Fuel Efficiency Standards

 

Wheeler Listens To Industry About High-Emission Rigs. According to E&E News, “Amid an escalating dispute over the science behind high-polluting trucks, acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler was willing to hear industry’s concerns. E&E News reported yesterday that Wheeler’s private calendar shows a June 5 meeting about emissions standards for glider kits — new truck cabs with refurbished diesel engines. The meeting was with Jon Toomey, a lobbyist for glider kit manufacturer Fitzgerald Peterbilt. Steve Milloy, a climate skeptic and former Trump EPA transition official, was also in attendance. The meeting took place a month before former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency wouldn’t enforce a production cap on the high-emission trucks. Wheeler has since withdrawn that order, but EPA is moving forward with a proposed repeal of emissions standards for gliders. Paul Billings, national senior vice president for advocacy with the American Lung Association, said he was alarmed to learn Wheeler met with industry about gliders but not environmental or public health groups. ‘Any entity should have the ability to meet with EPA leadership about topics of concern,’ Billings said. ‘We’re very concerned about Fitzgerald’s efforts to reopen the dirty glider kit loophole that will result in thousands of premature deaths.’ Vera Pardee, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, also expressed concern that the meeting wasn’t included on Wheeler’s public calendar. ‘Wheeler came into office and promised to do things much more transparently and much more by the book,’ Pardee said. ‘Very clearly, that hasn’t happened.’” [E&E News, 9/11/18 (=)]

 

Hearing To Scrutinize High-Emission Rigs. According to E&E News, “At least two House Science, Space and Technology subcommittees this week will scrutinize research related to high-emission trucks. At issue is EPA’s proposed repeal of emissions standards for glider kits. Those are new truck cabs with refurbished diesel engines. Republican members of the panel have raised concerns about an EPA study that could undermine the proposed rollback, which companies want. Led by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), seven GOP members of the panel sent a July 12 letter to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler raising ‘concerns regarding the scientific integrity and validity of a recent study’ on gliders conducted at an EPA vehicle testing facility in Ann Arbor, Mich. (E&E Daily, July 13). The lawmakers accused Volvo Group, which supplied gliders for testing purposes, of unduly influencing the findings. Volvo, a truck manufacturer, is in competition with the glider industry. The Ann Arbor study found that the emissions of gliders were 43 to 55 times higher than those of trucks with modern pollution controls. But citing another study bankrolled by Fitzgerald Glider Kits and contradicting his own staff, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared glider kits more efficient and cleaner than new rigs (Greenwire, Nov. 27, 2017). The study Pruitt cited is now the subject of an academic inquiry and has been disavowed by Tennessee Tech University, which produced it.” [E&E News, 9/12/18 (=)]

 

Senate Democrats Want More Time To Weigh Rule Proposal. According to E&E News, “Led by California Sen. Kamala Harris, 32 Democratic senators are asking the Trump administration to extend the public comment period for its proposed rollback of Obama-era clean car rules. In a letter sent yesterday to EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the lawmakers asked for a 120-day comment period rather than a 60-day window. ‘It is critical that all Americans have the opportunity to comment on a proposal of this magnitude,’ the senators wrote. ‘The proposed rule would not only impact the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles, but it would also harm human health, increase consumer expenses, hurt the auto industry workforce, and stifle technological innovation.’ Separately, Oregon’s congressional delegation sent a letter yesterday seeking a hearing on the car rules in the Beaver State. The agencies are currently planning public hearings on the proposal in Fresno, Calif.; Dearborn, Mich.; and Pittsburgh, according to a Federal Register notice. ‘Elected officials from the west coast region, representing more than 55 million people with a combined GDP of $3 trillion dollars, have already spoken out against changes to the fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards,’ the Oregon lawmakers wrote. ‘One public hearing on the West Coast is not adequate to hear these concerns.’” [E&E News, 9/11/18 (=)]

 

 

Autolist Study Shows Environmental Concerns Have Little Impact On Car Buying Decisions. According to Clean Technica, “There is theory and then there is reality. In theory, most people today are aware that something is happening to the environment. Whether it is massive wildfires in the West, the crumbling of polar ice caps, the increasing risk of violent storms, or concerns about rising sea levels, the signs are everywhere to be found. All we have to do is look. Autolist fuel economy survey Despite such a general awareness of climate change, however, a new study by Autolist finds that when Americans go to a automobile dealer to buy a new car or truck, environmental considerations take a back seat to other considerations such as price, options, and the universal game of keeping up with the Kremplers. Here are the major findings of the study, which polled 1,652 current car shoppers in late August. 65% of current car shoppers believe vehicle emissions and fuel economy have an impact on global warming. 18% of respondents said they didn’t believe there was a correlation; 17% were unsure. Yet just 35% of buyers said the issue of global warming had had an impact on the type, size or powertrain of the vehicle the bought. 54% said it had never impacted their decision, 12% were unsure. Half of consumers believe stricter fuel economy standards will save them money over time.” [Clean Technica, 9/10/18 (=)]

 

Europe Tightens Fuel Economy Rules And Agitates The Car Market. According to Forbes, “Europe’s car sales soared in August, but will fall back again by at least as much in coming months as the industry grapples with new and tighter rules on fuel economy which threaten existential damage to their finances. Car sales in Western Europe spiked almost 27% in August to an all-time annual rate high of 18.4 million, from 14.7 million in July, according to LMC Automotive, as manufacturers sought to offload vehicles that would not be able to make the tight fuel consumption rules which started September 1. According to IHS Markit analyst Ian Fletcher the new rules have temporarily skewed the market for cars. ‘This (the latest data) clearly shows exceptional and temporary pre-registration activity associated with the moves (to tighten fuel consumption rules),’ Fletcher said. LMC Automotive agrees. ‘We should not read too much into this due to the unique circumstances affecting Western European sales currently. From September 1, the new, stricter (rules) must be used for all new cars in the E.U., and only a limited number of cars tested under the old rules can be sold after this date. Therefore, in August there was a strong incentive for self-registration of vehicles and heavy discounting on the part of retailers, while savvy buyers may have made purchases before higher taxes were applied where these are linked to CO2 emissions,’ LMC analyst Jonathan Poskitt said.” [Forbes, 9/10/18 (=)]

 

Cities Come Together On EVs. According to Politico, “Ahead of the Global Climate Action Summit, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced 19 cities and two counties, including Washington, D.C., have launched the Climate Mayors Electric Vehicle Purchasing Collaborative. The ‘online procurement portal’ will provide municipalities ‘equal access to competitively bid electric vehicles and accompanying charging infrastructure.’” [Politico, 9/12/18 (=)]

 

Tesla Bull Capitulates, Says Stock Is 'No Longer Investable'. According to E&E News, “Nomura Instinet analyst Romit Shah downgraded Tesla yesterday morning to neutral from buy in a note titled ‘No Longer Investable.’ The note to clients starts by pointing out that previously he’s been one of the biggest bulls on the Street since initiating coverage last October. Shah slashed his price target on the company to $300 from $400 citing the ‘erratic behavior of CEO Elon Musk.’ Among Shah’s concerns: the increasing number of Musk tweets per day, his cave diver accusations, his outbursts on an earnings call, his taunts of short sellers and his appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Shah continues to believe that Tesla can out-innovate the competition and that the company may eventually be much bigger than it is today, but says it’s better to remain on the sidelines until the company has better leadership. Tesla shares have lost over 25 percent of their value since early August in the immediate wake of Musk’s ‘funding secured’ tweet. The shares fell around 2 percent in early trading yesterday. With the stock having fallen so far, and concerns rising among the analyst community, the company is facing greater pressure to deliver on the fundamentals.” [E&E News, 9/12/18 (=)]

 

 

Op-Ed: Using Trump’s Bad-Faith CAFE Standards Proposal To Better Understand Efficiency Rebound. According to an op-ed by Ted Nordhaus and Alex Trembath in Greentech Media, “The Trump Administration recently offered a new twist on an old claim about fuel efficiency standards. For decades, opponents of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have argued that they would force Americans into smaller vehicles. But in justifying its latest proposal to freeze automobile fuel economy standards established in 2009 by the Obama administration, the Trump administration offered a novel argument: More fuel-efficient vehicles, the administration argued, would lower the cost of driving. This in turn would result in people driving more, resulting in increased vehicle injuries and fatalities. The administration’s claim is half-right. More efficient energy technologies do create rebound effects, the phenomenon by which the energy savings associated with more efficient technologies are eroded because they also become cheaper. But by invoking rebound as justification for rolling back fuel efficiency standards, the Trump administration ironically makes the same mistake that many rebound skeptics (and defenders of CAFE standards) make about vehicle efficiency and rebound. They imagine that rebound will result in people simply using more of a technology or service in the same way that they always have, rather than changing products we consume or the ways in which we consume them.” [Greentech Media, 9/11/18 (+)]