Thankfully it will not be immediately repealable by congress or future presidents. Under the Clean Air Act, if this rule was repealed by another president, it must be replaced with a new rule that...
The Biden administration is racing to finalize climate regulations to protect them from one looming threat in a polarized political climate: According to statute, as long as the rules are published more than 60 legislative days before the end of the presidential term, they cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote in Congress.
Thankfully it will not be immediately repealable by congress or future presidents. Under the Clean Air Act, if this rule was repealed by another president, it must be replaced with a new rule that would limit emissions the same amount.
Comment box Scope: information, opinion Tone: neutral/excited/optimistic throughout, leaning into a bit of tongue-in-cheek at the end Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: a bit The immediate response from...
Comment box
Scope: information, opinion
Tone: neutral/excited/optimistic throughout, leaning into a bit of tongue-in-cheek at the end
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: a bit
The immediate response from many people, which the article mentions, is, "We don't have the charging infrastructure to support a switch to EVs."
Well, in most populated areas, we are getting there, and certainly on-track for such a deployment by 2032. See Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends. This page provides a useful chart which demonstrates a pretty strong slightly-faster-than-linear upward trend in EV charging stations over time. The most recent data the chart shows, from 2022 (EOY?), records 143,711 EV charging ports (units) across 53,492 stations (locations). That's compared with about 168,000 gas stations (locations) in the US, and at least double that many units.
The 10-year change from 2012 to 2022 shows a 859% increase for the number of EV ports and a 763% increase in the number of EV station locations. Most of that time was before EVs were seriously on people's minds.
If we take an average of +5.15% growth in ports every quarter (an average of the four most recent quarterly reports), the country will have 400,213 EV chargers within 16 quarters (4 years), by 2028. In 32 quarters (8 years), following the current rate, that would be 1.26 million chargers by 2032, when half of vehicles being sold will apparently be EVs. That is probably more infrastructure than we would ever need. By that point the drawbacks of EVs would be relatively limited, outside of the bitter freezing tundra of Saskatchewan.
Now, I would be surprised if the rate remained that high for 32 straight quarters (various quarters have been more like +1%), but there have been lots of quarters in the data where it's surpassed +8%. So you can take this not as a precise prediction of how much infrastructure we have, but at least as an indication of how rapidly things are changing right now. I am very unconcerned about the infrastructure because there is a HUGE amount of momentum due to Joe Biden's great Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and general market forces.
Personally I am concerned with "80/20" kinds of changes. Getting 80% of consumers onto a cleaner, less toxic, more efficient, and more sustainable standard is a lot more important (to my attention span as an activist) than getting that last 20% of consumers onto it. The unique situations (many of which I feel I am correct to call "edge cases") that might lead someone in, say, rural Saskatchewan to hold off on an EV purchase are real and worthwhile problems to solve, but by definition they comprise a relatively small portion of the market. At the point where 80% of consumers support a particular market behavior, the technology behind it has enough inertia to solve those edge cases in a pretty efficient manner. And since 80% of emissions will by then have been reduced, most of the problem has already been solved, so it's OK that it will (naturally) take a little longer to address every last case. (A non-car example of this is the coal phase-out in the US, and coming soon the methane gas phase-out.)
Because this rule is not a ban of ICE vehicles -- instead, it just influences market behaviors -- it does a lot to shift the industry's focus toward that 80% feat without cataclysmically destroying ICE-based society in rural Saskatchewan. I am very pleased that the Biden administration continues to support the eradication of toxic pollutants. Personally, I prefer that my neighbors do not suffer debilitating medical bills for cardiovascular disease induced by ICE emissions. And given that this also has significant climate benefits, I am also quite looking forward to hearing about more US emissions reductions.
On a day-to-day basis, I am mostly looking forward to breathing in less disgusting car exhaust as a pedestrian.
Here's a helpful article for those that want an easier to digest overview.
Here's a helpful article for those that want an easier to digest overview.
It’s a big deal in the fight against climate change
In terms of lowering the emissions that are heating the planet, this regulation does more than any other climate rule issued by the federal government and more than any measure planned in the remainder of Mr. Biden’s first term.
The rule is not a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles
The rule does not mandate sales of electric vehicles, and consumers can still buy and drive gas-powered cars. Rather, it requires car makers to meet tough new average emissions limits across their entire product lines; it’s up to manufacturers to decide how to meet those limits.
It penalizes carmakers, not consumers, for noncompliance
Starting in model year 2027, when the rule takes effect, car companies will report to the E.P.A. the average emissions associated with all the passenger vehicles they sell. The emissions limits will start modestly and ramp up slowly in the early years of the program, rising sharply after 2030. Companies that don’t meet the emissions limits would have to pay fines that could reach into the billions of dollars.
Success depends on consumer behavior
Whether American roadways fill with nonpolluting vehicles hinges on a central question: Will motorists buy them? Early adopters flocked to E.V.s, but sales have cooled and carmakers are concerned they need more time to develop the market. That’s one reason the E.P.A. pushed back the most stringent emissions requirements for auto sales until after 2030, so that manufacturers could improve designs and develop more affordable models, and for charging infrastructure to be built.
Trump could roll back the rule, but not quickly or easily
Mr. Trump has vowed to “terminate” the Biden administration’s climate rules “on Day 1.” But now that the car rule is final, it will be more difficult and time-consuming, though not impossible, for a future administration to roll it back. And even if it were, the Clean Air Act requires that it be replaced with another rule controlling greenhouse pollution from vehicles.
Its fate is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court
The rules are expected to face an immediate legal challenge by a coalition of fossil fuel companies and Republican attorneys general, complaints that are likely to wind their way to the Supreme Court. The 6-3 conservative majority on the court has, in recent years, taken steps to limit the authority of the E.P.A. In a 2022 decision on another major E.P.A. climate rule, the court sharply limited, but did not strike down, the agency’s authority to limit greenhouse pollution from power plants.
Also, pretty interesting how the NYTimes will enable comments on the main article that people misunderstand if they don't read it carefully, but disable comments on the easier to understand...
Also, pretty interesting how the NYTimes will enable comments on the main article that people misunderstand if they don't read it carefully, but disable comments on the easier to understand skimmable article.
Many of the negative reactions in the comments on the main article are due to them misunderstanding the rules, but this overview article clearly addresses most of those concerns.
@mycektforvirrad I think this still belongs in ~enviro instead of ~transport because while this policy effects the auto industry, it's focus is on combating climate change.
@mycektforvirrad I think this still belongs in ~enviro instead of ~transport because while this policy effects the auto industry, it's focus is on combating climate change.
Thankfully it will not be immediately repealable by congress or future presidents. Under the Clean Air Act, if this rule was repealed by another president, it must be replaced with a new rule that would limit emissions the same amount.
Comment box
The immediate response from many people, which the article mentions, is, "We don't have the charging infrastructure to support a switch to EVs."
Well, in most populated areas, we are getting there, and certainly on-track for such a deployment by 2032. See Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends. This page provides a useful chart which demonstrates a pretty strong slightly-faster-than-linear upward trend in EV charging stations over time. The most recent data the chart shows, from 2022 (EOY?), records 143,711 EV charging ports (units) across 53,492 stations (locations). That's compared with about 168,000 gas stations (locations) in the US, and at least double that many units.
The 10-year change from 2012 to 2022 shows a 859% increase for the number of EV ports and a 763% increase in the number of EV station locations. Most of that time was before EVs were seriously on people's minds.
To read the most recent data, for Q3 2023, see Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2023. According to Section 2 (p. 6) of this document, the number of EV ports as of Q3 2023 was 181,026. The number of DC fast charging stations (p. 7) is, on average, growing faster than the number of slower L2 stations, though both are still growing quickly.
If we take an average of +5.15% growth in ports every quarter (an average of the four most recent quarterly reports), the country will have 400,213 EV chargers within 16 quarters (4 years), by 2028. In 32 quarters (8 years), following the current rate, that would be 1.26 million chargers by 2032, when half of vehicles being sold will apparently be EVs. That is probably more infrastructure than we would ever need. By that point the drawbacks of EVs would be relatively limited, outside of the bitter freezing tundra of Saskatchewan.
Now, I would be surprised if the rate remained that high for 32 straight quarters (various quarters have been more like +1%), but there have been lots of quarters in the data where it's surpassed +8%. So you can take this not as a precise prediction of how much infrastructure we have, but at least as an indication of how rapidly things are changing right now. I am very unconcerned about the infrastructure because there is a HUGE amount of momentum due to Joe Biden's great Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and general market forces.
Personally I am concerned with "80/20" kinds of changes. Getting 80% of consumers onto a cleaner, less toxic, more efficient, and more sustainable standard is a lot more important (to my attention span as an activist) than getting that last 20% of consumers onto it. The unique situations (many of which I feel I am correct to call "edge cases") that might lead someone in, say, rural Saskatchewan to hold off on an EV purchase are real and worthwhile problems to solve, but by definition they comprise a relatively small portion of the market. At the point where 80% of consumers support a particular market behavior, the technology behind it has enough inertia to solve those edge cases in a pretty efficient manner. And since 80% of emissions will by then have been reduced, most of the problem has already been solved, so it's OK that it will (naturally) take a little longer to address every last case. (A non-car example of this is the coal phase-out in the US, and coming soon the methane gas phase-out.)
Because this rule is not a ban of ICE vehicles -- instead, it just influences market behaviors -- it does a lot to shift the industry's focus toward that 80% feat without cataclysmically destroying ICE-based society in rural Saskatchewan. I am very pleased that the Biden administration continues to support the eradication of toxic pollutants. Personally, I prefer that my neighbors do not suffer debilitating medical bills for cardiovascular disease induced by ICE emissions. And given that this also has significant climate benefits, I am also quite looking forward to hearing about more US emissions reductions.
On a day-to-day basis, I am mostly looking forward to breathing in less disgusting car exhaust as a pedestrian.
The biggest thing the US government could do for the environment would be to close the loophole that enables the current SUV generation: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-loophole-that-supersized-cars/
Here's a helpful article for those that want an easier to digest overview.
Also, pretty interesting how the NYTimes will enable comments on the main article that people misunderstand if they don't read it carefully, but disable comments on the easier to understand skimmable article.
Many of the negative reactions in the comments on the main article are due to them misunderstanding the rules, but this overview article clearly addresses most of those concerns.
archive link: https://archive.is/RAXSm
@mycektforvirrad I think this still belongs in ~enviro instead of ~transport because while this policy effects the auto industry, it's focus is on combating climate change.
Okidoke.