Source: New Truck Standards Cut Emissions, Fuel Consumption | TheDetroitBureau.com The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are proposing controversial new standards that would improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including the largest pickup trucks sold by General Motors, Ford and FCA U.S. The proposed rules would apply to semi-trucks, large pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The rules would require a 24% carbon dioxide emissions cut and fuel consumption less than an equivalent vehicle scheduled for sale in 2018, based on the fully phased-in standards for the tractor alone in a tractor-trailer vehicle. The proposed rules would cover model years 2021-2027. . . .Every day I share the road with 'all hat, no cattle' pickup trucks driven by commuters to their white collar hollow, offices. I also see small businessmen and their well worn trucks who pay $10-20/day gas pump tax. Today I remember one such truck with the tailgate down in a vain attempt to save a few cents. In reality, that pickup needed an aerodynamic bed cover. The sad thing is if this stands, it will only result in more efforts to pass a 'hippy tax' on cars not getting less than 20 MPG. Less gas pump revenue and no will to raise the gas tax, in effect, efficient cars will be subsidizing the inefficient. Bob Wilson
The oft-trotted out argument that high fuel prices hurt business is just not convincing. Businesses will pass on the costs to the consumer, while the consumer will have the money (and more) to pay the higher service fees because there will be less subsidy of the artificially cheap fuel. This follows from efficient use of resources, even before we consider less externalized costs.
Sorry for the confusion. I was railing against policy that tries to enforce fuel economy through regulation while leaving massive subsidy of fossil fuel intact.
i would like to see a government subsidy of new large diesel trucks, and get these foul smelling beasts off the road. maybe 'cash for smokers'.
This rule is for heavier vehicles. The light pickup trucks you are talking about are included in the 2025 light vehicle standards. In cafe a big light pick up truck like an f150 or silvarado needs to go from 25 mpg cafe (19 epa) to 30 mpg cafe (23 epa). I doubt that. The majority of the truck fuel miles pay additional road taxes outside of the fuel taxes or are municipal vehicles. Raise gas and diesel taxes 1 or 2 cents and you are covered. The efficiency gains and higher up front cost, may mean more competition for loads that aren't economic today (you need to pay of your truck, and fuel costs lower) so fuel and carbon dioxide savings likely will be less than efficiency gains. The problem with the rule according to the WSJ isn't the cost, but it may be too fast a schedule. Some of the technologies are new and unproven, and more time may reduce the risk of the CARB truck fiasco, where they mandated different fuel without adequate time for testing, and damaged thousands of trucks. The WSJ also points out that this may be too fast for small to medium trucking outfits, so the speed may force consolidation and hurt these smaller businesses in favor of the big ones. I don't see the full rule, but this is may be a major win for the koch brothers, that have been fighting pickens about lng in trucks. A good rule would give bonuses for lng, which cuts unhealthy pollution and oil use two of the goals. If there is no bonus and carbon dioxide is looked at as the only pollutant, it may kill lng plans.
I liked this, but there could be an incentive program or programs in already in place. Business/institution level programs don't exactly come up much in discussions. Here is some: Funding Sources | National Clean Diesel Campaign | US EPA "Since 2008, EPA has funded nearly 60,000 pieces of clean diesel technology through the National Clean Diesel Campaign. These technologies include emissions and idle control devices, aerodynamic equipment, engine and vehicle replacements, and alternative fuel options." It appears to be only up through 2016. This lists some of the state programs: State & Local Toolkit- Funding | National Clean Diesel | US EPA
hard for me to figure that all out, do you think it's getting down to the level of the local landscaper and contractor? they seem to have the smelliest, smokiest trucks on the road around here. unfortunately, i don't see the great commonwealth of massachusetts on there.
That small local landscaper needs to comply with newer laws if they replace their truck. This gives an incentive to keep the old polluting truck longer. I'm not sure of the rules in Mass, but pre-2006 diesels don't really have any smog limits in texas as long as they have originial equipment pollution controls. This provides an incentive to keep those vehicles on the road, fixing the polluting vehicle to continue to pollute, instead of incentives to replace. This rule is for larger vehicles, and many extra regulatory requirements push them to get updated much more often.
I've only seen government give disincentives to the little guy, versus the big guy. Lots of small businesses have been replacing their trucks because new trucks are nicer for the drivers and get better fuel economy, but they are expensive. How do you incentivize the slow guys to upgrade, without hurting the small businesses that paid full price to upgrade and reduce oil consumption and pollution. Hey, ford can't even make enough of the new aluminum body/steel frame f-series, so incentives also mean that you are helping dodge, gm, and toyota, and possibly hurting ford. Its a toughie. I'm sure if we had well meaning politicians we could come up with something, but not much chance of that in most of the country. The clinton hummer tax loophole was sold as a help to the little guy buy new work trucks and vans. I have a firend who's start up bought one, and let employees drive it if they paid for the gas, oops. . I'm sure that section 179 could be modified and used to help remove pre 2006 diesels quickly if it also had a tax penalty for keeping those as work vehicles.
I would think actually requiring an emission inspection will help get some of the older diesels off the road.
In texas old diesels are required to get a safety inspection, which includes an inspection that it has all the original equipment. No reason to smog check, we know they pollute much more than newer cars even if operating properly. Unfortunately those that remove the equipment, simply need to put it back on for inspection. Perhaps reporting smoking cars would help, but getting the cars off the road in the next 5 years would be best. This could be accomplished by taxing them more if they drive over say 3000 miles (to allow people to keep their classic vehicles).
you could give a tax incentive on trade ins for new. bush was giving 100k or more in write offs for equipment purchases instead of depreciation, to stimulate the economy. of course, you had to be making a profit to take advantage.
This is the section 179 that clinton started futzing with that encouraged SUV sales. Yes I agree if you do it right you could probably remove the bad vehicles from the road quickly, but .... it needs a stick too, and as we have seen we have higher gas consumption even today because of a bad implementation of the rule. 10 Awesome Vehicles That Qualify as a Business Write Off You can see the silverado and f series are on the list, but.... you need to get a super duty ford to get the deduction a more expesnive truck than most of these small businesses need. This also removes the more efficient f150s from being purchased and you can't get a ram diesel either. A stick of higher taxes on pollusion and that $25K deduction moved down to lesser business trucks would probably do it pretty quickly.
