Industry News: White House Officials and California Quietly Work On A Deal For Emission Standards

[William Maley]

Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would be rolling back the fuel-efficiency regulations that were approved during the Obama administration. The agency also announced possibly revoking California's waiver that allows it to set tougher standards on vehicle emissions. The state vowed to fight this. But a new report from the New York Times says California and officials from the Trump administration are in talks about possibly reaching a deal to avoid a legal fight.

Speaking to a half-dozen of sources briefed about the talks, the Times reports that the two parties, along with representatives of major automakers, "are searching for a compromise that could save a uniform set of standards for the entire country." 

One of the proposals on the table is to keep the Obama fuel economy standards, but allow automakers to take advantage of more generous loopholes to meet them. In turn, the Trump administration would honor California's wavier through 2030. There could be other proposals in the cards as the EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the White House begin to coordinate their various strategies.

There are a number of obstacles that could derail the talks. Various automakers "are in different positions” on how to proceed with the talks. According to a source, some are focused on rolling back the standards through 2025, while others want to have the discussion to reach a compromise to avoid having to build vehicles to different standards. The talks themselves seem to be spinning their wheels. Last week, William Wehrum, the EPA's senior clean air adviser met with Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. Depending on who you ask, the meeting didn't amount to anything or was considered to be productive.

Source: New York Times

View full article

[David]

Ugly times ahead.

[riviera74]

8 hours ago, dfelt said:

Ugly times ahead.

Agreed. 

[ocnblu]

A 50-state standard is best for everyone.  We all want clean air, but fuel mileage is a whole nother ballgame.  People want capable, larger vehicles.

[Drew Dowdell]

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

A 50-state standard is best for everyone.  We all want clean air, but fuel mileage is a whole nother ballgame.  People want capable, larger vehicles.

I agree here that a 50-state standard is best, but at the same time, the 50-state standard needs to take into account the needs of the states with the worst air quality.  So while California should not be dictating policy for the entire country, the entire country does need to follow a standard that protects California air (And Texas, even if they don't care to do it on their own).

We also need national fuel blend standards, or at least much larger regional standards.  Having 50 states with 50 blend requirements for 3+ different grades of fuel is horribly inefficient.  There is no reason the gasoline I buy in NJ should be different in composition than the gasoline I buy in PA.

I feel like most of the manufacturers have gone too far with engine downsizing.  Unlike @ocnblu I am not against electrification, in fact I see some strong benefits to it. However, putting these tiny displacement turbo engines is not having the results promised.  Either they need to bring the displacement back up or they need to add electrification to the tiny engines to give them a boost.  The tiny engines are just playing to the EPA test and do not produce the same results in the real world.  Driven normally, the little 1.4s and 1.5s get over worked and burn just as much, or more, fuel than a bigger displacement non-turbo.

[Robert Hall]

There are 50 state emissions standards now for some aspects of vehicle emissions, right?  I've seen that phrase somewhere on documents related to vehicles..

[Drew Dowdell]

9 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

There are 50 state emissions standards now for some aspects of vehicle emissions, right?  I've seen that phrase somewhere on documents related to vehicles..

There are 50-state emissions, but there are also California emissions that have been adopted by 7 or 8 other states.

[David]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There are 50-state emissions, but there are also California emissions that have been adopted by 7 or 8 other states.

Washington state is one of the states that fully adopted California emissions and last update this state posted was that there are 17 states now that fully follow the CARB emissions standard. 13 fully enforce it on the auto makers. This puts much more weight behind clean air.

Known as "Section 177" states, those 13 are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington

[ocnblu]

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

Washington state is one of the states that fully adopted California emissions and last update this state posted was that there are 17 states now that fully follow the CARB emissions standard. 13 fully enforce it on the auto makers. This puts much more weight behind clean air.

Known as "Section 177" states, those 13 are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington

Yes.  This needs to be eliminated immediately.

[oldshurst442]

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

Washington state is one of the states that fully adopted California emissions and last update this state posted was that there are 17 states now that fully follow the CARB emissions standard. 13 fully enforce it on the auto makers. This puts much more weight behind clean air.

Known as "Section 177" states, those 13 are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington

And Quebec!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-adopts-california-car-emissions-standards-1.837227

Edited April 7, 2018 by oldshurst442

[ocnblu]

Where is that

[oldshurst442]

 

3 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Where is that

Its near Greece!

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by oldshurst442

[ocnblu]

He's ready for some Greek Love

[oldshurst442]

6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

He's ready for some Greek Love

Im surprised you are even allowed to mention about Greek love...

Where you come from its a sin...

 

Where you come from its frowned upon, its denounced and its verboten...

 

I wouldnt be surprised though, that where you come from, those people that vehemently denounce it, are sooooo flamboyantly immersed in Greek love, they cant even drive straight...

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by oldshurst442

[ocnblu]

How do you know this?  Who tole you?

[oldshurst442]

4 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

How do you know this?  Who tole you?

Nobody tole me.

Im Greek!    

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by oldshurst442

[David]

Guess I was born a Sin, since I love everyone!  

[ocnblu]

Even idiots and morons?  Come now.

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Even idiots and morons?  Come now.

Well, to be honest. I have never heard him say that he does NOT love you.

So...yeah! 

Edited April 7, 2018 by oldshurst442

[David]

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116176_epa-does-not-set-fuel-economy-limits-get-this-right-journalists

So I like so many thought the EPA did it all but according to this story, EPA sets Emissions, NHTSA is responsible for MPG or corporate average fuel economy rules.

To Quote the story:

"The confusion comes because the EPA began to regulate vehicular emissions of the climate-change gas carbon dioxide in 2012, requiring the two agencies had to align those two sets of standards for the first time.

Previously, the EPA regulated "criteria emissions" (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons), which it could do without directly affecting the fuel consumption of the vehicles.

Following a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the EPA was required to regulate CO2 emissions starting in 2012—and those emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned by the vehicle.

That meant that the EPA and the NHTSA had to develop standards that "matched," so automakers weren't trying to meet fuel-economy rules that let them emit more CO2 than the EPA would allow.

In partnership with automakers and the powerful California Air Resources Board, the two agencies did exactly that in 2010 for 2012-2017 vehicles.

They repeated the process in 2012 for vehicles in model years 2018 through 2025, with a mandatory "midterm review" to look at the 2022-2025 standards before finalizing them."

Interesting is that the Fed rules for changes must be based on scientific analyses and the 38 page rationale for tossing the rules now in force are primarily industry complaints especially from the oil companies and are devoid of any rigorous scientific analysis and modeling required by law.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116107_pruitts-epa-decision-38-page-intention-vs-1217-pages-of-analysis 

Interesting read of the 38pg intention versus the 1,217 page analysis that showed the auto companies had in July 2016 met the standards required and at a much lower cost than they predicted almost 4 yrs ahead of schedule for the 2020 year. This also came to show that they could meet the later standards also.

Looks like based on reviews from external independent groups that his rollback will fail when challenged in court due to the lack of any scientific proof.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116165_pruitts-epa-emission-rollback-reasoning-may-well-fail-in-court

[David]

@ocnblu Thought you would like this.

The rules passed by Obama actual help trucks and SUV's not hurt them. So since it looks to be more and more that the changes at EPA with Courts challenges will not happen, you can be happy in knowing you get your trucks / SUV/CUVs.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116104_why-trucks-arent-a-cafe-problem-for-carmakers-despite-their-lobbying-claims

Good read at the above link the but quote the story:

"The original CAFE standards, passed in 1975, separated cars from trucks. Automakers had to hit the same average fuel economy target, divided by every vehicle they sold.

The standards starting in 2012, however, divide cars and trucks into different sizes, known as "footprints" (the area bounded by the four wheels)—and it set lower targets for larger vehicles.

As automakers sell more trucks (or more larger cars), the fuel economy they must deliver drops.

Cars and trucks are still separated, but trucks have to meet lower standards than cars, and don't have to do it as soon. When the regulations were developed in 2012, automakers received extra time to develop fuel-saving technologies for trucks. 

The New York Times suggested automakers now worry Pruitt will go overboard and freeze, roll back, or even dispense altogether with the "unnecessary" emission rules—giving them a black eye when the public largely supports stronger environmental standards."

[Zane Wylder]

I got a simple solution: We give California back to Mexico and proceed with what we were gonna do

[Drew Dowdell]

On 5/18/2018 at 8:52 PM, Zane Wylder said:

I got a simple solution: We give California back to Mexico and proceed with what we were gonna do

So much for fresh produce in our grocery stores then.

I thought conservatives were all for states rights? California is doing what is best for California. 

[ocnblu]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

So much for fresh produce in our grocery stores then.

I thought conservatives were all for states rights? California is doing what is best for California. 

That is up for vigorous debate on so many levels.

[Zane Wylder]

7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

So much for fresh produce in our grocery stores then.

I thought conservatives were all for states rights? California is doing what is best for California. 

Problem is, the inmates are running the asylum in Cali. Gonna cut most of the politics out, but simply put, there's a reason for the mass exodus basically. If you removed the illegals, implemented voter ID and didn't have radical judges overruling the consent of the govern, then I'd believe the state truly knew best (And the inmates would be put back in their cells)

 

4 hours ago, ocnblu said:

That is up for vigorous debate on so many levels.

It truly is, bro, it truly is

[Drew Dowdell]

There is zero proof of illegals voting in Mass numbers.

[Zane Wylder]

49 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There is zero proof of illegals voting in Mass numbers.

Depends on where ya get your news from, but enough politics for now

[Drew Dowdell]

11 hours ago, Zane Wylder said:

Depends on where ya get your news from, but enough politics for now

No. It really doesn't.  Facts don't change depending on the news source. Doesn't matter if it is politics or cars.  Facts matter around here.