EPA will be directed to allow States to legislate CO2 emissions

Discussion in 'Legislation' started by xcel, Jan 26, 2009.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    CO2 emissions control should bring about much higher Fuel Economy Standards then the current 35 mpgUS by 2020 non-sense.

    [xfloat=right]http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/615/2010_Honda_Insight_Headline_pic.jpg[/xfloat]Wayne Gerdes – CleanMPG – Jan. 26, 2009

    2010 Honda Insight-II – At 41 mpgUS combined, it easily meets the 2016 CARB mandate of 40 mpgUS today.

    The new EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, issued a memo to all EPA employees last Friday first thanking President Obama for her appointment and then to laying out the plan that will change the face of the agency for the benefit of the environment.

    The environmental agenda set by President Obama and to be carried out by Mrs. Jackson and the EPA includes three core values.
    • Science must be the backbone for EPA programs -- When the EPA addresses scientific issues, it should rely on the expert judgment of the Agency’s career scientists and independent advisors whose judgments will not be suppressed, misrepresented or distorted by political agendas.

    • The laws that the EPA is expected to implement still leave room for policy judgments -- Policy decisions should not be disguised as scientific findings or compromise the integrity of EPA’s experts in order to advance a particular outcome.

    • EPA must follow the rule of law -- The EPA needs to exercise policy in good faith in keeping with the directives of Congress and the courts. When a law has been written explicitly, the EPA cannot misinterpret or ignore the language Congress has used. Also, the EPA cannot turn a blind eye to a court’s decision or procrastinate in complying.
    During the election campaign, Mr. Obama pledged to make the threat of climate change a high priority within his administration. With the principles laid out above and keeping to that promise, President Obama is expected today to allow California and thirteen other states the ability to impose their own, automobile CO2 limiting regulations in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The memorandum appears not to directly force the EPA to allow California and 13 other states to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, but rather to reconsider the 2007 decision by the EPA's then-administrator, Stephen Johnson, to block California from implementing its own greenhouse gas emissions limits. Given the previous EPA administrations lack of compliance even after a Federal Court ruled for them to do so, the new EPA Administrator intends to fix this oversight.

    Fortunately or not, the EPA may not have a final ruling for several months.

    Expected Requirements

    CARB Fuel Economy Equivalents for light duty vehicle from 2009 to 2016

    [​IMG]

    Under the new California-mandated CO2 emissions regulations, a much more stringent fuel economy standard will be required. As currently designed, this standard will require passenger light cars and trucks (< 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight) to achieve 40 mpgUS and heavy light trucks (3,751 pounds loaded vehicle weight to < 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) to achieve 25 mpgUS by 2016. This is in sharp contrast to the current 2007 Energy Bill’s 35 mpgUS (~ 27 mpgUS actual) set to occur by 2020.

    There could be unintended consequences within the CO2 emissions regulations themselves with regards to loaded vehicle weight and gross vehicle weight metrics. The current Honda Civic Hybrid for example has a loaded Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,780 pounds which possibly excludes it from the strict 40 mpg rating. This can be seen in any number of compacts and the manufacturers will surely increase weight and load carrying capacity to at least 3,751 pounds to achieve a 25 mpgUS rating which many do today vs. the 40 mpgUS rating some may never reach. Another problem with the CARB mandates is that after 2016, the CA CO2 emissions reduction requirements remain stagnant.

    These rules will surely be tightened up before being enacted which should ensure manufacturer compliance without the ability to skirt the rules thanks to loopholes like the current Energy Bills “Foot print” clause or CARB's GVWR’s given what our country so desperately needs.

    Similarly, President Obama is expected to direct the Department of Transportation to complete rulemaking for higher national fuel efficiency standards.

    In total, these mandates and requests should improve the fuel economy of our nation’s vehicle fleet much sooner which in turn will reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2009
  2. Robert Lastick

    Robert Lastick Well-Known Member

    Well, lookie here! President Obama is doing what he said he would do and is doing exactly what our country needs.

    Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Don't thing my feeling is shared by the big .3, however.
     
  3. mparrish

    mparrish Rosie the Riveter Redux

    It's another reminder that there is never, ever, ever any federal politician who adheres to a "states rights" ideology. It's only a tool to be used when out of power and discarded once in power. The previous administration had no problem trashing it when California decided to go a different direction.

    Good job, Big O. I wonder what energy candy arrives this week?
     
  4. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    That 3750 cutoff between 40 and 25 seems like a HUGE loophole if it is applied to passenger vehicles, even the Audi A4 "compact" weighs more than that. This is worthless unless it is only "Trucks" and Truck is tightly defined.

    Not sure but my tacoma weighs in near 3750, this could end the "small truck" sales and all small trucks will soon weigh 3751.

    Let the games begin.
     
  5. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi All:

    ___The announcements are coming in...

    ___Good Luck

    ___Wayne
     
  6. pdk

    pdk Beacon of Sanity

    Isn't that what kinda happened with station wagons and SUVs in CAFE? Instead of increase efficiency for station wagons, automakers put people-carriers onto bigger frames to have them classified as "trucks" and subject to looser standards.

    It's not that the cutoff isn't a reasonable idea, it's just that automakers have done whatever they can and take advantage of whatever loophole they can to just barely comply with little by way of meaningful efficiency increases (with the possible exception of Honda).

    Weight cutoff is a reasonable mechanism, but a potentially poor policy. Don't mix policy and mechanism.
     
  7. JusBringIt

    JusBringIt Be Inspired

    From reading the description, it would indicate that passenger cars need to have 40mpg or higher. There are trucks that weigh less than 3,750 lbs, so these would have to meet the requirement also. As for weighing over 3,750lbs, this applies only to trucks.
     
  8. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    Still, I checked my trucks weight and it is 3475, there is a large incentive to not even bother making a truck this size or smaller if adding 275lbs brings me from 40 to 25 mpg EPA. Mine is an extended cab, the 4 door 2wd tacoma weighs over 3750, and the 4x4s all beat 3750.

    Easier to offer a 3751lb truck that can get 25 relatively easily, than offer a 3500lb truck that is very hard to achieve 40mpg.

    The market for relatively super lightweight pickups that can actually achieve 40mpg but only haul small loads is probably not great.

    Diesel could be the best option for small trucks.
     
  9. JusBringIt

    JusBringIt Be Inspired

    Well, look at it this way, the majority of trucks we have available and that are actually bought that can do any amt of reasonable towing weigh upwards of 4000lbs. If these trucks get 25mpg, that's a huge improvement over current advertisings of 20mpg which is "incredible"? that's a 25% increase in economy, as in, all those truck owners would fit into the category of mild hypermilers. A page or two can be taken from cleanmpg if those auto companies need ideas on how to make automobiles more Fuel efficient.
     
  10. Taliesin

    Taliesin Well-Known Member

    Hmm... GVWR for my Ranger is 4760 and it is '08 EPA rated at 25 combined...
    Ford has gotten a head start on meeting the 2016 EPA standards?!?

    These weights need to be rethought. I believe the Ranger should fall in the lower weight category, not the higher one.
     
  11. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    The old Dodge Rampage (based on the Omni IIRC) is only barely under the size rating at 3545. I'm not sure anybody sells a new pickup that small in the US anymore. I'd like to see higher MPG standards required of the "heavy light trucks" and introduce another tier of standards for F350's and GMC 3500's class (light heavy trucks maybe?) to help deter the size inflation we've seen in the past.
     
  12. Kacey Green

    Kacey Green Well-Known Member

    I was going to mention the Ranger Frontier, and Colorado
     
  13. jsmithy

    jsmithy Well-Known Member

    "There could be unintended consequences within the CO2 emissions regulations themselves with regards to loaded vehicle weight and gross vehicle weight metrics. The current Honda Civic Hybrid for example has a loaded Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,780 pounds which possibly excludes it from the strict 40 MPG rating. This can be seen in any number of compacts and the manufacturers will surely increase weight and load carrying capacity to at least 3,751 pounds to achieve a 25 mpgUS rating which many do today vs. the 40 mpgUS rating some may never reach. Another problem with the CARB mandates is that after 2016, the CA CO2 emissions reduction requirements remain stagnant."


    What BS. With this loophole, this reg doesn't mean much.
     
  14. Taliesin

    Taliesin Well-Known Member

    I think many of the people here are confusing one issue.

    The truck sizes are set by the LOADED weight, or the GVWR. Not the curb weight.

    The Toyota Tacoma mentioned earlier comes in at 4500+, while the Rampage you mention does come in below the limit (depending on the year).

    Even the old Chevy Luv (and the Ford Courier) pops in at ~3400, and it only had 80hp.

    It seems we don't have any small light trucks in the US anymore. Another reason to add one or two more weight classes to the deal.

    Heck, with the top limits on this chart, the 350s and 3500s still aren't required anything. GVWR for my Ram 1500 is 6K#.
     

Share This Page