ADVERTISEMENT

Biden seeks to accelerate the EV transition in biggest climate move yet

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
The Biden administration finalized the toughest-ever limits on planet-warming emissions from passenger cars and light trucks Wednesday, in a controversial bid to accelerate the nation’s halting transition to electric vehicles.

Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter and get advice for life on our changing planet, in your inbox every Tuesday.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule — President Biden’s most far-reaching climate regulation yet — would require automakers to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while slashing carbon emissions from gasoline-powered models, which account for about one-fifth of America’s contribution to global warming.

But unlike last year’s proposed rule, automakers would not need to dramatically boost electric vehicle (EV) sales until after 2030. The delayed timeline reflects an election-year concession to labor unions, a key Democratic constituency that has raised concerns about a rapid shift to EVs.



In another change from the proposal, automakers could comply by boosting sales of plug-in hybrid vehicles in addition to all-electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids have recently proved more popular with U.S. consumers, in part because of concerns about a lack of public charging infrastructure.
The final rule will still prevent 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere through 2055, according to the EPA. It will also reduce fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, preventing up to 2,500 premature deaths from air pollution annually starting in 2055, the agency said.
“Our final rule delivers the same — if not more — pollution reduction than we set out at proposal,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said on a call with reporters Tuesday previewing the announcement. “These final standards will also reduce some of the most serious pollutants that impact public health.”



Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies are likely to challenge the rule in court. But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group whose members include Ford, General Motors, Stellantis and Toyota, praised the EPA’s decision to delay the stricter EV requirements until after 2030.
“Moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 was the right call,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the alliance, said in a statement. “… These adjusted EV targets — still a stretch goal — should give the market and supply chains a chance to catch up.”
U.S. EV sales have cooled in recent months. According to estimates from Kelley Blue Book, U.S. EV sales increased year-over-year by 40 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023, down from a 49 percent jump in the third quarter and a 52 percent spike in the second quarter.



“The EV market in the U.S. is still growing, but not growing as fast,” analysts with Kelley Blue Book wrote.
Yet Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association and the son of former vice president Al Gore, said other figures paint a more encouraging picture. He noted that a record 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States last year, bringing EVs’ market share to 7.6 percent in 2023 compared with 5.9 percent in 2022.
“Whether or not we’re talking about a real slowdown, the trend line for EVs has been one of phenomenal growth over the last couple of years,” Gore said.
The price of EVs is also plunging so fast that they’re now almost as cheap as gas-powered cars. The average price difference last month was $5,000, according to data from Cox Automotive.

Still, the recent sales slowdown has prompted some automakers to scale back their EV plans, with Ford slashing production of the much-touted F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck. Many automakers are now pivoting to better-selling plug-in hybrids — a compromise between the internal combustion engines of the past and the batteries of the future.

n fight climate change together,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a statement.
 
Wednesday’s rule comes after a contentious back-and-forth between the United Auto Workers and the Biden administration over whether — and how — the shift to EVs will benefit workers.

In September, the UAW launched a historic strike against Detroit’s three biggest automakers — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. The workers warned that the rise of EVs could erase well-paying jobs in the auto industry, since many EV plants are being built in Southern states less friendly to union labor.

Despite these warnings, the EPA issued an ambitious proposed rule last April that called for EVs to account for 67 percent of all new passenger car and light-duty truck sales by 2032. Weeks later, UAW President Shawn Fain wrote that the union was withholding its endorsement of Biden’s reelection campaign over “concerns with the electric vehicle transition.”


Yet the union reversed course and coalesced around Biden after the EPA signaled it would relax the timeline in the final rule. The UAW endorsed the president at its annual legislative conference in January, and Fain attended Biden’s State of the Union address this month.
Automakers could still comply with the final rule by making EVs account for 67 percent of new car sales in 2032, according to the EPA. But they could also meet the requirements by making all-electric vehicles account for 56 percent and making plug-in hybrids represent 13 percent, the agency said.

Former president Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called Fain a “dope” and has repeatedly bashed Biden’s EV goals. He has falsely claimed that EVs cannot travel far on a single charge, and he has pledged to scrap the EPA rule on day two of a second term.


On Monday, Trump sought to defend his declaration over the weekend that there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost in November, claiming he was merely describing a bloodbath for the auto sector. He wrote on his social media platform that he was “simply referring to [EV] imports” allowed by Biden, which he said “are killing the automobile industry.”
Manish Bapna, president and CEO of NRDC Action Fund, the political arm of the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized Trump’s anti-EV rhetoric.

“The industry is betting its future on electric cars, drivers are buying them in record numbers and last fall’s UAW agreement makes sure workers benefit,” Bapna said in an email. “Biden’s got a strategy to support that shift. Trump wants to slam it into reverse.”
The fossil fuel industry has sought to drum up opposition to the EPA rule, which could eat into demand for its petroleum products. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), an industry trade group, has launched a seven-figure campaign against what it calls a de facto “gas car ban.” The campaign includes ads in battleground states warning that the rule will restrict consumer choice.


“To be sure, the administration refers to these regulations as ‘standards,’ not ‘bans’ or ‘mandates,’” AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson said on a call with reporters this month. “But they do that because they know how unpopular bans are with Americans.”

The AFPM’s members include fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum and Valero Energy. Marathon Petroleum, the nation’s largest refiner, waged a covert campaign in 2018 to roll back the car emissions standards set by President Barack Obama.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobbying arm, teased plans to sue over the standards set by the Biden administration.
“We’ll do everything we can to stop the rule,” Mike Sommers, chief executive of the institute, said in an interview Wednesday at an energy conference in Houston.


Although the EPA rule would not, in fact, ban internal combustion engine vehicles, California regulators are seeking to end statewide sales of new gas cars by 2035. In the past, more than a dozen other states have opted to follow California’s tougher tailpipe pollution rules.
The California Air Resources Board announced Tuesday a deal with Stellantis, the owner of the Jeep and Ram brands. Under the deal, Stellantis agreed to comply with California’s EV sales requirements even if they are blocked by a court or a potential second Trump administration.
The automaker had previously blasted those requirements for handing rivals an unfair advantage. But on Tuesday, Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares called the agreement a “win-win solution” that will avoid 10 million to 12 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions through 2030.
“The biggest and most influential companies in the world understand that this is how we ca
 
I really want the Rivian R1S. I just don't have $92,000 (starting) to get one. They are coming out with the R2 (or something like that) in 2026 that will start at $45,000, something that is more doable for me. The problem is I'm not sure it is big enough for what I want to do with it. I also don't know if my current vehicle is going to hold together for another two years.
 
I'm all for ramping up hybrids (which the article addresses. Woot Woot!)? I'd love to have an SUV that got 30-40 mile EV range then ICE for road trips. I'd likely be on electricity 75% of the time. This all or nothing is ridiculous. EVs are also out of reach for poor folks who save up just to finally get a 10-year used Honda Accord. I can also assure you my son's first vehicle isn't going to be an expensive EV. The kid will get a used Jeep TJ or JK.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't a bunch of EV manufacturers just pull out of the EV market ( thinking Ford was one) and China has committed to being the EV king?



I've started to change my thinking on an EV. I've always thought of them as a glorified golf cart, which they are, but having a vehicle like that in my stable might be a useful tool for day to day trips and just understanding their limits. Frankly seeing how well that tesla took a cement truck plowing into its ass/driving over it in Waukee really made me consider it for our short trip option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk and Scruddy
I really want the Rivian R1S. I just don't have $92,000 (starting) to get one. They are coming out with the R2 (or something like that) in 2026 that will start at $45,000, something that is more doable for me. The problem is I'm not sure it is big enough for what I want to do with it. I also don't know if my current vehicle is going to hold together for another two years.
Neither is what I'd like to spend on a reliable vehicle. I'm looking at a 2022 INFINITI Qx50 and it's still going to run me $35k+. I can afford it, but I don't like spending a lot on a vehicle that depreciates. I also tend to drive my cars 10+ years. I drove my Mazda for 12 years and I'm on year 8 for my Grand Cherokee. I hate car payments.
 
I've shared the story here before. If you are traveling west on Hickman through Waukee you will see giant gouges in the road at the 6/warrior lane intersection, that's about the closest hand pic I can get for you.

Long story short, a Tesla was sitting at the light and either the cement truck didn't break or the tesla didn't go but either way this cement truck slammed into the tesla and went up on the frame supports around the rear window of the tesla, grinding this tesla into the ground under it. The teslas frame stayed completely structural with a GD cement truck on top of it. The vast majority of vehicles would have been crushed and those people inside would have been lucky to not be dead, they were all standing there, "fine" because the tesla took the punch. I was impressed, and I say that as a truck driving "ev's are golf carts" type guy. That vehicle kept those people alive.
 
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring charging infrastructure, electricity generation capability and requirements, new pollution from excess tire wear, harm to the environment from battery production, etc., etc.
Of course they are.
 
Neither is what I'd like to spend on a reliable vehicle. I'm looking at a 2022 INFINITI Qx50 and it's still going to run me $35k+. I can afford it, but I don't like spending a lot on a vehicle that depreciates. I also tend to drive my cars 10+ years. I drove my Mazda for 12 years and I'm on year 8 for my Grand Cherokee. I hate car payments.
I'm with you on hating car payments. I try to have as big a down payment as possible to minimize them. They are like colonoscopies. They completely suck but they are necessary. My current vehicle is a 2009 but it has held together very well. I don't have to drive very far on a daily average so it only has about 145k miles on it. Outside of normal maintenance and a new water pump I haven't had any issues with it either. I'm hoping I can keep it together long enough to hand it off to my oldest when she can start driving, but we'll see. It doesn't do much good to have a vehicle that is constantly in the shop because things keep breaking on it.
 
Plugin hybrid that you can charge in your garage makes sense.

I wanted a model Y last year but was desperate and couldn’t wait so I got a RAV4. Wanted the plugin RAV but dealers were asking $5000+ over sticker. FU to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
I've shared the story here before. If you are traveling west on Hickman through Waukee you will see giant gouges in the road at the 6/warrior lane intersection, that's about the closest hand pic I can get for you.

Long story short, a Tesla was sitting at the light and either the cement truck didn't break or the tesla didn't go but either way this cement truck slammed into the tesla and went up on the frame supports around the rear window of the tesla, grinding this tesla into the ground under it. The teslas frame stayed completely structural with a GD cement truck on top of it. The vast majority of vehicles would have been crushed and those people inside would have been lucky to not be dead, they were all standing there, "fine" because the tesla took the punch. I was impressed, and I say that as a truck driving "ev's are golf carts" type guy. That vehicle kept those people alive.

Incredible story. Lucky they were in a Tesla. Safety part of why I bought mine. A SpaceX materials engineer helped Tesla design Model Y. They wanted the strongest lightest possible frame metal alloy for strength/durability/range efficiency so they brought him in. Then they expand that engineering to the rest of the lineup in future iterations. Safest cars on the road.

Like Elon says about Cybertruck.

“If you get in an argument with Cybertruck on the road, you will lose.” Hah.
 
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring charging infrastructure, electricity generation capability and requirements, new pollution from excess tire wear, harm to the environment from battery production, etc., etc.

 
I have a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV I bought about 6 months ago. I was a little leery about the range and how it would work but at this point I couldn't be happier. It gives me the electric I wanted without range anxiety.

I get about 25 miles all electric and then when it switches to ICE on longer trips I get upper 20's MPG, not terrible for an SUV.

The one concern is gas tank size as it is only about 10 gallons so pure ICE range is a little limited. That said, about 90% of my driving is all electric. I filled the gas tank about March 1st and so far the needle hasn't moved from full. Looking at the driving I have coming up I expect those 10 gallons will last me through April, at least.

I plug into a regular outlet each night and it is fully charged in the morning. When I am out and about if I am at a store that has a charging station I plug in, why not get a little free electricity even if it is only for 10 minutes or so?
 
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring charging infrastructure, electricity generation capability and requirements, new pollution from excess tire wear, harm to the environment from battery production, etc., etc.

You seem to be operating under multiple false premises. You should question what you think you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelsers
I’m interested in the Hybrids but I expect by the time I’m ready to trade they’ll be improved and the market will make them the favorite.
My 5 year old Acura RDX just turned 60K miles last week so it’ll be a few years away. Hopefully I’ll still be around.
 
I think EV tech offers some great benefits and is the future of automobiles. That said, there's zero reason for the government to get involved as they will inevitably make things worse while costing tax payers trillions in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkland14
LOL. California asked people not to charge EV's for awhile. EV charging isn't the only demand on electricity. Many EV charging stations run on standalone generators. Weather affects AC and heating usage, and on ad on. Correlation and causation are 2 different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
You seem to be operating under multiple false premises. You should question what you think you know.
You seem to be operating under assumptions that correlation and causation are the same, and ignoring many, many factors. It's pretty basic that EV's require electricity.
 
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring charging infrastructure, electricity generation capability and requirements, new pollution from excess tire wear, harm to the environment from battery production, etc., etc.

Studies have been done on the overall net impact to the environment including power generation, battery production and disposal etc..

The EVs are still significantly better for the environment when everything is factored in.
 
Studies have been done on the overall net impact to the environment including power generation, battery production and disposal etc..

The EVs are still significantly better for the environment when everything is factored in.
Studies paid for by......


Never forget, "studies" cost a shit ton of money and those that don't support the goals of the people who spent the money, don't make it to light.


You think anyone was doing research on the POSITIVE impacts of marijuana during reefer madness or can you acknowledge the money made the science show what it wanted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
I'm all for ramping up hybrids (which the article addresses. Woot Woot!)? I'd love to have an SUV that got 30-40 mile EV range then ICE for road trips. I'd likely be on electricity 75% of the time. This all or nothing is ridiculous. EVs are also out of reach for poor folks who save up just to finally get a 10-year used Honda Accord. I can also assure you my son's first vehicle isn't going to be an expensive EV. The kid will get a used Jeep TJ or JK.

The rav 4 prime has good battery only range (40ish miles) where most in town errands would be battery only. It's pricey though for being a rav 4. The Honda CR-V hybrids are also really nice and I like the new Toyota Grand Highlander hybrid.
 
You seem to be operating under assumptions that correlation and causation are the same, and ignoring many, many factors. It's pretty basic that EV's require electricity.

How do you square your understanding with the fact that US electricity demand has been basically flat since 2007?

Doesn’t that give you ANY pause?
 
By some distance, the research Emissions Analytics published in early 2020 claiming that tire particulate wear emissions were 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions generated the most feedback of any subject we have tackled so far – feedback that was a mixture of surprise and scepticism.

 
So brownouts are fake. Got it.

No, they are not. However, what is the cause of brownouts? Let’s think a little deeper. Our grid needs improving sure. It would need improving with or without EVs. I would submit battery storage to mediate peak demand in specific communities/areas of the grid will alleviate brownouts more than vilifying EV electricity demand. What do you think?
 
By some distance, the research Emissions Analytics published in early 2020 claiming that tire particulate wear emissions were 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions generated the most feedback of any subject we have tackled so far – feedback that was a mixture of surprise and scepticism.


More like eleventy billion trillion gajillion times more worserer.
 
Studies paid for by......


Never forget, "studies" cost a shit ton of money and those that don't support the goals of the people who spent the money, don't make it to light.


You think anyone was doing research on the POSITIVE impacts of marijuana during reefer madness or can you acknowledge the money made the science show what it wanted?

Fair enough. Are there competing studies or just feelings/opinions people have on the situation? I see people regularly assert that EVs are worse for the environment because of lithium strip mining, fossil fuels used for power generation etc...

Is any of that backed by data? As in at a global scale, if we had 1.5 billion EVs vs 1.5 billion ICEs, emissions and environmental impact would be worse with the EVs?
 


Texas:
Solar 10X in 4 years.
Battery storage 20X in 3 years.
Home solar generation 35X in 10 years.

this would matter if the concerns over the electric/charging infrastructure was honest and made in good faith

but it's not...so this will get generally ignored. and then the same people will bring up the same debunked concerns the next time electric vehicles are brought up
 
No, they are not. However, what is the cause of brownouts? Let’s think a little deeper. Our grid needs improving sure. It would need improving with or without EVs. I would submit battery storage to mediate peak demand in specific communities/areas of the grid will alleviate brownouts more than vilifying EV electricity demand. What do you think?
I’ve said many times that there should be a much higher concern in this country over our largely wide open and unprotected grid, and it isn’t really tied to a demand for EV charging.
It’s not just locale restricted politically centered concerns either.
Cali has had issues but so has Texas.
Our shift to energy efficiency overall is very important but our attention to the state of our grid has been inadequate and we’re putting ourselves at risk.
 
I think EV tech offers some great benefits and is the future of automobiles. That said, there's zero reason for the government to get involved as they will inevitably make things worse while costing tax payers trillions in the process.

The American Lung Association disagrees…


The American Lung Association is working to make transportation pollution-free across the country.​

A nationwide shift to zero-emission technologies, like electric cars and trucks, will bring major public health benefits through cleaner air and reduced climate pollution. This transition away from gasoline, diesel and natural gas and to zero-emission transportation is already underway, from states showing leadership in establishing zero-emission vehicle standards to the federal government making historic investments in technology and infrastructure.

Our reports show the health benefits of a zero-emission future.

Links included above.




Ever had to watch a loved one die of a preventable cancer?

Where do you think the emissions from diesel trucks go? Into your lungs. Then into your blood. Then into every organ. Cancer sucks. What if we could prevent cases from happening with clean air and water?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slappy Pappy
Need to work the other side of this as well:

Raise the gas tax. It's been .18 cents forever. Bump it up to $1.00. EVs suddenly start to look a LOT more attractive.

Obviously don't do it all at once. Raise it by .15 cents/gallon each year for 5 years. Give people time to adjust and plan their transition that way.

And the extra $130bn a year in taxes it would (temporarily) generate could partly be used to heavily subsidize poor people in trading in their guzzlers for cheap to operate, maintain and charge evs.
 
Need to work the other side of this as well:

Raise the gas tax. It's been .18 cents forever. Bump it up to $1.00. EVs suddenly start to look a LOT more attractive.

Obviously don't do it all at once. Raise it by .15 cents/gallon each year for 5 years. Give people time to adjust and plan their transition that way.

And the extra $130bn a year in taxes it would (temporarily) generate could partly be used to heavily subsidize poor people in trading in their guzzlers for cheap to operate, maintain and charge evs.
This would undoubtedly hit poor people the hardest
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
I’ve said many times that there should be a much higher concern in this country over our largely wide open and unprotected grid, and it isn’t really tied to a demand for EV charging.
It’s not just locale restricted politically centered concerns either.
Cali has had issues but so has Texas.
Our shift to energy efficiency overall is very important but our attention to the state of our grid has been inadequate and we’re putting ourselves at risk.

Cali’s primary issue isn’t generation, it is storage. Check this out.





Texas is going renewable in a big way. Texas is a leader in energy.



~59% Solar+Wind around Noon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
This would undoubtedly hit poor people the hardest
Oh for sure. Totally regressive tax, that's why I said the billions in taxes be used to give low income people huge subsidies, depending on income and how much they drive. Also make it available only for purchase on lower-end evs.

Car manufacturers would love this as it would jack up sales and enable them to better judge the transition.

We use 370 million gallons of gas a day. Getting .15 or .20 more cents, all the way up to a dollar more per gallon in a few years is a crap ton of money for subsidizing new ev sales, as well as improving roads and upgrading the grid and charging infrastructure.
 
Cali’s primary issue isn’t generation, it is storage. Check this out.





Texas is going renewable in a big way. Texas is a leader in energy.



~59% Solar+Wind around Noon.
Storage is the issue everywhere. India is putting a massive amount into green energy power, but still has plans to build more gas and coal plants. Their Prime Minister said a few months back "Find an affordable way for us to store solar power and we will never build a fossil fuel plant again."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT