Slashdot Mirror
California Leads States In Suing the EPA For Attacking Vehicle Emissions Standards (theverge.com)
California, along with seventeen other states, announced a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency today over its recent rollback of Obama-era vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards. The states argue that the EPA "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in overturning the previous administration's decision. The Verge reports: The standards in question were drawn up in 2009 and adopted in 2012. They laid out a path for automakers to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by reaching an average fleet fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2024. Since the program was charting a course that stretched out more than a decade into the future, it was written into the rules that the EPA would have to perform a "mid-term evaluation" before April 1st, 2018. This review would serve two purposes: assess whether automakers were on track, and then use that information to determine if the last section of the standards (which apply to model year 2022-2025 cars) were still feasible.
The EPA, under Barack Obama, kicked off this review process ahead of schedule in the summer of 2016 when it published an extensive 1,200-page technical assessment that analyzed whether the standards were working. In January 2017, the outgoing EPA wrapped this evaluation and determined that the bar was not set too high. In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant. The Trump EPA's decision in April did not set new standards -- it simply argued that there were problems with the existing standards. In the meantime, the agency and the Department of Transportation are currently working together to craft and officially propose new standards. But the previous standards that the EPA said were inappropriate will technically remain in place until that happens.
The EPA, under Barack Obama, kicked off this review process ahead of schedule in the summer of 2016 when it published an extensive 1,200-page technical assessment that analyzed whether the standards were working. In January 2017, the outgoing EPA wrapped this evaluation and determined that the bar was not set too high. In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant. The Trump EPA's decision in April did not set new standards -- it simply argued that there were problems with the existing standards. In the meantime, the agency and the Department of Transportation are currently working together to craft and officially propose new standards. But the previous standards that the EPA said were inappropriate will technically remain in place until that happens.
The last election's consequence is a return to normal policy with input from all stakeholders, including manufacturers. This is contrasted with policy dictated by zealots and academics with no skin in the game.
Not to let the facts get in the way of hyperbolic partisanship, but...
(1) The Obama decision was made with input from (and the endorsement of) car manufacturers.
(2) Long term plans and regulations, as a matter of both law and public policy, are not subject to the chief executive's whims. This makes sense, because how would business proceed if regulations were substantially overhauled every 4 years?
(2a) Just because someone doesn't like a deal, doesn't mean it wasn't accomplished and cannot be backtracked on.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Is this the same standards that relied on the lies from VW?
My cars in late 90s just worked until they fell apart and were replaced. Recently they all went to shit, one of my cars burns oil, because oil they use for emission is too thin, another has 10 speed gearbox that ate itself because it shifted too much, and they keep forcing anemic turbo 4-cyl engines that have shit fuel economy unless you drive them like a grandma. Plus all these gizmos that nobody wants - like start and stop, hybrid systems that do nothing but make car more complex (with exception of Prius, that has it working).
Fuck EPA standards. I don't want 40MPG car, I want a car that will last 15 years, has leather, and some pick up and go.
California is just making cars more expensive for everybody AGAIN...
Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but there are just some things that violate the laws of physics. You can only aspire to gas mileage levels that are so high and after that you are doomed to fail or compromise other areas like safety.
With internal combustion engines we've just about reached the work limits, there isn't any more energy to be had in a gallon on gasoline with 93 octane. You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter. Hybrid technology helps re-use breaking energy but that doesn't help the EPA mileage numbers for highway and increases the weight. You can sell electrics... But only so many of those are even marketable...
So, California wants to push up mileage standards now? Come on, I'm putting up with your emission controls that drove the price of my cars up over the last three decades, I didn't complain all that much, having visited LA and understanding the problem you where facing. I'm complaining now.. Stop this. You are costing me money, money I don't think is necessary and largely impossible to accomplish given the laws of physics.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The EPA set overly high emissions standards to begin with, the EPA now is just settling on a more realistic goal and letting that sit for a few years so companies can adjust - they are not even moving the goal BACKWARDS, just freezing at a certain level.
As for the EPA study that claimed all was well - come on, the EPA knew Trump was coming in, what do you think they would say? The EPA sadly can no longer be trusted with real science, since in recent years they have been working in a black box, unwilling to share data to validate claims about pretty much anything.
It was the original goals that were an attack on the auto industry, the current plan gives them some room to catch up to desires.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is a farce. The EPA has the authority to do what it did. The states have no grounds to sue. If they states want to enforce such standards, they can make their own standards for vehicles sold or operated within them.
California politicians have that "If you believe it enough, it will come true" mentality. These are the folks who would require auto makers to build a four door sedan that can get 80 mpg city and 110 mpg highway. And if they can't break the laws of physics...
"Hop in, Smithers!"
1. California politicians have pushed the rest of us towards sane environmental standards.
2. 80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Zero MPG.
3. Break the laws of physics? Guess, just guess who is giving them numbers - the real ones not the above AC's hyperbolic ones.
I have a LOT of criticisms about Tesla and Musk - and they are only criticisms - but the end game he has - I'm on board baby! (As well as Nissan, Ford, Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, Ferrari, etc ...)
The ICE should die - it's 19th century tech (that alone should be a death sentence!) - it's polluting and inefficient! At best only 20% of the energy of the gas you burn makes it to the wheels. In a electric car, 40% makes it to the wheels.
California- bully the rest of the country to sanity!!
Obama was not the King of Babylon. The next elected head of the executive branch actually does get to reverse his decisions.
The Church of Carbontology now sues EPA for survival (they need state power to make their moral misery a monopoly, like any church)...instead of dreaming up new ways to sue Exxon et al for an endless sinecure by said fiat.
and his irritable bowel?
I think that'll knock California down four or five places.
The Honda dealer in California wants $2200 for a "California approved" catalytic converter that I could buy aftermarket for $129 in any other state for my 2005 hybrid Civic. Utilizing the aftermarket part would return my car to compliance, except for the fact that the aftermarket suppliers haven't been able to justify paying the California goverment fees to certify the part. If I don't pay the extortion fee imposed by California, I have to throw away the car. California government likes "their money", and they DGAF about how they get it.
but I think the argument is going to be that Obama was following the various laws when the rules were put in place and that Trump is not. Remember, Trump is the Chief _Executor_. He doesn't make laws, he executes them. Now, we can debate whether Obama or Trump or neither were/are overstepping their bounds, but we don't really have to, since it's about to be litigated to high heaven.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
won Trump the election. But you're right, Hilary ignoring those rust belters (and also her ignoring our f'd up electoral college system that creates "Swing States") has consequences. And, well, one of those is going to be gas prices going up due to lower fuel economy standards. And oil wars. Those too.
Sad thing is we're on track for another 6 years of this. The Dems are fronting another right wing, oblivious Hilary-style candidate for the next prez election...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
another way is that they're pushing the real cost of driving onto the driver. Right now we've got heavily subsidized gasoline. And not just from direct subsidies or even tax breaks. We haven't been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade just to make democracies. We're over there because they have oil and we want it. Our military empire is basically the biggest subsidy in human history. Reducing our dependency on oil imports is how we get away from all that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What is wrong with New Hampshire, I say all the other NE states build tunnels to release all polluted air into that state and then use Giant Fans to keep the polluted air in that state. Of course powered by coal plants.
I farted. CA can sue me now.
Trump's election to POTUS has to be the mark of the golden age for lawyers. Sooooo many lawsuits from every direction, aimed at so many facets of Trump's administration. Wow.
Law school graduates definitely having no problem finding work, I imagine.
Just as a point of reference, as a general rule of thumb, most lawsuits filed in court, are vetted extensively before hand and are not even considered for presentation to a court unless the plaintiff has a fairly high confidence they will prevail.
As another interesting tidbit, these lawsuits are being paid for by taxpayer money, on both sides. And the judges too, taxpayer funded. In fact the entire spectacle is taxpayer funded, down to every cup of coffee and yellow legal pad. Maybe you should talk to your representative about this?
Everyone should think about this every time the Trump administration 'rolls back' some rule or regulation.
Someone got hurt, was poisoned, sold a shoddy product, swindled, defrauded, or otherwise injured by some one else, and in the course of remedying the situation, a rule or regulation was enacted to prevent another person from being injured in the same way by the same negligence or willful act that caused that injury.
At the time the rule or regulation was enacted, it seemed like a good idea. Just remember that, at the time, it seemed like a good idea. And someone or many someone were probably hurt that gave rise to the rule or regulation.
only certain species of frog and a few superheros I can't remember the names of have skin the the "breathing" game...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Ensure our nation has the safest, most efficient and modern transportation" ... " increases the productivity and competitiveness". Those goals are contrary; so which goals will the DoT promote for emission standards?
This is a purely internal analysis, so lobbyists won't be heard, right?
> In fact, it argued, automakers were overwhelmingly compliant.
Where these the same automakers that were caught with software that tried to fool emission testing? Looking at you VW, Mercedes, Audi..
Judging by many comments posted. There have been inventors since the 70's that have got older american vehicles to 70 mpg and above. The problem is that those enhanced carburetors and fuel injection inventions/patents get bought by oil companies and shelved for obvious reasons, to sell more gasoline and control the market for greater profits. The technology is easy. People are stupid, judging by many troll comments made so far here.
c6gunner
ratta-tat-tat
comments are dumber
ratta-tat-tat
than a c6gunner
ratta-tat-tat
California is just making cars more expensive for everybody AGAIN...
If that means they use less gasoline and emit less pollution then GOOD. All for it.
Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but there are just some things that violate the laws of physics. You can only aspire to gas mileage levels that are so high and after that you are doomed to fail or compromise other areas like safety.
Nice strawman. We are no where close to the sort of engineering compromises you are suggesting.
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter.
Lighter does not necessarily mean weaker and it certainly does not equal unsafe. Formula 1 cars are incredibly light and yet drivers can literally walk away from crashes at high speeds that would result in a fatality in your family sedan. Convenient that you ignored the most obvious way to reduce fuel consumption which is to make a car that has less horsepower. No you do not "need" 500 horsepower. Most people don't even need 100 most of the time. They might want it but want does not equal need. Or you can switch to something like an EV to improve fuel economy with less HP trade off.
You are costing me money, money I don't think is necessary and largely impossible to accomplish given the laws of physics.
You obviously are motivated by money because your grasp of physics and engineers seems lacking.
Apparently it is acceptable to act arbitrarily and capriciously when enacting regulations but not acceptable when changing regulations.
Looks like more liberals hiding in the wood pile.
While I don't agree that the feds shouldn't be able to change or even completely eliminate the "standards"...
I wonder who these mythical people are, who don't have "skin in the game" when it comes to atmospheric pollution. Are you claiming the government is finally representing astronauts? Let's face it, you just said an overwhelmingly stupid thing with that particular comment sicne the very essense of this policy change is to enrich a small number of people at everyone's expense. If you're a human who breathes air and you live in America, you should be angry about this routine theft by the radical left (pollution defenders). Pollution tolerance is a subsidy.
I don't favor "standards" for permissable pollution, since that's still a subsidy too. A conservative (alas, none ever run for office) would make polluters pay to mitigate their pollution, and if you want to pay to plant twice as many forests as your neighbor so that you can enjoy a V8, I really do think that's your right. As long as you're really paying for it, rather than sucking on the subsidy teat that all air-breathers have to pay into.
I am hoping that one of this last election's consequences is that conservatives will finally realize that Republicans are about as good a match for their politics, as the Communist party is. Republicans are freeloading hippies with their palms our for constant alms -- professional beggars -- and any conservative would be far better represented by Libertarians (ding! they really are the best) or even Democrats (at least they're overall more to the right than Republicans, on average).
Let's kill the Republican party. They represent basically nobody. Whoever you are, they're stealing from you.
Tesla isn't 0 MPG. It just shifts where emissions happen and adds long transmission with losses to the mileage.
If you charge your batteries using 100% solar or 100% wind power, then you are the 0.0005% who do. Everyone else gets their power at night, when cars are charged, from nuclear or fossil fuels.
But if it makes you feel better, keep pre-paying for power (solar/wind) and shifting blame.
Of course, some of what Tesla is doing **is** moving the bar forward, in a good direction, for humanity. Some of it is going backwards too. That is the nature of all technologies. Only history will know for certain if the moves forward are more than the moves backwards.
BTW, I think changing the goals without huge discussions, especially when they seem to be working, is a terrible move.
80 Mpg isn't that hard. Tesla is getting Zero MPG
Yeah, but who measures coal, or natural gas by the gallon? Or are you suggesting that Teslas only run on electricity generated by green sources?
Though they'll probably win any initial lawsuit at lower levels, especially if filed in 'liberal' courts like in California,it is likely to fail at the SC level UNLESS the legislation establishing the EPA does the following:
1) Establishes that the EPA has any responsibility over setting standards of vehicle emissions.
2) Identifies that the EPA must use 'good reasons' (scientific or otherwise) for setting those emissions standards.
Push comes to shove the EPA exists to implement legislation passed by Congress not to make legislation or 'rules' out of thin air. So any 'standards' could be 'capricious' in how they are decided upon UNLESS the legislation clearly established how the EPA should make those rules.
To be more specific, does the legislation governing the EPA establish that they are entitled or have authority to set standards in order to 'reduce greenhouse gas emissions'? If so by how much does said legislation say that these emissions must be reduced by? So why or how is the number of 54.5 miles per gallon relevant at all to the legislation governing the EPA?
Note I'm not debating whether reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a 'good thing' (TM) but whether the legislation establishing the EPA allows them to set standards for them and if it does what the legislation says about HOW the standards are established. This is as opposed to legislation mandating that they can set standards on how they are measured & communicated & leave it up to the market to decide if we want to buy gas guzzlers that pollute like crazy or electric vehicles that don't pollute as much. If the legislation doesn't empower the EPA to set standards on GGE or mileage than any rule they make is 'arbitrary & capricious' in respect to the mandate the legislation grants them.
The problem is, people don't just go to where expressways and freeways go, just like they don't just go to trains go.
But, in the case of a freeway or expressway, though, when they get to the closest point, they already have a vehicle that can take them the rest of the way... Whereas the train leaves you to walk or find other transportation.
If that reply was to me I think you're missing the point.
1 MPG is pretty poor, right?
So how good is 0 MPG?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.