New EPA Emissions Rules Coming to your Local Dealership...Eventually

GMT 900

GMT 900

Well-known member
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/oth...mbustion-vehicles-with-new-rules/ar-BB1kf7Bw#

Interesting divergence from the two biggest sellers in the US as far as response:

GM:
"GM supports the goals of the EPA's final rule and its intention to significantly reduce emissions,” General Motors said in a statement. "Although challenging, we believe our commitments and investments in an all-electric future place GM in an excellent position to contribute to the goals."

Toyota:

"The EPA's regulatory mandate requires a precipitous shift from around 8 percent market share of battery electric vehicles today to more than half by 2032, an aggressive, sixfold increase over just eight years," the company said in a statement. "Toyota will continue to lead the industry and comply with regulations, but serious challenges around affordability, charging infrastructure, and supply chain will need to be addressed before this mandate is realized. Ultimately, the American consumer drives the auto business."
 
GMT 900 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/oth...mbustion-vehicles-with-new-rules/ar-BB1kf7Bw#

Interesting divergence from the two biggest sellers in the US as far as response:

GM:
"GM supports the goals of the EPA's final rule and its intention to significantly reduce emissions,” General Motors said in a statement. "Although challenging, we believe our commitments and investments in an all-electric future place GM in an excellent position to contribute to the goals."

Toyota:

"The EPA's regulatory mandate requires a precipitous shift from around 8 percent market share of battery electric vehicles today to more than half by 2032, an aggressive, sixfold increase over just eight years," the company said in a statement. "Toyota will continue to lead the industry and comply with regulations, but serious challenges around affordability, charging infrastructure, and supply chain will need to be addressed before this mandate is realized. Ultimately, the American consumer drives the auto business."
Click to expand...
The title and the quotes don't match up IMO.

Did they tighten up rules or relax them? I've seen headlines read both ways.

Then there is this quote:

"Moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030 was the right call because it prioritizes more reasonable electrification targets in the next few very critical years of the EV transition," Bozzella said in a statement. "These adjusted EV targets—still a stretch goal—should give the market and supply chains a chance to catch up. It buys some time for more public charging to come online and the industrial incentives and policies of the Inflation Reduction Act to do their thing."

And this one:

"By taking seriously the concerns of workers and communities, the EPA has come a long way to create a more feasible emissions rule that protects workers building ICE vehicles while providing a path forward for automakers to implement the full range of automotive technologies to reduce emissions," the UAW said in a statement.

I've been thinking about doing a video and I'm leaning on the idea the EPA relaxed the aggressive EV rules for now with a plan to ramp up in the future which could naturally change with market demand. Thoughts?
 
chaseydog said:
With 35 years in the Aviation Industry, the one problem I have with “stretch goals” is that the ‘stretch’ part of it gets lost in the messaging and people start seeing it as something that’s been set in stone rather than something we shooting for.
Click to expand...
^this. 1000%
 
testerdahl said:
I've been thinking about doing a video and I'm leaning on the idea the EPA relaxed the aggressive EV rules for now with a plan to ramp up in the future which could naturally change with market demand. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It would be great if you could get some inside thoughts from those in the industry on what this really means. Is it a loosening of the noose on the ICE or just a separate way to kill it by making it impossible to continue.
 
Dusdaddy said:
It would be great if you could get some inside thoughts from those in the industry on what this really means. Is it a loosening of the noose on the ICE or just a separate way to kill it by making it impossible to continue.
Click to expand...
I just got an email from SEMA touting their advocacy efforts to roll back the guidelines while also admitting automakers need to build ZEV vehicles much faster. I think both sides are claiming victory over this one.
 
testerdahl said:
I just got an email from SEMA touting their advocacy efforts to roll back the guidelines while also admitting automakers need to build ZEV vehicles much faster. I think both sides are claiming victory over this one.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think that social media has taught both sides, of any argument, to “make any claim that sounds good, no one’s going to fact check them”
 
testerdahl said:
The title and the quotes don't match up IMO.

Did they tighten up rules or relax them? I've seen headlines read both ways.

Then there is this quote:

"Moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030 was the right call because it prioritizes more reasonable electrification targets in the next few very critical years of the EV transition," Bozzella said in a statement. "These adjusted EV targets—still a stretch goal—should give the market and supply chains a chance to catch up. It buys some time for more public charging to come online and the industrial incentives and policies of the Inflation Reduction Act to do their thing."

And this one:

"By taking seriously the concerns of workers and communities, the EPA has come a long way to create a more feasible emissions rule that protects workers building ICE vehicles while providing a path forward for automakers to implement the full range of automotive technologies to reduce emissions," the UAW said in a statement.

I've been thinking about doing a video and I'm leaning on the idea the EPA relaxed the aggressive EV rules for now with a plan to ramp up in the future which could naturally change with market demand. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
My Title or the article's? Here is the rule in its released form, no article.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/lmdv-veh-standrds-ghg-emission-frm-2024-03.pdf

As I stated elsewhere, the pace of the change has been slowed compared to the original rule, but if the overall rule is not rescinded? In about eight years, almost 7 out of 10 new cars/trucks will be BEV to meet the rules.
 
Last edited:
Basically it allows the automakers to keep selling ICE vehicles at a large profit so they essentially fund the EV and PHEV side of the business, where they lose money on each vehicle. Make $10k on a half ton pick up and use it to absorb the blow on the Mach E.

They are forcing vehicles on the American public that most folks do not want. 56% Of vehicle sales to be be EV by 2032? I can’t see it. I am not against EV’s but they do not fit the lifestyle of most people at the moment and the infrastructure is still not where it needs to be. And I am still waiting to hear how the power grid will handle all the additional demand.

The prices of ICE vehicles will continue to increase to fund the transformation to EV and before you know it, it is game over. I think I am going to buy a Super Duty while I still can before prices hit $150k for an XL. Maybe I can make it last the rest of my driving life.
 
I feel like they're just keeping the pressure on and will keep loosening and changing the end goal as it approaches. The demand and infrastructure isn't there and won't be in the next 6-8 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top