Wall St Journal on CARB Regs vs Trump Administration

[user 1096]

The WSJ has a light piece this morning on California Air Resources Board regulation. I say light because it really doesn't get into the depth and breath of CARB, especially among Compact States.
I have responded to it and hope you'll correct any errors I may have made in recalling details over the past couple of years.

Policy in California, not Washington, D.C., is biggest driver of cleaner-car mandates

http://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-driver-of-cleaner-car-rulesis-california-not-washington-1486904401?emailToken=JRrzcP1zY3iWgtUxbMw21VInY7IUTuOTR03aNjXNNA3HsHHcp++7gq48nZ6tvGeiXkdhotsN628xQifXgWMvWsiN3qF2ilelfXZBqZeBiFHbZBWDwBLSJA==

Ray Hull Responded

Unmentioned here is the number of other states that signed onto the CARB compact; 13 total as I recall, including New York. In doing so, these other states adopt legislation and regulations in whole from California, promoting peculiarities, such as my BMW i3 with range extender is registered by NY DMV as a GASOLINE vehicle despite the gas power only charging the battery (not driving the wheels). But that's the dictatorial CARB way and 12 other states play along or risk losing their certification.

CARB also commands manufacturers directly, demanding certain design features in order to meet their dogma, such as the absurdly limited reserve gasoline tank capacity in my i3 (~1.75 gals).
That volume of gas is generally enough, but what it does not contemplate is the added gas-power range needed in COLD weather states where batteries lose 20% capacity in the winter.

The Trump administration should consider amending these design regulations to benefit manufacturers, buyers and states.

 

[alohart]

Unmentioned here is the number of other states that signed onto the CARB compact; 13 total as I recall, including New York. In doing so, these other states adopt legislation and regulations in whole from California, promoting peculiarities, such as my BMW i3 with range extender is registered by NY DMV as a GASOLINE vehicle despite the gas power only charging the battery (not driving the wheels).

It doesn't matter how the wheels are driven; when the REx generator is running, the energy to drive the wheels is provided by gasoline.

But that's the dictatorial CARB way and 12 other states play along or risk losing their certification.

If CARB had dictated NY's classification of the i3 REx, it would have been classified as an extended range EV as CA classifies it. So CARB can't be blamed for NY's classification of the i3 REx as a gasoline car.

CARB also commands manufacturers directly, demanding certain design features in order to meet their dogma, such as the absurdly limited reserve gasoline tank capacity in my i3 (~1.75 gals).

BMW asked CARB to create a special classification for the i3 REx, extended range EV, so that BMW could earn more CARB credits than if the i3 REx had been classified as a gasoline-electric hybrid. But for the i3 REx to be classified as an extended range EV, it had to be able to travel farther on electricity than on gasoline, so BMW limited the usable amount of gasoline. So blame BMW rather than CARB for the restrictions on the North American i3 REx because BMW chose to implement these restrictions in order to earn valuable CARB credits. CARB didn't prevent BMW from selling the unrestricted rest-of-the-world i3 REx.

 

[DHuff]

This article was a great read.

My favorite line was from John Bozzella, “'The facts on the ground aren’t anywhere close to' suggesting people want electric cars".

This is based on sales numbers? The cars that sell in the USA are based mainly on initial price. Something cheap is what people want.

Whether that is not possible or the automotive manufacturers will not do it, this proves nothing about a lack of desire on the part of the buyers. I know plenty of people whose lives demand more range than most electric cars can provide, but I know far more that only use their vehicles for short trips.

And then the old “With fuel prices where they are, there isn’t demand these vehicles that match the requirements under the mandate,” he said. “It’s just math.” just for good measure.

These guys are going to be forced kicking and screaming into making an affordable electric car, and I guess the world will have to thank California when we get cheap cars that run on a renewable source of clean energy.

As for the incentive towards lessening humanity's role in global warming, I think that it is a non-issue. Even if climate change is not a human made problem, we might end up just having cleaner air and water. How bad would that really be?

This whole, "well what if it is a hoax and we end up making the world better for no reason" argument is outrageous.

 

[i3an]

Beware the messenger.
Especially since Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ his politics have slowly osmosed from the opinion pages to the news side; in fact just today there was a contentious staff meeting where the journalists pushed back against what they perceive as a soft managerial line on Trump.
In the WSJ article quoted the spokespeople selected were from CARB (only) on EV side, and various industry lobbyists and industry executives on the ICE side, hardly fair & balanced.
I for one am comforted that I live in a (relatively) reality-based state that has sufficient clout to resist the global warming lobby, even if it does come with a price tag. To denigrate CARB with words such as "dictatorial", "commands" and "dogma" is unhelpful, and frankly if we Californians didn't like what CARB was doing we would get rid of it, but it is downright frightening to suggest that "The Trump administration should consider amending these design regulations to benefit manufacturers, buyers and states." No no no and no. We Californians will control our own destiny and resist the dark forces currently emanating from Washington.

 

[RoadJager]

Beware the messenger.
Especially since Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ his politics have slowly osmosed from the opinion pages to the news side; in fact just today there was a contentious staff meeting where the journalists pushed back against what they perceive as a soft managerial line on Trump.
In the WSJ article quoted the spokespeople selected were from CARB (only) on EV side, and various industry lobbyists and industry executives on the ICE side, hardly fair & balanced.
I for one am comforted that I live in a (relatively) reality-based state that has sufficient clout to resist the global warming lobby, even if it does come with a price tag. To denigrate CARB with words such as "dictatorial", "commands" and "dogma" is unhelpful, and frankly if we Californians didn't like what CARB was doing we would get rid of it, but it is downright frightening to suggest that "The Trump administration should consider amending these design regulations to benefit manufacturers, buyers and states." No no no and no. We Californians will control our own destiny and resist the dark forces currently emanating from Washington.

+1. Some of us in Oklahoma are very sorry about the Scott Pruitt-thing too.

 

[bwilson4web]

I had gotten a special deal on the WSJ but during 2016 I noticed they 'buried the lead' in the Clinton stories. It would be 5-7 paragraphs deep when they would point out the first 1-4 paragraphs about some Clinton scandal were bogus. But Trump articles accepted everything as fact. By election day, I would pickup the paper and throw it in the trash (we incinerate.)

So in January, I called and stopped delivery,'But sir you are paid to May.'

'Mame, I don't want to have to toss it in the trash each day. Kill delivery.'

Anyone who would lie for you will lie to you and I do not believe they have any news for me. Plenty of propaganda but not any kind of facts and data.

Bob Wilson

 

[DHuff]

I had gotten a special deal on the WSJ but during 2016 I noticed they 'buried the lead' in the Clinton stories. It would be 5-7 paragraphs deep when they would point out the first 1-4 paragraphs about some Clinton scandal were bogus. But Trump articles accepted everything as fact. By election day, I would pickup the paper and throw it in the trash (we incinerate.)

So in January, I called and stopped delivery,'But sir you are paid to May.'

'Mame, I don't want to have to toss it in the trash each day. Kill delivery.'

Anyone who would lie for you will lie to you and I do not believe they have any news for me. Plenty of propaganda but not any kind of facts and data.

Bob Wilson

Good for you. They are now starting to run hit pieces on some of the new media celebrities to try and discredit alternative news sources.

Their journalistic integrity is waning as they become more and more irrelevant. (Or is it the other way around?)

 

[slipnslider]

"The Trump administration should consider amending these design regulations to benefit manufacturers, buyers and states."

Haha that's a good one.

If you hadn't noticed, any and every change the trump administration has made so far has been in favor of polluters, oil, and millionaires. He didn't pick exxon's ceo to be the sec of state, and a polluter's puppet to head the EPA for no reason.

There is zero chance he does anything to help the EV market, because anything that helps the EV market hurts the oil market.