• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    As the Diesel Emits: EPA Could Make Volkswagen Build EVs in the U.S.


    • Could Volkswagen start building EVs as part of the EPA's punishment for the diesel emission crisis?

    A possible punishment that the EPA could bring down on Volkswagen is making them build electric vehicles in the U.S.

     

    German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reports the EPA is asking the German automaker to produce EVs at their Chattanooga, TN plant and to help build out a network of chargers across the U.S. The report doesn't say if EPA is asking for VW to produce a new electric vehicle or a current one - the Golf EV. It should be noted that Welt am Sonntag's report doesn't cite a source.

     

    "Talks with the EPA are ongoing and we are not commenting on the contents and state of the negotiations," said a Volkswagen spokesperson to Reuters.

     

    The EPA declined to comment.

     

    Reuters also notes Hans Dieter Poetsch, Volkswagen's chairman of Volkswagen's supervisory board German transport minister Alexander Dobrindt last week to give an update on cleaning up this mess. First reported by the German publication Bild am Sonntag, Poetsch said the company would do everything in its power to solve this crisis.

     

    Source: Welt am Sonntag, Reuters, Bild am Sonntag

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    This would be good as it could really push the US to move to a complete EV auto industry. Be interesting if they would be fast DC chargers, 220 or 110 chargers?

     

    Looking forward to the EPA's plan for this.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A horrible plan that puts Volkswagen in further peril.  Everybody loves the TDi... nobody wants electrics.  Government should butt out.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A horrible plan that puts Volkswagen in further peril.  Everybody loves the TDi... nobody wants electrics.  Government should butt out.

     

    How does this plan put Volkswagen in further peril? Please, explain this to me.

    Volkswagen is up to their necks in this scandal and anything to prevent from drowning would be a good thing.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Uh... because spending money on developing electrics is not a sound investment from a sales standpoint, especially as a replacement for the long-beloved TDi.  The U.S. government has no business getting involved in dictating automaker product plans... especially a foreign automaker.  This is unconscionable.

    -2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Uh... because spending money on developing electrics is not a sound investment from a sales standpoint, especially as a replacement for the long-beloved TDi.  The U.S. government has no business getting involved in dictating automaker product plans... especially a foreign automaker.  This is unconscionable.

     

    No one is saying that the TDI will be replaced by electrics. No one. It would be a piece of a puzzle of trying to build out other options aside from diesels. I will agree on the point the U.S. government shouldn't be involved with this.

    Also, I think a lot of that beloved-ness of diesel has gone down somewhat.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All I could here are evil laughs with this scandal...

     

    VW executives and engineers with this evil laugh, all laughing together when they decided upon this scam

     

    And Elon Musk at the news of having a car maker forced in contributing to what his company has already invested millions if not billions in...making an EV infrastructure.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    its not right to mandate something else as a penalty for breaking a different law, the govt can't dictate to ONE automaker the propulsion system as a punishment.  

     

    Although if that is VW's cheapest BROKERED solution, then we really have crossed a scary line.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Uh... because spending money on developing electrics is not a sound investment from a sales standpoint, especially as a replacement for the long-beloved TDi.  The U.S. government has no business getting involved in dictating automaker product plans... especially a foreign automaker.  This is unconscionable.

    Sorry blu but I have to totally disagree with you, VW has a niche market of people who love the weird TDi. If it really was the all end ultimate auto then they would be selling hundreds of thousands in the US alone. They are not, it is a small group and right now they are in the dog house due to a World Wide Cheating Scandal. 

     

    I know you hate EV's, Everyone know you do but in this case, VW needs to suck up spending a few million to make the political BS Morons in DC happy and build an EV or two to get going again.

     

    You can resist all you want but to quote the Borg, resistance is futile! The future is hybrid / EV. Enjoy your truck and find your peace with the fact that many will love the EVs and those like you will hate them. 

     

    Over all I accept all as they all have a place, but I do know that the days are numbered for CNG and BioDiesel as well as traditional Diesel and Petrol cars as you know them.

    -1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    its not right to mandate something else as a penalty for breaking a different law, the govt can't dictate to ONE automaker the propulsion system as a punishment.  

     

    Although if that is VW's cheapest BROKERED solution, then we really have crossed a scary line.

    Gm was pushed with the VOLT, VW will be pushed with EV and infrastructure. Others need to watch as they could end up in the same camp of paying to help flip the change over to a greener solution.

     

    I agree with you all that I also wish the gov would but out, but you do have strong groups pushing the gov to do this and California is leading the way no matter how Messed up that socialist cesspool of a state is.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    These "groups" DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE.  It has been shown to be true again and again over the decades.  "Green targets" are never met because THE PEOPLE want something that WORKS! 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    its not right to mandate something else as a penalty for breaking a different law, the govt can't dictate to ONE automaker the propulsion system as a punishment.  

     

    Although if that is VW's cheapest BROKERED solution, then we really have crossed a scary line.

    The mandate would be to attempt to "repair" something that is un-repairable that they caused...pollution. 

     

    I don't think it is a bad idea. For what they did, something that is un-repairable, un-fixable, money can't just be thrown at people to fix what they've done. One way to attempt to actually fix what they did would be to advance the EV field of zero emissions(the electric source is another issue because if it is burning coal for electricity then..well..that's another story all together). 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    These "groups" DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE.  It has been shown to be true again and again over the decades.  "Green targets" are never met because THE PEOPLE want something that WORKS! 

    If EVs had a 300-400 miles of range and could fill up as easily as gasoline, what doesn't "work" about that? 

     

    Yes, we are not there yet. But we can't get there without continued research and development of the technology. 

     

    Gasoline cars used to not have much range or efficiency either until we needed it for high fuel prices. What happened? R&D and now we have small diesel TRUCKS getting 31mpg(rating) with " 21-gallon tanks mean a maximum range of 651 miles."-C/D. That wasn't happening 30 years ago. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Diesel passenger auto sales for January 2016 were only 225 as reported by automakers. This is in comparison to between 4800 to 9500 a month for the first 8 months of 2015.

     

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/diesel-car-sales-slow-significantly-1455825746

     

    Worse yet is a US Law Firm has filed suit against Mercedes-Benz for having their Diesel emissions system turn off their emissions clean up during cold weather. MB denies this but does seem to make it appear that Passenger Diesels are going to be looked at much more closely than in the past.

     

    The story is also stating that low gas prices has dented the added cost of Diesel for many who are looking at buying a new auto.

     

    Great editorial on why VW should just buy back all the auto's and how it would allow them to move forward faster and rebuild their image.

     

    http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/02/23/vw-car-buyback-would-speed-emissions-scandal-exit/

     

    Some very good reading on this. So the buy back would affect the 325,000 diesels that have NO emissions system and would be more expensive to fix than buy back and crush. This would still leave another 255,000 autos to either fix or to buy back that does have an emissions system.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Brilliant idea! Brokering a deal with VW reduces potential legal costs from hearings, civil cases and government inquiry, and the publicly accessible infrastructure will foster increased electric car adoption. That'd really bolster the USA's position as a leader in electrification. 

     

    Having VW fork out a sum of cash to go towards rebates or reimbursements of electric purchases would also be a nice bonus. 

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      To say we were slightly disappointed to find out that the U.S.-Spec Toyota C-HR would only come with a 2.0L four-cylinder producing 144 horsepower would be an understatement. The European-spec C-HR has the choice of either a turbocharged 1.2L four or a hybrid, but neither of these powertrains will be showing up in the U.S.
      Car and Driver spoke with the C-HR's chief engineer, Hiroyuki Koba to find out why. Koba didn't say why the turbocharged 1.2L would not come to the U.S., but we're guessing Toyota didn't want to put the effort in getting this engine certified for the U.S. Also, performance numbers between the 2.0L and turbo 1.2L are similar (11 seconds for the 2.0 to hit 60 mph, 11.1 seconds for the 1.2).
      As for the hybrid, Koba said the decision comes down to the market, not engineering. At the moment, Toyota doesn't see the demand for this model in the U.S.
      Koba did admit there is a possibility for a more powerful version of the C-HR, but quickly added there aren't plans for this at the moment.
      Source: Car and Driver

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      To say we were slightly disappointed to find out that the U.S.-Spec Toyota C-HR would only come with a 2.0L four-cylinder producing 144 horsepower would be an understatement. The European-spec C-HR has the choice of either a turbocharged 1.2L four or a hybrid, but neither of these powertrains will be showing up in the U.S.
      Car and Driver spoke with the C-HR's chief engineer, Hiroyuki Koba to find out why. Koba didn't say why the turbocharged 1.2L would not come to the U.S., but we're guessing Toyota didn't want to put the effort in getting this engine certified for the U.S. Also, performance numbers between the 2.0L and turbo 1.2L are similar (11 seconds for the 2.0 to hit 60 mph, 11.1 seconds for the 1.2).
      As for the hybrid, Koba said the decision comes down to the market, not engineering. At the moment, Toyota doesn't see the demand for this model in the U.S.
      Koba did admit there is a possibility for a more powerful version of the C-HR, but quickly added there aren't plans for this at the moment.
      Source: Car and Driver
    • By William Maley
      Volkswagen of America Reports November 2016 Sales Results
      Dec 1, 2016
      November sales totaled 29,672 units, an increase of 24.2 percent over November 2015 Tiguan sales totaled 4,516 units, an increase of 15.6 percent over November 2015 Passat sales totaled 6,441 units, an increase of 133.5 percent over November 2015 Golf SportWagen sales (which includes the  all-new Alltrack) totaled 2,174 units, an increase of 246 percent over November 2015 Herndon, VA — (December 1, 2016) Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA) today reported sales of 29,672 units delivered in November 2016. Sales of the Golf SportWagen, which include the all-new Alltrack, increased by more than 200% over November 2015.
      November 2016 Sales
        November 16
      November 15
      Yr/Yr% change
      November  16
      YTD
      November  15
      YTD
      Yr/Yr%
      change
      Golf
                  1,340
                      774
      73.1%
                11,894
                18,066
      -34.2%
      GTI
                  2,216
                   1,963
      12.9%
                21,157
                21,300
      -0.7%
      Golf R
                     449
                      273
      64.5%
                  3,947
                  3,492
      13.0%
      e-Golf
                     305
                      472
      -35.4%
                  3,494
                  3,623
      -3.6%
      Golf SportWagen
                  2,174
                      628
      246.2%
                12,227
                13,112
      -6.7%
      Total Golf Family
                  6,484
                      4,110
      57.8%
                52,719
                59,593
      -11.5%
      Jetta Sedan
                10,212
                 11,021
      -7.3%
              108,023
              114,365
      -5.5%
      Jetta SportWagen       
      (now Golf SportWagen)
                        -  
                          1
      n/a
                         5
                  2,671
      -99.8%
      Total Jetta
                   10,212
      11,022
      -7.3%
      108,028
                117,036
      -7.7%
      Beetle Coupe
                     915
                      571
      60.2%
                  8,738
                12,067
      -27.6%
      Beetle Convertible
                     488
                      440
      10.9%
                  5,333
                  9,289
      -42.6%
      Total Beetle
                     1,403
                      1,011
      38.8%
      14,071
                  21,356
      -34.1%
      Eos*
                        -  
                      201
      n/a
                     387
                  2,751
      -85.9%
      Passat
                  6,441
                   2,759
      133.5%
                65,761
                74,611
      -11.9%
      CC
                     268
                      475
      -43.6%
                  2,863
                  5,643
      -49.3%
      Tiguan
                  4,516
                   3,907
      15.6%
                38,063
                30,943
      23.0%
      Touareg
                     348
                      397
      -12.3%
                  3,827
                  6,551
      -41.6%
      TOTAL
                     29,672
                      23,882
      24.24%
                  285,719
                  318,484
      -10.29%
      *Eos production ended in July 2015
    • By William Maley
      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

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      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
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)