EPA reportedly planning to scrap fuel economy targets. California is recalcitrant.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce very soon that it will abandon mileage targets the Obama administration agreed upon with the state of California, which raises average fuel economy for passenger cars and SUVs to 55 miles per gallon by 2025.

The EPA’s revised standard will be made public sometime in the coming weeks, according to unidentified sources.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said a draft determination was being reviewed, and a final decision would be made by Sunday.

EPA chief Scott Pruitt has said that he believes the targets are too stringent for manufacturers producing and selling the vehicles that Americans want to drive. Of course, manufacturers will not be prohibited from making fuel economy gains, no matter what the government decides.

California has the authority under the Clean Air Act to impose its own standard, and they have. The Clean Air Act permits other states to adopt the California rules, and about a quarter of the states have done that.

The US auto industry has requested that these standards be rewritten. It is important to them, however, that only one standard applies across the United States. A separate standard for California and some other states would possibly require multiple production lines to comply with conflicting rules – an unsatisfactory solution.

As reported in The Detroit News,

The auto industry wants a deal with Trump and California in part because it sees an opportunity for rules to be harmonized and made more rational, Bainwol wrote. He discouraged the U.S. and the state from resorting to costly and protracted litigation and said California’s willingness to be flexible on rules leading up to 2025 could lead to an accord with the industry on standards in later years.

The Alliance commissioned a poll last month that found almost two thirds of consumers agreed the government should increase the standards. The poll, conducted by Morning Consult, found support among 69 percent of Democratic respondents and 63 percent of Republicans. 

“When you cut through all of the political hyperbole, there will be a common interest in getting to yes,” Bainwol said in the interview with Bloomberg News.

While Americans want higher standards, they also may not be willing to pay a premium for more efficient autos, the poll found. Almost one fourth of respondents said they were willing to pay nothing, while one fifth said they were amenable to the cost being less than $1,000.

So there we have it. Most of the American public believes in Climate Change caused by humans, or they want the savings to their pocketbooks that increased mileage would bring, or both, but they don’t want to pay for the technology that will bring that about.

This could turn out to be a very messy fight. Personally, I don’t see California becoming more rational or amenable to rolling back their mileage standards.

The LA Times reported yesterday:

The state is showing no sign of yielding. And the EPA chief is striking an increasingly hostile tone toward it, suggesting that he may seek to revoke the federal waiver that allows California to impose tougher rules than those of the federal government.

“We are not going to go backward,” said California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. “We are not interested in a race to the bottom…. We are prepared to take whatever action, legal or otherwise, we have to to protect our health and our economy.”

“We didn’t make these moves lightly,” Becerra said of the fuel economy targets. “They came after years of study, scientific evidence, fact-gathering, comment periods, a lot of back and forth among experts and stakeholders. To unwind this and go backward would cost our industries and cost our people billions of dollars. There has to be a good reason to make any kind of move. We have seen nothing change that would make California change its position.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Government, News, Politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to EPA reportedly planning to scrap fuel economy targets. California is recalcitrant.

  1. stella says:

    Seen on Facebook:

    It’s been a crooked game because of loopholes in the tests themselves as well as in the assessment of a manufacturer’s overall compliance. Good riddance.

    What’s not clear is whether this will end the market for pollution credits wherein vehicle manufacturers whose fleet (total output in a given time period) exceeds allowable ceiling can purchase credits from manufacturers whose fleets are within limits. The biggest benefactor of this scheme to date has been Tesla – it’s probably the only thing Tesla makes money on. If the pollution credit scheme goes away, Tesla will be in even worse shape.

    http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/report-tesla-bond-rating-down-due-production-woes-investigations-supply-shortage

    Like

  2. rheavolans says:

    is it just me, or does California really need to be brought into line? I feel like they do what they want, and expect the rest of the country to be there to pick up the pieces, and it’s making me quite mad. I heard this morning that they want coffee to come with a warning because it might give you cancer. Has anyone told these idiots that no one gets out of life alive?

    Back to the cars, this is long overdue. I wonder who made the EPA see reason.

    And who’s going to make California see reason. My suggestion is that the car makers do what they want, and if suddenly no one in California can drive anywhere because their cars don’t meet their state’s bat-guano crazy emissions standards, well, maybe they’ll get around to buying a clue.

    Maybe Pelosi will pick up the slack, who knows.

    Liked by 2 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      California seems to believe that going overboard is a ‘brand’ that distinguishes them from the regular universe the rest of us live in.
      Problem is that in areas like cars California is such a huge market that many makers can’t afford to run two lines, and California steers the ship of industry. I know that when I go to buy farm equipment that has small engines I’m presented with the option to buy a real-world item or one modified to CARB standards. The CARB item generally uses more fuel, is less powerful and requires more time toget the job done making me wonder if CARB measured the ‘pollutants’ at one point or over the length of the job as compared to a non-CARB equivalent item.
      I remember the 60s/70s when California places like LA had a cloud of crud over them that you could feel and taste, that undoubtedly started the regulation ball rolling. I also remember when various CA levels of government wanted to ban/severely reguilate charcoal grilling as it added to one’s carbon footprint, increased air pollution and created cancer-causing substances to magically appear in meat. Then the state’s once again elected Moonbeam Brown to the governor’s chair so maybe there’s something in the water they’re stealing from other states causing this.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s