Utilities, Tesla Appeal Federal Rollback of Auto Emissions Standards (arstechnica.com) 118
A coalition of utilities and electric vehicle makers, including Tesla, are petitioning the EPA to reconsider its recent plan to roll back auto emissions standards. In April, the EPA said that it would relax greenhouse gas emissions standards that had been put in place for model year 2022-2025 vehicles. Ars Technica reports: The National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT) represents 12 utilities as well as Tesla, electric truck maker Workhorse, and EV charging network EVgo. NCAT earlier this month asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to review the EPA's latest efforts to relax the Obama-era fuel economy standards.
The coalition challenge to the EPA follows a similar challenge made by 17 states, including California. The utilities' efforts show that they're interested in protecting one of the major projected avenues for growth in electricity demand. Electricity consumption has stagnated in the U.S. as efficiency measures take effect and, in some states, solar panels make it easier for residents to buy less electricity from the local utility.
The coalition challenge to the EPA follows a similar challenge made by 17 states, including California. The utilities' efforts show that they're interested in protecting one of the major projected avenues for growth in electricity demand. Electricity consumption has stagnated in the U.S. as efficiency measures take effect and, in some states, solar panels make it easier for residents to buy less electricity from the local utility.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the emmissions roll backs (Score:3)
Live by the executive order. (Score:2)
Die by the executive order.
Shysters must be a sunk cost, at least this will keep them out of real trouble.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, this entire process derives from a law passed by Congress under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration followed through and Congress has not repealed it(note the Federal Register), yet Trump has used his executive position to carve out an exception, though without due process as required by law, much as his travel ban was based on his personal whims, not sound evidence. Even if it had passed by Constitutional Amendment, all evidence indicates that Donald Trump would act to subvert i
Re: (Score:2)
'Followed through' by raising the CAFE standards via executive order.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry Hornwumpus, but LynnwoodRooster already provided the link showing that Obama reached an agreement with automakers, states, and other parties as required by the aforementioned law, so it is actually Trump who is trying to defy the will of Congress.
Who signed off on it already. Multiple times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Live by the executive order. (Score:1)
Obama had no need to pass a new law, the existing Bush-era law empowered him to negotiate standards with automakers, states, and other parties, to which they formed an agreement that Trump is now unlawfully repudiating.
If Trump wanted the authority to act as he did, he is the one with Congressional majorities now. He never even asked.
So he's the criminal, and contrary to his assertions, he can be arrested, and found in contempt, and he can't pardon himself to the point of ignoring court orders.
Even if he
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Thanks for the citation, LynnwoodRooster. Yes, as your link shows, Obama was following the law in negotiating an agreement with automakers, states, and other parties to fulfill the instructions that Congress had previously given out under the Bush administration.
The Trump régime's singlehanded usurpation of power in defying the legislature is something that the court will rule warrants an order otherwise. And given that I is Scott Pruett, he probably won't even make it out of his safe room to defen
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CAFE standard as passed by Congress [wikipedia.org] set CAFE to 35 MPG by 2020; President Obama used an executive action to raise it to 41+ MPG. Well, it's been rolled-back to the passed law.
The 41.5 mpg standard would have meant that ICE cars would increase in price dramatically while plunging in performance metrics, and also in crash survivability as structure is sacrificed for reductions in vehicle weight to increase mpg.
As a result, people would keep their old ICE cars with lower mpg and higher emissions on the road far longer, defeating much of the reasons for higher CAFE standards that have been touted.
I guess some here would rather see people keeping their old lower-mileage,higher-emissi
Re: (Score:2)
Increased fuel economy is better "performance" and you can get modern smaller more economical engine cars going faster than older larger engine cars. Modern cars are also a lot better at protecting the passenger than older cars ever were. Check the video on this head-
Re: (Score:2)
Increased fuel economy is better "performance" and you can get modern smaller more economical engine cars going faster than older larger engine cars. Modern cars are also a lot better at protecting the passenger than older cars ever were.
Yes, but at ever-higher cost. Why would a working-poor driver get rid of their current working car to spend tens of thousands for a new ultra-efficient car?
And I'm sorry, but IMO I'd be far more likely to survive a collision with a dump-truck in a '75 Eldorado than a 2018 Focus or Malibu,, or even a Tesla. Airbags, crumple-zones, etc can only mitigate so much energy/damage.
Strat
Re: Live by the executive order. (Score:4, Insightful)
Although Trump is a jerk, this EPA decision has nothing to do with the "travel ban".
Sure they do, they're both examples of Trump's personal caprice and malice.
Such rollbacks of overly ambitious goals set by politicians for political gain (they usually are not in office by the time the market is destroyed by goals and, if they are, most people have forgotten their position on the topic or they can fool the public by pointing fingers at private enterprise claiming they didn't bother to meet the goals (which is rather absurd as whoever develops the technology to do so can patent it and suck money from all the ICE powered vehicle manufacturers).
Sorry man, but nobody ever invented the miraculous 200 mpg carberator and sold it off to then auto industry. That's just silly nonsense.
The travel ban is clearly within Trump's authority (you will find that conclusion to be unanimous in the upcoming SCOTUS decision although I expect the overall ruling more likely to be 7-2 in Trump's favor as it's likely a couple of the "legislate from the bench" justices from the left side of spectrum will find a reason to oppose the majority opinion on personal rather than legal grounds).
Nope. The Supreme Court will be forced to admit that Trump made no attempt to follow any kind of standard besides his own expressed animus in his travel ban, and with those statements, his clear intent was to impose a religious test in violation of the prohibition in the Constitution. I expect a 6-3 ruling is unlikely, but 5-4 may come without Alito or Roberts joining the opinions of Thomas or Gorsuch.
The countries affected by the ban were much the same countries that Obama identified when banning anyone who was a national of 38 countries and had even set foot in those "banned" countries for years from using the Visa Waiver Program for much the same reason that Trump included them -- they have governments that are either unable or unwilling to cooperate with our vetting process.
Nope. Trump's own administration admitted they had presented no documentation to that effect, that they wrote following the President's own personal instructions.
Trump even tweeted that himself.
The notion that this was a "Muslim Ban" then leads us to conclude that Obama also was trying to discriminate against Muslims.
Nope. Obama does not have a personal history of expressing antagonism towards Muslims. Trump, on the other hand, does, and directly promised to ban Muslims.
If the "travel bans" were a "Muslim ban" they were certainly a very ineffective way to do so -- a small fraction of the Muslims worldwide are affected and there are many individual countries with much larger populations of Muslims that were unaffected.
Yes, Trump is also incompetent, as noted by his imposition of his ban. A sudden, unprepared, and universal ban with zero planning or forethought.
And, while on the topic of Trump vs. Obama, there's really no question that DACA, as Obama implemented it, was beyond his authority -- Congress never authorized creation of a new class of immigrants and issuance of documents to them. The lawsuits against Trump on DACA rollbacks will fail miserably. It's impossible to argue that Trump doesn't have the power to unilaterally dismantle the program if Obama had the power to unilaterally create it. If Obama didn't have the right to unilaterally create it, it's not a legal program anyway so must go.
Except Obama did not create it. Congress did. It authorized the President to act as Obama acted. Congress even consented. If they had objected, they didn't even have to vote to impeach. They could have just passed a law.
They did not. Instead, they allowed Obama to fulfill the roll he was delegated under the law. Accordingly, using his judgment he set up protections and deferral
Re: (Score:2)
Now now, there's no reason to make a racist reference, you can simply call Trump a buffoon and accomplish your goal.
Calling someone a monkey or ape is only racist if they're brown, not orange.
Re: (Score:3)
Live by the executive order. Die by the executive order.
Seems you don't understand the difference between executive order and regulation.
Shysters must be a sunk cost, at least this will keep them out of real trouble.
Would you say the same thing if the next administration suddenly made companies pay to clean up every bit of pollution they generate and thus shutting down every coal energy plant inside a year? No, you would scream like a banshee.
Environmental capital is a very real thing and it must be repaid to keep the planet from becoming uninhabitable for most species.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't blame them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Obama changed the rules mid-game?
If one was legal and OK, so is the other.
GP didn't say it wasn't legal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your tax dollars have subsidised a shit-ton of rich people's sports cars, that's for sure. Those people are senior executives and shareholders in Exxon et al, who get wars fought on their behalf to protect supply lines, among a whole bunch of subsidies.
"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that reason. Fuck it right in the fucking ass. What a bunch of bullshit. "Oh, we can't be burdened to help preserve the health of our planet."
Fucking assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
That is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the prices of the Nissan Leaf and the Model S, that's just dumbfuckery. And that's not even looking at hybrids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"too burdensome for automakers to adhere to" (Score:4, Informative)
It's also horse shit. The CARB has been in talks with automakers all along, and all of them have been on track with models which meet the requirements. In fact, they could have met the targets early.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing legally in the way of any automaker who wants to meet the old targets instead.
Well, except for their customers who may want to purchase something other than what they'd otherwise be forced to buy.
But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The decision was finalized and announced January 13th, 2017 for the rules through 2025. In other words, on the way out of town by the Obama Administration.
On February 21st, 2017, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing the 12 major automakers, sent a letter to the Trump Administration asking for the rules to be reversed, stating the decision was “the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects” and is “riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis an
Re: (Score:2)
But let's be serious here, this lawsuit is just about companies who want the government to restrict their competition for them. The rest is just an excuse.
I don't care why they're doing it, if it benefits me in the long run. And that's what shifting the balance towards EVs will do, since I like breathing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, fellow UID 100k-er. That's my whole point. It's not about EVs vs gas-guzzlers, it's about the health of our shared living space.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones who have to adhere to tighter emission restrictions will always point the finger.
Imagine Elon Musk complaining about a government regulation that causes them to make more efficient batteries. Wouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when the government tells companies they aren't allowed to sell their customers what their customers want in their products, then yeah, they "point the finger".
If the government told Elon Musk that he couldn't sell battery-powered cars unless they had a 2,000 mile range, then yeah, he'd "point the finger" as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Is what customers want in their products less efficiency and more pollution? Sorry, I'm confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is. See, we have this thing called a "market" and people demonstrate what they want by what they individually decide to spend their own money on. If people didn't want something different, the government wouldn't have to prevent them from being able to buy it.
Fuel efficiency has trade-offs in cars. Many people don't want to make the trade-offs required to eke a tiny bit more MPG from a vehicle. As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel efficiency has trade-offs in cars. Many people don't want to make the trade-offs required to eke a tiny bit more MPG from a vehicle. As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.
What? Shifting the market towards EVs has everything to do with air quality. You were doing okay until the end, where you went full wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dioxide != air quality
Also, the regulations don't restrict the number of internal combustion cars, they just require manufacturers to pay electric car makers and/or give away EVs at a loss (among other options) in order to improve their fleet average.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dioxide != air quality
CO2 is not the only emission eliminated by using EVs. They also don't emit any NOx, or any unburned hydrocarbons ("HC" on an emissions test.) This last is actually the most harmful emission of dino-burners, especially when they are gasoline-powered. Breathing diesel isn't exactly good for you, but it's a lot less volatile than gasoline is. Either way, there's none of that coming out of the ass end of an EV unless it's got a leaky reduction drive casing and it's leaking lube.
Also, I'm not particularly intere
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes it is. See, we have this thing called a "market" and people demonstrate what they want by what they individually decide to spend their own money on. If people didn't want something different, the government wouldn't have to prevent them from being able to buy it.
I want to buy a robot that blows up your house with you in it.
Oh, that's inconvenient for society? I guess I shouldn't be able to do that.
Now we're just arguing over where to draw the line, and you are revealed as a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not "inconvenient for society". Society isn't a person, it's an abstract concept. Blowing up my house with me in it is a specific attack on me and my individual rights.
Funny how now that your mott argument of "what customers want" has been defeated, you're retreating to a new bailey argument of "so everyone should be able to buy whatever they want."
Yes, everyone should be able to buy the car they want, free of federal government restrictions. No, they shouldn't be able to indiscriminately kill ot
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not "inconvenient for society". Society isn't a person, it's an abstract concept. Blowing up my house with me in it is a specific attack on me and my individual rights.
Statistically nobody in government actually cares about your individual rights. They only care about things which might inconvenience them, like preventing them from getting elected. They don't care about you, but if they might get blown up, or if there will be some economic impact to people getting blown up, it will affect their lives.
Yes, everyone should be able to buy the car they want, free of federal government restrictions. No, they shouldn't be able to indiscriminately kill other people.
There's no difference.
Buying the car they want doesn't indiscriminately kill other people, regardless of alarmist global warming ideas about fuel economy standards for vehicles.
Operating the car you think they want most certainly does indiscriminately kill other people, regardless of whether you believe in global warming. Even
Re: (Score:2)
So now that we've established you don't care about individuals, nor their rights and that you're only rebuttal is to call people names, I think we're done here. I feel no need to read any further replies from you.
Re: (Score:2)
So now that we've established you don't care about individuals,
That's an idiotic thing to say, which is about par for you.
and that you're
*your
only rebuttal is to call people names
Don't want people to think you're stupid? Don't be a willful idiot.
I think we're done here. I feel no need to read any further replies from you.
I wish you'd have fucked off a long time ago, then. I don't need to hear your lies or evasions.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as pollution goes, the regulation in question has nothing to do with air quality.
Source please
Re: (Score:2)
Source? How about the summary? "Obama-era fuel economy standards." Any of the linked articles?
Raising the CAFE MPG number doesn't relate to air quality. Neither do attempts to limit "greenhouse gasses", which are the emissions changes in the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising the CAFE MPG number doesn't relate to air quality. Neither do attempts to limit "greenhouse gasses", which are the emissions changes in the regulations.
OIC, so a car that gets 1MPG won't affect air quality any more than one that gets 100MPG. Got it.
Unless I'm missing something here...feel free to clarify.
Re: (Score:3)
"Oh, we can't be burdened to help preserve the health of our planet."
unfortunately, Big Automobile considers it to be their planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely sincere, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the guys, who:
seek to outlaw other kinds of energy-storage and usage.
Who, me self-serving?!
Re: (Score:2)
It's like building a coal plant and the day after it's built the government suddenly decides to double the coal excise tax, decimating your profit projections. Wouldn't you seek some kind of compensation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh sorry, LynnwoodRooster, Trump has actually proposed additional regulations on the construction of Solar Plants, he's even tried to ban people from installing them on their own roofs.
This is why dealing with imaginary hypotheticals is pointless, like pink dragons and Trump's ethics, they are far too subject to caprice to useful illustration, so all you end up doing is yelling random incoherent strings of sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really impossible that Musk and Tesla actually care about emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the care about emissions more than the rest of us? The most obvious and the least conspiratorial answer is, they have a personal motif.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Absolutely sincere, right? (Score:1)
What is it about rectums that causes you to use slang referring to them as a pejorative?
No, this isn't a pedantic query. There seem to a lot of rectal pejoratives being crapflooded on Slashdot threads lately. Where are all these pottymouths showing up from?
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for the backlash. (Score:2)
This deeply corrupt administration isn't going to be in charge forever (hell, I'd be surprised if the make it March) and there is going to be a backlash for all of this. Don't be surprised if the new regulation is ever stricter and then subsequently codified into law.
Re: (Score:2)
You are really starting to understand now. They do not expect these laws to be permanent, they expect the regulations to come back and they will fight them off for as long as possible. More profits this quarter and bigger bonuses is all they care about, how many they kill, meh, as long as the penalties are less than the profits and besides the investors pay the penalties and the executes keep the profit. They know they damage they are causing, they don't care and will continue to do it for as long as they c
Re: Waiting for the backlash. (Score:1)
Get a room, you two.
Re: (Score:2)
Executives need to be going to prison for life when their decisions kill and don't expect any change in behaviour until that happens.
It would honestly be enough to simply deprive them of their ill-gotten gains, if you did it regularly and fairly. You don't actually have to imprison people, just take away the profit motive from bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
This deeply corrupt administration isn't going to be in charge forever (hell, I'd be surprised if the make it March) and there is going to be a backlash for all of this. Don't be surprised if the new regulation is ever stricter and then subsequently codified into law.
He's got until 2024, as long as the left stays bat crazy.
Yeah, law might be nice. Lovely that you are starting to realize that ... now.
Re: Waiting for the backlash. (Score:1)
Nope, Donald Trump believes himself above the law.
Sorry, but only the Second Amendment can protect us from tyranny.
all those fundy christian rightwingnuts (Score:2, Flamebait)
religious fundamentalists are the most delusional idiots on this planet
Re: (Score:2)
Makes 2 humans and puts them in a garden of eden, but places them right next to the thing that will screw all that up and does nothing to prevent it, then blames them and all their progeny for all time for something thats his fault.
Makes a magic rule book thats so vague and open to interpretation that there are now 30,000 sects of
Re: (Score:2)
they think we can trash the planet all we want because jesus will be back any minute now to save the day
Jesus is supposed to come back at armageddon, right? Which they're hastening by driving climate collapse. It's their religious duty!
Re: (Score:1)
Definitely shouldn't be thinking: "Gotta destroy it for Armageddon!" (Especially if it's the Bruce Willis Armageddon)
Products so good (Score:2)
People have to be forced to buy them.
Whats more you have idiots lining up to demand this be done. Makes you think Ayn Rand was an optimist about people.
Let the US consumer buy what they want (Score:2)
The grid has had a lot of investment and can get electrical power to a user to charge their new electric car.
The maker of a car thats "electric" can sell the car on its own range and recharge specs.
The advanced GUI in the electric car can show range and what the range will be under different conditions.
When a consumer wants an electric car, truck, van they will read the reviews and buy that type of advanced product. Allow the
Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
Why shape and tilt the market with more federal rules and regulations
Because the vast majority of people are selfish and stupid. They would buy a car that spews out poison if they think they can save a few bucks. Polutes the environment? Kills children? Who cares, I saved money!
Re: (Score:2)
So poor people should have to save up longer and only be able to select from a limited set of federally approved electric cars?
No small bus, van, SUV, truck. Just a short list of expensive federally approved electric cars AC?
The US electric version of an East German Trabant for the working poor to "select" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The USA has freedom of choice. Car makers in the USA can respond to the needs of people and offer them a wide range of
Re: Let the US consumer buy what they want (Score:1)
The Trabant is actually an example of the kind of inefficient, unsafe, inadequate, and polluting vehicle that US regulations prohibit.
But good on you to propose requiring that US automakers cease their profiteering by producing over-expensive festure-ridden crap cars instead of affordable, comfortable vehicles.
Nobody should be forced to buy the Homer. That Ford had decided to abandon the public to serve only the luxury market is proof that they have abandoned the ideals of their founder, the great Henry F
Re: (Score:2)
But good on you to propose requiring that US automakers cease their profiteering by producing over-expensive festure-ridden crap cars
The problem automakers are facing is that all the cars in the US are basically pretty good today. They all drive pretty well, they all get pretty decent mileage, and they all have similar performance characteristics because they're all reaching about the same point of diminishing returns on improving the technologies that they're using. You can only get so much efficiency without a more advanced (and expensive) valve control system, for example, or without higher-octane fuels. All of the auto companies are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why shape and tilt the market?
Exxon and the others got wars fought and rulers toppled on their behalf, for Christ's sake. Not only does an untitled market not exist, the people who benefit from the current structure have demonstrated many times they will act violently to preserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Musk is the king of PayPal. That's his big success that is bankrolling all his other projects.
Re: A Sad Day For All (Score:1)
The money from selling PayPal is his seed. Every other project is based on that $$. There was no implication meant that continued funding comes from PayPal (which is now not the eggregious operation it was.)
Re: (Score:1)
Drumpf will die in prison. His children will die in prison. His cabinet will die in prison.
The shitstain of Drumpf will be wiped from America.
2020 will bring a new era of universal healthcare, a universal basic income, high taxes on the wealthy, international cooperation, and net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)