Trump To Seek Repeal Of California's Smog-Fighting Power. According to Bloomberg, “The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions -- including its mandate for electric-car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan. The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle. The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the Obama plan, according to the people. As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state, the people said. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will likewise assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.” [Bloomberg, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

U.S. To Propose Revoking California Authority To Set Auto Emissions Rules: Source. According to Reuters, “The Trump administration is expected as early as Thursday to propose revoking California’s power to set state vehicle emissions rules and mandate the purchase of electric vehicles, a government official briefed on the matter said. The U.S. Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency are expected to unveil a proposed regulation that recommends freezing national emissions requirements at 2020 levels through 2026, the official said on condition of anonymity because it has not yet been made public. The administration plans to propose a rule that would revoke a waiver California was granted by the EPA under the Clean Air Act to set state emissions rules and require zero emission vehicles. EPA and the Transportation Department will take comment and hold public hearings before finalizing a decision. Regulators forecast freezing national emissions standards after 2020 would increase U.S. fuel consumption by about 500,000 barrels of oil per day, the source said. Government regulators also estimate the regulation, which they name the Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, will cut traffic deaths and reduce the cost of new vehicles. The proposal is sure to spark a massive fight with California and a dozen other states that have adopted California’s emissions rules, which would require average vehicle fuel efficiency to reach around 50 miles per gallon by 2025. Eliminating California’s electric vehicle mandate would hurt automakers like Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) and General Motors Co (GM.N) that are investing billions in EVs.” [Reuters, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Trump Could Move This Week To End California’s Clean-Car Authority. According to San Francisco Chronicle, “The Trump administration could move this week to revoke California’s decades-old ability to set its own pollution limits for cars, a potential blow to the state’s fight against global warming. The move, widely expected for months, will ignite another pitched legal battle between California and federal officials, who spent much of the George W. Bush administration sparring in court over the state’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars. And for automakers, it could create years of uncertainty over which standards their cars must meet. ‘These were issues that were resolved 9 years ago, and it’s almost like picking at a scab that healed long ago and reopening it, only to cause the automakers a lot of bleeding,’ said Simon Mui, a senior scientist and clean vehicles specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. Bloomberg reported Monday that the administration this week will propose stopping planned increases in fuel efficiency after 2020 and challenging California’s unique ability to set its own auto air pollution standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia also follow California’s emission standards.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Trump To Propose Blocking California’s Clean Car Standards: Report. According to The Hill, “The Trump administration is planning a proposal to block California regulators from enforcing their own emissions standards for vehicles sold in the state. Bloomberg News reported Monday that the proposal will be part of a regulation the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will jointly propose in the coming days to freeze or reduce federal greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency rules for cars. The proposal would set up a battle with California over whether the Clean Air Act allows its decades-long aggressive crackdown on car emissions. The fight is almost certain to go to court if the administration pursues it. The rules have become part of California’s environmental identity, as well as part of its efforts to clean the air in Los Angeles and other heavily polluted areas. … Under Obama, the EPA and NHTSA decided to negotiate with California so that the country retains one nationwide standard, even though California had the authority to institute its own. Separately, the Golden State uses its waiver to require car companies to sell a certain amount of electric vehicles in the state. That authority would also be revoked with the Trump administration’s action.” [The Hill, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Trump Administration Presses Plan To Ease Fuel-Economy Standards. According to The Wall Street Journal, “President Donald Trump’s administration is advancing a plan to freeze fuel-economy standards for new cars and trucks, and to escalate its fight against California’s power to set regulatory standards for the entire U.S. auto market, according to people familiar with the matter. The new rules, which could be released as early as this week, would halt plans to keep raising requirements for efficiency. The increases had been set up by a collaboration between California and former President Barack Obama’s regulators as a way to address climate change. The Trump administration’s plan would eliminate gradual increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicle model years 2022-2025 that would have aimed to bring the figure to roughly 36 miles per gallon in real-world driving by 2025, based on complex government calculations averaged out over all vehicles sold. One obstacle to that plan is California, which holds exemptions allowing it to impose emissions standards more stringent than those applied by the federal government. California has already sued to stop the Trump administration, and the auto industry has lobbied both sides to strike a deal that would avoid a rift that leaves the country with two sets of rules. Instead of pursuing a deal, the plan spearheaded by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency tries to eliminate or override California’s authority. Other states also follow California’s lead and its regulatory influence has grown as climate concerns brought the Obama administration and California into deeper alignment. Sacramento received a further waiver in 2012 from the federal government and since then has effectively set regulatory standards for the broader market.” [The Wall Street Journal, 7/24/18 (-)]

 

Greens Decry 'Orwellian' New Title For Car-Emissions Rule. According to E&E News, “The White House Office of Management and Budget has tweaked the title of EPA’s proposed rollback of Obama-era clean car rules, placing a greater emphasis on safety and cost. The proposal is now titled ‘The Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule’ for model years 2021 to 2026, according to the Reginfo.gov online regulations repository. Previously, it was called ‘2021-2026 Model Year Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.’ The change signals the proposal’s impending release. EPA is expected to formally announce it sometime this week, said an agency official. The change also suggests EPA may seek to justify the rollback by arguing it will increase safety on the roads and save consumers money. With regard to safety, nearly 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EPA may argue that increases in fuel efficiency are often achieved by downsizing and lightweighting, which lead to less safe vehicles. With regard to cost, a new light-duty vehicle has an average price tag of $36,270, according to Kelley Blue Book, a California-based automotive research company. EPA may argue increases in fuel efficiency can raise the up-front cost of a new car.” [E&E News, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Vehicle GHG Rule Rollback To Spark Debate Over Safety, Cost Savings. According to Inside EPA, “The Trump administration’s imminent proposal to roll back Obama-era vehicle greenhouse gas standards is likely to spark a heated debate over its effects, with environmentalists arguing a rollback will result in increased fuel costs while officials are suggesting their plan will increase safety and curb fatal accidents. In the run up to the proposed rule’s expected July 24 release, environmentalists are touting new analysis showing that a rollback of the vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards will impose significantly higher costs on drivers because they would be forced to buy more gasoline to fuel less-efficient cars and trucks. But EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appear poised to focus on claims that the regulatory rollback will reduce accidents because stringent standards slow fleet turnover to new vehicles with improved safety technology. According to meeting records on the rule recently posted to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) website, the agencies recently revealed that the title of the their joint rulemaking is the ‘Safer and Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule.’” [Inside EPA, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Tesla Asks Suppliers To Give Back Cash. According to E&E News, “Tesla Inc. has asked some suppliers to return a meaningful portion of money the company has spent since 2016. The electric vehicle maker said it is requesting the cash in a bid to keep its operations profitable, according to a memo sent to suppliers last week and obtained by the Wall Street Journal. The unusual requests raise more questions about Tesla’s cash position as it struggles to increase production of the Model 3 sedan. The memo is ‘simply ludicrous and it just shows that Tesla is desperate right now,’ said Dennis Virag, a manufacturing consultant who has worked in the automotive industry for 40 years. ‘They’re worried about their profitability, but they don’t care about their suppliers’ profitability,’ Virag said. Tesla declined to comment on the memo.” [E&E News, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

Study: Electric Buses Already Emit Less Carbon Than Diesel Buses, In Any State. According to Green Tech Media, “Electric buses are only as clean as the grid that charges them. When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, buses are already better than the competition. Buses charged by electricity are responsible for fewer carbon emissions than conventional diesel buses in any part of the U.S. electrical grid, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found. The research informs the ongoing debate over the future of bus procurement. As municipalities and transit agencies pursue cleaner buses, they have a few options other than diesel: natural-gas-powered, diesel-electric hybrid or full electric. Bus customers have to weigh several factors: upfront cost, total cost of ownership, tailpipe emissions, ability to get up hills and carbon emissions. Indeed, coal and gas plants remain major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Critics of EV adoption efforts (or advocates for gas-powered buses) point to the grid mix and say that EVs aren’t so beneficial once the emissions from power production get factored in. The UCS study paints a different picture of relative lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.” [Green Tech Media, 7/23/18 (=)]

 

 

Op-Ed: The Trump Administration Decides That The Air You’re Breathing Is Way Too Clean. According to an op-ed by Paul Waldman in The Washington Post, “Let it never be said that the Trump administration lacks ambition or creativity. Fresh off announcing its intention to gut the Endangered Species Act, it now wants to move aggressively to make the air Americans breathe not so annoyingly clean, no matter what it takes. Bloomberg News reports: ‘The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions — including its mandate for electric car sales — in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.’ … In case it isn’t clear, under current rules California is allowed to impose stricter pollution controls than what the federal government requires; under this proposal, the state wouldn’t be allowed to go any further than the federal government does. Interestingly, the car companies themselves support keeping the Obama-era emissions targets, in part because they don’t want to deal with the uncertainty of years of lawsuits; they’d rather just know what they’re required to do and get on with it. So how many Republicans who profess their commitment to ‘state’s rights,’ the ability of each state to make their own laws and chart their own path whenever possible, will rise up to announce their vehement opposition to this proposal on the basis of their unwavering commitment to the 10th Amendment? Maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong, but I’m guessing … zero.” [The Washington Post, 7/23/18 (+)]