[blackwasp]

The Trump administration is set to announce a rollback of fuel economy standards set in the Obama-era. According to a media report, the revised rules will be formally announced by April 1, 2018 and will include a rollback in the average fleet fuel economy rules as well.

Back in 2009, corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rules were revised for 2012-2016 model cars to meet the average fleet fuel efficiency of 15.08 km/l. Of these, passenger cars were expected to meet the 16.58 km/l mark while light trucks had to achieve 12.75 km/l. These were a marked improvement from the 2009 limits of 10.62 km/l for all vehicles. It was expected that this would reduce fuel consumption by approximately 1.8 billion barrels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 900 million tons. By 2014, most of these norms were met and by 2012-2015, the industry average was more than the required legal level.

In 2011, an agreement with 13 automakers for the period of 2017-2025 included a higher average fuel economy of 23.17 km/l for cars and light trucks. The automakers included Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. Volkswagen refrained from signing this agreement. The above 23.17 km/l number was based upon the assumption that the ratio of cars to trucks would remain 67:33, however the current ratio stands closer to 50:50. This has caused an increased cost to the automakers towards the use of alternate technologies including hybrid and battery operated vehicles to try to keep up with the increased targets.

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has already concluded that these rules for lowering the green house emissions are aggressive and would be revised. It was also revealed that unrealistic CAFE norms would drive up the cost of new vehicles and people would find it difficult to upgrade, thereby using their old vehicles, whose emissions would be higher.



Source - Bloomberg

Link to the Team-BHP News

[amitoj]

I'll be happy if this gets me out of paying a $1000 gas guzzler tax on my next purchase. But that's probably not going to happen.

[i74js]

Will this have any impact on the class action cases against VW in the US? If such stringent emission standards were not cost effective, on what basis Obama administration implemented them?

After reading the news item I am quite confused as it links emissions with the distance traveled per litre of fuel consumed and not emissions in volumetric / emissions intensity per km of distance traveled.

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by i74js

Will this have any impact on the class action cases against VW in the US?

No, this will not have any impact on the cases against VW, because the target that is being revised by the Trump administration is for the 2017-2025 period, whereas the VW emission scandal was found out in 2015, and was for a previous period in which they shamelessly cheated the system.

If such stringent emission standards were not cost effective, on what basis Obama administration implemented them?

Definitely in an effort to reduce environmental impact, but I also suspect that the automakers (Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo) who signed the agreement, didn't have complete clarity on the extra costs involved at that time (2011). Please also note that VW did NOT sign this agreement, hence were not convinced that these targets were achievable.

After reading the news item I am quite confused as it links emissions with the distance traveled per litre of fuel consumed and not emissions in volumetric / emissions intensity per km of distance traveled.

Americans have always had different ways of calculating things from the rest of the world, so nothing to be confused about there. It's just a different method of measuring the same thing that all the other countries are measuring

Cheers

[govigov]

Am I the only one that thinks, this is a way to ensure higher fossil fuel dependency? The dollar clearly requires that people demand fossil fuel to keep up the value of their currency. Moving to alternative energy sources would mean lesser dependency on crude oil.

I am thinking there are vested interests here, considering shale oil had also picked up a good momentum.

This is just a win-win for most of the corporates. The fossil fuel/shale oil will flourish, the dollar will keep up, the car manufacturers get an easy day.

[Joxster]

An interesting article on the topic, and the possible after effects.

Automakers are playing a tricky game when it comes to the 2022-25 tailpipe emission standards.

They got their wish for the Trump administration to reopen the EPA's final determination locking in the final years of the Obama 12-year plan to roughly double vehicle efficiency. And now it looks like Administrator Scott Pruitt will agree that the rules, which ratchet up mileage requirements about 5 percent each year, are too aggressive and need to be corrected.

The draft determination is still under interagency review at the Office of Management and Budget, but must be completed by April 1.

What the fix will look like will not be clear for several more months, until a new proposal is put forward.

Car companies are looking for modest tweaks that give them extra wiggle room to comply with the targets and avoid penalties, while professing loyalty to the clean-air rules. They argue that takes a lot more work and money to squeeze out the last bits of efficiency from vehicles. Improvements are much easier when there is a lot of room to improve -- just like it's easier to get toothpaste out of a tube when it's full.

The bigger danger is that Pruitt and President Donald Trump will take advantage of the opening provided by the industry and sharply scale back the emissions and fuel efficiency targets.

If the changes are minor, a grand bargain between EPA (the emissions regulator), NHTSA (the mileage regulator) and California (the high priestess of air quality rules under special congressional authority to pave its own direction) is possible. That would be a home run for the auto industry because it would preserve the uniformity and predictability they prize.

But if California doesn't buy into the Pruitt plan, it will unleash a period of uncertainty as states join California to block a watered-down proposal. That will make product planning more difficult and curtail job-creating investments for the near future. Worse, automakers might have to stop selling many vehicles in a quarter of the states that follow California's standard or setting up production lines to create two versions of vehicles.

But an even bigger risk remains: damage to the automakers' reputation as good corporate citizens.

Automakers that got taxpayer-backed bailout loans regained their credibility by turning out better, more fuel-efficient products and voluntarily joining the Obama-led fuel economy program. Executives have extolled their sustainability efforts in an era when consumers make choices based in part on a corporation's environmental commitments. They were able to attract investment dollars targeted at sustainability and good environmental stewardship.

In the coming days, Pruitt and Trump will likely catch some flak for trying to turn back the clock on environmental progress. But environmental groups and other critics, armed with social media megaphones, are already turning their fire on the carmakers. The companies will face being called hypocrites, willful polluters or worse.

"By undermining the money-saving clean air rules, the auto companies are reaching into our wallets while increasing pollution from cars that will be on the road for years to come," Stan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, wrote in a blog on Friday. The group and others are planning a Monday sign-waving campaign and protest outside Ford's Washington offices here.

Carol Browner, the former EPA chief who helped craft the CAFE standards as an Obama White House adviser, said in a statement, "This rollback is just another thinly veiled attempt by Scott Pruitt to protect industry while putting our health and environment at risk."

Ford Motor Co. Executive Chairman Bill Ford tried to blunt the public relations hit earlier this week when he expressed support for "increasing clean car standards" and no rollback after his company quietly acquiesced to industry trade association efforts to adjust the standards. This after Ford led the industry to agree to the standards.

But with the environmental groups screaming about the Trump administration caving to automaker demands, the industry won't be able to control the narrative much longer.
Managing public perceptions about the industry may prove just as complex as managing the operational challenges of an uncertain CAFE program.

Source

Cheers

[ashwin1224]

While the global consensus and many major countries gearing to welcome an era of clean energy driven vehicles, we have the Trump led US of A, going on the completely opposite direction. The CAFE rules were not put into place to hamper economic growth of corporate or individuals, they were there because without them the industry was killing the damn planet! All this talk about the rules being unrealistic or that its making new cars costly is purely there to confuse the people. Rules keep changing, business HAVE to adapt, none of the corporates in the field lack resources to churn out affordable and economic cars. They dont wish to do it because the global market still doesn't care for fuel economy as much as we do, to them investing $100 on something no one is gonna notice is a bad investment, while $1000 or a new kind of paint is perfectly logical coz people see the paint and it'll help them sell their $30k car. And CAFE rules demand that manufacturers spend a lot more on efficiency than anything else.

At the same time, some people have pointed out that less efficient cars mean more dependence on fossil fuel. While I doubt the motive behind this backstabbing of the planet is such a pitiful one, one cant rule it out completely.

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

It was also revealed that unrealistic CAFE norms would drive up the cost of new vehicles and people would find it difficult to upgrade, thereby using their old vehicles, whose emissions would be higher.

How is an entirely new car, made by using so much resources be better for earth than a car being used for long-term?

On top of this, people usually go for a bigger car with larger engine, when they upgrade, which defeats the purpose of the change.

[volkman10]

EPA orders revised CAFE targets, may revoke California's waiver.

Move welcomed by auto industry, denounced by other businesses.

EPA Administrator announced that aggressive light-vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions limits set under the Obama administration for model years 2022-25 are “not appropriate,” triggering a controversial new rulemaking process to adjust the standards and a possible showdown with California

puts California on notice that it would not allow the state to impose its stricter standard on the federal government. The EPA said the administrator is evaluating whether to revoke California’s waiver to set its own emissions rules if it doesn’t cooperate.

Link