 18.3 cents at the pump. For an EV owner, they would be paying as much tax as someone driving 15,000 miles per year in an 11 mpg vehicle. The average amount of gas used by non-hybrid gasoline vehicles is roughly 489 gallons per year. I do not mind paying an equal share for my EV on the roads. Yet if they are going to charge me $250 then it is time to raise the gas tax equal to what Hybrid and EVs must pay. ICE = 489 gallons of gas X .183 cents per gallon = $89.49 cents per year based on the Governments only numbers. If they are to charge EVs $250, then they need to raise the Federal gas tax to .511 cents per gallon for equality and tie it into inflation so that gas tax goes up just as the Hybrid / EV tax goes up. With having to pull from the General fund $275 Billion to support the Federal Highway Administration, I find it a little odd that the estimated $50 Billion over 10 years really would make a difference compared to increasing the Federal Gas tax having everyone share in the responsibility to fund our inner state highway system. I look forward to hearing from you, Sincerely, G. David Felt   FYI 2024 according to statista.com, 134.55 billion gallons of gas were sold for the year. At .183 cents federal gas tax, that was $24,622,650,000 billion dollars collected in gas tax. At .511 center federal gas tax, that would have been $68,755,050,000 Billion collected in gas tax in addition to the Hybrid and EV fee that would be collected for our inner-state highway system.  
    • That is so true, all the shopping malls here have major charging areas that are free to the shoppers, but then pretty much anyone can pull in and plug in for an L2 charge. Most city government locations around here have free L2 chargers and Shell has many Volta free L2 charging at various tourist spots around Washington. Major work campuses have free L2 charging like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Boeing, Paccar, to name just a few.  Fast charging locations are growing as Tesla has signed with the Kroger / QFC / Fred Meyers locations for major charging stations and EVgo / ChargePoint / Electrify America have signed on with Walmart / Safeway / Albertson for stations in their parking lots. Costco has signed on with a private Seattle company to install fast chargers for a fee on their lots. So lots of changes coming for sure. Be interesting to see when the Auto Industry start up gets more places open other than the first one they did on the East coast.
    • One, EVERYONE needs to write their House and Senate representatives on this and make sure they are aware of this very imbalanced approach to funding a government department. With that said, I do not mind paying an equal share for my EV on the roads. Yet if they are going to charge me $250 then it is time to raise the gas tax equal to what Hybrid and EVs must pay. ICE = 489 gallons of gas X .183 cents per gallon = $89.49 cents per year based on the Governments only numbers. If they are to charge EVs $250, then they need to raise the Federal gas tax to .511 cents per gallon for equality.
    • I could see maybe if they add a $250 federal tax on all new car purchases as a 1 time fee.  But to charge it every year is both a ripoff and unfair.  Fast forward 20 years and 90% of cars might be EV, so the fund roads through gas tax will be totally obsolete.  And it will be a tax more so on lower income and working people.  And the gas tax basically works that the college student driving a 10 year old Corolla because that is what they can afford, will pay the same road tax as a pro football player in an Escalade.  
    • @smk4565with all the good points lately! I also think that $50b over 10 years in new funding isn’t enough to cover the deficit the Highway dept is facing. If they’ve had to do $275b over 18 years, the math doesn’t add up.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search