Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

William Maley

Industry News: EPA Moves Forward With Locking In Emission Regulations By 2025

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In so many ways it seems like we do the dumbest things possible. You have both made some good points, there is not enough face palm for the situation...!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MB has over 20 models that get 16 or less city. If the diesels go and a towering gas tax kills off the 16 MPG gas vehicles, MB would lose 2/3rds of their vehicles.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   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 William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have unveiled a proposal that will suspend increases in fuel economy put forth by the Obama administration, and take away California's ability regulate vehicle emissions.
      The new proposal is called the "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule." Under the new proposal, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) would be capped at the 2020 level of 37 mpg through 2025. Under the rules that were created during the Obama administration, automakers would need to have a fleet average of 54 mpg in 2026. The proposal would also remove Calfornia's ability to set their own emissions state based on a 1975 federal law that prohibits states from setting their own greenhouse gas limits. It needs to be noted that two federal judges have rejected this argument when it was brought to court. 
      "EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] and ZEV [Zero Emissions Vehicles] requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program," the proposal states.
      "In short, the agencies propose to maintain one national standard -- a standard that is set exclusively by the Federal government."
      What are the benefits to this new proposal? The one that has been getting the most headlines is reduced fatalities and crashes. If you're scratching your head as to how this makes sense, here is what the proposal argues. 
      People who buy fuel-efficient vehicle will drive more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, thus slowing down the rate people buy new cars with advanced safety features. Fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be lighter, thus are less capable of withstanding a crash. The proposal claims that this will prevent 12,700 fatalities and many more injuries on American roads.
      There has been a lot of disagreement on this part, especially on the weight part. While it is true that a heavier vehicle won't sustain as much damage as lighter vehicle, experts have realized that the size of vehicle is more important to overall safety. Plus, the New York Times points out this point only accounts for one percent of the estimated fatalities in the proposal.
      Other benefits include reduced costs for new vehicles - the proposal says the stricter emission rules add about an average of $2,430 to the price of new vehicles.
      “We think we can have a win-win, if we lock in at 2020 levels. We’re not imposing undue costs on manufacturers. We’re not imposing undue costs on consumers who want affordable vehicles. And therefore we think as a result of these standards we will be able to have our cake and eat it too,” said Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a call today.
      Reactions to this are very mixed.
      “I applaud the Trump administration for proposing new standards for cars and trucks. Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
      "Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers in a statement.
      "The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity," said John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute.
      "This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Autotrader.
      Unsurprisingly, California is not pleased by this new proposal. The state along with 18 others and the District of Columbia have announced they would challenge the proposal in court.
      “The Trump Administration has launched a brazen attack, no matter how it is cloaked, on our nation’s Clean Car Standards,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general.
      California “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today’s national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”
      California Governor Jerry Brown was more blunt in his reaction to this,
      "California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
      A legal fight could mean a lot of headaches for automakers as it might result in two different emission standards they would have to meet. 
      "With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers.
      The next step is giving the public 60 days to comment on this proposal.
      Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, (2), Reuters, EPA
      U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles
      WASHINGTON  — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.
      The SAFE Vehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet.
      In today’s proposal, EPA and NHTSA are seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies’ preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026.
      “We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.”
      “There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”
      The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.
      Additionally, a 2018 government study by NHTSA shows new model year vehicles are safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.
      On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible.
      EPA and NHTSA are seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today’s proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter.
      The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have unveiled a proposal that will suspend increases in fuel economy put forth by the Obama administration, and take away California's ability regulate vehicle emissions.
      The new proposal is called the "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule." Under the new proposal, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) would be capped at the 2020 level of 37 mpg through 2025. Under the rules that were created during the Obama administration, automakers would need to have a fleet average of 54 mpg in 2026. The proposal would also remove Calfornia's ability to set their own emissions state based on a 1975 federal law that prohibits states from setting their own greenhouse gas limits. It needs to be noted that two federal judges have rejected this argument when it was brought to court. 
      "EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] and ZEV [Zero Emissions Vehicles] requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program," the proposal states.
      "In short, the agencies propose to maintain one national standard -- a standard that is set exclusively by the Federal government."
      What are the benefits to this new proposal? The one that has been getting the most headlines is reduced fatalities and crashes. If you're scratching your head as to how this makes sense, here is what the proposal argues. 
      People who buy fuel-efficient vehicle will drive more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash. Fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, thus slowing down the rate people buy new cars with advanced safety features. Fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be lighter, thus are less capable of withstanding a crash. The proposal claims that this will prevent 12,700 fatalities and many more injuries on American roads.
      There has been a lot of disagreement on this part, especially on the weight part. While it is true that a heavier vehicle won't sustain as much damage as lighter vehicle, experts have realized that the size of vehicle is more important to overall safety. Plus, the New York Times points out this point only accounts for one percent of the estimated fatalities in the proposal.
      Other benefits include reduced costs for new vehicles - the proposal says the stricter emission rules add about an average of $2,430 to the price of new vehicles.
      “We think we can have a win-win, if we lock in at 2020 levels. We’re not imposing undue costs on manufacturers. We’re not imposing undue costs on consumers who want affordable vehicles. And therefore we think as a result of these standards we will be able to have our cake and eat it too,” said Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a call today.
      Reactions to this are very mixed.
      “I applaud the Trump administration for proposing new standards for cars and trucks. Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
      "Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers in a statement.
      "The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity," said John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute.
      "This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Autotrader.
      Unsurprisingly, California is not pleased by this new proposal. The state along with 18 others and the District of Columbia have announced they would challenge the proposal in court.
      “The Trump Administration has launched a brazen attack, no matter how it is cloaked, on our nation’s Clean Car Standards,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general.
      California “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today’s national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”
      California Governor Jerry Brown was more blunt in his reaction to this,
      "California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
      A legal fight could mean a lot of headaches for automakers as it might result in two different emission standards they would have to meet. 
      "With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers.
      The next step is giving the public 60 days to comment on this proposal.
      Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, (2), Reuters, EPA
      U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles
      WASHINGTON  — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.
      The SAFE Vehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet.
      In today’s proposal, EPA and NHTSA are seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies’ preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026.
      “We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.”
      “There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”
      The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.
      Additionally, a 2018 government study by NHTSA shows new model year vehicles are safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.
      On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible.
      EPA and NHTSA are seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today’s proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter.
      The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register
    • By William Maley
      Toyota is planning a big push with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. According to Reuters, the Japanese automaker is doubling-down on investments for fuel cell vehicles by making improvements to reduce costs and building different models including commercial trucks.
      “We’re going to shift from limited production to mass production, reduce the amount of expensive materials like platinum used in FCV components, and make the system more compact and powerful,” said Yoshikazu Tanaka, chief engineer of the Mirai.
      Currently, Toyota hand builds the Mirai at a plant in Toyota City. Everyday, about 6.5 cars roll out of the plant. This is due to the detailed inspections that partially assembled models go through. The parts comprising the Mirai are quite expensive as well. According to analysis done by Strategic Analysis Inc., it costs Toyota about $11,000 to produce each of the fuel cell stacks. Blame the use of the platinum, titanium, and carbon fiber for the stacks.
      Toyota has been building up production capacity as it expects sales of FCVs to increase from about 3,000 to over 20,000 after 2020. This will help reduce the cost of each fuel cell stack to $8,000.
      “It will be difficult for Toyota to lower FCV production costs if it only produces the Mirai,” said a source,
      That's where an expansion of FCVs come in. Toyota is planning a "phased introduction' of other FCVs, including SUVs and commercial trucks starting around 2025. Toyota declined to talk about future products, but did reveal that it has built prototypes of small delivery vehicles and transport trucks with fuel cell powertrains.
      “We’re going to use as many parts from existing passenger cars and other models as possible in fuel cell trucks. Otherwise, we won’t see the benefits of mass production,” said Ikuo Ota, manager of new business planning for fuel cell projects at Toyota.
      Why is Toyota doubling down on fuel cells? Sources say that Toyota believes demand will increase as more countries, including China "warm to fuel cell technology". The company also sees FCVs as a hedge against battery materials such as cobalt becoming scarce.
      But there is still one issue that Toyota, and other automakers build FCVs still need to solve; infrastructure. There aren't many hydrogen refueling stations around. For example, the majority of hydrogen stations in the U.S. are in California. Not helping is a current shortage of hydrogen at refueling stations in California. Green Car Reports says this issue is due to various problems with supplier Air Products. The company said that it hopes to restore hydrogen supplies sometime in early August.
      Source: Reuters, Green Car Reports

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.