I suspect the EPA is going to go through lots of changes in the next few years so don’t get worked up over this one

“The judge’s ruling accepts the same argument automakers use in trying to end California’s right to set its own vehicle emissions standards. That right was accepted 30 years ago, but after President Bush signed higher fuel-economy laws last December, the EPA denied California’s routine waiver for its own, stricter limits on greenhouse gases. That in turn brought a prompt Congressional investigation into political interference by EPA administrator Stephen Johnson.”

Very interesting part of the article!

I guess the old Crown Vic lives to see another day….

The premise of the article is ridiculous. You say “the same argument automakers use in trying to end California’s right to set its own vehicle emissions standards.” No one wants to limit California’s right to solve their own pollution issues. The issue is that their limiting CO2 emissions doesn’t solve ANYTHING.

The reason California was given permission by the federal government to set its own emissions standards was a good one: it had a LOCAL problem of many vehicles emitting pollution in a “basin” surrounded by mountains. Its vehicles alone caused the pollution problem, so they could completely solve the issue with their own regulations of local pollutants (carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and NOx).

40 years later, they want to limit CO2 emissions which do not create a local pollution problem, but a global one. CO2 is a natural emission from burning all currently used fuels, so the only way to limit it is to burn less. This gives them two options: set higher fuel economy standards (putting the burden on someone else) or raising their own fuel tax (putting the burden on them).

Only one agency has the authority to set higher fuel standards: the federal government. So despite having no authority to raise fuel economy standards, they still tried to do it because it puts the burden elsewhere.

Now ask yourself whether California or NYC are solving a problem with this, or making a statement at someone else’s expense. The CO2 emissions from California and NYC taxis are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the world (especially with China increasing their use of coal power plants), so their CO2 limits will do NOTHING to prevent global warming.

So California and NYC are making a statement, not solving a problem. That being the case, California should bear its expense and raise fuel taxes. As for NYC, sullivas6 has the right idea, to tax the taxis more if they are below some number, or give them a tax break if they are above it.

I’d ask the author and Mr. Ehlert to note California’s inconsistency in the matter of CO2 being considered a pollutant. California refers to electric vehicles as ZEV’s (Zero Emission Vehicles), even though the powerplant that provides the electricity burns fossil fuels to produce it, producing CO2. So “Zero Emission Vehicles” means there are no pollutants, making CO2 a non-pollutant.

Which is it?

@AP: While your local-problem argument makes sense, that is not what the current law requires. The Supreme Court said CO2 and GHGs are airborne pollutants, which the EPA must regulate. There is a 30-year trail of precedent for CA having the right to set its own regulations.Do you know whether the reasons for CA having that right are specified?

And, frankly, the ‘ “patchwork” argument simply doesn’t wash. The image of a patchwork (think quilt) is of many pieces, each with a different color or pattern. And this is absolutely not what the law allows, nor what automakers would face under any scenario. It’s a brilliant, but highly deceptive, PR phrase.

Remember, NYC is not regulating the sale or availability of cars. It is requiring a performance standard for a very specific class of vehicles–same as requiring them to have special lights, meters, AC for rear passengers, and now TV screens and credit-card meters and god knows what else.

You’re entirely right that gas taxes may be the best way to adjust demand. Another sensible policy might be a floor on gasoline prices, which would give automakers some predictability in product mixes that have to be set 3-5 years ahead of launch.

But those solutions have been, at least until now, utterly off the table for political reasons.

See http://www.hybridcars.com/incentives-laws/mileage-requirements-wrong-way…

“Unfortunately, in America, you’ll also sign your political death warrant [advocating higher gas taxes or price floors],” [an auto analyst in that piece] says. “Any attempt to raise fuel taxes is viewed as something between treason and terrorism. It boggles my mind that politicians actively push for higher and higher CAFE standards for automakers, while at the same time (and sometimes in the same speech!) advocating measures to bring down fuel prices.”

Until this country has a REAL energy policy that looks at sources, uses, conservation, climate change, energy security, ALL sectors (not just transport), and has a perspective longer than the next election … the citizens of California chose to take matters into their own hands. And it would appear that they can legallly do so.

Unless the enabling legislation restricts those actions to solely local conditions, which I have never seen written about anywhere.

And I hope everyone reading this voted (or votes) today.

AP said:

>Now ask yourself whether California or NYC are solving a problem with this, or making a statement at someone else’s expense.

The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. Every jurisdiction that realizes the decrease of GHG emissions is a part of the solution. Those that remain mired in “business as usual” remain part of the problem.

> California refers to electric vehicles as ZEV’s (Zero Emission Vehicles), even though the powerplant that provides the electricity burns fossil fuels to produce it, producing CO2.

California gets its electricity from a number of sources, some fossil fuel, some not. Non-fossil sources amount to over 37% of California’s electricity, while coal amounts to less than 17%.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html

@AP, @Will S: It’s worth pointing out that a very solid joint study by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDF)–which is to say, electric utilities + enviros–concluded that under the vast majority of scenarios, powering vehicles with electricity emits less carbon than does burning gasoline to move them around.

The edge cases are places like Ohio, where most power comes from extremely dirty, non-retrofitted plants burning coal. But in the case of CA, a mile driven on electricity is FAR cleaner than one driven on gasoline.

And the grid will get continually cleaner and less carbon-intensive (in the US, at least; China is another matter), and possibly at lower expense than requiring the same reductions in combustion-engined vehicles.

Taxi cab companies are buying old police cars for taxi, that are worn out. They better look for something else, because when the company Carbon Motors are building purpose built Police Cars that get gas mileage in the 20-30mpg and will not be sold to the general public, but returned to the company.
I wish Hybridcars.com would do article on Carbon Motors. http://www.carbonmotors.com/

Thanks for the article. When lawyers rule, we all can lose. And there’s a good chance we will.

Paul Rivers: I did not make that argument. California is free to reduce their CO2 emissions as much as they want. And yes, every journey begins with a single step (though ELIMINATING California’s CO2 emissions would probably not make a measurable difference in global CO2). But they do not need to legislate lower CO2 emissions/mile to get there. The other alternative I spelled out was for California to raise their own fuel tax higher to reduce driving. If it’s important to Californians to reduce CO2, they surely must be willing to pay for doing it! Power to the people!

My other point about electrical energy creating CO2 wasn’t saying that electric cars might not produce less CO2 – they probably do. My point was that California calls them “ZERO” emission vehicles, so obviously they must think “remote” emissions of CO2 don’t count. Otherwise, California needs to call them ZLEGPV’s (Zero Local Emissions of Global Pollutants Vehicles).

CAdriver: You may never have been involved in mass production of hardware systems, like a car, but you must sell many thousands of any powertrain variant to offset the tremendous engineering costs. If you don’t make money on it, you go out of business.

Every problem involves a cost to solve it. California could do their part for free, by raising their own fuel tax. It would be cheap to implement, easy to collect, and make a measurable reduction in CA CO2 emissions. If you ask car manufacturers to do it, EACH manufacturer has to reengineer their cars, add in hardware, modify engine control software, certify them, and label them – to produce an immeasurable reduction in global CO2. It’s much more expensive and wasteful, but it does have one great advantage: California doesn’t have to pay for it!

There are other jurisdictions that have used hybrid taxis. I believe there is a couple of Prius is the 200000 – 300000 range, driven 24 hours a day with shifts of drivers. There has been a problem with only one hybrid cab that I know of and that was an electronic problem that allowed the battery to totally discharge. Other than that they work as dependably as any car. Certain aspects of the vehicle are made cheaper as in brake parts.

The gov’t of NY has the right to create regulations that benefit the whole of the NY citizenry. That is why they were elected. They have the right to create standards for the cab companies that they already do such as limited road life.

Hopefully the EPA will reverse it’s position now that a more progressive administration will soon take place.

I am knowing why NYC Hybrid Taxis Killed by “Patchwork Excuse”from this site.But The electrical energy creating CO2 wasn’t saying that electric cars might not produce less CO2 – they probably do.My point was that California calls them “ZERO” emission vehicles.taxi