Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Head of the EPA Went A Bit Too Far On Rollback According to Automakers

      This isn't what we exactly wanted. -Automakers

    We all know someone who takes things a bit a too far. In the case of automakers, that someone is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Back in April April, Pruitt announced a serious rollback of fuel economy regulations that were set in stone during the Obama administration. In a summary of the proposed draft, the EPA would rollback the fleetwide average from 46.8 mpg for the 2026 model year to around 37 mpg - the fleetwide average for the 2020 model year. The draft also mentions pre-empting "California's authority" on setting their own emission standards under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This move has caused California and a collation of other states to file suit over the proposed changes.

    According to Automotive News, the changes proposed by Pruitt go a bit too far for automakers. All they wanted was the emission targets for the 2022-2025 model years to "ratchet up more gradually and offer more compliance flexibility." Now, they have to worry about litigation and uncertainty.

    "I don't think anybody in industry, when asked for reopening of standards, asked to level out to zero," said an unnamed lobbyist for a major automaker.

    However, certain groups argue that automakers should have expected something far-reaching under this current administration.

    "You've got to know your audience. If you go to [EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump and say you want relief from the rules and they are going to cost jobs, this is what you end up with," said Andrew Linhardt, deputy director of the Sierra Club's clean energy campaign.

    Later this week, executives from the major automakers will be meeting with officials at the White House to see if they can get the federal government and California to agree to some sort of comprise.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Poor auto industry.  Scott Pruitt refuses to take a simpler approach to this: get Congress to repeal CAFE standards in the first place.  That would be ideal. So Pruitt pursues a rollback to 37 MPG eight years from now instead of the 46.8 MPG as proposed by the last administration.  He might have gotten away with it if he left CA authority alone and focused on the rollback instead.  His plan will probably fail because he got too greedy and wants to abolish higher state standards. 

    Choose your battles wisely and you might actually win.

    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    20 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    Poor auto industry.  Scott Pruitt refuses to take a simpler approach to this: get Congress to repeal CAFE standards in the first place.  That would be ideal. So Pruitt pursues a rollback to 37 MPG eight years from now instead of the 46.8 MPG as proposed by the last administration.  He might have gotten away with it if he left CA authority alone and focused on the rollback instead.  His plan will probably fail because he got too greedy and wants to abolish higher state standards. 

    Choose your battles wisely and you might actually win.

    That's what happens when you're motivated by revenge and want to punish someone (in this case the prior administration and California respectively)

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 5/18/2018 at 8:51 PM, Zane Wylder said:

    Repeal CAFE, period


    Free market decides what it wants, not whatever administration's in charge

    the last time we repealed major regulations and allowed the free market to choose... the free market chose greed, hubris, and fraud... eventually plunging the country and world into the worst recession since the 1930s.  The free market isn't the end all be all.... there does need to be some regulation of it to try to prevent bad things happening. 

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    the last time we repealed major regulations and allowed the free market to choose... the free market chose greed, hubris, and fraud... eventually plunging the country and world into the worst recession since the 1930s.  The free market isn't the end all be all.... there does need to be some regulation of it to try to prevent bad things happening. 

    Not gonna pretend to know when that was, mind filling me in, chief?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    10 minutes ago, Zane Wylder said:

    Not gonna pretend to know when that was, mind filling me in, chief?

    Banks were deregulated with the repeal of Glass-Stegel Act. A big thing that came from that was that banks could now gamble with your money in dodgey investments. Simultaneously, mortgage regulations went out the window so that anyone who could fog a mirror qualified for a mortgage. You couldn't let your dog off its leash or it would come back with a home equity line of credit. 

    At the same time, wages stagnated. Off shoring became the big thing for companies to do. The internet made it even more possible. 

    People trying to make up for the loss of wage increases started turning to the home equity line of credit just to keep up with increases in the cost of living. That was what the professionals call; A Bad Idea.

    All of these newly qualified mortgage holders became house shoppers. This started driving up the price of homes. Speculators came in and flipped homes forming a housing price bubble.

    Swirl all that together and you have the perfect storm that caused the recession starting in 2007.  

    It all formed because banks wanted less regulation.

    Not all regulations are bad, some regulations keep bad things from happening. CAFE is regulation with good intentions being implemented badly. I agree with it's generally stated goal. I disagree with how they go about getting there. Repealing it without replacing it would lead to bad things, including possibly a significant loss of the auto industry in the US.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ford is so desperate they're reclassifying their cars as trucks to comply.  How is this good for the consumer?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Ford is so desperate they're reclassifying their cars as trucks to comply.  How is this good for the consumer?

    I've already said I think it is being implemented incorrectly while the overall goal is good.

    There is major risk in repealing it entirely.  We live in a global economy.  GM doesn't want to build one engine for the US and one engine for China and one engine for the EU.... they want to build one engine that will work in all of those places.  If suddenly the US is the one with the loosest standards, we will start falling behind in technology as all of the older stuff is sent here and the other countries get the newest things.   This is already happening in renewable energy.  China is pushing hard for renewables while we're trying to get our coal industry restarted. The center of gravity for solar and turbine development and manufacturing has shifted to China and the EU. 

    So, that's why the premise of this article talks about the auto industry not wanting standards rolled back too much.  Their ideal would be the same standard in emissions for all countries. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'd love to have solar panels on my roof, but acres and acres of them in fields are an eyesore.  Not so sure about wind.  Why kill birds?  I do wholeheartedly disagree with California's expensive decree to mandate solar panels on new construction.  Wacko to mandate something like that, unless you WANT people NOT to build new houses... or move out of state.

     

    I think coal can be made cleaner while remaining cheap... and of course it's plentiful.

     

    CAFE has brought us troublesome multi-cylinder shutoff smallblock V8's... when an unmolested smallblock will run 400k miles with proper care... it has brought us really stupid things like stop-start... and 2.7L FOUR CYLINDER fullsize pickups!  Not to mention Ford's twin turbo sixes that ace the test in the lab, but fail it on the road.

    There has to be a tipping point, and I think we might be past it, where physics steps in and intervenes... Americans demand larger, more capable vehicles... the engineering compromises are becoming too great...

    Edited by ocnblu

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think you inadvertently pointed out part of the problem. The manufacturers are building to Ace the test, but the test in an effort to be fair and uniform is terribly unrealistic. That's why NA V6es often to better in the real world on the highway than smaller displacement but similar power turbo 4s. 

    If the test was more representative of real world driving, we'd see different results.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I think you inadvertently pointed out part of the problem. The manufacturers are building to Ace the test, but the test in an effort to be fair and uniform is terribly unrealistic. That's why NA V6es often to better in the real world on the highway than smaller displacement but similar power turbo 4s. 

    If the test was more representative of real world driving, we'd see different results.

    And this would expose CAFE as an even BIGGER bugaboo.  Its time has passed.  Technology won't stop... but the law of physics is unrelenting.

    Share this comment


    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.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Does anyone else notice a big drop in fuel economy when using the air conditioning? For people with automatic climate control do you ever manually turn off the air conditioner? 
    • By William Maley
      It was only eight weeks ago when Tesla finally announced that the $35,000 Model 3 would be available to order. This news caused the internet to go crazy on this news as it would become the most affordable model in Tesla's lineup. But late this week, the Californian automaker made some changes to the Model 3 ordering process to "simplify vehicle choices and make Autopilot more affordable."
      On Thursday, Tesla said in a blog post that the $35,000 Model 3 - known as the Standard Range - would not be available to order online. If you want one, then you need to either find Tesla store that is still open or call the company directly. Why is this happening?
      (Author's Note: A quick refresher; the Model 3 Standard Range gives you 220 miles, while the Standard Plus offers 240 miles. -WM)
      There is some dispute to the claim of the Standard Plus outselling the Standard. In late March, The Drive reported that a number of customers have gotten text messages from Tesla saying their deliveries have been pushed back without a new delivery date. Several have reported getting calls from Tesla trying to upsell them into the Standard Plus model.
      In Tesla's blog post, the off-menu version of the Model 3 will see its range decreased by 10 percent when compared to the Plus model, along with "several features will be disabled via software (including our onboard music streaming service, navigation with live traffic visualization, and heated seats)." Tesla also announced that Standard customers will have the option to upgrade to the Plus at any time, along with the option for Standard Plus owners to convert their model to the Standard and get a small refund "for the difference in cost." 
      As for pricing, the Standard Plus will now set you back $39,500 - up $2,000 over the previous Standard Plus. This is due to Tesla making Autopilot standard on all of their models. No pricing was given for the secret Model 3 Standard.
      “Tesla is now facing a reckoning. Between the cost cuts, waning demand for its vehicles and now making the $35,000 Model 3 much harder to buy, the company is now quietly realizing it has to play by the same rules as every other automaker,” said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of industry analysis at Edmunds.
      But wait, there's more!
      Tesla also announced that it would be offering a lease for Model 3. It is a 36-month lease with mileage options ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 miles per year. But there is a big caveat to this. Unlike most leases where you can buy the car at the end of the lease, Tesla is not allowing any Model 3 customer to buy their vehicle after the lease. The automaker is planning to use them in their upcoming ride-hailing network.
      Source: Tesla, Bloomberg (Subscription Required)
      Photo by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash
    • By William Maley
      It was only eight weeks ago when Tesla finally announced that the $35,000 Model 3 would be available to order. This news caused the internet to go crazy on this news as it would become the most affordable model in Tesla's lineup. But late this week, the Californian automaker made some changes to the Model 3 ordering process to "simplify vehicle choices and make Autopilot more affordable."
      On Thursday, Tesla said in a blog post that the $35,000 Model 3 - known as the Standard Range - would not be available to order online. If you want one, then you need to either find Tesla store that is still open or call the company directly. Why is this happening?
      (Author's Note: A quick refresher; the Model 3 Standard Range gives you 220 miles, while the Standard Plus offers 240 miles. -WM)
      There is some dispute to the claim of the Standard Plus outselling the Standard. In late March, The Drive reported that a number of customers have gotten text messages from Tesla saying their deliveries have been pushed back without a new delivery date. Several have reported getting calls from Tesla trying to upsell them into the Standard Plus model.
      In Tesla's blog post, the off-menu version of the Model 3 will see its range decreased by 10 percent when compared to the Plus model, along with "several features will be disabled via software (including our onboard music streaming service, navigation with live traffic visualization, and heated seats)." Tesla also announced that Standard customers will have the option to upgrade to the Plus at any time, along with the option for Standard Plus owners to convert their model to the Standard and get a small refund "for the difference in cost." 
      As for pricing, the Standard Plus will now set you back $39,500 - up $2,000 over the previous Standard Plus. This is due to Tesla making Autopilot standard on all of their models. No pricing was given for the secret Model 3 Standard.
      “Tesla is now facing a reckoning. Between the cost cuts, waning demand for its vehicles and now making the $35,000 Model 3 much harder to buy, the company is now quietly realizing it has to play by the same rules as every other automaker,” said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of industry analysis at Edmunds.
      But wait, there's more!
      Tesla also announced that it would be offering a lease for Model 3. It is a 36-month lease with mileage options ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 miles per year. But there is a big caveat to this. Unlike most leases where you can buy the car at the end of the lease, Tesla is not allowing any Model 3 customer to buy their vehicle after the lease. The automaker is planning to use them in their upcoming ride-hailing network.
      Source: Tesla, Bloomberg (Subscription Required)
      Photo by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash

      View full article
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.

      View full article
  • Posts

  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Howard
      Howard
      (63 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...