Auto Start/Stop killed by EPA rules deregulation

[Skye]

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward. What follows is a summary, along with references.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

Sponsored

 

[robvas]

Anyone with any manufacturing knowledge knows this isn't really going to mean anything. Regulations may change but manufacturers do not have the ability to just turn things on and off. It makes for good headlines but, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

Of course they do. Did it to all kinds of features during Covid.

Wife's Highlander has this feature. Even having to spring for the proper but more expensive "extended flooded" or AGM battery, her car is the only one of five in our family that consistently needs the battery replaced every 2.5-3 years.

My jeep has that stupid feature and it doesn't stop the batteries on those (WK2) for lasting ten years.

 

[Zig]

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward. What follows is a summary, along with references.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. This isn't just about Mustangs. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

I thought you said summary.

 

[Zig]

Of course they do. Did it to all kinds of features during Covid.

My jeep has that stupid feature and it doesn't stop the batteries on those (WK2) for lasting ten years.

Is violation without penalty simply a suggestion? As in requirements of specific function

 

[Bikeman315]

If EPA gave a shit maybe they should stop bullying us peasants and crack down on people like Bad Bunny who allegedly used his private jet to travel 15 miles from the Super Bowl.

And many, many others.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/n...wl-lx-private-jet-departures-santa-clara.html

 

[keithwalton]

That is correct. Job 1 cars did not have it. But Auto S/S was never a thing on the dark Horse.

Export DH's do have it for the developed world markets.

The price of vehicles and annual taxation rates are determined by the homologated emissions, which are baseline checked during inspections.
Self reporting by the vehicle and random sample testing in the field using RDE2.
Under RDE2 the vehicle must perform in the real world within x% of it's lab result and that x is getting forever smaller. It must also maintain this over life.
It is all based upon emissions not runtime, but engine running when it's not required = emissions that can be avoided.
Mild hybrids will shut the engine off when coasting. Full hybrids the ICE will be off most of the time.

As for taxing of jets, oh they're taxed at a much higher emission rate for every take off and landing .. but the amount of emissions / tax compared to the price of the jet is small.

 

[smurfslayer]

So let's be really clear here. Not enforcing stop start in the US will make NO difference to the Mustang you buy. It is part of the car as it is required globally and so all that will happen is it will be disabled and the switch removed. There will be no other differences and Ford are well aware that in a year or two it will be back on the cars depending on the politics at the time.

Correct, the makers of vehicles will likely leave the hardware, disable AS/S by programming. The cost to build it differently would be more expensive for the long haul. I would love it if the current US Regime would claim supremacy over California and it's emissions policy, as that virtue signaling cancer has spread to several states. AS/S will not make it back in a year or 2 though, as it's as hated by American drivers as much as the Brits ! ;-)
It's not as easy to sustain federal actions in court any more, so if it survives the court challenge, which I expect it will, the action to reverse it is going to be uphill in the post "Chevron deference" world where agencies now have to actually work to prove their actions rather than just wave a pen and say "we're the government agency experts, and courts have to defer Judge... Neener, neener!" Loper Bright reversed that (wrong) decision. Prior to Loper Bright, ~97% of federal regulations were upheld in court. Regulations have the full force and effect of law, but, require no legislating and are enacted by unelected, faceless bureaucrats, often with an ax to grind.

Taking backward steps on other factors just means the US loses the race in the future so car makers will not do that. Ford must compete with Chinese car makers NOW or in 15 years time Ford will be gone like many have before.

I was talking to a Ford employee about this many moons back, I had it on my Raptor and never did see any benefit from it. The benefit on that platform is fractions of an mpg, but, amortized over the F series fleet creates a pretty big impact to the numbers.

How do you see Ford going the way of ... AMC?

Well, the AS/S feature had proven to be a gas saver over the entire population for many years. Facts are facts, guys, and let's not confuse what is going on here with reality! Just like doing away with the Fed Govt authority to legislate climate change laws, this has nothing to do with the real world, only with how this administration wants to look to its base.

On the EB Mustang, sure. And maybe the loose nut that daily commutes into a top 10 US downtown city for work every day, spending 90 minutes one way in stop and go traffic. Put aside the corner cases though, and the target audience for the V8 Mustang is almost certainly not seeing a benefit from AS/S.

The problem with ANY & EVERY Federal gov't agency is the potential for and actual abuse. Every administration does it, but the blatant abuse of EPA, IRS, DOJ from '08-'15 was unprecedented. The waters of the United States "WOTUS" abuse was just comically bad.
The people who make up government agencies need to be kept on a very close leash with a tight collar. That doesn't mean every action they take is bad, but when the actions taken are abusive, they need to be punished, not ignored or worse -rewarded.

And all of this is quite literally urinating in the wind.
https://www.aqi.in/us/world-most-polluted-countries

 

[Gregs24]

Correct, the makers of vehicles will likely leave the hardware, disable AS/S by programming. The cost to build it differently would be more expensive for the long haul. I would love it if the current US Regime would claim supremacy over California and it's emissions policy, as that virtue signaling cancer has spread to several states. AS/S will not make it back in a year or 2 though, as it's as hated by American drivers as much as the Brits ! ;-)
It's not as easy to sustain federal actions in court any more, so if it survives the court challenge, which I expect it will, the action to reverse it is going to be uphill in the post "Chevron deference" world where agencies now have to actually work to prove their actions rather than just wave a pen and say "we're the government agency experts, and courts have to defer Judge... Neener, neener!" Loper Bright reversed that (wrong) decision. Prior to Loper Bright, ~97% of federal regulations were upheld in court. Regulations have the full force and effect of law, but, require no legislating and are enacted by unelected, faceless bureaucrats, often with an ax to grind.



I was talking to a Ford employee about this many moons back, I had it on my Raptor and never did see any benefit from it. The benefit on that platform is fractions of an mpg, but, amortized over the F series fleet creates a pretty big impact to the numbers.

How do you see Ford going the way of ... AMC?



On the EB Mustang, sure. And maybe the loose nut that daily commutes into a top 10 US downtown city for work every day, spending 90 minutes one way in stop and go traffic. Put aside the corner cases though, and the target audience for the V8 Mustang is almost certainly not seeing a benefit from AS/S.

The problem with ANY & EVERY Federal gov't agency is the potential for and actual abuse. Every administration does it, but the blatant abuse of EPA, IRS, DOJ from '08-'15 was unprecedented. The waters of the United States "WOTUS" abuse was just comically bad.
The people who make up government agencies need to be kept on a very close leash with a tight collar. That doesn't mean every action they take is bad, but when the actions taken are abusive, they need to be punished, not ignored or worse -rewarded.

And all of this is quite literally urinating in the wind.
https://www.aqi.in/us/world-most-polluted-countries

Yes it has always been small on any vehicle 3%to 8% but as you correctly say multiply this up over millions of vehicles and it makes a big difference. Very much like E5 and E10 does.

Car makers have to survive on a global scale making global products, if they don't keep up with everybody else they get left behind. I'm sure Ford will keep advancing on emissions controls as everybody else is because they understand the situation, but if they didn't and just went back to carburettors for example they would rapidly vanish.

History is littered with car companies that were too big to fail or failed to respond to challenges. We used quotas in the UK to 'protect' our car industry in the 1970's from the Japanese which just meant that they kept churning out poor quality crap. Eventually the quotas were scrapped as nobody wanted to buy the homegrown crap any more. It is no surprise that many European car makers don't want 'protective' tariffs or quotas, just an open playing field where they compete head on with the challenge by innovating and making better products.

 

[smurfslayer]

History is littered with car companies that were too big to fail or failed to respond to challenges. We used quotas in the UK to 'protect' our car industry in the 1970's from the Japanese which just meant that they kept churning out poor quality crap.

Like Hammond said - "The prince of darkness" - aka, Lucas Electrics.
Ford definitely has QA & QC issues to sort through but when they do I think they'll be well positioned. Ford's bread and butter is the F series. It's hard to go 1/4 mile in Texas without spotting an F series. When they start goofing up the F series, then they're in legit trouble.

 

[Gregs24]

Like Hammond said - "The prince of darkness" - aka, Lucas Electrics.
Ford definitely has QA & QC issues to sort through but when they do I think they'll be well positioned. Ford's bread and butter is the F series. It's hard to go 1/4 mile in Texas without spotting an F series. When they start goofing up the F series, then they're in legit trouble.

In the US it is, but outside the US where they make more more than half the cars they sell they are nowhere to be found. If they rely on the F series too much they may end up a one trick pony in one country.

 

[robvas]

How do you see Ford going the way of ... AMC?

All it takes it the right (wrong?) politicians to allow Chinese cars into the US market without tariffs etc

 

[Zig]

Export DH's do have it for the developed world markets.

The price of vehicles and annual taxation rates are determined by the homologated emissions, which are baseline checked during inspections.
Self reporting by the vehicle and random sample testing in the field using RDE2.
Under RDE2 the vehicle must perform in the real world within x% of it's lab result and that x is getting forever smaller. It must also maintain this over life.
It is all based upon emissions not runtime, but engine running when it's not required = emissions that can be avoided.
Mild hybrids will shut the engine off when coasting. Full hybrids the ICE will be off most of the time.

As for taxing of jets, oh they're taxed at a much higher emission rate for every take off and landing .. but the amount of emissions / tax compared to the price of the jet is small.

engine running when it's not required

^ which is the assumption. Oddly creature comfort is sufficient justification for automatic disablement of the stoppage. As in if the interior climate requires, the external climate consideration is ignored. As in temp comfort takes priority over global need. Weird.

 

[smurfslayer]

In the US it is, but outside the US where they make more more than half the cars they sell they are nowhere to be found. If they rely on the F series too much they may end up a one trick pony in one country.

Certainly that's possible, but unlikely. Someone has to make the trucks that Americans want to buy and need. I regularly see heavy duty Chevy/Ford/Ram dually trucks hauling loads inconceivable on 'B roads'. Probably 3/4 the size of a semi trailer. This is how a lot of equipment, livestock, and people get moved over here. The Lightning already tried and failed to step in. The cybertruck is neat, but not usable like a truck. The big Nissan & Toyotas are simply not built as tough. This is a business that the US has to have and even if the country (politically) ceased to exist, the need would still be there because of climate, population and geography. Not saying Ford should ignore other country markets, I just don't see it doom and gloom.

Who's going to step in with the one car to rule every market that satisfies every driver? Sure, it's possible someone comes up with the magic combination but humans are fickle.

Sure, restrictive social democracies with the stratospheric fuel costs make the F series impractical, but the tiny, smoke spewing diesel high cubes that seem to dominate the European roadways aren't doing those countries any favors, really. Anyone ever try to run a dually American truck through Scotland? that would be a fun youtube video.

In the mean time, I'm going to go enjoy auto stop start free driving.

 

[JAM486HP]

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward. What follows is a summary, along with references.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

Extremely well presented information based on facts, history and the reality of what this actually means, without the hyperbolic political noise.

 

[Zig]

Correct, the makers of vehicles will likely leave the hardware, disable AS/S by programming. The cost to build it differently would be more expensive for the long haul. I would love it if the current US Regime would claim supremacy over California and it's emissions policy, as that virtue signaling cancer has spread to several states. AS/S will not make it back in a year or 2 though, as it's as hated by American drivers as much as the Brits ! ;-)
It's not as easy to sustain federal actions in court any more, so if it survives the court challenge, which I expect it will, the action to reverse it is going to be uphill in the post "Chevron deference" world where agencies now have to actually work to prove their actions rather than just wave a pen and say "we're the government agency experts, and courts have to defer Judge... Neener, neener!" Loper Bright reversed that (wrong) decision. Prior to Loper Bright, ~97% of federal regulations were upheld in court. Regulations have the full force and effect of law, but, require no legislating and are enacted by unelected, faceless bureaucrats, often with an ax to grind.



I was talking to a Ford employee about this many moons back, I had it on my Raptor and never did see any benefit from it. The benefit on that platform is fractions of an mpg, but, amortized over the F series fleet creates a pretty big impact to the numbers.

How do you see Ford going the way of ... AMC?



On the EB Mustang, sure. And maybe the loose nut that daily commutes into a top 10 US downtown city for work every day, spending 90 minutes one way in stop and go traffic. Put aside the corner cases though, and the target audience for the V8 Mustang is almost certainly not seeing a benefit from AS/S.

The problem with ANY & EVERY Federal gov't agency is the potential for and actual abuse. Every administration does it, but the blatant abuse of EPA, IRS, DOJ from '08-'15 was unprecedented. The waters of the United States "WOTUS" abuse was just comically bad.
The people who make up government agencies need to be kept on a very close leash with a tight collar. That doesn't mean every action they take is bad, but when the actions taken are abusive, they need to be punished, not ignored or worse -rewarded.

And all of this is quite literally urinating in the wind.
https://www.aqi.in/us/world-most-polluted-countries

I wonder why they added the defeat button / ability to deactivate prior to the current determination. As in wasn’t there a couple of years you couldn’t turn it off at all? So yes they will and can modify, once it’s passed and implemented grandfather here we come, retroactive application does not apply (as in they aint making cars without add it). Auto stop start will go the way of the seat belt interlock on pure ice vehicles. Simply using a different fuel (hence unleaded 88) and emissions change, adding a blower etc. besides gov issue doesn’t get the feature.

Sponsored