Slashdot Mirror


Trump Administration Plans To Freeze Obama-Era Fuel Standards (theverge.com)

The Trump administration plans to freeze Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards starting in 2021, according to a report from The Washington Post. The report says the Trump administration "would go even further by restricting a state's ability to set its own fuel standards, which would be a strike against California and its strict state-specific emissions rules," reports The Verge. From the report: The proposal has been reportedly drafted by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, and the plan right now is to freeze standards for cars and light trucks at levels set for the year 2021 and keep them their for five years. The Obama administration's rules, which involved a partnership with California and car makers, set standards at 50 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2025. Obama also, through the Clean Air Act, granted California a waiver to set its own, higher standards. That way, if automobile manufacturers wanted to maintain a presence in the lucrative California market, they'd have to abide by the new rules. The Trump administration now says a separate law overrules that arrangement, The Washington Post reports.

29 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Big surprise.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks. I hope gas does a 2008 and shoots up to $5/gal soon -- if it won't push people to buy more reasonable cars, maybe it will at least help sales of electric cars out of their current niche.

    Also, thank God for the Japanese makers who still sell reasonably-sized, nice-to-drive actual cars in the US market.

    1. Re:Big surprise.... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hydrogen is merely the last gas of the fossil fuel industry's attempt to prevent the imminent irrelevance for cars.

      Most hydrogen is produced form fossil fuels, so it isn't green.

      Developing the infrastructure for refilling hydrogen fuelled cars is going to be very expensive, while most of the infrastructure for BEVs already exists (in the form of electrical grids).

      Hydrogen fuelled cars need a small battery anyway, because regenerative braking back to hydrogen fuel isn't effective.

      The only reason hydrogen fuel cell vehicles exist is because of a mandate from the Japanese government. Even then, only one company has actually produced one in volume (and, in the USA, only sells it in part of California).

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Big surprise.... by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hydrogen has a lower power density than lithium batteries, and hydrogen comes from fosil fuels. Put power rails in the roads and your electric car only needs enough batteries to get from your driveway to the road.

    3. Re: Big surprise.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Let other countries march in. If they want to spend their blood and treasure in the mess that's the present-day Middle East, better them than us.

      As far as Afghanistan, it was better off as a Soviet puppet state than as a fundamentalist hellhole created with US training and Saudi money. We'd have been better off if we'd have let the Soviets win in the 80s.

  2. Waivers and Eexecutive Actions by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you govern by issuing waivers to the law instead of actually using compromise and diplomacy to pass laws, then at some point you have to expect a new Presidential Administration might be elected and revoke those waivers and reverse previous executive actions.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Waivers and Eexecutive Actions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obama tried compromise, didn't seem to work with the obstructionists in Congress. Con-gress, the opposite of pro-gress.

    2. Re:Waivers and Eexecutive Actions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The vast majority (> 95%) of actual peer-reviewed research supports the theory that human activities cause global warming. The differences between the research are how much effect there will be, and how quickly it will happen.

      Also, the oil industry is polluting in other ways (water with hydrocarbon contamination, anyone?). And a sizable fraction of gasoline used goes on the ground, into the groundwater, or evaporates into the air. The less oil and gas we avoidably use, the better it is for us all, regardless of global warming theories.

    3. Re: Waivers and Eexecutive Actions by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congress no longer represents the people on the West Coast and the Northeast. It's heavily weighted towards the interests of less-populated central states. Remember, they get two Senators even if they have 1/10th the population of a Texas, New York, New Jersey, or California. This isn't representative government as much as a tyranny of a landed minority.

    4. Re: Waivers and Eexecutive Actions by mellon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, if you are a scientist with credentials, getting funding to study how global warming doesn't exist is really easy. Just like it used to be really easy to get funding to study how smoking doesn't cause cancer. There's a lot of money to be made proving that carbon pollution isn't a problem. Would that it were so.

  3. [...]strike against California[...] by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    More like a strike against Chevron(*), which controls he reformulation of gasoline in California to prevent importation of gasoline refined in other states, and artificially raise the price.

    State specific environmental regulations should be held to he same bar as state specific laws... subject to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Federal regulations override state.

    (*) From those wonderful folks who brought you MTBE

    1. Re:[...]strike against California[...] by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Different states have different environmental issues due to geography, water availability, climate, etc. Why not let the people of those states set stricter rules than Federal if they feel it's appropriate and necessary?

    2. Re:[...]strike against California[...] by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we can't have a smaller government if it's the wrong small government.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  4. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

    Good thing is that the lithium, once mined, is recyclable. And most people drive under 50 miles a day. Which means that, with more charging stations coming online, newer electric "commuter" cars could have smaller batteries. Enough for a range of ~100 miles, not 300-400.

    Also, dead is dead. How many kids have died in horrible ways in US-funded and often US-lead wars over oil? US still uses napalm. Which really does stick to kids and burn like hell.

    This is classic whataboutism.

  5. Because trucklets have different fuel standards by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks.

    You know why? Cars have stricter fuel-efficiency standards than light trucks. That makes sense. However it creates the perverse incentive that in order to meet fuel efficiency standards, manufacturers need to make bigger, heavier, less-efficient vehicles - trucks.

  6. Re:Corporate rights by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And there I was thinking that the Republican party were all about giving states more freedom and independence.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  7. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Lithium is not a "rare earth".
    2. Lithium is not a conflict mineral.
    3. Lithium is extracted from salt flats or brine. Neither process uses either children or slaves.

  8. Re:Corporate rights by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only where such freedom and rights benefit DOW 30 corporations or certain churches where the lunatics run the asylum.

  9. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

    Neither process uses either children or slaves.

    So you're saying there are 'untapped inefficiencies' that could be addressed?

  10. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not with that attitude!

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  11. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

    So charge at home overnight. You can charge at about 12kWh per hour off a 240V/50A circuit. 2.5 hr gives you enough charge (30kWh) to go 100 miles, whole day's driving and more for most people. If there are chargers at work, you can also charge there. Viola! Another 100 miles' range, 200mi per day.

  12. Re: Choo Choo!! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cyanide and carbon monoxide are also made of carbon. Try sniffing some and telling me it's not a pollutant ... oh wait.

  13. Re:You mean we won't drive electric cars on the mo by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative

    50mpg is not a realistic number for fuel consumption on anything you'd be willing to buy.

    The Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius both do better than 50mpg, and plenty of people are willing to buy them. They are both based on years-old technology, so there's no reason (outside of laziness and a race-to-the-bottom mentality) that carmakers can't do even better going forward.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  14. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The majority of Americans don't live in the rural US. Infernal combustion cars aren't going anywhere for the 10% of truly rural population.

  15. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by Khyber · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Lithium is extracted from salt flats or brine. Neither process uses either children or slaves"

    Lithium is also extracted from lepidolite, which is in fact extracted in many countries with slave labor (which is incidentally children looking for lithium-borate gems within those lepidolite bodies.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Re:suck my DAMN balls by mellon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those are also mostly carbon.

  17. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Infernal combustion cars

    I assume that was an autocorrect mistake, but I absolutely love it. Some kind of mix between a crotchety old-timer who doesn't want to give up his horse buggy and a mindless hipster twitter jokey who thinks all fossil fuels are pure evil.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  18. We left sane government behind by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when Clinton (Bill) shifted the Democratic party right to win the presidency. The Republicans then moved right to protect their own identity (after all, why vote Republican when the Dems are damn near the same) and then the Dems decided to move to the new "center" and here we are with both parties far, far to the right of Eisenhower. Bernie's trying to get things moving back in the direction of FDR and the like.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. They are entirely separate, like different compani by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the full rule (1500 pages) for 2012-2016 if you'd like to read it, but I'll summarize a bit for you.

    https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfi...

    > fleet-wide averages, without as much exception for "trucks."

    There are two (or more) completely separate fleets. Cars, light trucks, medium trucks (and busses), heavy trucks, motorcycles. There is no "exception", the two groups are computed entirely separately, based on entirely different MPG standards and different average lifetime miles.

    For CAFE purposes, each company is essentially split into two companies - a truck company and a car company. (Also motorcycles and large trucks are computed entirely separate, as if they were different companies). You can read the full details in the EPA rules above.

    So first the company does its cars. The first step on calculating the car standard is to find the average size (footprint) of the company's cars. I'll directly quote the EPA rule on this rather than trying to explain it in my own words:
    --
    EPAâ(TM)s final standards, like the standards NHTSA
    promulgated in March 2009 for MY 2011, are expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint. Footprint is one measure of vehicle size, and is
    determined by multiplying the vehicleâ(TM)s wheelbase by the vehicleâ(TM)s average track width.
    --

    After finding the footprint, you look at the table (section 3, I think) that gives the formula for your range. Inputting the average footprint, the formula tells what the average fuel economy needs to be, in GALLONS PER MILE.

    It's gallons per mile because a vehicle that gets 1MPG burns twice as much gas as one that gets 2MPG, but a vehicle that gets 99MPG is almost the same as one that gets 100MPG.

    Subtract your company's ACTUAL average GPM for cars from the standard to get the amount of credit or debit. If the company is more efficient than required, it can either save those credits for next year, or sell the credits to another car company. Similarly, if this year's sales aren't efficient enough, the company can either use credits it earned in an earlier year, or buy credits from a more efficient company. (Credit brokers are allowed, but cannot actually own the credits, only bank them).

    Once your done with the cars, you go through the same procedure, separately, for your motorcycles, then again completely separately for light trucks, etc.

    I mentioned that a company that doesn't meet its target can buy credits from a company that the target. What Mack beats their heavy truck target, while BMW needs to buy credits for their cars? Mack has truck credits to sell, BMW wants to buy car credits. The public doesn't care whether a gallon of gas is burned in a motorcycle or a bus, they only care how much as is burned, so before trading companies can apply a formula to convert light truck credits to car credits, or car credits to medium truck credits or whatever. (It's not one-for-one, different kinds of credits are "worth" different amounts). Note that it may be Volvo's truck credits offsetting Ferrari's car debit. The Corporate in CAFE doesn't matter once you start trading different kinds of credits.

    Just as GMC can convert truck credits to (fewer) car credits in order to sell them to Ferrari, GMC can also convert truck credits to car credits for Buick. GMC and Buick happen to be the same company, but GMC could just as easily trade those credits to a different company, maybe Ford or Volkswagen.

    Again, the full details are in the actual rule linked above, but the summary is that car, light truck, medium truck, and heavy truck are computed completely separate, like separate companies. There is no averaging between cars and trucks.

  20. Re:maybe it will at least help sales of electric c by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lithium can be extracted from lepidolite, but not much actually is.

    Over 40% of the world's lithium supply comes from Australia, primarily spodumene mines like these. Chile and Argentina produce another 45% from brine evaporation, as is most of China's output which supplies around 7%. The rest comes from the USA, Canada, Brazil, Portugal, and 2% from petalite and spodumene mines in Zimbabwe.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?