Is the EPA just shy of useless?

But what about in the real world?

When the EPA revised its methodology for determining fuel economy a few years ago, it was realized that the EPA was off by as much as 50 percent. While revisions made the EPA's methodology a little more accurate, many driving conditions still make the EPA's numbers mostly useless.

Even worse, automakers can essentially manipulate the EPA's methodology to make some of their vehicles appear more fuel efficient - at least in the lab - than in reality.

The EPA's 'City' estimates are so ridiculous that Mazda decided against using start-stop technology in many of its vehicles because there was no value - at least no perceived value. Even though science can prove that such technology can pay for itself and increase vehicle fuel economy, EPA testing doesn't calculate any benefit for start-stop technology.

When the government makes real world fuel economy a joke with inaccurate stickers and methodologies, how can automakers be expected to take fuel economy seriously?

EPA ready to institute cap and trade, will voters comply?

Greenhouse gases to be a "health danger"

The EPA is ready to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a public health danger according to reports. If the White House accepts the EPA's proposal, sweeping change is forthcoming. Already, the White House has indicated that it wants Congress to act on this issue, such as in greater fuel economy standards - probably similar to those California is seeking - along the way to President Obama's cap-and-trade plan.

But will consumers balk?

Ultimately, such legislation will lead to higher auto prices - higher everything prices. Assuming cap-and-trade revenues will help subsidize these higher costs for low income consumers might be too big of an assumption for many voters. And with a majority of Americans now picking the economy over the environment, serious plans to regulate CO2 emissions could become a political braking point for the Obama Administration if the economy does not soon recover.

EPA to hear California waiver arguments today

Do states have CO2 rights?

Today the EPA will open a public hearing on whether states should have the right to regulate CO2 emissions. Automakers, environmentalists and state officials will convene in Arlington, VA today to debate the matter.

Do state CO2 emissions matter any more? Does President Obama's cap-and-trade program make this issue less relevant?

Why not make CAFE match California's EPA waiver?

Deny California's waiver, but...

Yesterday, I heard a number of critics go off on President Obama's decision to have the EPA revisit California's waiver to regulate vehicle emissions because it would create too many different standards.

What a crock. As of today it would create 2 standards.

Basically, if California moves forward with its plan, there are a number of other states ready to comply with California's waiver. It's not as if 17 different states are coming up with 17 different standards.

Nonetheless, why even argue? Why not just rewrite CAFE standards to match California's plans?

Thus, instead of 31.6 miles by 2016, make it 35.7. And, instead of 35 mpg by 2020, make it 42.5. Problem solved.

The technology to achieve these standards exists today. Hybrid cars are proving that. More important, a serious focus on hybrids means a serious focus on battery technology - the battery technology of the future - NOW. Since every automaker claims that the battery is the future of the automobile, isn't embracing battery technology as soon as possible the key to future success?

Squeezing as much profit out of guzzlers for as long as possible while slowly toying with battery technology only guarantees that US auto industry has no future.

EPA should change testing for the Volt?

Being treated unfairly?

According to MotorTrend, the EPA and GM are having a problem agreeing how to define the Chevy Volt. For those driving less than 40 miles per day and that recharge every day, the Volt acts basically like an electric car. For those that drive longer distances, or don't recharge every day, then the Volt acts more like a hybrid. Unfortunately, EPA testing is not designed for such duality in capabilities and performance. Thus, the difference, as far as the EPA is concerned, is a 45 mpg EPA sticker, or a 100 mpg EPA sticker.

Should the EPA create a new classification for plug-in hybrids? If the Volt lives up to the hype, will the EPA sticker even matter?

Has the EPA lost all credibility?

Just a puppet of the US auto industry?

"This is a choice only you can make, but I ask you to think about the history and the future of the agency in making it," stated a memo by a senior career staffer in the EPA to Administrator Stephen Johnson regarding California's tailpipe waiver. "If you are asked to deny this waiver, I fear the credibility of the agency that we both love will be irreparably damaged."

"The eyes of the world are on you. It is obvious to me that there is no legal or technical justification for denying this".

I guess there was only politics. Do US a favor, Mr. Johnson, resign. It is your destiny.

California Emissions Suit: An American Tragedy

Congressional Hearing Today on California Emission Waiver

Congress, led by Barbara Boxer of California, intends to overturn the EPA's decision to deny California a waiver to determine its own tailpipe emissions. Yet, it's no wonder that the EPA ruled as it did, despite the fact that most EPA staffers felt the EPA had to rule in favor of California.

Ultimately, the entire US auto industry and a very important slice of the American manufacturing sector is at stake. And, while some might argue that automakers will get what they deserve, I still have the same lingering angst: Why does Congress continue to artificially deflate the cost of gasoline?

Cheap gas is and has been the root of America's foreign oil dependency, yet neither Barbara Boxer nor Nancy Pelosi have the guts to address this issue. Nor does the President or any other member of Congress. Of course, since we the people keep voting for these idiots, I guess we're the real fools.

California sues EPA

Governator is back against the EPA

As expected the state of California has filed a lawsuit against the EPA for denying the state a waiver to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

"(EPA officials) are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "That's why, at the very first legal opportunity, we're suing to reverse the U.S. EPA's wrong decision."

California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, took the rhetoric one step further. "There's absolutely no justification for the administrator's action. It's illegal. It's unconscionable and a gross dereliction of duty."

Perhaps Toyota should just shut up?

It's not enough

I've defended Toyota against many environmentalists whom have attacked Toyota for joining the Big 3 against any serious increase in CAFE. I didn't do this because I agree with the Big 3 that America shouldn't be too aggressive on CAFE, I did this because Toyota really is probably doing more than any other major automaker when it comes to fuel economy, etc.

But, Toyota is only doing a little more than most other automakers.

The Toyota Prius might have given Toyota a little bit of a green halo, but it didn't make Toyota environmental saints. Toyota's hybrid cars are still only a small percent of their overall vehicle portfolio.

Thus, when I read Jim Lentz's statement supporting the EPA's decision not to provide California with its tailpipe waiver, I could only think just one thing; SHUT UP. Saying nothing would have been a far better choice because I guarantee the EPA's ruling is only going to invigorate hardcore greens, and I'm done defending Toyota.