Fuel Efficiency Standards

 

General Coverage

 

Democrats To Wheeler: Congress Backed California On Auto Rules In ’07. According to Politico, “In a letter Thursday to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the three Democrats — Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), as well as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — cite 2007 emails showing auto lobbyists advocating for Congress to prohibit California from setting greenhouse gas limits stronger than any federal ones, and to require EPA to write rules ‘consistent’ with the Transportation Department’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. Those provisions never made it into the the Energy Independence and Security Act, evidence that Congress considered the matter but ultimately quashed it, the senators argue. The lawmakers also flagged veto threats from President George W. Bush that complained about the absence of that type of preemption language in EISA — though he ultimately signed the bill despite that objection. And they highlighted 2007 statements from Michigan Democrats who also wanted the language preventing California from setting its own standards included. Altogether, the Democrats said the documents they gathered ‘make clear that Congress considered, and ultimately rejected, language that would have eliminated or otherwise constrained’ California’s authority. … ‘Not only did Congress include a broadly worded savings clause that expressly retains all authorities conferred by environmental laws, we did so in rejection of several alternative proposals to preempt California’s authority,’ they wrote.” [Politico, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

History Repeats Itself. According to Politico, “Before the Trump administration finalizes its closely watched rollback of auto emissions and fuel economy standards, three Senate Democrats are warning that Congress has taken up this issue before — and turned back calls to strip California of its power to set its own standard. In a letter sent today to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, Sens. Tom Carper, Dianne Feinstein and Ed Markey say the legal argument beneath the administration’s effort to block California’s ability to set stringent auto emissions rules was considered once before, by Congress in 2007’s Energy Independence and Security Act, Pro’s Alex Guillén reports this morning. The three senators cite emails from that year showing auto lobbyists advocating for Congress to prohibit California from setting greenhouse gas limits stronger than any federal standards, and to require EPA to write rules ‘consistent’ with the Transportation Department’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. Altogether, the senators said the documents they gathered ‘make clear that Congress considered, and ultimately rejected, language that would have eliminated or otherwise constrained’ California’s authority.” [Politico, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

University To EPA: Glider Study Wasn't Accurate. According to E&E News, “The university that conducted a study that EPA cited in its planned repeal of truck emission standards has officially disavowed the research. Tennessee Technological University told EPA in a letter dated yesterday that ‘certain conclusions’ in that study were incorrect. The study found that glider kits — new truck cabs with refurbished diesel engines — are cleaner and more efficient than new rigs. That conclusion contradicted the analysis of EPA’s own staff, which found that glider kits emit 43 to 55 times more air pollution than trucks with modern emission controls. In particular, EPA staff found, gliders spew more nitrogen oxides and particulates, which are blamed for asthma, lung cancer and premature deaths. … Pruitt cited that study in his proposed repeal last fall of emission standards for gliders. He also argued gliders weren’t new vehicles, and so EPA lacked authority to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. The university also sent the letter to Fitzgerald and Black. ‘It is the desire of every individual involved with Tennessee Tech that we maintain the highest degree of integrity in everything that we do, especially in scholarly endeavors that lead to informing public policy,’ Trudy Harper, vice chairwoman of Tennessee Tech’s board of trustees, wrote in that letter. ‘We take our responsibility in this area very seriously, and we sincerely regret the inconvenience caused by the inaccuracies.’” [E&E News, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

University Says Controversial Glider Emissions Study ‘Not Accurate.’ According to Politico, “Tennessee Technological University today said that its manufacturer-funded 2017 study on emissions from glider trucks that concluded gliders have the same or better emissions as newly manufactured engines is ‘not accurate.’ …  Some of the study’s conclusions were ‘not accurate,’ Trudy Harper, vice chairman of the TTU Board of Trustees, wrote in letters to EPA, Fitzgerald and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.). She said the testing procedures used by TTU ‘were not sufficient to justify comparisons with EPA emissions standards.’ TTU also found that the study’s data ‘does not support the statement that optimized and remanufactured engines performed equally as well’ as new engines. Harper added that ‘the research itself was methodologically sound’ and said the measurements and methods were ‘appropriate for the project based upon the project’s original intent.’ A separate EPA study conducted in late 2017 concluded that gliders emit substantially more pollution than new engines. EPA’s inspector general is reviewing that agency research at the request of congressional Republicans. WHAT’S NEXT: EPA appears to have placed its plans to repeal the glider rule on the back burner, and has resumed enforcement after a court this summer reversed its decision not to enforce strict glider manufacturing caps, a move the industry has said could drive companies out of business.” [Politico, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

University: Truck Pollution Research Cited By EPA Was ‘Not Accurate.’ According to The Hill, “The research the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in proposing to roll back a major truck pollution rule was ‘not accurate,’ the university that conducted the study has concluded. Tennessee Tech University’s conclusions, outlined in a letter Tuesday to the EPA, came after an academic review of the controversial research into the emissions of ‘glider’ trucks. The heavy-duty trucks use new bodies and remanufactured, older engines that do not meet current EPA regulations. Environmentalists call them ‘super-polluting’ trucks, citing research showing far higher emissions compared to new vehicles. Philip Oldham, Tennessee Tech’s president, wrote last year that university research found that glider trucks ‘performed equally as well and in some instances out-performed the [original manufacturer] engines,’ despite not being certified to current standards for pollutants like particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The research was funded by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, one of the country’s biggest glider makers. Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt cited the research in a proposal to repeal an Obama-era regulation from 2016 that would have limited the number of glider trucks that each company can sell per year.” [The Hill, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

'Nobody Believes Those Numbers.' According to E&E News, “The Trump administration is claiming that weakening one of President Obama’s biggest climate rules will save the U.S. economy between $120 billion and $340 billion. That’s a lot of money. And many experts aren’t buying it. ‘Do I believe any of these numbers? The answer’s no. Nobody believes those numbers,’ said Jeff Alson, a former staffer in EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. At issue is the administration’s projected cost savings from rolling back Obama-era tailpipe pollution rules for cars. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this summer proposed freezing fuel economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026, rather than increasing their stringency each year as President Obama had envisioned (Greenwire, Aug. 2). Then last week, a senior administration official told reporters that freezing the standards would save between $120 billion and $340 billion (Greenwire, Oct. 17). Those numbers are astronomically high. The administration official also said regulatory rollbacks across all federal agencies last year saved $23 billion — less than one-fifth as much. Those numbers also directly contradict the Obama administration’s assertions. When issuing the car standards in 2012, EPA estimated that climate benefits greatly outweighed their compliance costs. In its regulatory impact analysis, the agency said the rules would result in climate benefits of between $106 billion and $126 billion as a result of reduced air pollution. EPA also said automakers would need to spend less than $800 per vehicle to meet the standards.” [E&E News, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

California AG Outlines Legal Claims Against EPA Vehicle GHG Rule Proposal. According to Inside EPA, “California Attorney General (AG) Xavier Becerra (D) is outlining the state’s chief legal arguments against the Trump administration’s plan to roll back vehicle greenhouse gas standards, while also expressing optimism that the state can reach an agreement with automakers on an alternative regulatory proposal. The joint rulemaking by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is ‘violative of numerous important procedural requirements, such as the Administrative Procedure Act,’ Becerra said during an Oct. 24 press call that also included Illinois AG Lisa Madigan (D), previewing the states’ formal comments they plan to file by an Oct. 26 deadline. ‘We’re going to argue that the federal government’s actions contravene their mandate from Congress under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy Conservation Act,’ Becerra said. ‘We’ll make it very clear that the rollbacks rely on technical analysis that is arbitrary and capricious. We’re going to make it very clear that NHTSA’s environmental impact statement violates the National Environmental Policy Act and is also arbitrary and capricious.’ In addition, the administration’s proposal to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waiver to implement its own GHG standards -- which 13 other states have adopted -- ‘is unlawful,’ Becerra added. ‘And we’re going to make sure that we defend California’s waiver for its GHG and zero-emission vehicle standards to the very end.’” [Inside EPA, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

California To Fight 'Unlawful' Trump Fuel Economy Rollback. According to Bloomberg, “California plans to attack the Trump administration proposal to freeze auto fuel economy standards at 2020 levels and unwind the state’s plan for more stringent rules on tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions as ‘unlawful,’ California’s attorney general said Wednesday. ‘They are grossly derelict in not trying to move the dial forward in cleaning the air and the environment,’ Xavier Becerra said in a conference call with reporters. ‘The situation continues to get worse and requires action now, and not for us to stand pat,’ he said. Becerra’s comments were a preview of a formal response that California and 18 other states will file with the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Friday. That’s the deadline for public comments on the Trump plan. The agencies on Aug. 2 proposed capping federal fuel economy requirements at a fleet average of 37 miles per gallon starting in 2020. Under existing Obama-era rules, the average would have risen to roughly 47 mpg by 2025. The Trump administration also wants to cap tailpipe carbon dioxide standards. In addition, they want revoke California’s authority to set rules more stringent than the federal government’s and to mandate electric car sales.” [Bloomberg, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

States Shift Focus To Pollution Victims As Trump Nears 2 Major Climate Rollbacks. According to Huffington Post, “A bloc of states opposed to the Trump administration’s rollback of two major federal rules designed to cut climate-changing emissions are ramping up their ongoing challenge to the deregulatory effort ― and spotlighting the victims of increased pollution. On a call with reporters Wednesday afternoon, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the group of 19 states would file a joint comment opposed to the White House’s proposed rule to weaken fuel economy standards. The Trump administration’s plan would clear the way for vehicles to spew an additional 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2030 ― the equivalent of Canada’s entire annual emissions. The joint comment is expected to highlight the uneven impact that emissions from vehicles have on poor neighborhoods and communities of color. The states are slated to file the remarks by Friday, when the comment period for the proposed rule ends. ‘They tend to bear twice the level of traffic density, so those people in those communities will be disproportionately exposed to higher levels of air pollution,’ Madigan said. ‘If we freeze the current standards, in essence, the administration is further endangering people living in those communities.’” [Huffington Post, 10/24/18 (+)]

 

 

CARB, EPA Test For Low-NOx Truck Rule, But Future Clash May Loom. According to Inside EPA, “EPA and California officials are jointly testing various technologies to assess options for a new, low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) standard for heavy-duty truck engines, but it remains unclear whether California’s plan to propose its own strict rule in 2019 will conflict with EPA’s hands-off approach, undercutting broad industry calls for one national standard. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) ‘has been coordinating closely with EPA technical staff on the development of the next generation of NOx standards for heavy-duty truck engines,’ says a CARB spokeswoman. ‘CARB has been meeting every two weeks with EPA Ann Arbor [MI] staff, and EPA is co-funding part of the CARB low-NOx demonstration project at Southwest Research Institute.’ While EPA ‘has not announced if/when it will move forward with work on a national standard,’ CARB ‘hopes EPA will be able to begin work on that soon,’ the spokeswoman says. CARB staff plans to propose its own low-NOx heavy-duty engine standard in December 2019, the spokeswoman adds, though she stopped short of saying whether the agency would advance a strict standard that state and local regulators have sought. CARB has maintained the new standard is critical for certain regions of the state to attain federal ozone standards by 2023 and 2031, and fine particulate matter standards within the next eight years.” [Inside EPA, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

Big Oil Looks To Stop Utilities' Charging Investments. According to E&E News, “State utility regulators across the Midwest are revving up their interest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And the petroleum industry and its allies are urging them to hit the brakes. The American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and Americans for Prosperity have all weighed in at utility commissions in Illinois, Iowa and Kansas in recent weeks with the same message: Neither ratepayers nor taxpayers should be called on to fund EV charging infrastructure. The comments echo what they and other oil industry groups told a congressional subcommittee earlier this year during a hearing on electric vehicles. ‘Consumers and taxpayers should not be forced to pay more in taxes, fees and/or electric utility rates so that someone else can purchase and operate an expensive electric vehicle,’ James Watson, executive director of the Illinois Petroleum Council, said in comments to the Illinois Commerce Commission. Unlike California, where utility regulators have approved hundreds of millions of dollars of utility investment in charging infrastructure, many Midwest states are still debating the role of the utility and whether to allow ratepayer funds to be used.” [E&E News, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

Uber Plans To Electrify All Cars In London By 2025. According to Utility Dive, “Uber announced a plan Tuesday for every car driven through its app in London to be electric by 2025. The company released its ‘Clean Air Plan,’ which it said will help the city tackle air pollution. The plan includes a ‘clean air fee’ for riders of 15 pence (27-28 cents USD) per mile to help drivers upgrade to an electric vehicle (EV). Drivers can then earn assistance to help them buy an EV based on the number of miles they have driven on the app. ‘The Mayor of London has set out a bold vision to tackle air pollution in the capital and we’re determined to do everything we can to back it,’ Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in a statement. ‘Our £200 million Clean Air Plan is a long-term investment in the future of London aimed at going all electric in the capital in 2025.’” [Utility Dive, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

After A Wild Ride, Tesla Posts 3Q Profit. According to E&E News, “Tesla Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk, appeared to put recent turbulence behind the car company yesterday as it announced rising production and sales for its latest electric sedan and one of the first profitable quarters in its history. The California automaker’s stock rose steeply in after-hours trading, even as the major stock indexes suffered big declines. The appearance of stability is crucial for both Tesla and Musk. For months, the company has been criticized by analysts, and punished by stockholders, for failing to meet production targets on its new car, the Model 3. Musk’s behavior has also raised questions. Last month, he was forced to resign as company chairman as part of a settlement with securities regulators, who accused him of stock manipulation (Greenwire, Oct. 5). For the third quarter, from July to September, Tesla reported a net profit of nearly $312 million, which exceeds analysts’ expectations and fulfills a promise Musk made of profitability before the year was out. It was only the third profitable quarter in Tesla’s decade as a publicly traded company.” [E&E News, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

Tesla Reports A Rare Profit In The Third Quarter. According to The New York Times, “Tesla on Wednesday reported a $312 million for third quarter, thanks to a surge in production and sales of its Model 3 sedan. The company also ended the period with $3 billion in cash compared with $2.4 billion at the end of the previous quarter. The report is a key milestone for the company’s chief executive, Elon Musk, who had vowed the Model 3 would carry the company to profitability in both the third and fourth quarters of this year. The earnings help stabilize Tesla’s finances and end a streak of quarters in which the automaker used up close to $1 billion in cash. But the company still must prove it can produce profits consistently. Its third-quarter earnings were helped by cost-cutting, deferring spending on future models, and rushing to sell as many cars as possible. The surge in sales could cause demand to soften in the fourth quarter.” [The New York Times, 10/24/18 (=)]

 

Fast-Charging Battery Gets Financial Boost From LG Chem. According to E&E News, “A South Korean technology giant is in hot pursuit of advanced battery technologies, and is willing to partner with America’s tech startups to get it. Irvine, Calif.-based Enevate Corp. recently announced that its development of ultra-fast-charging electric vehicle batteries is made possible in part by funding from LG Chem. Hailing from South Korea, the LG brand of consumer electronics is well-known to shoppers across the United States. The announced business investment preceded a global call from LG Chem for smaller battery technology startups to present their business ideas, with the potential of winning financing ahead of possible joint commercialization. Enevate says its lithium-ion battery technology makes it possible to power up electric vehicles (EVs) at almost the same speed as one can fill up a gas tank in a conventional vehicle. The company boasts developing a battery that can be charged to 75 percent of its full capacity in five minutes ‘while also providing higher energy densities than available for today’s current long-range EVs.’ In a release, Enevate CEO Robert Rango said his company’s technology holds the promise to eliminate range anxiety and concerns over long charging times for electric cars, making EV technology more acceptable to a wider range of would-be customers. Partnering with a much larger firm could see Enevate’s technology reach the mainstream market sooner than might otherwise be possible.” [E&E News, 10/25/18 (=)]

 

 

Op-Ed: Detroit Area's EV Charging Stations Test Planning And Patience. According to an op-ed by Henry Payne in The Detroit News, “Metro Detroit charging options — like most states outside ultra-green California — are spotty. According to PlugShare, a smartphone app for locating charging stations, there are about 42,000 locations nationwide, one-third of them in the Golden State. They range from charging networks run by companies like EVGo, to obscure, individual outlets in parking garages. Compare that to about 115,000 gas stations around the country — 4,500 in Michigan — with multiple pumps. Crucially, only 15 percent of EV stations are so-called fast-chargers — and about half of those are Tesla-exclusive. Fast-chargers can, in my experience, potentially deliver four times the juice of a common 240-volt Level 2 home-charger: A fast-charger can deliver about 80 miles of range in an hour. In all of Metro Detroit, I counted 12 fast-chargers in locations as varied as parking lots and auto dealerships. … When my Model 3 arrives later this October, the 240-volt charger in my garage will ease most of my range anxieties. Until I plan a long trip up north to EV-infrastructure challenged Lake Michigan. My wife might kill me first.” [The Detroit News, 10/24/18 (+)]