What's new
By:
Mopar Insiders Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FCA direction on regulation changes

Really Ryan??? There should be one national standard for emissions, it is a Federal issue, California was operating under a waiver.

This is great news for manufacturers and consumers, the Waiver should have been pulled decades ago when emmisions from cars made giant leaps.
 
California may use different tools to achieve what they want. Like zero emission zones and similar.
 
Our instead of punishing or banning how about incentives... Tax Credits, driving lanes, preferred parking, fuel discounts.... there is all sort of positive ways to approach the problem without trying to dictate to the entire country or burdening the manufacturers with cost of multiple models or limiting sales inside the state or not allowing people to move in. ........
 
Canada also adopted the Californian standards, so automakers will not save any R&D costs: vehicles sold in Canada will have to comply with the CARB standards. Whatever he may personally believe, the current US president has no jurisdiction in Canada.

Whatever happens, California will continue to enforce its strict vehicle emissions laws; if not directly, then by other means. Californians of both main parties remain strongly in favor of these laws, so the state agencies have a lot of scope. I could see a scheme similar to Italy's, where vehicles are excluded from urban areas based on the emissions standards they conform to. That way, anyone can buy whatever car they want, but if they ever need to go into LA or San Jose, for example, they'd better have a clean one, or be prepared to pay a hefty fine.

The thirteen states that use the stricter emissions represent 40% of all new-vehicle sales. Texas is the most notable exclusion, despite having some very serious air-quality problem zone. The electoral demographics in Texas still favor smaller, more rural communities, and they don't want to pay to help reduce air pollution in places like Dallas or Houston, but that balance is shifting as the cities grow - don't be surprised if TX starts tightening up on vehicle emissions in the next five to ten years.

What I'm saying is that there's only one way these standards are going in the long run - the wise thing would be to invest in meeting them, not try to weasel out of it.
 
@KrisW

Canadian market in its current state is almost irrelevant plus there are some rumors that the may follow all European or worldwide standards in the near future.
 
TripleT said:
Really Ryan??? There should be one national standard for emissions, it is a Federal issue, California was operating under a waiver.

This is great news for manufacturers and consumers, the Waiver should have been pulled decades ago when emmisions from cars made giant leaps.
Click to expand...
I'm not in favor of loosening emissions standards at all. I'll leave it at that since I don't want this to become a climate change debate.

Edit: Besides, like I said on Allpar, no automaker with any sense will change vehicle development under the assumption that they don't have to meet the strict regulations. It's only a matter of time before regulations start tightening again and none of them will want to be caught with their pants down, no matter what statement they are making publicly. It's more about the politics than an actual change and I don't like the statement they are making.
 
Canadian Market isn't big enough to justify is own emmisions standards.... They will have to choose, of choose a consumer to select the model that meets the emission goals.

The population center hold the most representation in congress, if they wish to have stricter emission standards then they should do with properly through the legislative process, not by executive fiat in the form of Waiver. It surprising the it had not been pulled before now.
 
Ryan said:
I'm not in favor of loosening emissions standards at all. I'll leave it at that since I don't want this to become a climate change debate.

Edit: Besides, like I said on Allpar, no automaker with any sense will change vehicle development under the assumption that they don't have to meet the strict regulations. It's only a matter of time before regulations start tightening again and none of them will want to be caught with their pants down, no matter what statement they are making publicly. It's more about the politics than an actual change and I don't like the statement they are making.
Click to expand...

It not about loosening, its about whether it is federal issue or state issue. The EPA is federal, so we as a country (for the good of compliancy) have determined emission standards to be federal. California was operating under a waiver...... Consider this if it was left to the State the counter of California could occur, Say Montana or Texas wants there own standard that is loser than the federal standard? That wouldn't be good for the environment???? ...... So we have decided that it is a federal issue. If that is the case then there should be one standard not left to individual states. If one thinks it should be up to the state then that should be done through the legislative process, NOT by executive fiat. Which is what a waiver is, it a pass from federal regulation.
 
Ryan said:
It's only a matter of time before regulations start tightening again
Click to expand...
That is one opinion, and a forward looking one at that. Another opinion, forward looking, is that once more and more electric cars are available and their sales continue to falter, the unrealistic standards will be rolled back to more reasonable levels.
Maserati will be the canary in the mine. They went just about all in on electrics. If they don’t sell, they’re in big trouble.

europe.autonews.com

EU electrified car push is driven by rules, not market demand

Jaguar, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and VW are among automakers electrifying their lineups in what looks like an enthusiastic move to the new technology. The reality is different because automakers are responding to legislation rather than consumer demand.
europe.autonews.com europe.autonews.com
"From the auto companies' perspective, it's clear that switching to electric is largely a response to legislation rather than consumer demand."

www.thedetroitbureau.com

Exclusive: FCA Has Big News Coming in Electrification - The Detroit Bureau

Exclusive: Micky Bly helped launch the world's first plug-in hybrid, the Chevy Volt. Now, as FCA's new powertrain chief, he's leading the charge to transform the company from battery-car lagged to an industry leader, reports TheDetroitBureau.com.
www.thedetroitbureau.com www.thedetroitbureau.com
There’s still no clear indication consumers are demanding electrified products, said Bly, especially in the U.S., but the need to move forward, anyway, is driven by two words: “government compliance.”

electricdrive.org

Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) - Advancing the electrification of transportation

electricdrive.org electricdrive.org
Market share of new vehicle purchases has hovered around 3% for the last decade, never once reaching 4% and peaking at 3.84% in 2013 (and went as low as 2.23% in 2011). This is at a time when the federal government was subsidizing such purchases with thousands of dollars of federal tax rebates.
Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery, fuel cell electrics
2018: 3.20%
2017: 3.21%
2016: 2.90%
2015: 2.87%
2014: 3.47%
2013: 3.84%
2012: 3.38%
2011: 2.23%
2010: 2.37%
2009: 2.78%
2008: 2.37%
2007: 2.99%
 
If the populous state are part of a combined Federal standard through the federal legislative process they can move the universal standard their direction. With it waived it creates this sort of issue where it is not a priority to do that.... clearly one would support a universally more strict system federally if they were pro-stronger emmision.

This not a environmental issue, it about where you support a bias state by state system where certain state a waived or a universal standard that will be applied across the board and that if one is not in favor of market forces involved. I don't see a legitimate argument for waivers.
 
A universal rule must meet the needs of all states. California has some specific geographical and climatic and environmental features that make its cities susceptible to very poor air quality. The waiver was actually a way to allow California to meet its needs for clean air without dragging other states along with it that did not face the same problems.

The point about Canada is that, however small, it is a market which takes the same products as the US market. Either the domerstic manufactuers forfeit their marketshare there, or they have to continue developing the lower-emission product for there anyway - a high cost, spread over a small number of sales: they'll lose money by this supposed "assistance" from the Executive.

(I do agree that Canada is likely to shift to the Euro norms, but only because those standards were converging with CARB anyway.)

@VoiceOfReason Smart is a brand of Mercedes, which is sitting on the fence at present.
 
@VoiceOfReason you have shared your anti-climate-change opinion with me enough that I don't care to have another discussion about it with you. Going in circles is all it will accomplish.
 
I read in an article somewhere that the companies in this suit are not pushing for a relaxation of the requirements but rather a uniform nationwide requirement, be it the equivalent of CA or even more stringent. I would think that should apply to the various gasoline blends as well. Have a uniform, or at least a few regional summer and winter blends. the previous administration was pushing for that but nothing ever came of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top