Feb 17

Automakers and Environmental Groups Prepare to Battle Over Fuel Economy Rules

 

By Jon LeSage

Automakers appear to be bracing for a long-term battle with environmental groups over the federal government’s 2025 fuel economy and emissions rules.

Environmental groups are threatening legal action if the rules gets weakened.

More is being revealed following a letter sent Friday to President Donald Trump by 18 auto industry executives asking him to reinstate a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review of fuel economy regulations through 2025. Automakers say that EPA unfairly cut the process short right before the Obama administration left office.

Automotive executives had been sending out warnings to the Trump administration on job loss and heavy costs related to manufacturing and marketing these increasingly strict policies. Friday’s letter was signed by chief executives including Mary Barra of General Motors, Mark Fields of Ford, and Sergio Marchionne of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. These three chiefs expressed these and other concerns to Trump during a meeting last month.

The letter warned that “ignoring consumer preferences and market realities will drive up costs for buyers and threaten future production levels.”

“We’ll see him in court,” Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said about Trump and the group’s planned response if the rules are weakened. “There are a lot of reasons to keep the standards in place and there will be a fight.”

Automakers aren’t basing their arguments on the technical standards used in the federal mandate for fuel efficient vehicles, according to another source. The review process came last summer from a 1,200-page Technical Assessment Report that had examined costs, technology effectiveness, and other aspects of the federal standards.

“The primary issue here is we do not see any kind of technical basis for weakening the standards,” said Roland Hwang, director of the energy and transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’re looking at our options,” he said.

Hwang described the technical review “one of the most thorough decision-making processes I’ve seen by an agency.”

The NRDC views automakers’ request to open up the review again for more input as a move to “politically meddle with what should be a science-based decision,” he said.

“I don’t know what information they could bring to the table that hasn’t been brought to the table already,” Hwang said.

Hwang declined to say whether NRDC would file litigation.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, told a Senate panel last month that he planned to review the EPA’s final determination that the emission rules should remain intact.

Automakers are hoping that Trump’s strategy to ease regulatory burdens on corporations will help make the case for easing the fuel economy and emissions standards.

Even if the automakers are gaining support from the Trump administration, weakening the standards will take a long time. Automotive News reported that it’s likely that Trump would need to carry it out as a joint exercise with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

NHTSA would then be writing fuel economy standards for those same years, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant administrator at the EPA and now a partner at Bracewell LLP in Washington.

“I don’t think they’d completely eviscerate those regulations,” Holmstead said. “But there are probably ways to make them more flexible and reduce the cost.”

SEE ALSO:  Trump Meets Big 3 CEOs Pledging to Dismantle ‘Unnecessary’ Environmental Regulations

Reinstating the mid-term review would require public notices and comment periods that would probably last a year. If he becomes EPA head, Pruitt would need to provide a formal explanation on why he’s scrapping the Obama administration’s decision.

Legal entanglements are likely to be inevitable, an academic said.

“While the auto industry might welcome lower fuel efficiency standards, environmental groups and consumer advocates almost certainly would sue,” said David Uhlmann, director of the University of Michigan’s Environmental Law and Policy Program.

“The reviewing court is not likely to view favorably the fact that a new administration tried to do a 180-degree turn from the previous administration” and will “want to be assured there’s a rational basis for the change,” he said.

Automotive News, HybridCars.com

This entry was posted on Friday, February 17th, 2017 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 44


  1. 1
    Loboc

    +20

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Loboc
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (6:42 am)

    Lots of posturing and speculation about what a court would or would not do. I wonder why GM didn’t go to court for a stay at the time of EPA action? It’s a little late now to complain.

    Basically, all the EPA did is confirm standards a little early. The actual goals and timing for manufacturers to hit those goals didn’t change.

    It’s all a little silly since EVs are inevitable. Ask anybody who drives one.


  2. 2
    Nelson

    +18

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nelson
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (7:25 am)

    “Environmental groups are threatening legal action if the rules get weakened.”

    I think it’s clear that, TODAY, no auto company has the right to make money selling a product that pollutes the air all people breath, when they can make proven alternatives that don’t.

    “Automotive executives had been sending out warnings to the Trump administration on job loss and heavy costs related to manufacturing and marketing these increasingly strict policies. “

    These “heavy costs” they speak of will put people to work upgrading production lines and building battery factories. Boohoo, Management would have to forgo their bogus yearly bonus for a couple of years.

    They’re trying to muddy the real issue, how about they bring back all the jobs they sent to foreign countries first.

    NPNS! SBF!
    Volt#671


  3. 3
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (7:30 am)

    NHTSA has only one or two engineers that are widely and overly tasked for safety issues, NOT efficiency nor economy issues.

    These several hard working individuals are already over tasked with what they are imposed upon to be doing, in fact.

    Electrification at greater than 40 miles electric range is the only way up and out of the OEM’s “supposed” dilemma, and they know this very well.
    They are exaggerating problems that aren’t there, or they would be specific.

    They need to stop imposing the call for autonomous death traps, and stop fooling around with money-wasting tinkertronics that will not be maintainable.

    The first traffic jam caused by an autonomous POS will have their own customers in fits of road rage towards that flakey stewardship. The reason of entropy was explained on the previous thread.

    Mary Barra may need to step down if that happens.


  4. 4
    Kdawg

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (8:56 am)

    Loboc: It’s all a little silly since EVs are inevitable. Ask anybody who drives one.

    Reminds me of this one.

    Smith_zps4ba4cdc1.jpg


  5. 5
    Kdawg

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (8:59 am)

    “Automotive executives had been sending out warnings to the Trump administration on job loss ..”

    For those that are worried about losing their jobs; see below.
    https://www.tesla.com/careers


  6. 6
    George S Bower

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (10:17 am)

    Looks like the Trump administration is going to spend a lot of time in court.

    Although yesterday he told the courts not to spend any more time on his previous immigration EO because he is going to write another one. It should be out next week. It should be interesting to see what he comes up with.

    Kdawg: For those that are worried about losing their jobs; see below.
    https://www.tesla.com/careers

    That’s how i try to rationalize it kdawg. As long as Tesla is still in business i think EV’s have enough momentum to succeed.

    Looks like Musk is playing smart politics.


  7. 7
    DonC

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (10:52 am)

    Unless they’re smoking something interesting it’s hard to believe they think they can overturn a final determination. All the complaints about “cutting the process short” is ridiculous. The EPA said it would make a decision by April of 2017. Nothing compelled it to wait until the deadline before making the decision. The actual decision document was done six months before. When you have a deadline you can ALWAYS do it sooner. You just can’t do it later. It’s like complaining that someone sent in their tax filing before the April 15th deadline.

    My guess is that there has to be some other agenda. In this regard, note that there are three players, all of whom play a different role. The EPA sets the emission standards (eg CO2 per mile). NHTSA sets the CAFE standard (MPG). Of course emissions are related to MPG. You could argue that this means the standards are not unified, but as a practical matter they are. And then there is CARB. CARB sets the zero emission mandates. CARB only sets the ZEV mandates for cARB states, but those are big states. Effectively it sets a national standard, especially since every ZEV vehicle has a big impact on fleet MPG and emissions.

    As for GM, it needs to distance itself from this effort. Not only does it appear like an ungrateful child — biting the hand that bailed it out — it has to be aware that, because of its history, it will always be a lightning rod for criticism of its foot dragging on environmental standards. Given that its biggest market going forward will be Millennials, and given that this group’s number one concern is climate change, prudence suggests not participating. Let Toyota get out front. Unless of course it wants to alienate its future customer base.


  8. 8
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (10:55 am)

    George S Bower: That’s how i try to rationalize it kdawg. As long as Tesla is still in business i think EV’s have enough momentum to succeed.

    Guess again. Since Tesla’s business model is based on the sale of ZEV credits, if the ZEV mandates fail Tesla is dead.


  9. 9
    George S Bower

    +6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (11:08 am)

    DonC: Guess again. Since Tesla’s business model is based on the sale of ZEV credits, if the ZEV mandates fail Tesla is dead.

    It would eliminate that source of income yes. Whether or not it would put tesla out of business is open for debate. You can not just ordane it be so:)


  10. 10
    Len Reinhart

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Len Reinhart
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (11:20 am)

    I believe Ms. B said that her customers prefer SUVs and Trucks. It will be hard to sell today’s SUVs and Trucks and meet the standards. Those vehicles are among the most profitable too. I believe their motivation is pretty clear.

    What they should do, is sell their SUV and Truck customers on how great electric SUV and Trucks would be for towing and hauling. Nothing like having all that torque available from a standstill. No one said electric vehicles have to be small. Locomotives use electric motors for driving and diesel for running generators.


  11. 11
    Kdawg

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (11:22 am)

    DonC: As for GM, it needs to distance itself from this effort.

    Yeah, it’s a no-win situation, so why even wrestle with the pigs?


  12. 12
    Kdawg

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (11:25 am)

    DonC,

    George S Bower,

    I believe whether Tesla goes out of business or not, electric transportation is still inevitable. China doesn’t need Tesla to continue what they are doing, and if you want to be a global auto company, you need to sell cars in China (the biggest market)


  13. 13
    George S. Bower

    -6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (12:09 pm)

    Kdawg:
    DonC,

    George S Bower,

    I believe whether Tesla goes out of business or not, electric transportation is still inevitable.

    Apple could buy Tesla.

    Here’s a good one from the NYT:
    Is it time to call Trump mentally ill?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/is-it-time-to-call-trump-mentally-ill.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region


  14. 14
    Streetlight

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Streetlight
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (12:22 pm)

    George S Bower: Looks like the Trump administration is going to spend a lot of time in court. Although yesterday he told the courts not to spend any more time on his previous immigration EO because he is going to write another one. It should be out next week. It should be interesting to see what he comes up with.

    Yesterday 9th cir issued a stay, as you note– T’s rescission, on T’s en banc appeal. (Meaning a rehearing by 12 judges) What’s more, this [the stay] order’s fed to apprise the Court of its forthcoming reissue executive order. That means before the new executive order can take effect; it must pass muster including (I think) opposition. Of course T will disregard this like water off a duck’s tail…

    In a few hours, R’s overrunning the world for OK AG as EPA chief. Consequently it doth appears GM et al get their wish. And its back to court– R’s go ‘judge shopping’. (A legal term applied to less than artful lawyers)


  15. 15
    George S. Bower

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (12:36 pm)

    Streetlight:

    In a few hours, R’s overrunning the world for OK AG as EPA chief. Consequently it doth appears GM et al get their wish. And its back to court– R’s go ‘judge shopping’. (A legal term applied to less than artful lawyers)

    “On the eve of his confirmation, the state judge ordered Pruitt’s office release the potentially thousands of emails relating to the energy companies he will soon be regulating — but not until Tuesday, days after his confirmation vote.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/scott-pruitt-democrats-emails-oil-gas-235140


  16. 16
    Streetlight

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Streetlight
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (12:51 pm)

    George S. Bower: “On the eve of his confirmation, the state judge ordered Pruitt’s office release the potentially thousands of emails relating to the energy companies he will soon be regulating — but not until Tuesday, days after his confirmation vote.”

    Here’s the quite unique public 9th cir website: Just look at that over 100 amicus briefs.
    https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860

    That and more are what T’s energy (& of course others) will be facing. You might know the California legislature hired former US AG Holder to represent California — before T was sworn in.


  17. 17
    AnonyTr0LL

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    AnonyTr0LL
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (2:45 pm)

    The “Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers” are the douche bags pushing this. GM is a member. Probably the biggest financial contributor.

    https://autoalliance.org/about-the-alliance/

    They have no interest in clean air. The Volt and Bolt are just to show at least some effort.
    Buying either one of those products or any of their products helps fund their efforts to fight against EPA, CARB and Tesla Sales model.

    They say they want to sell products the consumers want yet ignore the Model 3 wait list and the volumes of Model S sold.

    Vote with your wallet!!!!


  18. 18
    Steve

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steve
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (3:18 pm)

    I’m not against environmental protection, but I’ve occasionally noticed rules that don’t really improve the environment. They just increase the cost of doing stuff. Regular emissions tests where 90 something percent of the cars pass, testing probably has a bigger impact in burning extra fuel to drive to emission station than catching the tiny fraction of cars. that Fail. I’ve personally passed on a retest without doing anything to fix the vehicle. In some places Volts
    have failed tests simply because they haven’t burned enough gasoline yet.

    There’s an environmental fight about putting solar power generation in the Mohave desert. If you can’t put solar power generation in a desert where the heck can you put it?

    Any energy production technology I can think of, some environmental group will have an objection to. Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc.


  19. 19
    Kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (4:04 pm)

    AnonyTr0LL,

    Hey, it’s Jim1j0n
    (or is it jimmy’s wife?)

    At least you have accepted your role as a troll now.


  20. 20
    Jim Seko

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim Seko
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (4:52 pm)

    This is a perfect example of how Tesla keeps getting free advertising


  21. 21
    James

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (5:16 pm)

    All this layering up money could be spent on hiring engineers, assembly workers, architectural firms, contractors and construction workers to build a better mousetrap than Tesla and then build out the necessary factories to get ‘er done.

    Hey, GM, Ford and the other 13 ICEMAKERS that make uo the AUTO ALLIANCE will still have to do the above anyway, as Model 3 will open the floodgates.


  22. 22
    DonC

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (5:27 pm)

    George S Bower: It would eliminate that source of income yes. Whether or not it would put tesla out of business is open for debate. You can not just ordane it be so:)

    Tesla makes almost as much selling ZEV credits as it does cars. With the Model 3 it will make more money on the ZEV credits than the cars. No way it has a sustainable business model without ZEV credits.

    I don’t know if Tesla will make it or not, but without ZEV it’s dead.

    James: All this layering up money could be spent on hiring engineers, assembly workers, architectural firms, contractors and construction workers to build a better mousetrap than Tesla and then build out the necessary factories to get ‘er done.

    +1. You would think they would have learned from the first go-round but, no, they have forgotten already.


  23. 23
    James

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (5:27 pm)

    Post#21 (typos edited) – For some reason – just lately, the EDIT feature does not work from my Android smartphone whether on Wi Fi or 4G connected.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    All this lawyering up money could be spent on hiring engineers, assembly workers, architectural firms, contractors and construction workers to build a better mousetrap than Tesla and then build out the necessary factories to get ‘er done.

    Hey, GM, Ford and the other 13 ICEMAKERS that make up the AUTO ALLIANCE will still have to do the above anyway, as Model 3 will open the floodgates.


  24. 24
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (5:36 pm)

    George S. Bower: Apple could buy Tesla.

    I wonder if that’s true today.

    Does Tesla have a lot of public stock? Could someone take over the company?


  25. 25
    James

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (5:40 pm)

    DonC:

    +1. You would think they would have learned from the first go-round but, no, they have forgotten already.

    When I see GM, Ford, FCA and Toyota in there, neck deep with lawyers and lobbyists trying
    to peel back mandates – I just see a GREAT PICK FULL SIZE PICKUP TRUCK pasted over
    their faces. This is on top of their financing of dealer association lawsuits in several states
    trying to prevent Tesla from direct selling of cars in their states.

    The big pickup truck is their moneymaker or bread-and-butter, however you want to define
    it. Paste pics of Escalades, Tahoes, Expeditions and Sequoias up there too. Between those
    big trucks and the truck-based Gigantor SUVS based upon them, you have far over half
    of their total profits.

    So to the Auto Alliance, this is about survival as they know it. It’s about keeping the status
    quo going and the money flowing without change happening. They know they can compete
    and maybe defeat Tesla by sheer power of money and size of their organizations. They
    know they’d have to do a crapload of work. Building battery factories, hiring new workers
    of all sorts. They’d have to admit the world is changing.

    But the world is changing. Populations are soaring – megacities are inacting days when
    citizens should not venture outside due to poor air quality. If we let these money-machine
    ICEmakers have their way – our children will be wearing gas masks to school and on the
    soccer fields before they start evolving their main industry of selling big trucks and tall
    station wagons called crossovers – based upon their sedan platforms.

    But guess what? It’s not ZEV mandates, C02 regulations or air quality targets that will
    change the industry. It’s competition. Try as they might ( Remember Tucker? ) – they
    can toss lawyers and politician aplenty at staving off that competition. But it seems
    like a sort of “manifest destiny” that Tesla has weathered all the attacks, financial
    traps and challenges – and has their EV juggernaut well-oiled and Supercharger
    loaded to go to battle.

    In the end – the sheer goodness of electric cars will win the day. They’ll have to pay
    their lawyers and bought-off politicians AND build the cars they should have
    in the first place too.


  26. 26
    rdunniii

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    rdunniii
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (6:34 pm)

    Dave G: I wonder if that’s true today.

    Yes, with cash in the bank.

    Does Tesla have a lot of public stock?Could someone take over the company?

    Yes. Any public company “can” be taken over with the application of sufficient money.


  27. 27
    George S. Bower

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (7:30 pm)

    DonC: No way it has a sustainable business model without ZEV credits.

    I don’t know if Tesla will make it or not, but without ZEV it’s dead.

    Perhaps….but as we have been discussing, all this will be held up in court for years.


  28. 28
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 17th, 2017 (10:36 pm)

    George S. Bower: Perhaps….but as we have been discussing, all this will be held up in court for years.

    At the current rate even that won’t happen. So far it’s just a giant cluster.


  29. 29
    Dave G

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (5:42 am)

    rdunniii: Any public company “can” be taken over with the application of sufficient money.

    Not if the majority of shares are held by controlling interests that refuse to sell.

    For example, with Tesla, how many shares are owned by Elon, his buddies, Panasonic, Toyota, etc. ?


  30. 30
    William K George

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    William K George
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (7:40 am)

    I am really VERY ANGRY about this story and letter!!!

    I love my Volt. And I bought it almost entirely because I wanted to support GM and the American auto industry when they needed my help – when they were finally starting to do the right thing — for America, for the environment and for our economic future. And I wanted to support the workers who made these cars.

    Now how have I and the rest of my Americans who felt similarly –who bought cars just to be patriotic and to rescue this industry from its past stupidity — how have we been rewarded?

    Twice now the State of Ohio who made my Volt has voted for those who opposed saving their plants at all. This time all of the states which manufacturer Big Three cars voted for Trump. And now the very companies whom we bailed out, are bailing on us.

    Sadly my next car will be a Tesla — even though I like the Volt better. I will no longer support or subsidize companies that actively work against things I believe in. Tesla has a CEO who has a brain and uses it for something other than to use increase profits. The company is based in California, about as un-Red as one can get. And it is a car that gives some hope that future generations will be able to buy an American-made car at all.


  31. 31
    Eco_Turbo

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Eco_Turbo
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (7:46 am)

    rlvssn.jpg


  32. 32
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (8:34 am)

    Executive technical specialties are no longer cross-compatible as to industries.

    Apple has the finest smartphone system on the market by far.
    There is no #2 or #3.
    Apple is justifiably happy with the strong achieved intellectual legacy that it has.

    As with OEM’s, the myriad of widely differing OEM patently-differing designs completely contrasts OEM servicing at dealerships from the very many models presented in independent servicing in the aftermarket.
    Aftermarket service is an entirely distinct business model structure, (if you can call it that by now), if even only roughly comparable to service by a factory trained tech, OEM-servicing is backed by factory engineers on vehicles not yet violated by DIY activities, for example.
    Though the rare few independent shops dedicated completely to professionalism with ***very recently-dated advanced certifications and diagnostic degrees*** (not being more than 5 years old) most certainly deserve your ICE business.

    Even just to *find* open minded and somewhat experienced techs, to train for aftermarket levels of extremely-wide professional requirements extremes, an introduction content structure as a “test for open mindedness” approach, the procedure to bring advancement candidate techs into proper functionality toward the center of wider successfulness has to be the working model.
    We must first test for open mindedness and then for exactingness as well, due to DBW steering w/o steering column. (If we can’t immediately see strict open mindedness to enforce exactingness, the candidate has to wait until those attributes are brought forth.)

    What is it that is getting in the way of your vehicle getting fixed (at least first things first and first provable)?

    It is the “top-down” nanny politics of technology-empowered authorities with narrow-minded non-technical hierarchical viewpoints. These viewpoints are rooted in politics and money, not honesty nor effectiveness for your vehicle to be efficiently and professionally serviced.
    Nanny-hierarchical, overly and yes, abusively short-sighted background influencing is to blame, yet it is carefully not identifiable.

    So, if the prospect of less successful servicing is part of the choice risk of selecting a vehicle to drive, the overwhelming historical customer support that consumers ought consider first is the GM heritage for electrification.

    Do any of you remember the electric Ford Ranger?

    It had very high quality components but was limited by lead acid batteries.

    There were few dealers that wanted or could service it, because, among other things, it took three or four service bays to replace batteries from the pack, and the range of the Ranger was 60 to 80 miles when new, yet decreased markedly after 18 months. The reliability of 26, 8-volt flooded lead acid batteries all in series, was subject to the series of over 100 cells, any of which if open circuited, the entire half ton pack would need removal, so the technical risk was unacceptable.

    This left Ford in a bad position, so, even today, there is reluctance by the OEM to get into electrification.

    Here is what may help solve for that issue:

    If Tesla really establishes an unbeatable economy of scale for packs, have Tesla produce a dozen industry standard pack designs, warrant them, ship and receive to remanufacture them, improve ER for subsequent remanufactures of them, set up swap centers for them, and even training centers online for engineers to cross over toward electrification studies and as a profession.

    This ***would*** be an example of the practical application for Apple and Tesla to combine their perfections. Apple is needed to safely enclose content for training engineers.

    This is because Electric Motorists need a heritage warranty.
    What is a heritage warranty?
    A heritage warranty can warrant replacement costs, and warrant durability.
    Engineers need a professional future.

    Electric Motorists need the comfort of choice options and what their costs would be in about eight years.
    OEM’s need to be more trusting that Electric Motorists would be glad to know these things.

    The younger generations will need oxygen to breathe, and a sustainable planet for their entire lifetime, and of that of their great great grandchildren and beyond.

    Leave the warranty and replacement of the pack as a separate outside warranty just exactly as are tire warranties. OEM’s: Make your own money and spin off the pack responsibilities.

    Not only would buyers accept that, they would like that, because the reputation of Tesla could be leveraged separately, yet there really ought not be any concern that Tesla is another OEM, as OEM’s always do business with each other anyway.

    If any OEM signals that they want out of electrification, (or does not want in), then a relatively instantaneous ***and drastic*** market shift ***would*** occur overnight, and those shifting over, including owners, being betrayed, would never look back.

    Going back on EPA prior attainment levels, if it slows the increasing growth rate of electrification, is playing with external combustion.


  33. 33
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (9:37 am)

    Haaaa!

    Just received a sny, mind-game email on our brand new unpublished email address, likely from the oil interest nannies, who would be the only ones aware of it.

    They may also be harassing CEO’s whom we know.


  34. 34
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (10:44 am)

    I had two years of German in high school in’68 & ’69, which I mentioned here years ago.

    Likely, in Deutsch; “ich habe einen freund im Deutschland!” I have a friend in Germany.
    “Seiner Stadt” came up for search suggestions at one point here about two weeks or so ago.

    Since I had been wondering about the sny email this morning after my above long post, and previous adverse “information” from several sources, it would be consistent with a history of previous adverse statements made to me as as an environmentalist.

    It might make sense that CEO’s are being bullied if they represent a threat to big oil. Especially for Mary Barra.

    Translation for “Sienem Stadt” which was attached to an English search suggestion made on our other system, and as had along with it, another similar sny suggestion as was made this morning translated to “your State”. If I were to assume it related, it more likely may be the technologically controlling partisans here, I would suspect.

    Fear and smear is the overly used method of partisans here, and I can not help them be more open minded. Though I suspect they have good enough faith to be open minded if partisans apply it.
    Perhaps their saving grace is that they do care about their grandchildren’s’ survivabiilities.
    Let’s sincerely pray that they do care more.


  35. 35
    Eric C

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Eric C
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (1:45 pm)

    I guess nobody except for a few environmental weirdos actually care about BREATHING!


  36. 36
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (3:22 pm)

    There are more oil wells already available to produce oil than Oxygen left in the atmosphere to burn it, and still have enough for the requisite human function atmospheric concentration percentage of Oxygen, and that is for the higher brain functions of intelligence.

    Oxygen deprivation is identical to drunkenness.

    Sadly, it is the elderly who will be taken out firstly, for the many other bodily functions also requiring oxygen concentrations as necessary.

    Partisans don’t focus on any of this.
    I hope they do soon. I hope all leaders reconsider for this soon.
    It would be *******extremely impressive******* if that happened.

    *************************************
    * Extremely impressive indeed!! *
    *************************************

    Just some important person saying the phrase * “We need to better and objectively understand Oxygen usage/depletion rates of industry”…

    would be a turn of events, because that can’t be argued with if valid sources explain it.


  37. 37
    dakster

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    dakster
     Says

     

    Feb 18th, 2017 (11:47 pm)

    Len Reinhart,

    Would be nice if someone made a good diesel/electric hybrid pickup that got good mileage. Getting tire of running my diesel getting 14 mpg. Towing it gets around 11 mpg.

    The problem with a pure BEV pickup is just how far is it gonna tow that 20k lb fiver and where are you going to charge it up?


  38. 38
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (8:06 am)

    William,
    I agree with you.
    I think CEO’s whose companies are building electrified vehicles are being NASTILY INTIMIDATED by oil partisans right on their computer and smart phone screens, as well as on the TV Subchannels, used to carry targeted advertising.
    Targeted ads sort out toy ads for homes that have kids, and, in my case, annoying “side effect potentially is fatal.” drug company commercials, because I’m 65, and far, far worse intimidations!

    Grossly, there have been grizzly “infomercials” not just meant to inform, but meant to psychologically harass. The last few blatantly self-exposed the producer of it as anti-environmentalist by saying “your body can be liquified and sent down a drain” [as your environmentalist burial].

    This is the viscousness of the oil partisans.

    If anyone wishes to disbelieve this, that is their right, certainly, but
    THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING FOR A LONG TIME.

    If anything you see on TV makes you feel psychologically-assaulted, then consider a source to likely include Oil Partisans.

    It is extremely difficult for people psychologically-attacked via this channel to be able to prove anything, excepting when keeping careful track of online times and circumstances in which they have occurred.

    As electrification becomes more established, expect sub-channel psychological attacks from oil partisans in control of the advertising-routing of it to become worse and more frequent.

    I doubt the FCC has any clue about this, because only highly positive-to-electrification influences likely would be of interest to them.

    This capability can be indicated to you on the back of your HD TV with the word “conformity” , and within your HD TV owners manual with the word “conformity”.

    HD TV was brought out under the Bush Administration, when conformity to oil interests was technologically established within the HD TV in other ways as well.

    Texas has Sovereignty which may be being abused in this regard, and beyond Federal reach.

    So, Mrs. Barra may be pressured in this respect, and, if so, she should have this entire thread to print out and save next to her HD TV and Smartphones.

    Please don’t vote a neg because this might be alarming to you.

    I am wanting to arm environmentalists against this hideous oil partisan viscousness.


  39. 39
    john1701a

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    john1701a
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (10:39 am)

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College: Please don’t vote a neg because this might be alarming to you.

    Pointing out missed opportunity resulted in negative votes too.

    What do you suggest as next steps?


  40. 40
    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (11:38 am)

    Negative votes can mean people are at least reading, and, if you are balanced in presenting, the goal is to remain in the low neg numbers.

    But that is unless your post is collapsed, where deeper insights are not present to contribute to society, and thoughtfully justify the privilege of readers’ time.

    For advanced college degrees, you may have heard the term;
    “Publish or perish!”

    That means freely helping as many open minded people of similar interests be aware of important things to consider that *they* are interested in.

    I do not take your statements as rhetorical.

    Has Toyota considered a 40 mile range plug-in hybrid?

    They sincerely need that.


  41. 41
    Storm

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Storm
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (6:07 pm)

    It is fair of GM to point out that they can’t force buyers to buy a particular model. We can agree that the marketing of the Volt was underwhelming, but many people do not want a sub-compact car. It may be due to prejudice or a realistic evaluation of needs. In any event, they won’t buy one. I am happy with my Volt, but it certainly has its deficiencies. Trailer towing capability is one. Driver visibility is another.

    I think GM should build a Voltec pickup and SUV, but that is a huge undertaking with no guarantee that the customers will buy them. They are, in the end, trying to make a profit. It is not unreasonable for them to resist what they see as an impossible goal.


  42. 42
    Storm

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Storm
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (7:04 pm)

    Dan Petit/Petit Technical College,

    “This capability can be indicated to you on the back of your HD TV with the word “conformity” , and within your HD TV owners manual with the word “conformity”.

    HD TV was brought out under the Bush Administration, when conformity to oil interests was technologically established within the HD TV in other ways as well.”

    What are you trying to say? I think negatives might be given because of the indecipherable language you use.


  43. 43
    dakster

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    dakster
     Says

     

    Feb 19th, 2017 (7:36 pm)

    Storm,

    When you figure it out can you let me know…. I don’t understand the post either.


  44. 44
    Transmission Specialist Bakersfield CA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Transmission Specialist Bakersfield CA
     Says

     

    Feb 20th, 2017 (3:34 am)

    this is really disturbing factor that you have to worry about the envoirnment but you also need fuel to run country.