Report: Obama to Direct EPA to Move Swiftly on Pavley Waiver
25 January 2009
Citing two unnamed Administration officials, the New York Times reported Sunday that President Obama will on Monday direct the EPA to move swiftly to reconsider an application by California and, by extension, 13 other states for a waiver to implement greenhouse gas standards on new light-duty vehicles (California AB 1493, the Pavley regulations).
Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.
In May, the California Air Resources Board issued an addendum to an earlier technical study that shows that California’s clean cars law (the Pavley regulations) could achieve 41% greater total reductions of greenhouse gases nationwide if implemented nationally compared to the recently proposed federal fuel economy standards by 2020. (Earlier post.)
The NY Times report also said that Obama will direct the Department of Transportation to finalize the rulemaking on Corporate Fuel Economy Standards for model years 2011-2015. Although DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had originally anticipated issuing the final rule prior to the end of year, the Bush Administration left office without finalizing the rulemaking. (Earlier post.)
This makes a lot of sense. Emission regulation is not equally important for every state or city. Densely populated areas need to have tighter regulation of toxic emissions than less densely populated areas. Also even with regard to non-toxic emissions like CO2 it is better that states or cities that want to lead the battle against global warming also are allowed to do so. National or even global regulation of CO2 emissions should be minimum standards so that those who can and are willing to go further are able to do exactly that.
The vehicle industry should look at it from the bright side and that is that tougher regulation also means more expensive vehicles and therefore more jobs ceteris paribus. Of cause, some will be forced to drive smaller vehicles for economic reasons but these smaller cars will also be more expensive to build when the emission regulation is tougher.
Tougher emission standards are also a way to make EVs economically more attractive because they as zero emission vehicles will cost the same to build regardless of how tough the emissions standards are for regular gasoline/diesel vehicles. In order to facilitate equal pricing of EVs and regular gasoline/diesel vehicles the emissions could be tightened to the point where it will cost about $10.000 more to build a regular vehicle with price increases mostly coming from more efficient motors, better transmissions and lighter materials.
Posted by: Henrik | 26 January 2009 at 05:36 AM
Not realy what it means is alot more cost in a time people arnt ABLE to buy a normaly priced car much less the now soon to be more spendy models. It doesnt matter anyway as the big three will go into chapter 11 soon enough and then all bleep will break lose.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 26 January 2009 at 08:44 AM
Little wonder California's unemployment rate now is 9.3%.
Car makers cannot make countless versions of its cars. This will result in more expensive cars which means fewer people will be able to afford to purchase a new car. The result: less sales tax revenue for a state heading toward bankruptcy and more layoffs for people selling cars.
Please, California, go become your own country or join Mexico or something.
Posted by: Hoosier Ron | 26 January 2009 at 08:51 AM
Under federal rules, states can only choose among two standards: Federal or California's. The Bush administration's blockage of California's waiver wasn't done because they interpret an ambiguous law differently. They were just using their momentary control over the bureaucracy at EPA to obstruct a policy they didn't like (i.e., Arnold's tougher emissions standards).
Posted by: Jim Greene | 26 January 2009 at 01:48 PM
The only reason that exists at all is because back then the silly law makers opf the day were ONLY thinking in terms of options such as catalytic converters and such and NOT completely different engineering. And it was only granted due to the air quality issues of california related to the trapping of pollutants under an inversion layer. No what gm and others will have to do to be fair and NOT raise other states car costs is of course charge cal and the other 15 stats customers the entire cost of complying to the bill.. wich basicaly means no dealers in those states thus no need to comply.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 26 January 2009 at 03:15 PM
Tougher regulation does mean more expensive vehicles and therefore fewer sales and fewer jobs.
The idea that increased manufacturing costs means higher profits is ridiculous.
Wintermane's right.
It is actually simple. Tougher CAFE will reduce big vehicles sales and "the big three will go into chapter 11" sooner.
The Big-3 cannot survive even though high profit light trucks still constitute 40% of the US market.
Now they'll loose all of the CA market.
All bleep has already broken loose.
The fruits and nuts don't care - they only buy them funny furrin cars anyhow.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 26 January 2009 at 06:10 PM
They will care when thier 401k is worth 401 cents;/
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 26 January 2009 at 10:42 PM