Thread: Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming

Trump to Undo Vehicle Rules That Curb Global Warming

By CORAL DAVENPORT
MARCH 3, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected to begin rolling back stringent federal regulations on vehicle pollution that contributes to global warming, according to people familiar with the matter, essentially marking a U-turn to efforts to force the American auto industry to produce more electric cars.

The announcement — which is expected as soon as Tuesday and will be made jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, and the transportation secretary, Elaine L. Chao — will immediately start to undo one of former President Barack Obama’s most significant environmental legacies.

During the same week, and possibly on the same day, Mr. Trump is expected to direct Mr. Pruitt to begin the more lengthy and legally complex process of dismantling the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s rules to cut planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.

The regulatory rollback on vehicle pollution will relax restrictions on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and will not require action by Congress. It will also have a major effect on the United States auto industry.

Under the Obama administration’s vehicle fuel economy standards, American automakers were locked into nearly a decade of trying to design and build ever more sophisticated fuel-efficient vehicles, including electric and hybrid models. The nation’s largest auto companies told Mr. Trump last month that they found those technical requirements too burdensome.

The E.P.A. will also begin legal proceedings to revoke a waiver for California that was allowing the state to enforce the tougher tailpipe standards for its drivers.

E.P.A. officials did not respond to emails requesting comment on the move.

On Feb. 21, a coalition of the 17 largest companies that sell cars in the United States sent two letters to Mr. Pruitt, asking him to revisit the tailpipe rules. They said it may be “the single most important decision the E.P.A. has made in recent history.”

They complained about the steep technical challenge posed by the stringent standard, noting that only about 3.5 percent of new vehicles are able to reach it. That even excludes some hybrid cars, plug-in electric cars and fuel cell vehicles, the automakers wrote. “Even today, no conventional vehicle today meets that target.”

The automakers estimated their industry would have to spend a “staggering” $200 billion between 2012 and 2025 to comply and said the tailpipe emissions rule was far more expensive for the industry than enforcing the Clean Power Plan.

Former Obama administration officials and environmentalists denounced Mr. Trump’s expected announcement.

“The rest of the world is moving forward with electric cars. If the Trump administration goes backward, the U.S. won’t be able to compete globally,” said Margo T. Oge, a former senior E.P.A. official and the author of “Driving the Future: Combating Climate Change With Cleaner, Smarter Cars.”

“This means they’ll just keep polluting,” said S. William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. He also predicted that “if this administration goes after the California waiver, there will be an all-out brawl between Trump and California and the other states that will defend its program.”

The tailpipe pollution regulations were among Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to reduce global warming and were put forth jointly by the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department. They would have forced automakers to build passenger cars that achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, compared with about 36 miles per gallon today.

Eventually achieving those targets would have drastically reduced the nation’s vehicle tailpipe pollution, which accounts for about a third of the United States’ total greenhouse gas emissions.

Those regulations are locked into place for vehicle model years through 2021, and just before Mr. Trump took office, the E.P.A. put forth a final rule intended to cement them for vehicles built from 2022 through 2025. However, the E.P.A. did not jointly release its plan to do so with the Transportation Department, leaving a legal loophole for the Trump administration to take advantage of.

The E.P.A.’s Clean Power Plan regulations, which would cut climate-warming pollution from power plants, will probably be much harder for Mr. Pruitt to undo. He will have to legally withdraw the existing rule and propose a new rule to replace it, a process that could take up to two years and is expected to be fraught with legal challenges and delays along the way.

The effort to undo the tailpipe standards will be much more legally simple. After withdrawing the Obama administration’s requirement for model years 2022 through 2025, the Trump administration will have a year to put forth an alternative set of efficiency standards, people familiar with the matter said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/u...tion.html?_r=0

In Trump's budget, a dramatic retreat from environmental protection

Los Angeles Times

- ‎1 hour ago‎

President Trump's budget envisions a rapid retreat from the aggressive federal environmental protection policies developed over the last four decades, to be replaced with hollowed-out enforcement and wholesale elimination of some signature federal ...

When this started the states had no capability to speak of. Now the states have their own large agencies, are very familiar with federal pollution guidelines, and are much more capable to do this job on a vast array of pollution items. They are also closer to the scenes, more knowledgeable of the surrounding areas, and are much better prepared to deal with most of these issues than the feds. Plus, if states do more enforcement, the states can collect more of the fines. States also are in a better position to mitigate and not over-reach while still enforcing the law fairly and appropriately. I believe this is where it's going and that's the right decision in my mind. Then, when a state is collectively in violation, the feds can move on the states to remedy rather than individual polluters.

The effort to undo the tailpipe standards will be much more legally simple. After withdrawing the Obama administration’s requirement for model years 2022 through 2025, the Trump administration will have a year to put forth an alternative set of efficiency standards, people familiar with the matter said.

We shall see if Trump comes up with something that would continue on a path for consumers at the pump REDUCING GAS CONSUMPTION which was happening to the tune of saving drivers $35billion. or favor the industry's profits.

Pruitt just recently admitted the reason behind this attack: industry requested it. They sent the EPA a letter full of "alternative facts" that run directly counter to the real-world track record of these crucial clean air standards.

Here are the true facts:

• Americans have already saved nearly $35 billion at the pump because of these standards,

• Manufacturers have beaten the standards in each of the last four years, while setting new sales records and, together with auto suppliers, deploying innovative technologies even faster than EPA anticipated.
• the average American who purchases a new car using a five-year loan, the standards are expected to immediately deliver the cost savings from cleaner, more efficient vehicles.
• the auto industry added nearly 700,000 good jobs since 2009.
• This program will eliminate more than a year's worth of U.S. carbon emissions.

The record is clear: This policy reduces pollution, saves consumers money, spurs the development of cleaner technologies, and reduces the risks of climate change.

If each state has their own rules a manufactuerer would never be able to make a car that met all of the different rules.
Thats why we need one set of federal regulations for all cars nationwide.

The federal government SHOULD support research in energy efficiency in transportation. I don't think anyone quibbles with NASA's investment in next generation aircraft research---which has various aims, including energy efficiency. In NASA's case it probably would be beneficial to the commercial airline corporations since they operate on a low profit margin and fuel costs are an unpredictable overhead expense.

So why not also on automotive fuel consumption? If some people concluded that with higher fuel efficiency standards we would end up riding around in undersized death traps they were completely wrong. The automakers have been able to produce fuel efficient vehicles that are within a comfortable size. Now they are even introducing very efficient products that work for at least a segment of the market. The European market broke the ground for more efficient powertrains. If the EPA adjusts something it should be in allowing importation of vehicles that have a low overall pollution level---even if they don't meet the PPM count levels in states like California. IMO, the US government should take advantage of what is now an international laboratory of transportation innovation. I doubt that the National Laboratories are that big of a federal expense to begin with---and besides mechanical and electrical engineering they could apply more effort to construction materials technology to make long term infrastructure improvement more cost efficient. A small amount of research could go a long ways.

There are some blogs that cover the improvement of automotive technology. My favorite is Green Car Congress---which covers innovations worldwide. There is some really remarkable stuff being developed.

Originally Posted by Captainron

The federal government SHOULD support research in energy efficiency in transportation. I don't think anyone quibbles with NASA's investment in next generation aircraft research---which has various aims, including energy efficiency. In NASA's case it probably would be beneficial to the commercial airline corporations since they operate on a low profit margin and fuel costs are an unpredictable overhead expense.

So why not also on automotive fuel consumption? If some people concluded that with higher fuel efficiency standards we would end up riding around in undersized death traps they were completely wrong. The automakers have been able to produce fuel efficient vehicles that are within a comfortable size. Now they are even introducing very efficient products that work for at least a segment of the market. The European market broke the ground for more efficient powertrains. If the EPA adjusts something it should be in allowing importation of vehicles that have a low overall pollution level---even if they don't meet the PPM count levels in states like California. IMO, the US government should take advantage of what is now an international laboratory of transportation innovation. I doubt that the National Laboratories are that big of a federal expense to begin with---and besides mechanical and electrical engineering they could apply more effort to construction materials technology to make long term infrastructure improvement more cost efficient. A small amount of research could go a long ways.

There are some blogs that cover the improvement of automotive technology. My favorite is Green Car Congress---which covers innovations worldwide. There is some really remarkable stuff being developed.

There is a difference between "support" and "regulate". Does the federal government need to actually do research in energy efficiency in transportation? Research in aviation is old business in NASA, it predates our space exploration and was largely related to military research, but certainly paid off for the civilian sector as well.

The problem with regulating automobiles for energy use is the difference between efficiency and consumption. What is efficient energy consumption is not always low energy consumption and this goes for electric as well as gasoline powered vehicles. Government regulation was tending toward regulating fuel consumption rather than just efficiency. And it was not at all concerned about regulating the energy consumption of electric automobiles, even while grid consumers were facing increasing pressure to reduce electrical energy consumption. Witness the Tesla, basically a luxury car that burn Watts in the same profligate way that a Rolls burns gasoline. But it has a reputation as a "green" technology. It is better to let market forces determine the production of automobiles that are both efficient and low energy consumers. Let the price of energy and the demands of the consumer determine what the auto manufacturers produce.

The real problem with the automobile is the use of the automobile for mass transportation rather than personal transportation, which is the only thing the automobile is good for. The future of the automobile is as personal transportation and future of mass transportation is mass transportation. Rail.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

If each state has their own rules a manufactuerer would never be able to make a car that met all of the different rules.
Thats why we need one set of federal regulations for all cars nationwide.

My post about states doing more of the enforcement was in response to your article about the cuts in the EPA budget, not my article about relaxing auto emissions standards.

The federal government SHOULD support research in energy efficiency in transportation. I don't think anyone quibbles with NASA's investment in next generation aircraft research---which has various aims, including energy efficiency. In NASA's case it probably would be beneficial to the commercial airline corporations since they operate on a low profit margin and fuel costs are an unpredictable overhead expense.

So why not also on automotive fuel consumption?

Obviously because the consumers saved $36billion dollars by consuming less fuel in their improved vehicles that fuel companies DID NOT GET - BUT THEY WILL NOW! Thanks billions Trump.

More fuel burned more illnesses and deaths caused by its polluting particles. Airplanes are the worst with high octane fuel - don't live in an airport area if you want to be healthy and live long.

No they won't get it, he's not reducing existing standards that already save consumers $35 billion, consumers will continue to enjoy those fuel savings. What was rolled back were future tougher standards. It also doesn't change at all the industry responding to people who want electric cars and hybrid models and they'll be competing with each other to be more efficient with lower fuel costs without these new mandates by the government. At least that's my understanding of the situation, that Trump has pulled back the 2025 standard which apparently only 3.5% of new cars today can meet and adds $5,000 plus to the cost of the vehicle.