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.

Comments

Re:Elections have consequences

[vux984]

with no skin in the game.

Who are you accusing of not having any skin the game? People who actually breathe air? They don't have any 'skin' in the game?

Bull

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

Re:Make cars more expensive

[dgatwood]

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...

Actually, if you've driven Bay Area highways, you'd know that regenerative braking makes the most difference on the highways. :-D

But seriously, the main problem with electrics is that the major automakers have limited interest beyond doing the bare minimum required by law. As clean air standards get more and more strict, it forces them to invest in driving the cost of electric vehicles down and removing barriers to adoption (e.g. by improving the charging networks, increasing battery capacity, increasing battery longevity, etc.), which makes them more marketable.

The alternative, should they choose not to do so, is that they can instead buy credits sold by companies whose vehicles produce lower emissions. This, in turn, means that companies like Tesla can sell those credits and use them to fund innovation that drives down the cost of electric vehicles and removes barriers to adoption, thus making EVs more marketable.

Either approach clearly benefits both the environment and national security (by making us less dependent on foreign oil), and as an added bonus, it drives technology forward and increases innovation. If the only impact is that your ICE car costs a few extra bucks, I'd call that a win.

Re: Really?

[Darinbob]

New LED light bulbs fit into my old fixtures just fine. They're all screw-in. The price has gone way down since the first days of LED bulbs, and they last a lot long than my old incandescent bulbs used to.

Re:You're right about him not being king

[thrich81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Total number of executive orders:
G W Bush: 291
B. Obama: 276
R. Reagan: 381

Avg number of executive orders/per year:
G W Bush: 36.4
B. Obama: 34.6
D. Trump: 55

Rules and Abuse

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re:Rules and Abuse

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, but you also have to remember that every time a rule is introduced someone lost the opportunity to make some profit, had to pay for some safety gear, was forced to fit a filter, had to internalize a cost. That regulation injured someone's wallet. It was enacted to reduce someone's bottom line.

And that someone was probably a major donor. /sarcasm

Re:Who was the real attacker

[Gravis Zero]

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

Nope. Electric cars are the future because they don't put out any pollution. Get with it, you rube.

It was the original goals that were an attack on the auto industry,

LOL! Who needs to attack the auto industry when they needed to be bailed out by a democratic congress and president?

The only thing being attacked here is people who profit from polluting the environment.

You're super when it comes to bullshit but not so much with common sense.

Re: Really?

[dgatwood]

The mobile homes are typically around 1800 square feet, and have 2x6 walls covered in drywall, vaulted ceilings, hot tubs, decent carpeting, often hardwood floors, nice porches, etc. Having been in both, California mobile homes are to southern U.S. mobile homes as the Tesla Model X is to a Ford Pinto without fixing the gas tank problem.