I get what you’re saying, but EPA did literally zero analysis of the impact of this, nor seemed to consider the cascading impact this would have on control design. It’s a loophole because it will get exploited in ways they didn’t consider (mainly because they didn’t consider much of anything about this).

Tell me you don’t understand movement building without telling me you don’t movement building.

There is no “SUV” classification for CAFE purposes - there is passenger automobile and non-passenger automobile (or how they’re more typically referred to, “passenger car” and “light truck”). The Kona (all variants, including AWD) are, by the regulatory definition, “passenger cars.” I haven’t bothered to figure out…

While you’re not wrong, the reason why CAFE was stagnant for 20 years was that the flat standard created a “lowest common denominator” rule, and the truck-heavy Big 3 controlled that, both in terms of fleet and politically. Allowing for a different OEMs to have different targets created the political space to actually…

It’s irrelevant what rules used to be, which is why I took issue with the PT Cruiser comment — it puts an incorrect example in ppl’s minds. Otherwise we’d just go with the minivan, which was perhaps the original CAFE cheat. But you’re right that no one’s reclassifying vehicles, so I wasn’t trying to say that a 2008…

No, the PT Cruiser would not be considered a light truck by the feds today (and hasn’t been in a decade). Here are the rules: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/523.5

This new statement does show them supporting the California agreements — if they had, they’d have actually, you know, signed up like the other 5 companies. What GM has done is say, “Well, we can hit paper targets like that if you give us even more bonus bullshit credits than California was giving for EV sales.”

The problem here is simply that their purchases are being subsidized by society because of the market’s failure to include social costs related to public health and climate. Congress is unwilling to do shit about it and NHTSA is a revolving door for the auto industry, so this just perpetuates itself.

This is indeed, quite weird, but 2021 saw a number of changes to the M/HDV test procedures as part of the second phase GHG/fuel economy regs (2018-2029), including reweighting and new requirements on reproducibility. They didn’t certify any 2020 engines in CA, but their 2019 engines do not meet the new 2021…

Yeah, they’ve been talking about the Bolt EUV for a couple years now and even teased it earlier this year. Is there a reason we don’t think it’s just this?

The problem with the notion that automakers want certainty is that they had that, and then asked Trump to undo it. Now you have 1/4 of the industry (by US sales) realizing that was obviously a stupid fucking decision, and the remainder trying to ream the fuck out of US regulations while they still have the orange man…

There are so many things wrong with this “study” that I can’t believe Jalopnik is reporting on it.

I mean, it’s driving without registration, and it isn’t the DMV that manages enforcement. But hey, Torch is white, right, so he probably doesn’t care.

That’s not how the grid works. You don’t have a local source of electricity - it’s all interconnected. That’s why the study is mapped out as it is and not by state.

It’s worth noting that the UAW report itself pushes for investment in domestic production of these new supply lines instead of outsourcing. So, it acknowledges the problem but also poses a solution, so it’s definitely not as negative a view on EVs as reporters have taken.

Did I miss the part where the Cybertruck has a curb weight of less than 5k pounds? Legally, it can’t have a 3500lb payload without then competing against the 250/2500 as a Class 2b (i.e. medium-duty) pick-up.

Except that automakers have sold to two (and three, during transition periods) different standards for most of the past two decades.

This is drinking the fucking corporate kool-aid and is ignorant of what these companies actually proposed to the federal government.

There is no such thing as an accident. Your first example is a clear example of fault on the part of the person who rear-ended the other vehicle - they were following too closely. In other instances, it may be road design that is at fault or negligent driver behavior. But there is always a reason for a crash. Shit…

They’re limited to two standards already. Congress set this limit, under the Clean Air Act, to reflect the fact that California set emissions standards before the feds. Then they limited this to require any states wishing to adopt standards stronger than the federal standards to adopt California’s.