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.
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.
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.