worf wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:40 am
@JDS968 I’d like to hear (read) your “insider” view of this (and ‘rules’ like it.)
“ Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026…”
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/20/228 ... ions-biden
EPA issues new rule to curb tailpipe pollution, fight climate change
Andrew J. HawkinsDec 20, 2021, 12:14pm EST
California Sues EPA Over Ruling Blocking State Emissions Law Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule today aimed at reducing tailpipe pollution from cars and light-duty trucks — an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.
Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026 — slightly over Obama’s goal of 54 mpg, but a major increase over the 38-mpg rule put in place by President Donald Trump. The EPA estimates the new standard would prevent the release of 3.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050 and will save car owners $420 billion in fuel costs.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan called it “the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established,” adding, “The standards are achievable, affordable, and will deliver a significant pollution reduction.”
“the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established”
The new fuel economy standards are the latest effort by the Biden Administration to reduce air pollution in the broader fight against climate change. Earlier this month, Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to spend billions of dollars to purchase electric vehicles, upgrade federal buildings, and leverage the power of the government to shift to cleaner forms of electricity.
The administration will need to rely more heavily on executive actions to fight climate change after Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) came out against Biden’s Build Back Better proposal, which would have enacted a slate of environmental initiatives.
The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026. They’re seen as a return of Obama’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules from 2012 that required automakers to manufacture more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Those rules were rolled back under President Donald Trump, who sought to weaken the rule and allow the auto industry to make dirtier cars.
The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026
Advocates applauded the new rule as a victory for the environment and public health. “Climate change impacts the health of every American — now and for every future generation,” American Lung Association National President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a statement. “These greenhouse gas standards are a critical steppingstone to climate and clean air benefits that are desperately needed in communities throughout the United States.”
The auto industry, meanwhile, signaled that more will need to be done to help spur increases in electric vehicle sales, including tax breaks such as those included in the Build Back Better plan that now looks uncertain.
“Achieving the goals of this final rule will undoubtedly require enactment of supportive governmental policies,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which lobbies for the auto industry, “including consumer incentives, substantial infrastructure growth, fleet requirements, and support for U.S. manufacturing and supply chain development.”
I wrote a whole reply to this yesterday and then my phone ate it. Bastard.
Anyway, I don't think they're being ambitious enough. I think they should write a law requiring all gasoline powered vehicles to achieve 500 miles per gallon. If Congress doesn't like the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry, they should just amend them by a majority vote, right?
In practice, these rules do not result in all vehicles magically becoming more fuel efficient. They are applied across fleet averages, and functionally represent another tax on less efficient vehicles, similar to the "gas guzzler tax", except they are spread out across more consumers and all taxpayers. They are satisfied by a mix of incremental increases in gasoline fuel efficiency, sales of hybrid gas-electric and pure battery-electric vehicles, and outright fines paid to the feds. In general, some manufacturers have succeeded at selling highly fuel efficient pure gasoline vehicles, hybrids, and/or battery electric vehicles to their customers. Others, such as Mercedes and Chrysler, have a customer base that includes a LOT of people who just want big V8s. Although we have sold a few gas-electric hybrid Pacificas, we mostly have not come up with anything that balances out our HEMI sales. So we (along with many other manufacturers) have been giving Tesla cash in exchange for the right to count some of their battery-electric vehicle sales towards our fleet averages. We (along with many other manufacturers) still have not hit the targets even with Tesla's credits, and so many years pay additional cash to the federal government in the form of fines. One of the stated reasons for our merger with Peugeot was to use the technology behind their successful battery-electric vehicles to manufacture our own electric vehicles instead of paying Tesla. Of course, even those vehicles would likely need to be sold below cost, just as Tesla's vehicles are.
In the end, all of our vehicle prices are inflated by the requirement to pay Tesla (or sell our own electric vehicles below cost) and pay the fines to the feds, and all taxpayers are paying for the subsidies handed out to support electric vehicle sales.
The entire goal of corporate fuel economy requirements is completely misguided. There is a fantasy that the auto industry must be forced by federal law to deliver the products that our customers want. That is completely untrue. The automotive industry is a very efficient free market when the government gets out of the way. When customers want safety, efficiency, durability, capability, range, features, styling, you name it...there is always another manufacturer willing to deliver it for money if we won't. If customers want seat belts, airbags, electronic stability control, back-up cameras, crash survivability...somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and make those sales to the customers who value those things. If customers want more miles per gallon or lower exhaust emissions or more range, somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and will make those sales to the customers who want to pay for it. Year after year, customers continue to hand over their money for big V8s, not battery electric vehicles, even when the government slaps extra charges onto the vehicles the customers want and offers cash incentives for the battery-electric vehicles they don't want.
So the only logical goal of these mandates is to coerce manufacturers to sell products to customers who don't want them, because the government knows better than us. Fuck them.