Comments on: The President's New Cars (climate policy for motor vehicle transportation rears its ugly head) http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/the-presidents-new-cars/ A free-market energy blog Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:37:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Alan F. http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/the-presidents-new-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-1595 Alan F. Wed, 20 May 2009 17:56:25 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2827#comment-1595 The VW diesels have been at 40+ for decades and still are. Blame whomever has kept diesel off the table. The VW diesels have been at 40+ for decades and still are. Blame whomever has kept diesel off the table.

]]> By: Marlo Lewis http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/the-presidents-new-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-1594 Marlo Lewis Wed, 20 May 2009 17:28:34 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2827#comment-1594 Another problem with these standards is that they will start a regulatory chain reaction with potentially devastating economic impacts. The new standards are the regulatory counterpart to the endangerment proposal EPA issued on April 17, under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act. As I explained in a previous post, once EPA finalizes the Fuel economy/GHG emission standards, an estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities will qualify as ”major stationary sources” of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Thousands of small- to mid-size firms could be compelled to obtain PSD permits in order to build or modify such “major stationary sources” as office buildings, enclosed malls, big box stores, and commercial restaurants. The PSD permitting process is costly and time consuming. In 2003, the average permit cost $125,120 and 866 hours for regulated entities to obtain (not including the costs of emission control technologies PSD permits may require). No small business could operate under the PSD administrative burden. A more potent Anti-Stimulus package would be hard to imagine. Another problem with these standards is that they will start a regulatory chain reaction with potentially devastating economic impacts. The new standards are the regulatory counterpart to the endangerment proposal EPA issued on April 17, under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act.

As I explained in a previous post, once EPA finalizes the Fuel economy/GHG emission standards, an estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities will qualify as ”major stationary sources” of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Thousands of small- to mid-size firms could be compelled to obtain PSD permits in order to build or modify such “major stationary sources” as office buildings, enclosed malls, big box stores, and commercial restaurants.

The PSD permitting process is costly and time consuming. In 2003, the average permit cost $125,120 and 866 hours for regulated entities to obtain (not including the costs of emission control technologies PSD permits may require). No small business could operate under the PSD administrative burden. A more potent Anti-Stimulus package would be hard to imagine.

]]> By: Tom Tanton http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/the-presidents-new-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-1596 Tom Tanton Wed, 20 May 2009 14:10:21 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=2827#comment-1596 Yesterday's announcement was touted as a reconciliation between CA and the feds--with California "winning" the waiver dispute--now the country gets to suffer the same pain as the state (is that a state's right? to spread--not share--the pain?) BUT less talked about are the key details of the (Fed) 2016 targets that won't be released until next year*. As the rules take effect, California could choose to step in if it feels the EPA isn't enforcing the standards. In addition, California retains its right to set its own air standards, and California's AB 1493 authorizes the air board to (still) tighten vehicle emissions in 2017 and beyond – setting up another potential battle with carmakers and the federal government. Will the Feds continue to cave? * since nobody knows what technologies will be used to comply, how arrogant is the EPA and President in claiming upfront costs will be paid back in three years? Looks like they've embraced CARB's approach to forecasting. Yesterday’s announcement was touted as a reconciliation between CA and the feds–with California “winning” the waiver dispute–now the country gets to suffer the same pain as the state (is that a state’s right? to spread–not share–the pain?) BUT less talked about are the key details of the (Fed) 2016 targets that won’t be released until next year*. As the rules take effect, California could choose to step in if it feels the EPA isn’t enforcing the standards. In addition, California retains its right to set its own air standards, and California’s AB 1493 authorizes the air board to (still) tighten vehicle emissions in 2017 and beyond – setting up another potential battle with carmakers and the federal government. Will the Feds continue to cave?

* since nobody knows what technologies will be used to comply, how arrogant is the EPA and President in claiming upfront costs will be paid back in three years? Looks like they’ve embraced CARB’s approach to forecasting.

]]>