Possible impact of regulation roll backs?

[9secondko]

I don’t think anyone wants OEMS TO BUILD ‘dirty“ anything. Not even the president. It’s more about proper economical health and freedom of choice. Autos are cleaner than ever even though they are more powerful than ever. No doubt rolling back some truly ridiculous attacks on ICE vehicles and the entire fossil fuel industry will save automakers serious trouble from the finsncial pain and reliance on China that competing tech has cost. It’s about freedom and innovation. There’s a lot to do yet in the ICE world in terms of impressive power combined with impressive emissions results. Thankfully this also gives new life to American automative ingenuity and excitement (also an economic factor) as we have seen with dodge and GM getting back to developing the engines and vehicles people really want.

Sponsored

 

[Unas2k5]

I don’t really think there’s some big “dirty fast” window coming, even if regs loosen a bit. Modern engines aren’t like the 70s where emissions killed everything. The Coyote already makes almost 500 hp NA while passing strict standards. That’s not because it’s choked it’s just really well engineered.

Even if federal rules ease up, Ford still has to deal with California, fleet averages, global markets, warranty risk, etc. They’re not going to redesign engines for a short-term political shift.

Maybe you’d see slightly more aggressive tuning or louder exhaust, but we’re talking small gains — not some massive horsepower jump.

Real performance gains today come from better airflow, compression, forced induction, and smarter calibration. Not deleting emissions stuff.

 

[Vlad Soare]

In India and Russia they still build the stinky cars you desire!

No, they don't. They build just the stink, not the cars.
Though, in fairness, a Lada Niva is a really good off-roader. I used to have one, and it was massive, massive fun. I loved that car. There was nothing it wouldn't go through.

 

[Skye]

Enclosed is some information I gathered as part of a self-study exercise.

Things like this, it's akin to steering an aircraft carrier. I do not foresee any quick changes.

YMMV.

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

 

[sk47]

There is not going to be any real heyday from the actions happening.

The President can roll back this or that, or cancel this or that or sign into law/legislation this or that while he is the sitting Prez, BUT that doesn’t mean any incoming Administration after him can’t put the same things that were canceled, rolled back or signed off, back into play….

It’s just a game - who can do what power play, who greases who, and who benefits financially from the changes… whether it’s actual profits from sales, savings from a design/development/manufacturing aspect or stock market gains . . . In the end; it’s not about the people any more, it’s about the money.

Here’s what I see:
IF the changes popping up in the news do happen - not just talk - but actually happen via laws and legislation, there’s going to be a slew of lawsuits by all of those who were prosecuted for “tuning” and any emissions bypass devices - because now we’re saying “anything goes” and if there’s a rollback at the legal level that sets a real precedence - you betcha those jailed, fined, shut down and/or prosecuted are going to want THEIR rollbacks and be paid…. How many EPA related stories did we see in the news in the last 5 years where this or that performance shop or tuner was arrested/jailed/fined or in extreme cases shut down (loss of income)?

I mean what is in the news or seen on auto websites right now does not mean that everyone can just lob off their cats and run dirty - or “roll coal” like the Diesel truck guys do; emissions and catalytic converters are still a Federal mandate, even if your State does not partake in emissions inspections.

What we may see are more V8 varieties and higher HP output than ever before, because the so called “leash” will have been removed from the automotive industry and stupid mandates like a car having to get 50mpg from a combustion engine will go away.

Hello; I agree with your takes. Some years ago, I saw reports that full sized road vehicles ran cleaner than a typical lawn mower. There have been positive equipment changes compared to the 1970's. We had a rough patch thru the middle 70's till the early 1990's. From around 1993 things overall have improved up until a few years ago. Largely driven by computer-controlled fuel injection systems.

About what could be done in the short term, I see two likely quick and easy changes. One could be the elimination of cylinder deactivation systems in ICE engines. Easy enough as the parts are already being made so no need to invent new parts. Just put regular (normal) lifters back in place of the modified "deactivation lifters" and program the ECM to run as was normal with all cylinders firing all the time. Ford already does so by not having cylinder deactivation in the Mustang Coyote.

Another simple change could be the ten-speed transmissions codeveloped by Ford & GM could be improved. From my reading it seems one of the reasons for transmission woes is the way the engineers program them to work. The idea appears to be in order to try to squeeze every last fraction of MPG's out that the programming puts extra strain on parts.
Afraid I did not save any links to such articles so cannot support the idea. The explanation seemed to make sense when I read some stories.
Granted these two changes will result in a potentially modest drop in MPG's. The upside, to me, is the lessening of potential engine & transmission failures.

I personally hate the "roll coal" of diesel tunes. I have to drive thru a 3/4 mile set of tunnels many times a week. But even outside the tunnels I do not like the smoke. I hope that a roll back of EPA edicts does not result in truly stupid changes.
My favorite EPA overshoot of their authority was back when they determined that bees are fish. I understand the why which is bees need protections. But bees are not fish. But by declaring bees to be fish the regulations in law about fish could be stretched to cover bees. With that sort of logic, the EPA could (and did) step beyond their legal mandate and became a 4th or 5th branch of government outside of public control. The other branch maybe being the entrenched bureaucrats sometimes called the "deep state".

Lastly for now. Top-down executive orders can be reversed with new administrations. Look at the waste from the years of the "green agendas" and the war on fossil fuels. The manufacturers cannot afford to switch back and forth every four or eight years and stay in business. Sadly, much of the cost will wind up on the shoulders of taxpayers and consumers.

Much as firm legislation is needed, I do have concerns as to what might come out of the folks we have in power just now. For now, I would be slightly relieved to have the cylinder deactivation removed from the F-150 V8 and the ten-speed trans tuned for longevity. My true fantasy being a nice manual in an F-150 again. I happen to need a new truck but do not want cylinder deactivation.

 

[NightmareMoon]

California wont change, and other export countries arent changing, and the courts take a long time, so this is not going to impact more than a small handul of models. Dont expect any new sports cars to be engineered or engine designs changed unless they already existed for other markets.

 

[SheepDog]

I do miss the days of reliable Diesel options. The EPA ruined light duty diesel. Vehicle emissions are low hanging fruit, but no one wants to address the elephants in the room - agriculture, concrete production, electricity production.

The Coyote doesn't suffer from emissions control systems. The advent of variable valve timing and highly efficient catalytic converters, are win win solutions. More power, less emissions. You can have the cleanest burning fleet of vehicles ever created and countries like Russia, China, and India are still gong to scoff at the idea, and do whatever they want. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it does mean that our efforts may be futile when considered on a global scale.

Figure out how to manufacture Concrete without using heat energy, and you will have completely offset all of transportation emissions globally.

 

[WItoTX]

Sheepdog is correct. And the R&D in the 6.7 Diesel is insane, and it's not getting scrapped, especially when dealers make money on warranty claims. End users will see no benefit. And it's been shown people are willing to pay 80-90k for a diesel. And they love arguing it gets better gas mileage, completely ignoring every other ownership cost. Or even the delta in fuel costs.

In short, the market doesn't want it, mfg needs to be paid back for R&D, and dealers make money off warranty. Everyone is winning in their minds.

 

[CrazyHippie]

I have a question, and thought this group might have informed opinions.


Trump has rolled back restrictions on emissions and fuel economy for cars. Is there a window for OEMs to build "dirty fast" versions for the US market?


In the 70s, introduction of emission controls and attempts at fuel economy really hurt performance cars. It seems we've engineered our way through all of that and more, but I was wondering whether there could be quick gains made in the next couple of years without the regs?

Are there things Ford could easily add/delete/change in our mustangs in a scenario like this?

The only things that may gradually change are elimination of things like cylinder deactivation and automatic stop/start at idle. Catalytic converters, pcv recirculation, and the like are not going to change unless the entire Clean Air Act is repealed, which can't happen without congressional action. Maybe we'll see the carbon trap in our intake disappear?

 

[CrazyHippie]

Enclosed is some information I gathered as part of a self-study exercise.

Things like this, it's akin to steering an aircraft carrier. I do not foresee any quick changes.

YMMV.

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

Very thoughtful and informed post! One addition to your line of thought is related to liquid and solid chemical waste disposal. The chemical industry used to bury chemical waste or simply discharge it on the ground surface or into waterways, severely polluting many places. It wasn't until 1979 that the Superfund was established to clean these areas up, and work continues to this day. We need to keep a lot of the pollution laws to prevent similar tragedies from occurring, while recognizing when regulations get ahead of technology and begin to support an economy rather than truly protecting the environment.

 

[Bikeman315]

Enclosed is some information I gathered as part of a self-study exercise.

Things like this, it's akin to steering an aircraft carrier. I do not foresee any quick changes.

YMMV.

With the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recision of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings this week, I wanted to know more of the history, legislative and legal processes that brought us here, and, what could happen moving forward.

I'd encourage anyone to go to YouTube and listen to the President's and EPA Administrator's announcement on the recision of the findings which regulate GreenHouse Gases (GHGs). The presentation is about 30 minutes.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted by Congress in 1963, with some modifications since. The main focus of the legislation was establishing a national air quality standard. The CAA defined limits or banned a large list of chemicals, gases and pollutants from the air.

President Nixon established the EPA in 1970. Its charter is, "...to protect human health and the environment."

Also in 1970, Congress passed several amendments to the CAA, referred to as "Titles":

Title 1: air pollution by stationary sources

Title 2: air pollution by mobile sources (transportation)

Title 3: provisions allowing citizens to sue on behalf of their communities and environment

Title 4: involved the topic of noise pollution

Along with Title 2, you might also read or hear of, "Section 202 of the CAA"; this is a section in the legislation that refers to regulating motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA administrator set the first standard in the regulating of emissions from cars, trucks and buses in 1970.

Prior to the enactment of the CAA and the establishment of the EPA, there was no national standard for regulating pollutants. Businesses and industry could pretty much do as they pleased with respect to using, emitting and disposing of chemicals or pollutants, both liquid and gases.

Administrations following Nixon have since put their own levels of interest towards the EPA, the environment and regulation. Some have been more pro-business, others, pro-environment.

In the early 2000s, several pro-environmental groups and US states petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs. Until then, the EPA was not specifically targeting GHGs, how they can affect the environment and human health. The EPA declined, stating they did not have authority to do so. The issue went to court, with the US Supreme Court ruling in 2007 the EPA did have authority to regulate GHGs and that GHGs have harmful effects to humans and the environment. It was a 5-4 decision. Massachusetts v. EPA.

The EPA took that ruling back, sat down and began roughing out what GHGs were most harmful to humans and the environment. The end result was what was rescinded this week: the "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act".

The findings established the regulation of six GHGs, all of which have been shown to either displace oxygen (preventing its uptake) in humans, trapping heat in the atmosphere and/or be long-lasting once emitted into the environment.

- Carbon dioxide: a by-product of burning fossil fuels

- Methane: principle ingredient of natural gas. See releases from drilling and pipeline operations

- Nitrous oxide: primarily from agricultural release, involving ammonium nitrate and fertilizers

- Hydrofluorocarbons: synthetic chemicals, often used in refrigeration

- Perfluorocarbons: a synthetic oil and forever chemical

- Sulfur hexafluoride: synthetic compound used as a dielectric and in semiconductor manufacturing

Sources of GHGs by sector of the economy:

Transportation: 30%

Electric power generation: 24%

Industry: 23%

Commercial/Residential: 14%

Agriculture: 10%

With the recision of the findings this week, I expect the issue to return to the courts. To the plaintiffs, threats to public health and the environment will form the core of their argument. To the EPA, theirs will be the juice hasn't been worth the squeeze, that, while lives and the environment have improved, the impediments to business and the economy have been greater. These are not my words. Please watch the presentation by POTUS and the EPA Administrator.

So with respect to the law, nothing has changed. The existing statutes dictate the EPA regulate GHGs. Future court proceedings could affirm, change or remove that requirement.

To the auto industry, nothing has changed. They are not going to be altering their emissions systems until they receive clear guidance from the courts. Manufacturers also have to consider their customer base, both here and overseas. While the way forward in the US might be a question mark, other countries are not in the process of changing their ICE standards.

Regarding the potential savings of $2,400 per household, that's a very broad and opaque statement. The implication is that virtually every emissions control in the transportation sector would be removed. I doubt that's possible. Or even practical. Vehicles and products we use today are often engineered as systems, something more than the sum of their parts. Remove one bit, other pieces will need to be adjusted or re-engineered. Changes to operating costs also have to be considered.

The implications of what could happen are large. While we're focusing on the automotive sector in-general and the Mustang in-particular, GHGs are emitted by anything using fossil fuels. See the energy mining, refining and production sector, the installation of hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin mining operations and Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers in the US alone. The changes could fundamentally alter air quality throughout the US.

With respect to the statements on lowering the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of the findings, it's difficult to see that. Price increases have been primarily driven by data centers needing energy. These projects are so large, operators supporting the entire state of Texas have to discuss the required changes for everyone to co-exist; that's how big in scale and energy-hungry some of these projects are. Study the electrical grid in your area, how operators are coping with these new requirements and loads. Look for discussions involving the electrical operators and customers. Arizona, Texas and Virginia are a few.

"Data centers are building their own power plants". In some instances, true. But I'd encourage you to read-up what these "power plants" are comprised of: often gas turbine or even diesel generators operating on truck flat beds. The companies running these centers have studied the existing regulations. They know if they install a generator of a certain size, a certain way, the device/s is unregulated. Even if considered a short-term fix, these generators will operate 24/7 for years before something else is built. See what's happening in your state.

Regarding timelines, I suspect any of this will take several years. In the initial petition and later court proceedings which produced the EPA findings, that process took five-plus years. It took the Administration a year to determine they had enough legal standing to attempt to rescind the findings in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30853

https://cdxapps.epa.gov/oms-substance-registry-services/substance-list-details/144

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/2101/files/63d77a544d587.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/...-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

By the time I finish reading this the regulations will change again!

 

[DCShelby]

I’m 63 and do remember the days of smog alerts due to vehicle emissions, smokestacks and more. It was a yellow haze of toxic stuff that could damage your lungs and make you sick. Many rivers were cesspools of toxic waste too. Some literally caught fire and burned for weeks. The generations after me, many of people in here, grew up with cleaner air and water. They didn’t experience the pollution I did. Be warned if we go back to the 50’s and 60’s environmental regs…that some want….itll get nasty again. Not immediately, say within 10 years or so. It’ll be your generations legacy. Choose wisely.

 

[sk47]

I’m 63 and do remember the days of smog alerts due to vehicle emissions, smokestacks and more. It was a yellow haze of toxic stuff that could damage your lungs and make you sick. Many rivers were cesspools of toxic waste too. Some literally caught fire and burned for weeks. The generations after me, many of people in here, grew up with cleaner air and water. They didn’t experience the pollution I did. Be warned if we go back to the 50’s and 60’s environmental regs…that some want….itll get nasty again. Not immediately, say within 10 years or so. It’ll be your generations legacy. Choose wisely.

Hello; Not seeing how a roll back to the 1950's is on the table. I may be naive but hope we mainly see some of the most onerous requirements to be rolled back some. What had happened, in my take, was the EPA and other such alphabet agencies were doing their part in the war on fossil fuels. Some of the emission rules & MPG standards for an ICE were designed to work in coordination with the other green agenda aspects. Mandated EV only sales come to mind as part of the overall plan.

An MPG standard of 50MPG was unlikely to be met. But such was the apparent plan. make ICE too difficult to build or too expensive. What I hope to see are some of the more onerous things removed or modified. I have already mentioned two in an earlier post. Cylinder deactivation & transmission tuning. A thing is i was able to have cars which easily got over 40 MPG's back in the 80's. Cars ought to be doing much better 45 years later. But along with other things the alphabet agencies have added by mandate lots of required equipment which add weight and expensive complexity. One irony is the removal of a temp spare from many new cars.
My hope is somehow sensible modifications are done.

 

[Oakley]

things that can be stripped without increasing cost are going to be stripped for no reason other than the fact that if they save a dollar per car some bean counter will justify it.

there's a lot more of that than you guys realize. backup cameras, auto stop start,cylinder deactivation, how about the fact that small trucks don't exist just because of EPA restrictions?

this isn't just a thing one wingnut has called for, its what the market has been begging for for DECADES and the moment one person has the guts to break from the herd and do that they're going to open the floodgates.

THEN if the EPA tries to come back and say "hang on" or the next admin does something screwy there will be legal battles.

meanwhile we might get some cars without fiftyseven airbags, tons of cats, and all sorts of shitty tech we don't want.

quit being a bunch of negative nancies.

 

[DCShelby]

They do want regs to go back to those levels, it’s all in Project 13. And if that happens it’s going to get nasty air. I remember as a kid for recess, many days we were not allowed to go outside for due the air pollution was so bad. And if an inversion happened, that smog would stay around a week or so. So yes if you rollback regs on emissions and smokestacks power plants and factories, it’ll all get polluted again. Like I said, most in here have no idea what it’s like to walk outside and breathe thst crap. I’ll add in an extra bonus, your car or trucks paint would be eaten alive by this stuff too, especially when it rained with smog mixing in and you got some nice acid bath. It would eat up your roof and hood paint. Love Canal, mercury in water at pulp plants and more. It’ll all happen again.

Sponsored