Thinking like a dealer on the delete.

S

Saddle Tramp

Moderator
If I was a dealer, I would not take in any truck that had the emissions delete done.

The current administration is going to be gone in four years and as a dealer I don't want to be on the hook for having to replace all that equipment when the next administration brings it all back.
 
Saddle Tramp said:
If I was a dealer, I would not take in any truck that had the emissions delete done.

The current administration is going to be gone in four years and as a dealer I don't want to be on the hook for having to replace all that equipment when the next administration brings it all back.
Click to expand...
I think Trump is hoping his executive orders get challenged in courts and that the supreme Court takes up some of these issues, which I think they will be forced to do. They will set the precedent for the reach of the EPA and other regulatory agencies.

He has done interviews saying the first time he wasn't as prepared for the level of disruption other people in the government and different agencies could give him and I think he spent the last 4 years preparing to do it this way for a reason.
 
Saddle Tramp said:
Just make a new department.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong but that can be really tricky, especially in today's climate. Not to mention, supreme court rulings on the EPA would deter a different named but similar department from trying similar regulations. I wasn't entirely sure so I had to use AI to help:

Creating a new federal department like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a complex and lengthy process, requiring significant political and legislative effort. Here's a breakdown of what it would take:

1. Congressional Approval (Legislative Process)​

  • A new department requires legislation passed by Congress. This means drafting a bill, getting it through committees, and securing approval in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  • The bill must then be signed by the President.

2. Justification & Political Support​

The government must demonstrate a clear need for the new agency.
  • Gaining bipartisan support can be difficult, especially for large-scale bureaucratic expansions.
  • Opposition can come from budget-conscious lawmakers, industries that may be affected, or those who prefer state-level regulation over federal involvement.

2. Funding & Budgeting​

  • Congress must allocate a budget for the department.
  • If it requires significant new funding, it could face resistance, especially in deficit-conscious political climates.

4. Executive Action (Alternative Route)​

  • The President can create an agency via executive order, but this is limited in scope and typically restructures existing agencies rather than creating entirely new ones.
  • For example, the EPA itself was created by an executive order from President Nixon in 1970, but it still required congressional support for funding and authority.

5. Bureaucratic & Structural Challenges​

  • The new department would need:
    • A leadership structure (Secretary, Director, etc.).
    • A clear mandate and responsibilities.
    • Coordination with other agencies to avoid duplication of efforts.
    • Rules and regulations, which require time for drafting and public input.

6. Historical Examples​

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - 2002: Created in response to 9/11, it took over existing agencies like FEMA and the Coast Guard. It required an act of Congress.
  • EPA - 1970: Initially created via executive order, but Congress had to pass laws (e.g., Clean Air Act) to give it power.

Bottom Line​


Creating a new department like the EPA is very difficult and requires:✅ Strong political will
✅ Congressional approval
✅ A clear national need
✅ Budgetary support

It’s not impossible, but given today’s divided political climate, it would likely face significant hurdles unless there was overwhelming public and bipartisan support.
 
testerdahl said:
What's really interesting to me is it was the Supreme Court that forced the EPA to regulate GHG which lead to DEF and emissions equipment.
Click to expand...
You're right of course, but in many cases I don't think the expansions of these dpeartments to the huge rule/law making juggernauts they are now could have been forseen. Is it possible they've used rulings on specific items to assume legality to legislate above and beyond the intial intentions and been acting relatively unchecked?

The supreme court at the time was acting on a request from the state of Mass. representing the voice of the people. What do the people want now and when was the last time we were asked? I think we all want cleaner air but at what cost and with what budget? I personally think some of the mandates (CARB) have gone too far... way to far.
 
Last edited:
Fightnfire said:
You're right of course, but in many cases I don't think the expansions of these dpeartments to the huge rule/law making juggernauts they are now could have been forseen. Is it possible they've used rulings on specific items to assume legality to legislate above and beyond the intial intentions and been acting relatively unchecked?

The supreme court at the time was acting on a request from the state of Mass. representing the voice of the people. What do the people want now and when was the last time we were asked? I think we all want cleaner air but at what cost and with what budget? I personally think some of the mandates (CARB) have gone too far... way to far.
Click to expand...
that's the hope of overturning Chevron Deference isn't it? Stopping agencies from going to far? I also think it is going to cause more problems than it solves with Congress forced to get more involved in writing laws covering every little detail since agencies can regulate beyond their core mission. I say careful what you ask for.

There's a cost for clean air. That's for sure. Everyone has a different number.
 
I just hope that the people designing the next generation of systems like the DEF and what not, think about how people actually use their cars or trucks.

Requiring modern diesel to be driven for a while, not idle and as loaded as possible for best performance of those systems is silly and is pushing people away from a great economical way to move around. Hopefully with the new regulations for higher reliability, they can solve some of those design constraints.
 
TheDo114 said:
Requiring modern diesel to be driven for a while, not idle and as loaded as possible for best performance of those systems is silly and is pushing people away from a great economical way to move around.
Click to expand...
This is my frustration as well, but NOT with the automakers. The automakers all tell me it is nonsense to think you can't drive short distances with your diesel and you can't idle them. The issue is really excessive idling. It is the old diesel owner's club that is spreading this information and it doesn't apply to new diesels. Just takes truck buyers forever to change their view. I still get farmers that stop by house when I have a diesel and ask, "do you still have to plug them in to start?" I see the same Facebook posts every winter in the diesel groups too. The fact is you don't. However, it is still the mindset for owners that you have to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top