Calling Car Pollution Standards Too High, E.P.A. Sets Up Fight With California

[Rhiannon12866]

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday took steps to challenge California’s decades-old right to set its own air pollution rules, setting up a showdown between the federal government and a state that has emerged as a bulwark against the Trump administration’s policies.

The E.P.A. statement was part of the agency’s widely expected decision to reconsider, and most likely roll back, Obama-era rules requiring automakers to hit ambitious emissions and mileage standards by 2025. The statement, though, was notable for the forcefulness of its language suggesting that the Trump administration would take on California’s authority to set its own rules.

Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, signaled that he aimed to make California fall in line. The Obama administration, he said, “made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality, and set the standards too high.” California’s history of setting its own emissions rules “doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country,” Mr. Pruitt said.

A rollback of the rules, which are designed to cut back on emissions of greenhouse gases, would reverse one of the single biggest steps any government has taken to tackle climate change. California has said it will stick with the tougher, Obama-era regulations, a decision that could effectively split the United States into two auto markets: one requiring cars to be more efficient and less polluting than the other.

California has long possessed the unique authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to write its own air pollution rules. Traditionally, a dozen other states follow California’s air pollution rules and together they represent one-third of the nation’s auto market. That puts California in an extraordinary position to stage a regulatory revolt, with much of the country’s car market in tow.


More: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rules.html



The Environmental Protection Agency did not say how far the Obama-era rules should be rolled back, only that it would seek “more appropriate” standards. George Etheredge for The New York Times

[msongs]

1. what ahppened to repubs concern about states rights and local control? same with pot nt

[Rhiannon12866]

2. That's an excellent question

Didn't Reagan lead on states' rights? Not to mention, how does allowing more pollution benefit the American people??? Isn't the job of the federal government to look out for and protect its citizens??

[MichMan]

3. I don't think people understand the predicament that the auto manufacturers are in

The EPA mandated fuel economy standards for 2025 have resulted in a flurry of electric, hybrid and other vehicle launches existing and planned. The manufacturers have spent billions developing technologies and designing these vehicles. Yet, for the most part, consumers don't seem to be all that interested in buying them.

Electric and Hybrid vehicles sales are approx 3% while sales of Crossovers, SUV and Trucks are at all time highs. With fuel prices in the mid $2 range, consumers are proving that fuel mileage is not the determining factor in their buying decision. Producing fuel efficient vehicles that meet the EPA standards is just one piece of the solution; how are you going to force people to buy them?

If the EPA standards are not met, the manufacturers will be fined millions of $$$ for failure to comply. The other scenario is that they will also be forced to buy offsetting credits for millions of $$$ from Tesla. I suppose if you are Elon Musk, that is a great plan, but it does nothing to reduce pollution. Those of us in Michigan dependant on the auto industry for our jobs are not too pleased that the manufacturers will be punished for selling the vehicles that their customers prefer.

California and other states have mandated 15% of sales be electric by 2025. If their residents don't buy enough of them, how is that the fault of the manufacturers who have made them available?

How are you going to force people to buy them? A couple solutions would be gas tax increases of $1 or more a gallon or hundreds of $$ increases in registration fees for bigger vehicles. If you find any politician willing to propose either of these, I would love to meet them. I know if anyone proposed this in Michigan, they would be defeated in a landslide.

Politicians love cheap gas, but expect their constituents to not use much of it.

Of course there are conspiracy nuts that are convinced that General Motors has the technology to make a 100 mpg SUV that could be sold for $20K. but are in cahoots with the oil companies.

[lostnfound]

4. Car makers can adjust pricing to favor electric it is in their control

Plenty of people would love to have a Tesla but can’t afford it.
Car makers have a hundred years of selling cars with gasoline engines and supply chains optimized for them.

Investments and volume will bring cost down. Targets for the mix of cars sold encourage lower prices on efficient cars. Supply and demand curve.

[NickB79]

5. People simply don't like smaller cars, it seems

The vehicles hitting the roads are bigger, heavier, and more tech-laden than ever. People like sitting up high in an SUV. They like being able to haul half a soccer team to the mall (even though they almost never really need to). They think that pickup truck will come in handy someday hauling something, even though the bed doesn't have a scratch in it after years of driving. They feel secure enough behind the wheel to do 70 mph in a blizzard, because they have 4-wheel drive and 400 HP.

It probably doesn't help either that 40% of Americans are now obese and need larger vehicles just to fit them.

There really aren't any EV's or really efficient hybrids on the market that appeal to these people, but they're the largest block of auto purchasers today.

It really boils down to cheap gas, the insatiable American urge for bigger anything, our ever-widening asses, and no real sense of urgency over climate change.

It's the perfect storm of apathy in the face of disaster.