Ford: We Aren’t Asking For A Rollback. According to Politico, “Ford Motor Company’s Executive Chairman Bill Ford and President and CEO Jim Hackett penned a missive on fuel emissions standards on Tuesday, as an April 1 deadline to decide whether to rewrite the rules covering model year 2022-2025 vehicles edges closer. ‘We support increasing clean car standards through 2025 and are not asking for a rollback,’ the pair writes. ‘We want one set of standards nationally, along with additional flexibility to help us provide more affordable options for our customers. We believe that working together with EPA, NHTSA and California, we can deliver on this standard.’” [Politico, 3/28/18 (=)]

 

EPA's Vehicle GHG Push May Spur Dual Federal, California Programs. According to Inside EPA, “EPA’s widely expected call to ease light duty vehicle standards for at least model years 2022-2025 is intensifying the question of whether the Trump administration and California could wind up with two separate vehicle GHG programs that would create regulatory confusion and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers. However, some observers are also asking whether such a split could be averted during the proposal stage on specific changes and what the implications might be for the auto sector if such a deal can’t be reached. And they also suggest that exploring the precise implications of an EPA-California split remains a premature exercise, citing a lack of clarity on how yet-to-be proposed federal GHG requirements will differ from the current program as well as how litigation on upcoming federal changes to the program will evolve. … EPA formally transmitted its draft determination to the White House Management & Budget (OMB) March 23, according to a notice on OMB’s web site. While the agency had previously said it would issue a final notice by April 1, some say the timeline for issuing the notice may slip to the week of April 2. … While details of EPA’s determination notice are unclear, observers say it may be the subsequent regulatory process that sheds light on whether EPA and California can avert a full scale split -- perhaps by settling on more modest changes -- or whether the effort to modify the standards destined for a lengthy court fight that could lead to fundamentally disparate EPA and state GHG emissions programs. ‘We are in the fourth inning. It is not the bottom of the ninth,’ says Robbie Diamond of Secure Americas Future Energy (SAFE), a group which favors a ‘balanced’ approach to fuel economy that curbs oil dependence.” [Inside EPA, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

How California Taught China To Sell Electric Cars. According to Bloomberg, “California wants 5 million emission-free cars on the road by 2030. China, with a far larger population, wants 7 million electric vehicles by 2025. California has a cap-and-trade program to limit emissions from power plants, factories and fuel suppliers. China is launching a cap-and-trade system to lower fuel consumption and cut reliance on oil imports. While the liberal and authoritarian politics of California and China are a study in contrasts, both places are taking a top-down approach to combating climate change by forcing a shift in energy and transportation. China, in fact, has modeled its electric car mandate on California’s program, following years of collaboration between officials on opposite sides of the Pacific. ‘China has referenced and learned from California,’ said Yunshi Wang, director of the China Center for Energy and Transportation at the University of California at Davis. California Governor Jerry Brown met in China last year with President Xi Jinping. The talks focused on strategies to combat global warming and came shortly after President Donald Trump said the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate accord. The ties between political leaders in China and California are all the more striking at a time when Washington and Beijing are on the cusp of a trade war. Brown’s approach to energy policy may soon come under fire from the Trump administration, which is considering revoking California’s ability to set its own auto-emissions standards. U.S. automakers are trying to broker a compromise between California and Washington, worried that potential legal battles could lead to years of uncertainty regarding pollution-control policies. California, as the biggest auto market, tends to shape national policy; New York and several additional states that account for a third of U.S. vehicle sales have adopted California’s standards.” [Bloomberg, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

Most Americans Support Obama's Clean Car Rules — Poll. According to E&E News, “Nearly 7 in 10 Americans support maintaining Obama-era fuel economy standards, according to poll results released today. About 79 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of Republicans support keeping the standards, according to the poll, commissioned by the American Lung Association and conducted by the Democratic-affiliated firm Global Strategy Group. The poll results come as U.S. EPA faces an April 1 deadline for publicly deciding whether to weaken the rules for tailpipe emissions from cars and light-duty trucks made from 2022 to 2025. The agency has already sent a draft decision to relax the rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget, according to sources familiar with the matter (Climatewire, March 26). ‘Vehicles remain one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, so a reversal of these important standards would pose a grave threat to the health of Americans,’ American Lung Association National President and CEO Harold Wimmer said in a statement. After poll respondents read arguments from both sides of the debate, overall support increased from 65 percent to 67 percent, and the percentage of respondents who said they ‘strongly’ supported keeping the standards in place rose from 48 percent to 51 percent. The argument for maintaining the rules stated: ‘Some people say it’s critical that we leave cleaner air and a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren, and making cars more fuel efficient reduces harmful pollution. Keeping these ambitious but achievable standards will fight climate change and lead to fewer bad air days, and healthier children.’” [E&E News, 3/27/18 (=)]

 

 

Editorial: Time Has Come To Wean Colorado’s Electric Vehicles From Taxpayer Assistance. According to The Denver Post, “At one point, Colorado’s generous subsidy for electric vehicle sales probably made sense; back then, the technology was in its infancy and couldn’t compete on cost or performance. There was a compelling public interest — protecting our environment and climate for generations to come — for our governments to foster cleaner energy technologies with taxpayer dollars. However, the time for this credit has come and gone, especially at the state level. Colorado lawmakers should repeal a tax credit for those who buy electric vehicles and save an estimated $50.4 million over the next three years. Sen. Vickie Marble and Rep. Lori Saine are right to target this tax credit for repeal in Senate Bill 47. The bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate and is now headed to the Democratic-controlled House, where the odds don’t look good for passage. The good news is that this tax credit is set to begin ratcheting down in 2020 and will expire altogether at the end of 2021, even if SB 47 fails. But we agree with Marble and Saine that, given existing market conditions, it’s past time for full repeal. Colorado offers tax credits for a variety of different cars, not just electric vehicles. SB 47 would also strip tax credits for technologies that include compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas or hydrogen. Lawmakers could consider an amendment to protect those technologies, but they hardly have much presence in the present market. At any rate, our focus here is on exempting the more popular EVs.” [The Denver Post, 3/27/18 (-)]

 

Op-Ed: Moms Call On US Automakers To Stand Up For Public Health. According to an op-ed by Molly Rauch in The Hill, “GM, Ford, and Chrysler, together with their trade association the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, agreed to and supported these standards just a few years ago. Yet now, these safeguards are under threat of serious rollbacks. I would expect these American automakers to lead the defense of standards they helped craft. Instead, acting through their trade association, they’re using shady science to justify weakening them, sowing doubt about the well-established and fairly basic scientific fact that air pollution is bad for your health. They’ve also cherry-picked from climate studies to cast doubt on the fact that climate change is real, and that burning less gasoline can help curb its worst effects. The truth is that the science is unambiguous, on both fronts. Decades of scientific research have established that climate change is happening and is caused by people, and car pollution is a major contributor to this problem. We also know that soot worsens respiratory and heart conditions, and increases the risk of stroke and heart attacks. Bad air can trigger asthma attacks and interfere with normal lung development. Children and the elderly are at particular risk. To claim otherwise is like saying that smoking cigarettes may not actually cause cancer. … We moms spend a lot of time behind the wheel. Just as we depend on our family cars when we drive our kids to school, sports and activities, we want to be able to depend on American carmakers to have our backs in terms of children’s health and the environment. It’s time they stand up for clean car protections that improve gas mileage, address dangerous climate change, and contribute to better air quality — and make American moms proud.” [The Hill, 3/27/18 (+)]

 

Limiting California’s Waiver Authority Is Not A Federalism Issue. According to Institute for Energy Research, “The problem of California setting national vehicle standards is becoming ever more salient as the attitude of the California government grows more radical. The state government heavily favors electric vehicles and there are proposals being floated to even eliminate cars with combustion engine altogether. There is no room in the California government’s imagined future for the types of cars or trucks sold in the rest of the country. Inherent in the Clean Air Act is the concept of cooperative federalism, but in this instance, by forcing its will (with the blessing of the Obama administration), California is engaging in coercive federalism. So long as the EPA and DOT continue to defer to California, the other 49 states are disenfranchised in the creation of these regulations. Limiting California’s waiver ability is thus not a violation of federalism principles; it simply prevents unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento from dictating what kind of cars the rest of America drives. President Trump should revoke the California waiver as it is in the best interest of American consumers and a check on coercive federalism.” [Institute for Energy Research, 3/27/18 (-)]