California set to sue EPA next week
EPA standards govern vehicle emissions such as NOx and hydrocarbons. They are byproducts of combustion that can be balanced with engine tuning, such as ignition timing and fuel delivery. They can also be reduced through devices such as catalytic converters. Catalytic converters cause a chemical reaction that converts carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and water. However, earlier this year the EPA won a Supreme Court ruling adding carbon dioxide to the list of regulatory greenhouse gases. The EPA is working on legislation to update its regulations due to this ruling, but there are some impatient states.California is awaiting a waiver from the EPA so that it can put its own emissions standards into effect. Next week, California plans to file suit against the EPA to force a decision. California needs the waiver to introduce regulations reducing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2016. Despite opposition from automakers, a Vermont judge already upheld the state's adoption of California's tight standards. This is expected to come into play during California's suit against the EPA.
The results of this ruling will have a major impact on automakers. Already, manufacturers create some differing models to meet California standards and many diesels are not sold in California at all. Tighter regulations could see large SUV and truck sales eliminated from California along with all the states that adopt their regulations. Ultimately it could mean an enormous cost to automakers that the consumers will feel in the long run.
[Source: Detroit News, photo by David McNew/Getty]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Lucas 8:17AM (10/21/2007)
I've no sympathy for SUV owners. Unless you have eight kids and live on a ranch you don't need one...
they block my vision, cut me off, and crush smaller cars on impact.
...of course it's a slippery slope and I don't want my sports car taken away.
Reply
Greek Boy 8:59AM (10/21/2007)
Ummm, here we go agone, targeting the enemy...THE SUV!!!
Get real dude. There are far more other vehicles that are heavier or block your vision than SUV's. How about the millions of full size vans or minivans or pickup trucks or CUV's Those totalled probably outsell the rapidly diminishing SUV by a factor of 20:1...yet you buy into all the media crap and target a vehicle that is now a niche vehicle and a very useful one for those who actually need one.
Use some common sense please.
Hooper 10:30AM (10/21/2007)
Twenty to one? Admit it, you pulled that figure out of your ass. And while minivans and CUVs do impede the view of drivers of cars, at least they're more fuel efficient than full-blown SUVs.
Greek Boy 11:31AM (10/21/2007)
Hey Hooper,
why don't you check my ass and see if I am wrong or right;)
Or, just sum up all the small/med/large pickup trucks sold by every manufacturer and then add every full size van and then every minivan and then every CUV. Hell, pickup trucks alone account for about 10:1.
And please tell me which full or mid sized pickup is more FE than a Tahoe or Expy? I am dying to know. Duh!!
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:20PM (10/21/2007)
Chevy Tahoe 1500 2WD 5.3L 14/20
Chevy Silverado C15 (1500) 2WD 5.3L 15/20
Of course the pickup truck is more efficient, it's lighter. As are minivans.
And the SUV is not rapidly diminishing. Yes, sales are going down, no lie. But they're not on the endangered species list yet.
jb 8:28AM (10/21/2007)
Why is that lower consumption = smaller cars? Why not lower consuption = SLOWER cars. Why on earth do we need a family sedan with a 250 HP? To drive in 20 mph rush traffic, or even better on a freeway limited at 65 mph anyway. A one liter engine could take care of that without any problem. Yeah it won't get there in 5 s, but so what?
Reply
Jeff Banks 2:00PM (10/21/2007)
Seriously, I wonder why people like this even bother to frequent automotive news websites. Catching up on news about the Toyota Yaris' interior updates, perhaps?
jb 5:40PM (10/21/2007)
I enjoy cars as much as anybody else here. I just can recognize the idiocy of the HP wars that has been going on in the last 10-15 years, and the waste that it is.
There is much more to enjoying cars than HP. Now if all YOU are interested is how much power a car has, then you really don't need to read this website... Just read the manufacturer's specs.
Greek Boy 9:04AM (10/21/2007)
Manufacturers are only supplying what everyone wants - more power/room/FE.
If company A makes a competitive family sedan but is 20HP under company B's vehicle, then forums like this, filled with 17 year olds, tear it apart for not being competitive enough -- even though none of them will have a use for said vehicle for about another 20 years.
Reply
zamafir 2:06PM (10/21/2007)
yeah... that's why the totally volunteered to add seat belts... come on let's be realistic here. Automotive manufactures are like any other business, very very very averse to significant change within their key product lineup, especially our American companies. The writing was on the wall re: gas prices et-al. The Automotive press was discussing the problems with a mostly truck/suv based lineup 8 YEARS ago. Just because our car companies are slow to recognize the writing on the wall, just because they're not being effectively managed (go ahead, disagree with that one with every automotive manufacturer agreeing Toyota's got something going on), doesn't mean Cali's the great evil.
And no, I don’t think it’s unpatriotic to recognizes huge lapses in management at some of our largest companies.
xspeedy 9:21AM (10/21/2007)
CA is such a PITA. Why does CA have to be special when it comes to emissions? It is bad enough that the US differs from Europe (preventing economical diesels from making their way here), and we certainly don't need states within the US having their own unique regulations.
All special regulations do is increase the complexity for manufacturers that have to build varying vehicles for different countries/states/localities. This means increased cost for the consumer and nothing else.
Align US standards for all fuel, emissions, safety, and other vehicular design with the EU and we'll see costs drop considerably, and we'll simplify the ability for frugal smaller European vehicles to be sold here.
Ultimately, there needs to be a world standard for vehicle design. Safety is safety no matter where one lives. Emissions is a global problem, not a local one. If we standardize on fuel formulation, perhaps we'll see gas/diesel prices drop. The benefits go on and on.
If you want to get rid of gas hogs, tax the heck out of gas to make it $6 a gallon and use the funds to build roads to relieve congestion that results in very low mileage. Sitting in traffic gets us zero mpg.
Reply
Just me 9:36AM (10/21/2007)
xspeedy,
you are contradicting yourself.
In one sentance you say "all regulations do is in crease the complexity for manufacturers..."
and a couple paragrahs later you say "there needs to be a world standard for safety design." It is regulations that would accomplish this, unless of course you leave things alone as a free market where everyone is competitive with each other.
Sean Morris 11:57AM (10/21/2007)
@xspeedy
I am all for a gasoline tax. $5 a gallon fuel will make people make some real decisions about what kind of vehicle they drive. Add a couple bucks to the cost of gasoline, watch the consumer change the market.
The cost of gasoline now is causing a shift in the market. I can look at all the dealer trade in SUV's at the car dealer sales I go to. I see tons of Suburbans, and Expeditions that have been traded in.
The reason that Europe and Japan have a lot of smaller more fuel efficient cars and diesels are because the cost of gasoline.
Take the revenue from the tax, and use it for good.
Louis Duran 12:59AM (10/22/2007)
Amen to that. Increase the gas tax and force the consumers to force the manufacturers to build more efficient cars. As it is now, the government wants to force carmakers to increase fuel-efficiency but isn't doing very much on the demand side. There are some tax credits for buying a hybrid but this will have very minimal impact on the demand side because of the number of hybrids that qualify.
Just raise the federal gas tax (which hasn't risen in any substantial way in 15 years) to account for the increase in road repairs and other motoring infrastructure. A gas tax is about the fairest tax I can think of. It is a use tax. If you use gas you pay for it. If you use more gas, you pay more. Use less gas, pay less. Simple.
xspeedy 10:02AM (10/21/2007)
Just me,
No, what I'm saying is that special regulations (in other words, different regulations for different states or different countries...) creates extra cost. If the world went by one standard, then any car could be sold anywhere and manufacturers would only have to build to one specification, not several.
CA having their own regs just creates more "flavors" of car that have to be built.
Reply
MasterCKO 4:26PM (10/23/2007)
Welcome to the US, where states have a large amount of self-sovereignty. I think you might have missed that lesson in your civics (not the car) class.
Also, CA has always lead the way as far as regulation for vehicle emissions. This is really not new at all. Yes, change costs money and that cost goes somewhere, but this is definitely a worthwhile change (start producing less environmentally-harmful emissions). I think it's interesting that the article paints CA in such a negative light, when this is basically par for the course and something I personally think is beneficial to everyone in the long run.
MasterCKO 4:28PM (10/23/2007)
I will say that you make some good points in the rest of your first post, though.
Mobius_1 10:29AM (10/21/2007)
What's next? California suing cars?
Reply
motorman 10:34AM (10/21/2007)
if calif wants to cut down on the amount of smog created by autos get all the illegals who drive off of the roads
Reply
Louis Duran 1:02AM (10/22/2007)
You must be retarded to think that the number of illegal drivers account for significant smog in California.