Obama to let States Restrict Emissions...

[silvrsvt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/polit...26calif.html?hp

[Pioneer]

Beyond the California waiver, officials said, Mr. Obama will announce that he is moving forward with nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue.

 

Huh? What's the sense of having a nationwide regulation on fuel economy when the states can make their own?

 

I'm glad I sold my Ford stock. This simple piece of worthless legislation is going to kill the automobile industry.

[RangerM]

Huh? What's the sense of having a nationwide regulation on fuel economy when the states can make their own?

 

I'm glad I sold my Ford stock. This simple piece of worthless legislation is going to kill the automobile industry.

 

It's amazing to me the priorities some have, but unless the ramifications are felt directly by the decision-makers themselves, the negative consequences are either ignored or denied.

[Len_A]

It's amazing to me the priorities some have, but unless the ramifications are felt directly by the decision-makers themselves, the negative consequences are either ignored or denied.

That is very true, and in this case I predict will happen if, and only if, the transplants that are members of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, specifically Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, and Mercedes, announce that they can't meet the new standards, won't meet them, or will really stick it to the consumers in those states with high surcharges to meet them. Right now, in the minds of those people, the AAMA is Detroit. These people haven't got it through their thick skulls that their precious transplants/foriegn car makers are stadning should-to-shoulder with Detroit on this one..so far. It's going to come down to what the non-Detroit car makers do. If they meet the standards, Detroit will have to follow somehow. If they don't, can't, won't, or will only with big price increases, then I think we'll see these states start howling against the whole industry in protest, but eventually back down. My thinking is that this really hinges on what the non-Detroit car makers do.

[rkisler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/polit...26calif.html?hp

 

The rush to judgment and the resulting unintended consequences was a hallmark of the Bush administration. Now, unfortunately, we see the Obama administration doing the same thing.

 

If the nation decides for policy reasons that we need to improve fuel economy requirements beyond the present legislation, or if we need to accelearate those requirements, then by all means call in the automakers, have hearings, and regulate. At the national level.

 

The newspapers once again can't seem to get to the real issues as to why the industry (including Toyota who seems to be skillful hiding behind the US manufacturers once again) is fighting the allowance of the California proposals.

• When California and several other states implemented separate emissions requirements, it was like talking a pass-fail test. You either met the requriements or you didn't. Which means you either sold cars (like diesels) or you didn't in the individual states. OK, you might not like the requirement, but it's understandable.
  
• This is different. If allowed, it means that all of the manufacturers would have to meet fuel economy targets (actually CO2 targets I think) on a state-by-state basis. Which means there would be no capability to mix vehicles on a nationwide basis (like the fact that Texas takes a higher proportion of pickups). Each state individually would have to meet the standard. And I can guarantee you that the states, who are suffering budget crises, will push all the paperwork on the automakers to justify what was sold where (with audit capability of course).
  

 

I think this will cause huge disruptions.

 

And let's all keep an eye out for the brands that are excluded. Can I hazzard a guess that the exotics won't have to meet the regulations so Californians won't have to be deprived of their god-given right to drive them? We'll see.

 

The fact that Ford's plan is in motion to expand C-based production looks like a good move.

 

I will have to do some more reading on exactly what the new California rules would require. If anyone has found a good summary, or better yet the exact wording, could you please post it? Not the moronic newspaper articles, but the real thing...

[jasonj80]

Just Charge for it -- put CA emissions on the window sticker and put $1500 surcharge or whatever it costs, less on smaller models, more trucks. Let the consumers in these states see what it is costing them, want an F-150 or Expedition in CA or a CA state -- $5000 surcharge, want a F-250 sorry that model isn’t available here. With the shape the industry is in now and the losses being racked up by the manufactures (Toyota and Nissan included). You can bet as soon as one manufacture put the charge on the window sticker the others would follow. Cars are not flying off the lot as is, and this market has show price isn't moving the metal.

 

People in those states would be so pissed off that a car there cost thousands more than other states they would demand or vote out the legislators that passed the law to begin with. The Auto Companies lay down and take it -- they don't fight. If they did it this way states that have passed the laws would repeal them -- it easy to beat someone in an election when you can say see this on the window sticker the current guy cost you that.

 

Fight Fire With Fire

[mlhm5]

The US market for cars and trucks is the largest market in the world.

 

Even with the legislation in place, someone is going to sell those cars and trucks.

[jpd80]

If it was just California, it would be dismissed as out of step rat bag legislation but I take it the tighter

emissions will be in a 13 state emission "confederacy", is this number likely to grow?

I'm thinking if another 4 or 5 states join the list, that will be a significant percentage of the annual build.

 

Would it not be wiser then for automakers to build all cars to the higher standard?

[xr7g428]

Read the entire article. This is about CO2. CO2 is purely a function of how much fuel is burned. Basically what California is mandating is 35 MPG. It does two things: it restricts what cars California consumers can buy, and it restricts what brands might be sold there. Pretty much, it looks like Honda is in good shape simply because they don't build the kinds of vehicles (trucks) that will not meet the standard.

 

It looks to me like further social engineering. It will raise the cost of owning a car to the point that fewer will be able to do so. This will put more pressure on people to live closer to work, school, etc. One step closer to sleeping on a cot in the factory dorm, and riding a bicycle to get your groceries. Liberal nirvana...

[Pioneer]

Would it not be wiser then for automakers to build all cars to the higher standard?

 

 

How many 4-cylinder F-150's do you think is Ford going to be able to sell in California?

 

With the CO2 emission caps this legislation has, every vehicle sold in those states is going to have to be at least a mild hybrid. Your talking a $1500 to $5000 hit to every vehicle sold.

 

I have an idea. If you want to limit CO2, ban sex in California and the 13 other states. Wouldn't want people breathing too heavy.

[mustang_sallad]

It looks to me like further social engineering. It will raise the cost of owning a car to the point that fewer will be able to do so. This will put more pressure on people to live closer to work, school, etc. One step closer to sleeping on a cot in the factory dorm, and riding a bicycle to get your groceries. Liberal nirvana...

 

 

lol, i live in a nice big apartment, walk to the grocery store, walk to all the bars and clubs I ever go to, and then walk to work in the morning! Don't even need a bike! Not saying everybody can do it, but I just wanted to point out that living near where you need to go can actually be a nice thing, and for some people it's worth more than living in a big house in the 'burbs and all that entails in terms of getting around.

[jpd80]

How many 4-cylinder F-150's do you think is Ford going to be able to sell in California?

The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.

 

So California is basically four years earlier with regulations than the Federal timetable.

What we see as impossible is doable, it just takes the will of the automakers - legislation in other words.

 

California was joined in its plea by 13 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. Three other states have indicated they plan to adopt the California standard. Together they account for about half of the American market for cars and light trucks.

That's a big pool of car and truck buyers - almost 50%!!

No wonder auto makers are very concerned, they may have to accelerate their plans - TECHNOLOGY!!

Edited January 26, 2009 by jpd80

[Pioneer]

it just takes the will of the automakers

 

 

No, it takes money. Money the automakers currently don't have to research it, and money the consumer doesn't have to pay what costs have to be passed on.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

CNBC Video - Obama speaks this morning about plans for the future of US auto industry

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1013195178&play=1

[rkisler]

So California is basically four years earlier with regulations than the Federal timetable.

What we see as impossible is doable, it just takes the will of the automakers - legislation in other words.

 

 

That's a big pool of car and truck buyers - almost 50%!!

No wonder auto makers are very concerned, they may have to accelerate their plans - TECHNOLOGY!!

 

I still think you guys aren't catching my point.

 

If this were federal legislation, then Ford and other manufacturers would have the ability to manage their fleet on a nationwide basis. Maybe Texas wants more F150's, and California wants more Fiestas but it all works out.

 

But what this would require is each and every state that signs on to meet the mandate. So the manufacturers will have to manage the mix of vehicles sold very carefully and be able to report individual state vehicle sales and how they met the requirement. This is totally new territory, and I think will have lots of unintended consequences. How about "grey market" cars from across state lines? How do you handle used cars including those transported across borders? What will the penalties be for not complying? Do you exclude any manufacturers? Can you buy and sell credits? Who exactly will track compliance? What will be the exact measure to convert alt. fuels, PHEV, and BEV into a relative CO2 measure (Sandia labs is still working on it...). And on and on.

 

There will be shortages of some vehicles in the states that sign on. And the dealers and manufacturers likely will increase the price of those vehicles to balance demand.

 

Since BMW and Mercedes each paid around $30 million for not meeting CAFE last year, do you think they will be capable of meeting upcoming requirements (answer: no)? And if Californians are cut off from their dear BMW's, and New Yorkers from their beloved Mercedes, what will happen?

 

With Waxman and Pilosi now in charge, I assume this is going to happen because they are not in a listening mode.

 

Wouldn't it be interesting to be involved in the war-gaming inside Ford. Those guys are already working very long hours with reduced staffing; this is a very difficult planning exercise.

[Len_A]

lol, i live in a nice big apartment, walk to the grocery store, walk to all the bars and clubs I ever go to, and then walk to work in the morning! Don't even need a bike! Not saying everybody can do it, but I just wanted to point out that living near where you need to go can actually be a nice thing, and for some people it's worth more than living in a big house in the 'burbs and all that entails in terms of getting around.

That's really nice for you. So what? With unemployment rising and property values falling, most Americans do not have the option of changing where they live in relation to where they work. Your point is completely irrelevant to the majority of people.

[RichardJensen]

CARB regs require 35mpg fleet average by 2016 (likely to be bumped out to 2017 or 2018 due to the 2 year delay in implementing them) (per the link above)

 

EPA proposed regs will require fleet average 31.7mpg by 2015, with passenger cars required to hit 35mpg in 2015.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/23/business/fi-fuel23

 

IMO, the differences, by the time the rubber meets the road will be almost negligible. There's barely a 10% difference in standards as of this instant in time, and once the EPA grants the waiver, expect CARB to gradually cede ground on light trucks until the CARB standards are near carbon copies of the EPA regs (I consider it most likely that CARB will ditch the flex fuel credit and that's about it).

 

The important thing is that the self-gratulating hot-air spewers at CARB will be able to pat themselves on the back for, basically getting a waiver that will be 90% meaningless by the time all is said and done.

 

Many trees will be chopped down and much electricity will be consumed by an assortment of self-important goons exulting over a 'victory' that is almost entirely make believe.

Edited January 26, 2009 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

he important thing is that the self-gratulating hot-air spewers at CARB will be able to pat themselves on the back for, basically getting a waiver that will be 90% meaningless by the time all is said and done.

 

Many trees will be chopped down and much electricity will be consumed by an assortment of self-important goons exulting over a 'victory' that is almost entirely make believe.

This is Obama helping California "save face", will he will want something in return?

Not sure what it is - maybe a keen eyed person can tell us?

[NickF1011]

This is Obama helping California "save face", will he will want something in return?

Not sure what it is - maybe a keen eyed person can tell us?

 

What he wants? Easy. More votes in '12.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Gotta say l can't see what the problem is all Obama said today he is aiming for oil independence and cut the reliance on foreign oil.

 

He said the future will be fuel-efficient cars and they will be built in the USA (Better not mention the Mexican Fiesta/Fusion to him).

 

California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards.

 

President Obama also ordered the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency. A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/litre).

 

The new rules Mr Obama wants to put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said.

 

He also said the US would double its capacity for "green" energy generation, from sources such as wind, sun, and biofuels, over the next three years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7851038.stm

 

 

More than 3,000 miles of transmission lines would be established to transmit the energy.

 

To avoid losing another year on emissions and fuel efficency, Mr. Obama will order temporary regulations to be completed by March so that automakers will have enough time to retool for vehicles to be sold in 2011. Final standards for later years will be determined by a separate process that, under Mr. Obama's order, must take into consideration legal, scientific and technological factors.

 

Mr. Obama said his administration would take into account the financial troubles of the auto industry, which have already received billions of dollars in federal aid and are seeking more.

 

"Our goal is not to further burden the struggling American auto industry," he said, but rather to make a major step toward addressing global warming by cleaning up the American transportation fleet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/polit...27calif.html?hp

 

 

 

How many vehicles in Fords current fleet get 35 MPG just interested?

Edited January 26, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Pioneer]

How many vehicles in Fords current fleet get 35 MPG just interested?

 

 

One. Focus with a manual transmission.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

Right. Because you don't understand that 35mpg means about 28mpg, thanks to the way CAFE mileage is calculated.

[RangerM]

......you don't understand that 35mpg means about 28mpg, thanks to the way CAFE mileage is calculated.

???

[LSFan00]

Other well-meaning environmental initiatives from the government that have helped economies increase GDP: 0.

I assume the states want to regulate CO2 ostensibly to "fight global warming."

 

 

Global warming facts; such "solutions" as ridiculous mandated emissions levels and absurd CAFE MPG requirements are predicated on the assumption that that the "global warming" that began 300 years ago, when the Sun was at its least active for 10,000 years, and continued until the latter part of the 20th century, when the sun was at its most active for 11,400 years, is chiefly anthropogenic.

 

The chief goal of these regulations is not to stop "global warming" but rather to decrease consumption and drive up the cost of living for "the common man."

 

 

 

"Sea-level rise can be expected to continue": It certainly can. It has been rising for 10,000 years, at a mean rate of 4 feet/century. For 9,950 of those 10,000 years, humankind cannot have had anything to do with it: it was natural. In the 20th century sea level rose by just 8 inches and in the 21st century the official projection is that it will rise by little more than 1 foot - a quarter to a third of the long-run rate -

 

 

There is no sign of an accelerating trend in sea-level rise. The IPCC, in its 2007 report, said that though sea level had risen 8 inches in the 20th century it was now rising at 12 inches/century. However, the IPCC did not say that the difference may well have been attributable to the change in measurement from tide-gauges to satellites that occurred in 1993 - the moment from which the IPCC dates its "acceleration" in the rate of sea-level rise.

 

"Record-setting high temperatures in Iqaluit, Nunavut": This type of reporting is a demonstration of the "Wisden Fallacy", named after the famous compiler of Victorian English cricket statistics. In any object - such as the climate or the game of cricket - that generates a wide variety of complex statistics, records will tend to be broken very frequently. But it is fallacious to assume that the breaking of an individual record, or even of several records, indicates a dangerous trend. The summer of 2008 also set records for cold weather in a number of Arctic locations, and the winters of both 2007 and 2008 have been particularly cold, with Inuit reports of polar bears approaching human settlements in the hope of obtaining food because the intense cold has interfered with their usual feeding habits.

 

"Unprecedented" clearing of ice from the Beaufort Sea": This is another instance of the Wisden Fallacy. It can readily be dispelled by displaying the 30-year trend in sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, which has been rising gently throughout -

 

Link. Ultimately, I suppose de Tocqueville was right; "The people get the government they deserve." I for one do not pity Californians today at all, and generally feel the whole country deserves this type of idiocy as most of the voters did vote for these policies.

[RichardJensen]

???

It's true:

 

Emission and Fuel Economy Standards. Besides calculation of CAFE certification, the EPA test values are used for other purposes. These include calculating the emissions standards for new vehicles and the estimated fuel economy that appears in the EPA’s Fuel Economy Guide and on new vehicle window labels. Unadjusted test values are used for emissions certification, but EPA adjusts the values slightly for its fuel Economy Guide to reflect the differences between controlled laboratory conditions and actual on-road driving and give the consumer a closer estimate of the fuel economy that the average driver may actually realize. Thus, for the guide and for the fuel economy labels seen on new cars, light trucks, and vans, the laboratory test results are adjusted downward by about 10% for the city driving estimate and 22% for the highway driving estimate.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0555.htm

 

Now, note that this document is dated 2005, and refers to the previous EPA policy of adjusting test values downward. Those numbers were the fuel economy numbers reported before the new more stringent standards were put in place by the EPA for the 2008 MY.

 

At this point in time CAFE numbers are roughly 25% higher than the EPA sticker numbers.

Edited January 27, 2009 by RichardJensen