Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    How the New Emission Standard May Actually Make It Harder For Automakers To Achieve

      And now for something completely contradictory 

    Under the current standards for vehicle emissions, automakers have a variety of ways to achieve compliance. These are known as "compliance flexibilities" which allows an automaker to sell electric vehicles to off-set gad-guzzlers like SUVs as an example. But the recent proposal by the Trump administration to ease emission standards, will remove these flexibilities.

    The proposal unveiled last week would freeze fuel-economy and emissions standards at their 2020 levels for several years beyond that. This would seem like a positive for automakers as trucks and SUVs/crossovers are selling like hotcakes. But the removal of this provision has automakers crying fowl, saying these help with global vehicle development. The heads of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers wrote a letter to Trump stating that the “flexible compliance pathways that pave the way for research and deployment in advanced fuel-saving technologies”.

    “We are global manufacturers; to compete around the world, we must continue to invest in both more efficient internal combustion engine technologies, electric-drive technologies and fuel cells,” said Mitch Bainwol of the Alliance, and John Bozzella of the Global Automakers.

    But there is a reason the government is removing those compliance flexibilities as it "existing fuel-economy program easier to administer and more transparent". This makes it easier for regulators and consumers to verify an automaker's claim. The current system is somewhat confusing, as thirstier automakers can buy into compliance by trading emission credits from more efficient ones. The trades and prices can be shielded from public viewing.

    Source: Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I get both sides of this coin, simplistic for politicians and the current administration that is confused by the way American as well as European and Asian auto companies are building and balancing the system. Then the OEM which wants the MPG to be put into static mode but keep everything else the same.

    OEM's will have to adjust if the current system is rolled back to be this simplistic system and that will really affect everyone to meet the MPG when they cannot use EV, Hybrid or any other alternative fuel such as the CNG/LNG trucks the OEMs make and use to offset the gas guzzling pickups.

    One does have to wonder why it would not be simplest to just freeze the MPG as the auto industry has asked till 2035 letting them get their alternative powertrain auto's out and get caught up. A pause would be good for all, but one has to wonder if this is also a way to reduce the headcount in government jobs?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, dfelt said:

    I get both sides of this coin, simplistic for politicians and the current administration that is confused by the way American as well as European and Asian auto companies are building and balancing the system. Then the OEM which wants the MPG to be put into static mode but keep everything else the same.

    OEM's will have to adjust if the current system is rolled back to be this simplistic system and that will really affect everyone to meet the MPG when they cannot use EV, Hybrid or any other alternative fuel such as the CNG/LNG trucks the OEMs make and use to offset the gas guzzling pickups.

    One does have to wonder why it would not be simplest to just freeze the MPG as the auto industry has asked till 2035 letting them get their alternative powertrain auto's out and get caught up. A pause would be good for all, but one has to wonder if this is also a way to reduce the headcount in government jobs?

    Freezing the standards is a good start. 

    If this administration truly wanted to reduce EPA headcount, they can get Congress to legislate the EPA out of existence.  For a party that has advocated smaller federal government since 1980, they sure are doing a surprisingly poor job doing just that.  Only defunding and legislation will actually reduce headcount in an appreciable manner, unless you want to repeal the merit-based civil service and revert to a 19th Century Spoils System.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Meh.

    You are going to win some and lose some.

    Step or get out-change with times.....

    That said- my low tech Cobalt and Cavalier have no issues with getting good MPGs...

    Maybe less airbags and junk might help first......

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Saw that California is approaching $10 a gallon in the major cities, high 8 to 9 elsewhere, at this point, EVs are going to come out winning even with the higher cost. Course with all the EVs coming off lease and like many of my coworkers are are picking up Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 at roughly 40% of the original MSRP, the price of electrical rates with the car rate and low mileage on the EVs, makes these 300 mile EVs a deal imho. Agree, News was covering the near $10 a gallon in California, and I see tonight NY is hitting the upper $8, so EVs are going to really come out ahead, especially when one buys a certified pre-owned lease return imho.
    • On the off topic subject of tires, got a set of Firestone Firehawk all season tires last month to replace the Bridgestone Potenzas that were getting close to the wear bars on the Cadillac.  I drove more last week (2051 miles) than I drove it last year (1750 miles over 2025). It's at 63k now.  Will drive it more this year.   The Jeep will probably need a new set of tires before next winter, at 52000 miles and 8+ years on the current Michelin Defender XT all seasons. Probably will get a new set of the same.  Drove the Jeep about 3000 miles in 2025.  It's at 83k now.  Still have a few years left on the 15 yr/150k extended warranty.  Working from home and using a lot of home delivery really cuts down on the miles. 
    • The CrossClimates will be the next set on the Chrysler.  Albert blew out the right rear on his set of Blizzaks on Thursday and it was unrepairable, so the whole set is getting covered by the road hazard warranty. BUT I also have summer tires, so I ran back home, got those, and had those put on. Albert is at 25k miles a year lately and though that will calm down eventually, it's going to pick up for the next 6 months, so I expect him to burn through the summers by the time October rolls around. I'll trade both sets in (they gave me back 3 of the Blizzaks) and get a credit towards the CrossClimates. They'll be the last set of tires I put on it because we'll trade out of it around 130k - 140k once Mopar will no longer warranty it. I don't feel like buying two more sets of tires for it.  I hear great reviews about them. Sure, but in the end the EV comes out ahead. Also, random bombings in the middle east don't significantly shift the monthly family budget. 
    • Cool little video, thanks.  The music sort of reminds me of ... never mind! Arlington, Texas was the final assembly point for both of our family's Cutlass Supreme coupes.  I thus have a fondness for that GM plant. I spent way too much time in college going to check out cars - from classifieds, at dealerships ... Had I not done that, I could have graduated magna or summa!  Maybe ...
    • What I was really going to say: On this 14th of March, what type of pie are you having, going to have, or, if not partaking, would like to have had? I'm in door #3 and, as far as pie goes, I wouldn't even know where to start.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search