Fuel Efficiency Standards

 

General Coverage

 

California Asks Automakers To Prove Fuel Economy Claims. According to Bloomberg, “The state is considering making a formal public counter-proposal to the rollback. So, to determine what that might be, it asked car manufacturers to present detailed information on future product plans and why they expected to fall so short of regulations that they need immediate action. According to Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, up to now the manufacturers have been heavy on protestations, but light on specific information. In particular, she said that they never submitted information to back up the claims of hardship in any detail that would help make a solution. She also said that they didn’t ask for specific changes. ‘They’ve just said, ‘It’s too expensive, too hard, can’t do it’,’ she said. Automakers have a couple weeks to reply to the state’s request for information. However, it appears that CARB may not follow through on the counter-proposal. Nichols said that she is still preparing legal defenses of the existing regulations and California’s ability to make its own pollution and fuel efficiency rules. Either way, the state’s goal will be to keep the reduction in greenhouse gases from the current rules.” [Bloomberg, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Critics Cite High Court To Fight Trump Claim Of Car GHG Rule's 'Minimal' Risk. According to Inside EPA, “Critics are pouncing on the Trump administration’s claim that its proposed rollback of vehicle greenhouse gas standards is justified because it would only result in a ‘minimal’ rise in global temperatures, with opponents of the rollback poised to cite the claim as in conflict with a landmark Supreme Court ruling. In addition, observers say a related administration assumption that global temperatures will increase steeply -- regardless of whether the vehicle proposal goes final -- offers a sharp political and legal disconnect between the administration’s efforts to downplay or ignore climate risks and its own regulatory analysis, and it could give critics a fresh basis to press federal agencies to account for the GHG impact of their actions. ‘It will be one of multiple arguments’ supporting the claim that the vehicle GHG and fuel economy proposal is arbitrary and capricious, says Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) attorney Ben Longstreth in an interview with Inside EPA. The joint EPA-Transportation Department proposal would freeze GHG and fuel economy standards at model year 2020 levels through MY26, resulting in an additional 872 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted over the lifetime of the vehicles produced under the standards. That figure represents roughly 15 percent of the country’s net GHG emissions in 2016.” [Inside EPA, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Colorado Embrace Of California Auto GHG Rules Spurns Trump Rollback. According to Inside EPA, “Colorado is moving to adopt California’s vehicle greenhouse gas rules in what could be a political black eye for the Trump administration’s pending effort to roll back federal rules, while also boosting the power of California-aligned states if the rollback ultimately leads to two separate sets of standards for automakers. While the move represents a ‘purple’ state rejecting the Trump administration’s deregulatory efforts, it could also be rendered moot if the administration were to succeed in its proposal to preempt California -- and any other state that follows its rules under a special Clean Air Act provision -- from regulating vehicle GHGs. California’s low-emission vehicle (LEV) standards have already been adopted by 13 states and the District of Columbia under section 177 of the air act. Colorado would be the 15th jurisdiction to adopt the rules. The Centennial State would bring an additional 5.6 million residents to the California program, which is currently aligned with Obama-era standards for model years 2017-2025. … Additionally, Colorado could begin a separate proceeding late this year to consider adopting California’s zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) program, which EPA is similarly proposing to revoke. Nine other states already have adopted that program as well: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. Automakers are strongly opposed to a Colorado ZEV program, the industry source notes. Colorado ZEV sales already represent 1.5 percent of its new vehicle market, a figure that outpaces all but three of the states with a ZEV sales mandate. ‘We prefer markets, not mandates,’ the source says.” [Inside EPA, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Opinion Pieces

 

Op-Ed: Protect New York's Right To Set Tough Clean-Air Standards. According to an op-ed by Adrienne Wald and Julie Kleber in The Times-Union, “As nurses, we treat patients dealing with the harmful effects of air pollution every day. Sadly, children and the elderly are most at risk. We see children suffering from asthma attacks. We see elderly people whose heart and lung conditions are exacerbated by poor air quality. We see people with chronic diseases who have a very hard time living their lives when they can’t breathe freely. They are the ones who will suffer from the Trump administration’s decision to roll back clean car standards. New York has done the right thing in joining 16 other states to sue the administration to challenge this dangerous rules rollback. Allowing more air pollution will cause more illnesses, hospitalizations, lost work and school days, and premature deaths across New York and the nation. Various health and medical organizations, such as the American Lung Association and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, are speaking out and calling on EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to maintain the current standards as necessary health protections for all Americans, and to keep their hands off of the rights of states to protect their residents. The decision to weaken clean-air protections has real and damaging consequences for children, seniors and families. You don’t need to be a nurse or doctor to know that the health of the public and the environments in which we live must be protected. … It’s ridiculous that states have to fight our own Environmental Protection Agency to maintain their right to do so. But it is the right thing to do to ensure we have healthier air to breathe.” [The Times-Union, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Op-Ed: Unreasonable Demands Stifle Real Environmental Progress. According to an op-ed by Jason Hayes in The Hill, “Demanding higher fuel efficiencies may seem like a great idea; after all, as noted above, Americans want cleaner air and more efficient cars. At the same time, they want those cars to be affordable. But the EPA and Department of Transportation have reported that the 2012 mandates would add massive costs to the U.S. economy and actually put more people at risk of being injured or killed in traffic accidents. EPA and NHTSA information indicates that the proposed SAFE Vehicles Rule would save more than $500 billion ‘in societal costs over the lifetimes of vehicles through model year 2029.’ The rule also would reduce the price of new vehicles by an average of $2,340 and could reduce the number of traffic fatalities — caused by collisions of smaller, lighter cars with heavier SUVs and trucks — by over 12,700. More than 1,000 lives saved per year. Some critics have claimed that the crash fatality projections are not realistic. But even if we wholly ignore that line of argument, we still should recognize that CAFE standards originally were meant to address a now-nonexistent problem of dwindling fuel supplies. With the advent and widespread use of fracking technologies, the U.S. is no longer at the mercy of world oil markets. The U.S. produces over 10 million barrels of crude oil per day, and the gasoline shortages and gas station lines of the 1970s are a distant memory.” [The Hill, 10/5/18 (-)]

 

 

U.N. Report Shows 'Heavier Lift' For Cars, Trucks, Planes. According to E&E News, “The transportation sector needs to decarbonize fast, according to the latest report by the top scientific body studying climate change. But it won’t be easy. To avoid a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, cars and other forms of transportation need to dramatically shift toward electrification, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its report released Sunday. The report overflows with a wealth of scenarios and recommendations. Its findings for the power sector are especially attention-grabbing — it calls for total or near-total phaseout of coal-fired power plants by 2050 (Greenwire, Oct. 8). But environmentalists say it’s important not to overlook its findings for the transportation sector, a top contributor to planet-warming emissions. ‘It’s pretty widely acknowledged now that transportation is a very significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, and its share has grown over the last few decades,’ said Sean Hecht, a law professor at UCLA. ‘So clearly, decarbonizing the transportation sector is going to be a crucial part of any strategy.’ Cleaning up the transportation sector, however, will be no small feat. ‘Transport accounted for 28 percent of global final-energy demand and 23 percent of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2014,’ the second chapter of the report states. ‘Emissions increased by 2.5 percent annually between 2010 and 2015, and over the past half century the sector has witnessed faster emissions growth than any other ... suggesting major challenges for deep decarbonisation.’” [E&E News, 10/9/18 (=)]

 

Automakers Lose Policy Clout In EU As Tougher Emission Caps Loom. According to Bloomberg, “Carmakers are discovering there are limits when it comes to influencing European Union climate policy. A decade after the EU crafted its first caps on carbon dioxide from autos by heeding manufacturers’ calls to go easy, the bloc will likely ignore similar pleas regarding the next set of proposed reduction targets. Slated for 2025 and 2030, these limits will be discussed by EU environment ministers on Oct. 9 amid growing momentum to be more ambitious. Politically in the EU the stance is hardening toward the need for action on climate protection,’ said Raphael Danglade, program executive for energy and climate at the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels. Europe is anticipating a technological revolution in road transport that would drive the traditional internal combustion engine from showrooms into museums, a vision held by Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk. The EU goal is to retain a leadership position along with China and the U.S. in the worldwide market for passenger cars.” [Bloomberg, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Toyota Recalls 2.4M Hybrids Due To Stalling Problems. According to E&E News, “Toyota Motor Corp. says it has issued a recall for 2.43 million hybrid vehicles in Japan and elsewhere for potential problems with stalling. The company said today that in rare cases, the vehicles might fail to enter a ‘failsafe’ driving mode, lose power and stall. Power steering and braking would still work, but a stall at a fast speed could increase risks of a crash. The recall applies to some Toyota Prius and Auris hybrids made from October 2008 to November 2014. The vehicles were involved in an earlier recall that did not fix the previously unanticipated problem that is being addressed now, the company said in a statement. Toyota said it would update the software of the vehicles to remedy the problem for free. The recall applies to 1.25 million vehicles in Japan, 807,000 in the U.S., 290,000 in Europe and 3,000 in China, with the rest across the globe. Toyota said it had received three reports in Japan related to the problem by the end of September and reported them to the transport ministry. They did not involve accidents. It would not comment on incidents outside Japan, saying it was difficult to be certain about actual cases. The recall is meant to address situations in which the failure of a specific component, coupled with hard acceleration, could cause the vehicle to lose power rather than enter a failsafe driving mode.” [E&E News, 10/5/18 (=)]

 

Read It. According to Politico, “In an opinion piece , Barrasso said he is introducing a bill to end the electric vehicle tax credit, as well as establish a ‘level the playing field’ for drivers who pay into the Highway Trust Fund. The bill would direct the administration to create an annual highway user fee for alternative fuel vehicles, ‘calculated using rates comparable to those already being paid by the drivers of traditionally powered vehicles,’ he said.” [Politico, 10/9/18 (=)]

 

Chinese Tesla Challenger Hits Funding Snag. According to E&E News, “After China’s third-richest man backed entrepreneur Jia Yueting’s electric-vehicle startup with a $2 billion funding pledge, the wheels finally started turning at its plant in Hanford, Calif. The once-abandoned factory came to life three years after Faraday Future executives visited the farm town to scout the location. Between plant visits from a state senator and local officials, Jia started building his team. He hired plant workers, Tesla Inc.’s former head of intellectual property and litigation, and even the city’s former mayor. ‘Vehicles are being assembled as I type!’ Hanford’s city manager, Darrel Pyle, said in an email in August. The zest didn’t last long, as the new backer for the Chinese challenger to Tesla is now pumping the brakes. In an Oct. 7 filing, billionaire Hui Ka Yan’s Evergrande Health said it engaged lawyers to defend the company’s interests after Jia began arbitration on Oct. 3 at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. Jia’s company alleges that following Evergrande Health’s initial $800 million investment, it failed to inject additional funds into the business after Jia fulfilled the required conditions, according to a statement posted on Faraday’s Twitter account.” [E&E News, 10/9/18 (=)]

 

 

Op-Ed: It's Time To Unplug Taxpayer Subsidies For Electric Cars. According to an op-ed by Sen. John Barrasso in Investor's Business Daily, “When Congress first mandated a taxpayer subsidy for electric car buyers back in 1992, the market for these new vehicles was tiny and the choices were very limited. Today, nearly every major carmaker in the world is building or planning to roll out an electric vehicle, including luxury brands like Bentley, Aston Martin and Maserati. Almost 1 million of these vehicles are on the road in the United States. Yet U.S. taxpayers currently pay up to $7,500 on every one of them sold in America. Time’s up on the electric car subsidy. The foundation for automakers to create a sustainable electric-vehicle market exists. Taxpayers should be off the hook. Between 2011 and 2017, electric-vehicle buyers received $4.7 billion in tax credits. According to the Manhattan Institute, stopping the tax credits now could save taxpayers roughly $20 billion. I’m introducing legislation that would kill it, and also level the playing field for every driver who pays into the highway trust fund. Removing the federal subsidy won’t collapse the electric-vehicle market. Forty-nine states have created their own subsidies. Most have also made it simpler to license or purchase electric cars.” [Investor's Business Daily, 10/5/18 (-)]