By on August 6, 2021

The Biden administration released updated proposals for the mileage and emission standards to be imposed on passenger vehicles sold inside the United States this week. To the great shock of nobody, they move the country away from the targets established by the Trump administration so the nation can be brought back toward stringent Obama-era goals those later changes sought to get away from.

Though it’s not quite a return to form and environmentalists have already accused the plan of being insufficient — a take that’s as easy to predict as a sunrise. The Environmental Protection Agency would be technically setting rules that put us a year or so behind targets instituted during the Obama administration. But that’s largely understandable when that regime didn’t spend the last four years inside the White House. Besides, the Biden administration’s EPA has already confirmed it’s pushing for even tougher restrictions after 2026

The proposed standards now mandate a fleet-wide vehicle mileage of 52 mpg by 2026, moving up from this year’s limit of 40 mpg. In the interim, the EPA suggested that the updated proposals would result in a 10 percent reduction of national vehicle emissions by 2023 with every successive year until 2026.

Automotive News quoted the Department of Transportation as claiming new rules would increase fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for vehicles MY 2024-2026 and estimated a fleet-wide average increase of 12 mpg by model year 2026.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claimed the changes would help address the climate crisis, improve air quality, and save drivers “hundreds of billions of dollars on gas.”

“By giving American car manufacturers a clear path forward, we will ensure that more of those clean vehicles, and jobs, are created right here,” he said of the proposal.

Except automakers don’t have a clear pathway forward and these targets will undoubtedly change (yet again) to become something more lax and flexible the second the United States has another conservative government. At this moment the EPA is currently spitballing restrictions for heavy-duty vehicles after 2026. But those will be utterly meaningless if the Biden-Harris ticket fails in 2024 and the successive administration decides to change course.

Meanwhile, the latest from the EPA is being criticized by environmentalists as lackluster. Despite introducing regulations aimed at limited emissions and setting aside billions in infrastructure plans specifically to encourage the proliferation of electric vehicles, many are chiding the Biden administration for not going far enough.

From AN:

Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said the proposed EPA standards would still fall short of the goals set by Obama.

“I don’t feel comfortable that those percentage numbers accurately reflect what the proposal does,” Becker said.

While the proposed Biden EPA rule reaches a projected industry target of 171 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, the Obama rule would have achieved a standard of 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile a year earlier, Becker said.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has also expressed concerns, with senior analysts David Cooke claiming it was better than anyone anticipated but “still not where we need to be.”

“There are still plenty of loopholes and flexibilities that undermine what could be a very strong rule,” Cooke elaborated.

But the EPA seems happy with the direction things are heading and praised itself in a statement announcing the updated emission proposals. It also briefly mentioned its future goals regarding emissions limitations pertaining to heavy commercial vehicles.

“Today, EPA takes a major step forward in delivering on President Biden’s ambitious agenda to address the climate crisis and create good paying, union jobs,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “These robust standards are underpinned by sound science and technical expertise, encouraging the development of technology and innovation that will drive America forward into a clean energy future. We are excited about building on the partnerships with states, cities, industry, labor, and NGO stakeholders to realize this vision together.”

“Pollution from trucks has been a long-standing obstacle to advancing environmental justice, as many low-income and minority communities live near highways or in heavily polluted areas with frequent truck congestion and idling,” Regan continued. “EPA is committed to walking our talk and delivering tangible benefits to historically underserved and overburdened communities. Setting clear and stringent standards for truck pollution is critical to delivering on this commitment.”

If you’d like to give the EPA a piece of your mind or give it the thumbs up, the organization is taking public comments on the light-vehicle proposal until the end of September.

[Image: Ody_Stocker/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

80 Comments on “EPA Introduces Stricter Vehicle Emission Rules...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    KLAUS BIDEN: You will drive nothing and be happy.

  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    While I am for cleaner air and less foreign oil consumption, I think there is an elephant in the room that many states still don’t touch. Poorly maintained older vehicles. All of those huge 2003-era SUVs that are still cruising the streets – how many of them have failed or failing catalytic converters, need tune ups, and spew excessive smog producing pollutants to the tune of 13 mpg?

    That’s not to say about other countries that don’t have stringent pollution controls or allow unregulated vehicles to pollute whatever they want. In some cities I’ve lived in, the air was so poor and full of soot from vehicles that what I blew out of my nose was an ashy gray. A lot of people developed coughs from the poor air as well.

    Cars are about as clean as we are going to get them, so I think the focus, besides increasing the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, needs to be to try to clean up the existing fleet by inspections and, if needed, helping those who need to clean up their car to do so. Cash for clunkers 2?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Cash For Clunkers 2.0 probably has a lot of fans – EV proponents, enviro fans, auto lobbyists, and people driving clunkers.

      Since we’re playing the Trillions Game these days, CFC2 should get through easily.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        Last time around Cash for Clunkers brought out all the tightwads that could’ve bought a new car at any time before the free money. Poor people with bad credit weren’t able to participate, so all of them keep driving their clunkers.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Poorly maintained older vehicles. All of those huge 2003-era SUVs that are still cruising the streets – how many of them have failed or failing catalytic converters, need tune ups, and spew excessive smog producing pollutants to the tune of 13 mpg?”

      You must live somewhere lacking the emissions taxes.

      “so I think the focus, besides increasing the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, needs to”

      …be nothing because older vehicles will phase out through attrition on their own.

      I’ve never crunched the numbers but EPA probably created a scenario in 2007 where there would actually be ***more*** light duty diesels on the road than if nothing had changed because it incentivizes the MY07 and earlier diesels to be kept going indefinitely a la Cuba. MY08 and onward will phase out when it becomes economically unviable to keep them going but the earlier ones will end up having multiple new body parts, panels, probably frames around the drivetrain and many if not most examples living a much longer lifespan than originally intended. Good job eco fascists, especially since 95% of all NOX emissions according to the EPA in 2009 were power plants with 5% being every other source possible. So as usual, complete waste of time and money screwing with the diesels to begin with – but low hanging fruit will always be picked over anything hard or more expensive (like taking on energy company conglomerates).

      Oh and since Cash for Clunkers was a total failure from an ROI standpoint, inflation is high enough to not warrant a sequel. The best move is DO NOTHING and then reconvene after 2025 to plan for 2030. Ten year emissions and fuel targets are much more realistic and CHEAPER overall then the industry have to scramble to adjust after “elections” every four years.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      And add all of the brodozers tuned to belch smoke…

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      My 1995 GMT400 [C1500] missed OBDII by one year (1996), so each year when the emissions are tested, I see the actual scores, not a simple pass/fail. It passes with flying colors – every year. It doesn’t get driven much, and my current carbon footprint (including it, all my other vehicles, my home and a round-trip commercial airline flight about once every five years) is significantly lower than the vast majority of my neighbors [with newer vehicles].

      CAFE approach was terrible legislation and very directly led to the mix of monster trucks and SUV’s you see all around you.

      Get off my back and leave my vehicles alone. If you don’t, I’m going to start buying sandbags and adding crap like this to my playlist:

      https://youtu.be/xvaEJzoaYZk

    • 0 avatar

      NY state has a pollution test….once cars can’t pass the OBD test, they are done…maybe sold to non inspection states ?

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    This is why fuel taxes need to be replaced with a tax based upon vehicle weight x annual miles.

    Rising CAFE limits and EV expansion are both at odds with fixing the roads using fuel taxes.

    Side comment: Ford saw this coming when they developed the hybrid Maverick truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Once we transition to a primarily-EV fleet, this will be inevitable. For now, fuel usage is a decent proxy for weight and road use for 99% of vehicles, not to mention directly tying to all of the other externalities of carbon consumption and emissions.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      You probably heard but the bald D-bag in Harrisburg is already exploring a whole new level of automotive tyranny in his quest to eliminate the gasoline tax which AFAIK must be spent on road related items and not wily nily as he/Dims would like. I had a link up but seem to have closed it but aside from the typical double the registration tax, there would be some kind of new tax on vehicle value to replace registration, some kind of new 2% tax specifically on car purchases, ***letting counties levy an income tax*** with the cherry on top being a proposed 8.1 cent tax PER MILE. Some of the quick math people were posting suggested that would work out to be triple the current gasoline tax. So Orwellian tracking mileage taxes = wrong wrong wrong wrong.

      The General Assembly needs to cut its budget across the board to right the ship and likely a decent amount of gov’t sector layoffs need to occur. I’m personally not hopeful for a turnaround, I expect the Commonwealth to continue to fail hard every year.

      Oh and not that it impacts you, but I learned earlier today the Pittsburgh school district is apparently $40m in the hole every year and has lost 3700 students in the past year (down to 18,900). It will be interesting to watch how the union is going to be able to pretend it can justify its mostly worthless staff as enrollment continues to drop while the overall district is in a multi-year deficit. I can hear the yinzers now, “Muh jerb is too ‘portant to babysit “students””.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/oy9p4r/kdka_investigates_parents_pulling_their_kids_out/h7y9whw/?context=3

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Mis-appropriated fuel taxes aside, it’s well known that the fuel taxes we pay today are insufficient to actually keep the roads in order. The Federal tax portion hasn’t changed in decades, and the PA tax (highest in the US) still isn’t high enough to meet the need.

        I don’t like it, but somebody, somehow has to pay for road upkeep.

        I’m no fan of “Orwellian” mileage tracking, but annual mileage *reporting* is already a thing with my insurance company and the state safety inspection. The Commonwealth already knows how much I drive, but they don’t need that data in real time.

        As for the PA stuff:
        The PA Legislature needs to be cut by half or more, and that’s just the start.

        Pittsburgh Public Schools are a corrupt mess, along with the teachers’ union, and the entire City of Pittsburgh government.

        No regrets about moving out to Westmoreland County twenty years ago. My last straw was the three sports arenas, whose taxpayer-funded replacements are now old again. Pittsburgh and Allegheny County continue to ignore why people are fleeing them.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Yet the road situation has been pitiful my entire adult life. Its a bit like PPS, throwing money at the problem doesn’t fix the problem. Also much like PPS if there were ever to be a “fix” the entire middle and upper leadership needs to be dismissed at once, along with much of the lower level who will be invited to reapply for their jobs. Using a third party vendor, the applicants will be assessed and only the best hired back with any unfilled reqs being open to the general public.

          Volkswagen Chattanooga did this exact thing when building the plant, I know this because I had a friend who worked on the project (they assessed something like 90,000 candidates and hired 2,200 or thereabouts).

          On the General Assembly, I’m more interested in the budget than the compestition.

          Oddly enough the stadium maneuver still comes up in conversation with people I know, I’d say probably people who were the “adults” of the time period.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        The bold D-BAG also wants to join RGGI that will increase energy costs

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “ Side comment: Ford saw this coming when they developed the hybrid Maverick truck.”

      The one they don’t want to sell and are using it to bait and switch people once they get to the dealer?

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        I’d say the Base Maverick XL hybrid will be rare on the ground. That’ll just get ordered by the businesses. Most people will want more equipment anyway and step up to the XLT at least.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        I called that when they introduced it and Ford has announced that at least initially they won’t send one to a dealer unless it is a customer order. On the other hand they also say that ~40% of the production will be Hybrids.

        That said I do expect that a fair number of dealers will put in orders only to magically have the customer cancel once the truck is on the way/at the dealership.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    During the 1970s, the best car you could buy was something from the 1960s that had been well maintained. Will the best car in 2030 be something from 2000 to 2015?

    If I remember correctly, very old vehicles were ineligible for Cash for Clunkers. It was designed to take out relatively new, clean running vehicles which left the very old, carbureted, mosquito foggers on the road. C4C was a handout to the auto manufacturers, not a program to rid the fleet of the worst polluters.

    • 0 avatar

      C4C was a big blow to the working class. Well-maintained serviceable cars that older folks were holding on to because they were paid off and “wouldn’t be worth anything” to trade in were scooped off the streets, and car companies and dealers suddenly had new Mitsubishi Mirages and Chevy Sonics to sell at low, low rates. Equity and ownership? Psshh– you don’t want any of that! You want a perpetual subscription model that we can lock down remotely if you’re 7 hours late on your rear-wheel-steering payment!

      This really is one of the dumbest timelines …

  • avatar
    redapple

    Yes !

    Bidet and Klamydia are doing a great job.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Not too hard to do. The bar was set awfully low by the last occupant of the Whitehouse.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        What exactly was the problem with energy independence, lower taxes, working to secure the border, low inflation, low gas prices, a policy where we did what was good for our country, and developing three vaccines that were put into people in 9 months?

        Now we have a guy that cannot produce a cover at sentence, lies (he entered the senate 120 years ago, 350+ million Americans have been vaccinated), needs note cards to remember who to call on, is not allowed to do press events, has caused major increases in covid cases, gas prices, inflation etc, is spending money like a drunk sailor, has removed any stability in the middle east, etc.

        Don’t let your TDS get in the way of being able to see the truth. Biden is a sorry excuse for a human being that is, most likely the most corrupt person to ever be called president. Trump, put our country first and did what was best for us. And it showed. We were thriving. Now we are stagnating. And he did that all while people like you and the media dragged him 24/7 because he said mean things.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          1. energy independence – Stupid idea. I take it you don’t understand the term “strategic oil reserves”.
          2. lower taxes – really. Billionaires need tax breaks?
          3. working to secure the border – most of that was overhyped. Did the USA ever see those caravans full of ISIS terrorist’s?
          4. low inflation – I take it you don’t understand how economic policy works? That’s because of the economic recovery post 2008 that was started under Bush and expanded under Obama. The orange-moron inherited a sound economy.
          5. low gas prices – “peak” oil prices caused oil companies to over produce. It appears that you do not understand free market capitalism.
          6. a policy where we did what was good for our country – like trade tariffs? Once again, you show ignorance.
          7. and developing three vaccines that were put into people in 9 months?
          ROTFLMFAO – the orange moron did increase research and development BUT other countries produced vaccines in a similar time frame…….

          AND these are the same vaccines that you claim are experimental, wrought with side effects, and violate personal rights. That orange moron undermined the whole vaccination process and masks.

          You are a blind partisan hack!

          • 0 avatar
            sayahh

            No need to reason with ppl who use TDS as an argument against doing something good. Trump doing something good for the country? He didn’t even do something good for himself!

            Drumpt did not just say bad things, he almost destroyed democracy (well, destroyed further) and almost got his VP killed. Wonder who EBFlex thinks is “the most corrupt”: Biden or Obama, because I will bet cash money that he actually thinks that both are more corrupt than Trump, who is the most corrupt American president ever to date. (Not necessarily the most corrupt politician, but definitely the most corrupt modern day president.)

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            *Lou MR nonsensical liberal rambling*

            Yeah I knew you wouldn’t be able to understand. You’re head is buried so far in the sand.

            Tragic.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Biden or Obama, because I will bet cash money that he actually thinks that both are more corrupt than Trump, who is the most corrupt American president ever to date.”

            He so wildly and blatantly corrupt that the mouth breathing liberals that hysterically impeached him twice couldn’t make anything stick. They used a phony Russian collusion claim and the fact he encourage people to exercise their right to protest and reasons to impeach.

            But he’s so corrupt right? It’s so obvious right? Then why did they choose two unbelievably false claims to get him on and none of the “real” stuff you claim?

            Your TDS is showing….

          • 0 avatar
            Clifford Montana

            Did you really just say that energy independence is a “stupid idea”? Wow, you might want to rethink that comment. You lose a lot of credibility with the commenters on this site with nonsensical posts like that. Gas prices have doubled since Biden took office, and it hurts the middle class the most. Trump did an amazing job as president and it pains liberals to admit it. Yet they praise senile Biden. Lol.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Clifford Montana – The price of fuel is set by the markets. If the USA used all of its own fuel reserves being “energy independent” then it would be screwed when a war starts. China has enough oil to be self-sufficient but choses to import oil. Why? Stategic oil reserves. You sound like EBFLEX.

            @EBFLEX- LOL. The orange coolaid courses through your veins. Ford hater and king-cheeto azz kisser.

        • 0 avatar

          Don’t mind that “find me votes” bit, or that minor, uh, protest with a…scaffold ? For the VP ? Sure, tell me more about the con man I watched living in the NY area my whole life.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            sayahh, Re: corrupt politicians: Harry Truman- An honest public servant can’t become rich in politics.

            See the Clintons, the Bidens, and the Obamas.

  • avatar
    ItsBob

    I know it’s not possible BUT if some level of government could mandate every town/city to do better job with local traffic flow; it would save “way more” fuel than this scheme.
    Sync the traffic light, do away with unnecessary stop signs, you know-use some common sense.
    Would have side benefits too, less road rage for one.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Good point. By inserting new stop signs and lowering speed limit they don’t improve emissions

      • 0 avatar
        RangerM

        But those do save lives, and if we can save just one life….(in these days of COVID, you know the rest)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Not always. We have plenty of places with no accidents or deaths and yet, if 4 neighbors get together, they can make it happen. Last year my HOA send email to sign a petition to township and request a stop sign on one street. I called and said – don’t do it. hehe

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “the Obama rule would have achieved a standard of 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile”

    No it wouldn’t.

    My neighbor is such a proponent to fight for climate. She nearly drilled a hole with it in my brain. She just bought an Audi Q7 in addition to old Lexus RX and Pilot. And when they travel, their family of 4 takes 2 cars on the road.

    hahahaha

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “She nearly drilled a hole with it in my brain.”

      I didn’t know that they had drill bits that small.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        “Rules of Conduct

        By participating in the Forums, including the posting of content and sending of Private Messages, you agree that you will not upload, post, or otherwise transmit any content (including text, links, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information) that:

        • Is not consistent with the permissible uses outlined by the Terms of Service, including, but not limited to, content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, vulgar, profane, sexually explicit, obscene, racially or ethnically offensive or otherwise objectionable;

        • Constitutes advertising or promotion, junk mail, “spamming,” chain letters, or any other form of unauthorized solicitation. Links that connect to commercial websites will not be considered unauthorized solicitations unless the link or the website content appears to be intended as a means of solicitation as determined by VerticalScope Inc. in its sole discretion;

        • Contains software viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots or any other computer code or files that are designed to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software or hardware;

        • Intentionally interferes with the operation of the Forum or with a fellow user’s message box, without limitation, mail or “post” bombing, news bombing, other flooding techniques, deliberate attempts to overload a system and broadcast attacks, or attempts to avoid messaging blocking.

        • Impersonates any person or entity, including a VerticalScope Inc. employee or forges any TCP-IP packet header, e-mail header or any part of a message header. This prohibition does not include the use of aliases or anonymous re-mailers.

        • Attacks or insults another Forum user or moderator;

        • Suggests or encourages illegal activity”

        @Lou_BC, the way you have posted this comment constitutes an unprovoked attack. If slavuta insults you, feel free to insult him back, but please don’t go out of your way to rile him up. In any context, this kind of ad-hominum attack (including perverting people’s screen names) is an incredibly weak form of ‘argument’ and you can do better [I’ve seen it].

        Related:
        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drilled-wire/

        [Side note: I have no interest in re-fighting the Cold War. If we must, I would like to nominate some different representatives for ‘my’ side.]

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I think a C4C that includes all vehicles older than 10 years old for more fuel efficient vehicles including EVs and hybrids would be good. There were many vehicles during the last C4C that were far from being the well maintained vehicles that some have mentioned. In 2009 I went with a friend who was buying a new car and saw many of these C4Cs parked that were waiting for scrapping and these vehicles were far from cherry more likely they were rusted hulks and not running that well. Sure there were some that were in good condition but most of what I saw were not worth more than a few hundred dollars. Maybe trading for new large pickups or suvs should be excluded especially diesel but if a large suv or pickup is traded for a small or medium size vehicles that get less than 30 mpgs average then that would get older less efficient vehicles off the road.

  • avatar

    Everybody are switching to BEVs already, except of Tesla of course because they don’t need to. And Buratino did not invite them to White House. How wise.

    All that activity about defining emission standards is ridiculous. Because ICE will be declared illegal soon.

  • avatar
    NigelShiftright

    China has a stranglehold on the battery supply chain.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/bidens-target-of-electric-power-in-half-of-all-u-s-vehicle-sales-by-2030-is-a-bonanza-for-china_3937513.html

    And if that source is a little too flaky for you:

    https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/benchmarks-minerals-simon-moores-warns-senate-us-a-bystander-in-battery-raw-materials/

    I’m sure there’s a cut for Hunter in here somewhere. And the Big Guy.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “China has a stranglehold on the battery supply chain.”

      Well, they do have a hold on rare earth elements and battery minerals and we need to develop our own including processing. The only issue I have with those articles is that they are inaccurate about what minerals are going into modern batteries. Cobalt is being eliminated due to its costs. Nickel and cobalt aren’t needed in LiFePO4 batteries used in low-end Teslas outside of North America, and sodium-ion doesn’t even need lithium or graphite. Yes, we do need to develop US sources, but not for obsolete resources.

      I think hybrid lithium-ion/sodium-ion solid-state batteries will be the mainstream technology when EVs ramp up towards the end of decade. That combination should reduce the amount of lithium and nickel needed. It’s a beautiful combination and CATL already has non-solid-state lithium-ion/sodium-pack pack available. Sodium-ion is dirt cheap, doesn’t have as severe cold weather degradation, and has incredible longevity. What they don’t have yet is the energy density of lithium-ion. So they add a number of lithium-ion cells to the pack to improve the overall pack energy density. As far a local sources, there’s a huge salt mine right next to the factory that Ford uses to produce F-150s in Dearborn. Pickups are probably the best use case for sodium-ion. The problem right now is, well, guess what country has the lead in sodium-ion technology. China.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        “and we need to develop our own including processing.”

        Paris agreement for us.

      • 0 avatar
        TimK

        “Nickel and cobalt aren’t needed in LiFePO4 batteries”

        Please name an American company the produces LFP batteries in quantity. We have ceded this entire sector of battery technology to the Chinese who have no problem with flooding markets to achieve total dominance.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          “Please name an American company the produces LFP batteries in quantity. ”

          “The problem right now is, well, guess what country has the lead in sodium-ion technology. China.”

          That’s what I was trying to get at. CATL, which is Chinese, has the lead in the new technologies. Both LFP and Na.

          There is at least one US company, Natron Technology, that is working with Sodium-Ion technology.

          https://natron.energy/news-and-events/

          LFP will probably get picked off by sodium-ion. Probably with 2 years. We should develop our local resources, but that will take years. So, it’s better to develop technology and resources for what will be dominant several years from now. Otherwise, we’ll always be playing catchup. Cobalt and nickel mines coming online years after they are no longer the dominant technology is a waste of money. I’m saying that in the 5 to 10 years it will take to develop local resources, sodium-ion will probably be the dominant battery technology and we should aim there. Spend the money for research to get its energy density into the upper 200’s Wh/kg range. Something like a Manhatten Project for battery technology.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    More clown moves from Adolf Biden and the Hoe.

    Why is it always the US that has to make these drastic changes while countries like India and China are allowed to pollute with impunity? Everyone in the US could never drive again and it wouldn’t do a thing compared to what China dumps into the world (I’m talking pollution not the intentional release of covid)

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “Why is it always the US that has to make these drastic changes”

      Agree 100%.

      The US is painted as the Enemy of the Earth, while its economic output is ignored. Production consumes energy, and energy consumption always produces some pollution. Increasing efficiency is nice, but that pollution isn’t for nothing – it helps make the world a better place through the economic engine of the US.

      China and India don’t provide near the same per-capita GDP as the US, and their per-capita pollution is worse, considering their output.

      Well, you know the answer – everybody is afraid of China.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      When you use 4th-grader names to make a political point, your lack of intellectual substance is grossly evident.
      If you are simply trying to satirize the right-wing morons, you’re doing a great job of it.
      If you actually think the way you post, we all feel the profoundest of pity for you.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    “The proposed standards now mandate a fleet-wide vehicle mileage of 52 mpg by 2026”

    Anyone who knows, how would that translate into real-world observed fuel economy? (Seem to remember it’s not apples-to-apples)

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’s right about 40 MPG sticker (EPA). Either way, none of the legacy brands can come close, fleet-wide. The Big 3 won’t even attempt, it’s too comical.

      The fines are too small to have any teeth. Except they still add up to Billions annually, just from Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        That is one of the reasons that Ford discontinued their cars and replaced them with the Maverick which is not short and of course gets 40mpg.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          There’s more than one way to comply, but when there’s a cash option, it screams more of profit sharing, if not outright racketeering, than actual environmental concerns.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    How anyone calling themselves a car enthusiast could vote Democrat is beyond me. Totalitarians constantly telling others how to live. This time in the name of preserving the average global temperature 100 years from now.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      It’s annoying that those who want to save the earth are so willing to meddle with the earth’s natural processes.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “It’s annoying that those who want to save the earth are so willing to meddle with the earth’s natural processes.”

        Really? You are saying, “Why should we stop the mess mankind has made while “the earth” heads toward a massive reset that will most likely eradicate the pestilence that we’ve become”.

        Thanks for the clarity.

  • avatar
    dwford

    Can we get rid of the footprint rule that chased all the small cars out of the market?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree get rid of the footprint rule if anything it has caused vehicles to grow in size to get around it. Also the rules have the manufacturers produce more vehicles with turbo 3s and 4s which only under optimal conditions get close to the mpgs advertised. EVs are still far from being a feasible alternative for most. Government should be encouraging manufacturing more hybrids which at least offer consumers a more efficient vehicle without range anxiety.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      ” Government should be encouraging manufacturing more hybrids which at least offer consumers a more efficient vehicle without range anxiety.”

      When you design something like a car that’s going to take several years to complete and get into production, you can’t use current vehicles and technology as a benchmark. You have to compete with technology several years from now. Batteries that make significant improvements over older battery tech are either in limited low volume production or are in the process of having their mass production processes developed and factories build. A major example is Toyotas solid-state battery. Any new hybrids will most likely be obsolete by the time they make it into production.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Hybrids still have a place and the cost of hybrids make them a viable alternative to EVS which are still decades away from having adequate infrastructure. As for Toyota’s solid state battery sounds good but how far along is it from being developed as a low cost alternative? 2026 is less than 5 years away more like 4 1/4 years away. Also many of the mechanics in dealers have not been trained to work on EVs and EVs are more complicated than just an electric motor and a battery. Not against EVs but there has to be more infrastructure to charge them and more development of lighter lower cost batteries that have quicker charging times and longer range. Price of EVs has to come down further to be more competitive. Hybrids for now fill in the gap between ICE and going fully electric.

    Is it better for the environment to have older less safe polluting vehicles on the road or to have more safer efficient vehicles that are affordable to more people?

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “As for Toyota’s solid state battery sounds good but how far along is it from being developed as a low cost alternative? ”

      It’s been developed. They are getting ready for mass production at this point.

      Sodium-ion 1st generation is in production now. While density isn’t as good as lithium-ion, they are creating packs with both sodium-ion and lithium-ion. The lithium-ions bring up the energy density and sodium-ion lowers the cost, increases durability, and improves cold weather durability. Infrastructure isn’t decades away. It’s less than a decade.

      Hybrids are available now and people can certainly buy them if they want them. Going forward, they won’t be able to compete with 2nd generation sodium-ion which could be here within 2 years. Modern material science is pushing battery tech at a faster rate than most people realize.

      • 0 avatar
        sayahh

        I love Toyota for their reliability but I hate Toyota for their supporting anti-repair legislation and paying to fight consumer repair efforts. Also, they backed hydrogen during the late 90s and early 00s and were partially responsible for the delay in EV implementation…and still are.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Just to clarify a bit. Toyota has invested a fortune into solid-state batteries. With the new tech on the way, they don’t want to invest in current technology. They don’t want to invest a lot in designing cars for the old technology and to focus their efforts on cars with solid state batteries. They won’t have the solid-state batteries until at least 2024-2025. What they’ve chosen to do is to stall the rest of the industry as best they can until they get their batteries into mass production.

  • avatar
    2004_Z06

    Want to make a serious impact on CO2 emissions? Legislate yearly incremental increases in the federal gas tax, add a carbon tax over all industries, and you’ll see a return from the insanity of large SUVs and pickup trucks to more efficient people-movers. More money to repair crumbling roads and bridges, and less greenhouse gas. Win-win. But the Democrats are too spineless to suggest raising taxes, and the Repugnicans won’t raise taxes to pay for anything they want, yet whine “What about the National Debt” only when the Democrats hold the White House.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “But the Democrats are too spineless to suggest raising taxes, and the Repugnicans won’t raise taxes to pay for anything they want, yet whine”

      The President and all the federal legislators in the the US are elected by their constituents. This is also the case in the vast majority of states. If there was a significant desire from voters in regards to an increased fuel tax or a carbon tax then we would have one. By and large the electorate would prefer to keep driving SUVs and trucks. That’s where something like the Lightning might turn out useful while the “Raise the taxes!” internet pronouncements that I’ve been reading for over a decade are just whimsy.

    • 0 avatar
      sayahh

      Democrats are not spineless when it comes to raising taxes; they do it in California all the time and I am fine paying said taxes. You get what you pay for, so if I do not pay taxes, I will only have myself to blame for potholes and collapsing bridges and overpasses. I gladly pay taxes, and tax cuts hurt the entire economy and especially poor and middle class Americans. Prop 13 in California was the biggest swindle in California ever. (Taking California from Mexico was also a terrible crime.)

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    When I see solid state batteries on the market and the vehicles with them are competitive in price then I will be more receptive to them. If solid state batteries are ready then why doesn’t Toyota use them in their hybrids? Toyota offers the Prius, Corolla, Camry, Avalon, and Highlander in hybrids so why not use solid state batteries in these vehicles. These vehicles are already in production and no additional tooling is needed nor does Toyota have to reconfigure plants to make these vehicles just use solid state batteries instead of lithium.

    Maybe infrastructure in the major cities has more charging available for EVs but the rest of the country lacks adequate charging. It will take more than a decade to get the rest of the country with adequate charging unless those living in major metropolitan areas on the East and West coast don’t think the rest of the country matters.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    “It’s been developed. They are getting ready for mass production at this point.”
    If Toyota has perfected solid state batteries then why are they trying to slow EVs down. Seems that if Toyota is ready to use solid state batteries they would be all for more EVs being made and sold. Please read the article on the link below and give me a reason why Toyota is not completely on board with EVs.
    https://www.wired.co m/story/toyota-whiffed-on-electric-vehicles-now-trying-slow-their-rise/

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “If Toyota has perfected solid state batteries then why are they trying to slow EVs down.”

      Because it’s going to take them at least 3 years to get them into production. Solid-state battery mass production isn’t easy. They are stalling to gain time to get it into production. The author of the article was missing a great deal of information.

      My work primarily is in AI, but I’ve also worked in private equity. One thing I learned is never to trust what a company says publicly and to look at their investments, patent filings, and what jobs they are advertising for. While Toyota was pushing hydrogen, they were racking up loads of solid-state patents. From the number and intensity of the filings, it was clear they had a massive effort underway despite what they were saying publicly. They had racked up over a thousand patents on solid-state batteries. It really looked like they were putting up a smoke screen, especially when they didn’t really seem to be pushing the Mirai that hard.

      Eventually, they announced the completion of the battery. Now, they are trying to put it into mass production, but it’s difficult because of the super-low humidity needed. Right now, they are assembled in small booths by hand. So, they need to buy more time, so they’re trying to slow everyone else down.

      Here’s their announcement where they announce they are introducing 15 BEVs: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/toyota/35083987.html?padid=ag478_from_popular

      //Greencarreports
      https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1130632_toyota-ev-with-solid-state-batteries-10-minute-full-charge-prototype-reportedly-due-in-2021

      Nikkei report of the battery (paywall):
      https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Toyota-s-game-changing-solid-state-battery-en-route-for-2021-debut

      Autonews:
      https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/solid-state-batteries-track-toyota

      It’s a huge smokescreen and obvious they’re trying to buy time. Just like it was obvious what they were really up to by filing over 1000 patents.

  • avatar
    johnnyz

    There is no climate crisis. Cars are cleaner than ever and C02 is below historic levels.

    Lies lies lies.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If Toyota is planning on releasing solid state batteries in the next 3 years that is good. I put an order this past July for a hybrid Maverick truck which I plan on keeping at least 10 years and I have 2 other vehicles with low miles including another hybrid. I will probably not be buying another vehicle for a long time so maybe by then EVs will be better and more affordable. Toyota would be one of the EVs at the top of my list.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    It doesn’t surprise me Matt didn’t mention that the numbers used in this article refer to CAFE standards. They are *very* different from the window-sticker MPG most people are familiar with. CAFE numbers use an older method of determining efficiency (that generally produces higher numbers), and are subject to all adjustments, none of which appear in the window-sticker MPG.

    So “52 MPG” is not really mandating a literal average of 52 MPG. Not even close.

    While I wouldn’t expect the general public to understand the difference, an auto journo writing about fuel economy standards most-certainly should.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Thanks I didn’t realize there was a different between MPGs.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I sit here using something that was developed by the military and/or computer geeks. Depends on which story you like. The many myopic posters on here will constantly say, “the gubmint is horrible can’t do a gol-dang thing right!!!” Well, consider the irnony of complaining about the government while using the internet. Your computer too. Or buying guns or going on alt-right sights because that’s not only all right; that’s pretty gol-dang good! Things I believe in! “Murrica!!! heck yes!! It seems most of our right-wing posters have a compulsion to win the internetz at all costs. Anyone who disagrees with them must be belittled and crushed because there is only one true way to think. Attempts at civil discourse are useless with them. Baseless (non-referenced) claims are hurled in the other person face and it all usually devolves into an “I’m rubbber and you’re glue” series of statments and replies. I put the blame squareley on the editoral staff. They are seem to constantly submit posts not for honest debate and comments but hope the comments section runs amok. This site used to have some great writers. They’re long gone to much better opportunities. There used to be some educated, unbiased and polite commenters on here. They’ve taken their civility else where. Sell TTAC to someone who can make it a car site again.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • akear: The android phone accounts for 73% of all smartphones purchased. Apple in comparison has a much smaller...
  • EBFlex: Scotty I get it. But that’s a very specific case. Plus a gas powered generator is a much better option...
  • el scotto: Flexy, on a farm almost nothing breaks in close vicinity to a wired power outlet. F-150’s, which you...
  • el scotto: @deanst Sir, we also sent oil back to our polite neighbors to the north.
  • el scotto: @DenverMike Sir, perhaps GM or Ford might -gasp- give away a few fleet vehicles. Have companies run them...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber