CA's new auto regulation

Status
Not open for further replies.

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
CARB is now only making regulations to keep their fat paychecks coming in. As for auto emissions the ONLY thing that counts is what is coming out of the tail pipe does not exceed the limits. How those limits are met should be left up to the manufacturer. CARB is regulating auto parts now, not what it is supposed to do. Case in point catalytic converters - they are all made the same way but to be sold in the CPR you need a magic label on them. So as the units move down the production line, some get the magic label (and a $300 price increase) and the others don't. Internally they are exactly the same; the only difference is the magic label on the outside.
 

john.jackson9213

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Location
Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI
1996 B4V
Derrel is so right about this:


:)

Tears me up, these people who want to do away with all the regulations
that are designed to make the air we breath cleaner and better.

Being born here, I recall how bad the air was in the fifties.
Smog was so thick one summer that you could not see accross Los Angeles International Airport
from Imperial to Century Blvd, a distance of only one mile.
It was like a fog bank only brownish is color, not gray.
You could not take a regular breath because if you did, you had to cough.
That's how thick that smog was. And it was 110 degrees F. for four days straight!
For those who do not know, that area is only one mile from the ocean!
Imagine what it was like in downtown Los Angeles and all points further East.

Thank goodness we have ALL the Regulations we have today to try and control those pollutants.
Just think what it would be like if we did not have those regulations.
No one could live in the greater Los Angeles Basin.

:D

Derrel
 

Digital Corpus

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Location
Ontario, California
TDI
'97 B4 w/ 236K mi body, 46K mi soul
My Dad had asmatic reactions to the smog when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's.

Some regs are ridiculous, others are very helpful.

I do want to make a point that I heard someone else say. Why do we have to burn more fuel in order to reduce emissions?
 

john.jackson9213

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Location
Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI
1996 B4V
My Dad had asmatic reactions to the smog when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's.

Some regs are ridiculous, others are very helpful.

I do want to make a point that I heard someone else say. Why do we have to burn more fuel in order to reduce emissions?
Simple chemistry. It take energy to change emissions to less harmful ones.

Refineries use lots of energy to convert crude to different outputs.
 

turboboost1

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Location
NH
TDI
None, Did the buyback
Zero Emissions Vehicles

With Coal being the primary electric energy source in this country, I dont' understand the concept of zero emissions vehicles. They are emissions transfer vehicles. Yes the electric vehicle will not produce any emissions. Just gets transferred upstream to the power plants.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
What surprises me on that chart is that coal amounts for only 7% of the energy needed for industrial applications. It shows how much the industrial picture has changes since I was a kid. The steel mills used a lot of coal and also polluted a lot of air, land, and water. My first time in Pittsburgh (1975), the moon rose almost blood red due to all the iron ore in the air. Now the mills are all gone and most of the structural steel production has moved overseas.
Actually, most of any industry has moved overseas. But rest assured, while the greenies in CA push crazy laws that will try and be forced down the throats of the entire country, US Constitution be damned, China will still belch out as much pollutants and more as we did in the 1950s. :rolleyes:

Anyone recall the Chinese gov't telling the factories to shut down for a week so the olympians could breathe the air? LMAO, what a farce.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
With Coal being the primary electric energy source in this country, I dont' understand the concept of zero emissions vehicles. They are emissions transfer vehicles. Yes the electric vehicle will not produce any emissions. Just gets transferred upstream to the power plants.
Shhh! CARB doesn't care how much pollution their excessive regulation causes elsewhere.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
We had a discussion here a few years ago about the well-to-wheels emissions of a 2007 Cadillac Escalade, which was perfectly legal for sale in California in 2007, and a 2006 VW Jetta TDI, which was effectively banned for sale in California because it couldn't meet the LEV II emission limits (http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=290840&page=4).

The TDI actually had lower WTW emissions than the Escalade, far lower in most cases (see post #51 for a breakdown of the emissions of each vehicle).

Again, the LEV II and Tier 2 emission regulations are promulgated without regard to emission consequences in other phases of the life-cycle emissions. Higher fuel consumption means higher emissions in the well-to-pump phase, thus lower exhaust emissions that result in lower fuel mileage are at least partially offset by higher upstream (WTP) emissions since they're a function of fuel consumption.

Furthermore, it has been shown that VOC emissions are the primary cause of ground-level ozone ("smog") in California, not NOx. Since gasoline engine emissions and gasoline vapors account for at least 50%, and as much as 85%, of the ambient hydrocarbon levels in urban locations, gasoline vehicles are the primary reason for the persistent non-attainment with the ozone NAAQS in Southern California, not diesels.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Shhh! CARB doesn't care how much pollution their excessive regulation causes elsewhere.
Needed some emphasis. CARB is only concerned with what happens within the state of California. It gets worse though with the South Coast and Bay Area Air Quality Districts.
 

chucky2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Location
Chicagoland, IL USA
TDI
Ford Ranger FX4 Level II
Needed some emphasis. CARB is only concerned with what happens within the state of California. It gets worse though with the South Coast and Bay Area Air Quality Districts.
And there-in lies the problem: A bunch of other states air quality boards just say, 'Whatever CARB wants we want too'. Between CA and these other states, that's half the population in the US. If you're an auto manufacturer, you're not going to make a product that you can only market to 1/2 of the US that lives in the non-CARB following states (even if it would sell awesomely, which we all know it would).

Essentially, for any product sold nationally, CARB replaces the EPA. If that's the case, why even have the EPA?

Rediculous....

Chuck
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
For my industry, we ask the same question. EPA has been extremely slow to offer any kind of limits and most of those are only for high pollution areas out side of Ca and the Northeast. When we aren't in a drought, Charlotte has a lot of non-containment days where we get into code orange and red for air pollution. EPA is looking at what type of regulations they need to pass for us but it will probably take years for them to decide. Of course for right now, nothing is going to happen until after Nov 6.
 

thebigarniedog

Master of the Obvious
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
Fail Command (Central Ohio)
TDI
1998 Jetta tdi
:)

Tears me up, these people who want to do away with all the regulations
that are designed to make the air we breath cleaner and better.

Being born here, I recall how bad the air was in the fifties.
Smog was so thick one summer that you could not see accross Los Angeles International Airport
from Imperial to Century Blvd, a distance of only one mile.
It was like a fog bank only brownish is color, not gray.
You could not take a regular breath because if you did, you had to cough.
That's how thick that smog was. And it was 110 degrees F. for four days straight!
For those who do not know, that area is only one mile from the ocean!
Imagine what it was like in downtown Los Angeles and all points further East.

Thank goodness we have ALL the Regulations we have today to try and control those pollutants.
Just think what it would be like if we did not have those regulations.
No one could live in the greater Los Angeles Basin.

:D

Derrel
I don't know of anyone that wants to tear up every regulation (in any area). I think most people will agree that tearing up every regulation is as extreme as the current regulations that are now in place. I believe there is a "sane" middle ground here, which CARB has rejected. The idiom is rejecting the good for the perfect and accepting the status quo.

It is unfortunate that in our current culture of screaming at each other and refusing to dialogue on anything that we are stuck with the extreme shifts in position that occur when the sane people get sick and tired of the crap from the left or the right and vote the other way accordingly. But alas, that is where we are at IMHO.

And there-in lies the problem: A bunch of other states air quality boards just say, 'Whatever CARB wants we want too'. Between CA and these other states, that's half the population in the US. If you're an auto manufacturer, you're not going to make a product that you can only market to 1/2 of the US that lives in the non-CARB following states (even if it would sell awesomely, which we all know it would).

Essentially, for any product sold nationally, CARB replaces the EPA. If that's the case, why even have the EPA?

Rediculous....

Chuck
Exactly, if you are an auto maker you are most likely going to try to comply with regulations that allow you to sell the same vehicle everywhere as changes ultimately cost the consumer more money. Personally, I believe that the Feds and only the Feds should be allowed to legislate in this area, not CARB.

My personal opinion is that the bi-polar American emissions regulation cannot be fixed (ie the political will to fix it does not and will not exist). Therefore, the best approach would be to adopt the current European standards for emissions and leave it at that. In effect, there would be no impediment to selling cars here that are currently sold in Europe.
 

chucky2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Location
Chicagoland, IL USA
TDI
Ford Ranger FX4 Level II
Exactly, if you are an auto maker you are most likely going to try to comply with regulations that allow you to sell the same vehicle everywhere as changes ultimately cost the consumer more money. Personally, I believe that the Feds and only the Feds should be allowed to legislate in this area, not CARB.

My personal opinion is that the bi-polar American emissions regulation cannot be fixed (ie the political will to fix it does not and will not exist). Therefore, the best approach would be to adopt the current European standards for emissions and leave it at that. In effect, there would be no impediment to selling cars here that are currently sold in Europe.
I precisely agree. EPA should be on point on this, using best science to set policy and not best politics. If we could reach that point, it would be as simple as recognizing that EU diesel regs, and EU emissions tiers, are fine in respect to Clean Diesel tech, and they are by far the larger market for this technology. e, the US/NA, could simply chose to remain in lockstep with them on diesel emissions for light duty on-highway vehicles.

If we did this, and remained comitted to it, the auto manufacturers would have the regulation stability and commonality to very easily bring their CD offerings here.

This decision is so obvious, so simple, only Government could screw it up. Oh look, CARB and our Fed Gov....say no more....

Chuck
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
Essentially, for any product sold nationally, CARB replaces the EPA. If that's the case, why even have the EPA?
That is why the CARB exemption should be repealed and ONLY Federal standards allowed. CARB was needed back in the 60s but it has out-lived its usefulness. Normally I'm very pro-10th Amendment, but this is one case where we do need only the National government making the rules.
 

SparkyTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Location
vacaville, CA
TDI
2002 Golf TDI
Everyone has a valid point, but the facts are as simple as this the more Regulation and More Government Less FREEDOM. Less freedom less production because then you have no incentive of producing anything so why bother. So economically cripples our well being as a country. Look at India they take 95% of their money so they all just sit and play mahjong in the square because if they are going to take it all then why bother making anything.

Auto makers will feel the pain of even trying to comply (if at all) and guess who gets stuck with the bill? WE DO.

Don’t get me wrong I understand the issue with the smog, but there are far worse things polluting the air than just cars. However, if you make all cars electric yes you would transfer the "burden" to power companies and that cost would spike.

And what happens when you wreck an electric or hybrid car? the batteries and everything that it's made with is way more pollutant that just the emissions. So no matter how you slice it they are going to have to pick their battles. Simple Physics is energy is always transferring from one form to another.
I Digress
 
Last edited:

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
I submitted comments on what was then proposed LEV III regulations back in January. I noticed CARB finally responded to the comments - http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/acc_ea_rtc.pdf. My comments start on page 11 of 168 of that pdf file, and the response is on page 16 of 168.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but my point was that since CARB is MANDATING that AT LEAST 1 in 7 cars sold in California are REQUIRED to be "ZEV", i.e., electric vehicles under the regulation, the PM emissions from a "well-to-wheels" perspective are actually HIGHER with its mandated ZEVs in California than a 2003 Jetta TDI, which has effectively been banned since 2004. Now CARB is proposing to reduce PM emissions under LEV III to 1 mg/mile by 2025 (down from 10 mg/mile under LEV II). Requiring non-EV emissions to be cut by an order-of-magnitude under LEV III yet REQUIRING over 15% of cars be EV, which has WTW PM emissions that are HIGHER than a 2003 Jetta TDI, not only would be superfluous, but would potentially raise the amount of PM produced in California from the light-duty fleet through at least 2020 to pre-2004 levels.

The response only addresses how loads on electric generation will be managed as more EVs are added to the mix. What does that have to do with more WTW PM produced by the EVs? It still appears that the EV mandate will more than offset the mandated reduction in PM from conventional vehicles under LEV III. Seems like a non-response to me. Am I missing something?
 

chucky2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Location
Chicagoland, IL USA
TDI
Ford Ranger FX4 Level II
Missing nothing, since CARB's goal is to get everyone on either public transpo or EV. It's clear that's their 'Final Solution', so they are going to do whatever they need to do, above board, under board, or otherwise, to make that happen.

That a ton of people are going to be forced into way less efficient gas cars, or much more expensive EV cars, CARB doesn't give a sh1t about. They care only about what they want to accomplish.

This is exactly why CARB shouldn't be setting emissions guidelines for the entire US, which is effectively what they are doing (regulating a national product, something a state should never be doing).

Chuck
 

rwolff

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Location
Lesser continental mass, Tosev 3
TDI
None yet
Many people miss the point. Logic has nothing to do with California.
Welcome to the Granola State - the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes.

My first time in Pittsburgh (1975), the moon rose almost blood red due to all the iron ore in the air. Now the mills are all gone and most of the structural steel production has moved overseas.
Quite some time ago (I believe it was late '70s/early '80s), MAD magazine did a series of updated nursery rhymes. One that sticks in my mind is "Little Jack Horner now stands on the corner and begs for a small contribution. They had to shut down the big steel mill in town, but at least there's a lot less pollution."

But rest assured, while the greenies in CA push crazy laws that will try and be forced down the throats of the entire country, US Constitution be damned,
Actually, I've got a somewhat lower opinion of the orifice they're trying to force their laws into.

Missing nothing, since CARB's goal is to get everyone on either public transpo or EV. It's clear that's their 'Final Solution',
I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law on this one - a certain European government from the mid 20th century would be offended by this comparison to CARB.
 

kerrige

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Location
UT
TDI
2001 Jetta
Something to keep in mind is that as solar grows to be more popular and it has with stead growth over the last 10 years, the price of panels and other equipment will drop and become more fricient. Groups like solar city and vivint solar have made solar possible for your average joeschmo and will greatly increase implementation. I would guess that if companies such as those continue on their current path 10-12% of homes will be powered directly by solar within 5 years. I am not saying it will be sufficient to power all of America, but renewables are on the way up and home efficientcy is improving at a killer rate. (LED televisions, lighting, and higher efficientcy large appliances) I think as more of these new technologies become steadily availible and affordable we will see electric cars/hybrids play a larger role, however right now it's a giant crock of BS to have it forced on us. I believe very purely in letting the market drive demand. It's getting pretty nice out there for us in terms of efficiency. The tdi is no longer our only option for a fun fuel efficient vehicle. Even better is the big 3 leading the way with the Cruze and sonic from GM, the fiesta and focus from ford and the dodge Dart. Even small SUVs(Terrain, CX5, Rogue, etc) are touching the low 30s now. They are mostly gutless wonders, but I am happy to see the market dictating thing instead of stupid government regulation and such. I would think with these changes the demand for fuel would drop, but instead it is just shifting to China to be used to power diesel generators at the many factories. The biggest changes needed are in developing countries, like china, India, and brazil. The US will produce fewer emmisions per capita than many very very soon. Mark my words. The writing is on the wall.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
CARB has just put several out of work in Oroville and nearby Paradise, by forcing a building supply company to close their stores in the two cities after 30+ and 50+ years respectively. While the stores were under pressure due to the poor construction economy, the straw that broke the camel's back was CARB ordering the company to retro-fit their trucks with new diesel technology at about $30,000 per truck, or close to $500,000 total.
 

Scoutx

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Location
Virginia
TDI
2012 Jetta (6MT) - 1000 Mile Club (retired)___ 2015 Jetta SEL (6MT)
Something to keep in mind is that as solar grows to be more popular and it has with stead growth over the last 10 years, the price of panels and other equipment will drop and become more fricient. Groups like solar city and vivint solar have made solar possible for your average joeschmo and will greatly increase implementation. I would guess that if companies such as those continue on their current path 10-12% of homes will be powered directly by solar within 5 years. I am not saying it will be sufficient to power all of America, but renewables are on the way up and home efficientcy is improving at a killer rate. (LED televisions, lighting, and higher efficientcy large appliances) I think as more of these new technologies become steadily availible and affordable we will see electric cars/hybrids play a larger role, however right now it's a giant crock of BS to have it forced on us. I believe very purely in letting the market drive demand. It's getting pretty nice out there for us in terms of efficiency. The tdi is no longer our only option for a fun fuel efficient vehicle. Even better is the big 3 leading the way with the Cruze and sonic from GM, the fiesta and focus from ford and the dodge Dart. Even small SUVs(Terrain, CX5, Rogue, etc) are touching the low 30s now. They are mostly gutless wonders, but I am happy to see the market dictating thing instead of stupid government regulation and such. I would think with these changes the demand for fuel would drop, but instead it is just shifting to China to be used to power diesel generators at the many factories. The biggest changes needed are in developing countries, like china, India, and brazil. The US will produce fewer emmisions per capita than many very very soon. Mark my words. The writing is on the wall.
I have to disagree. The ONLY thing that really keeps solar going is government grants and subsidies. Without that the hardware is simply not economically viable. Even with it it can take 1-2 decades simply to break even on your investment. No, IMO, solar won't really make that much of an impact until and unless additional significant improvements are made to the collectors reducing their watt/$ ratio and incorporating them literally into the structure of the home be it as roofing or siding. So I doubt you will see 10% of homes solar powered before 2050 unless some of the R&D pans out and these vaporware products being proposed actually make it to market in a cheap effective form.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
The largest problem with solar today is that the best commercially available collectors are just over 50% efficient. To supply the needs of Canada, you need a collector roughly the size of Manitoba.

They are working on making them more efficient and supposedly ones that are no thicker than a shingle so they will be more effective for the average homeowner, but that takes time for testing, and time for them to comedown enough in price so the average home owner an afford them.
 

boertje

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2002
Location
Coeur d'Alene, ID
TDI
'01, '01, '03, ‘06 NB - TDIs all.
CARB has just put several out of work in Oroville and nearby Paradise, by forcing a building supply company to close their stores in the two cities after 30+ and 50+ years respectively. While the stores were under pressure due to the poor construction economy, the straw that broke the camel's back was CARB ordering the company to retro-fit their trucks with new diesel technology at about $30,000 per truck, or close to $500,000 total.
...and now the idiocy continues. They are now drafting new regulations for mobile Ag equipment as in tractors and such. Retrofit or junked, and the cost to a fragile Ag economy that cant handle anymore blows continues unabated. I just sold a dairy farm in Wheatland CA due to the heavy reg burden and only red ink in the last 4 years to show for all the work. Heck, the dairy business is so bad in CA that even my cows moved to Idaho (no joke, they are now in Twin falls...all 700 of them).
 

kerrige

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Location
UT
TDI
2001 Jetta
I have to disagree. The ONLY thing that really keeps solar going is government grants and subsidies. Without that the hardware is simply not economically viable. Even with it it can take 1-2 decades simply to break even on your investment. No, IMO, solar won't really make that much of an impact until and unless additional significant improvements are made to the collectors reducing their watt/$ ratio and incorporating them literally into the structure of the home be it as roofing or siding. So I doubt you will see 10% of homes solar powered before 2050 unless some of the R&D pans out and these vaporware products being proposed actually make it to market in a cheap effective form.
It's really important to understand how quickly solar city and vivint are growing. It has reached a point now that they are installing close to 100 homes a day with systems large enough to more than support the home and then some. Vivint is only 2 years in with tons of room to grow. Solar city is also growing more quickly now, although they are several years old. This method that they use is very disruptive to the current market, because the customer fronts nothing on the system and they pay a constant rate to their new power provider(vivint, solar city, etc) at a guaranteed reduced rate. The company also keeps tax incentives/rebates and any extra power pay back from the local utility. This increase in solar production in turn lowers the cost to produce the panels as they become more common. Much like the price of electronics dropping as the technology improves and becomes cheaper. The more it is used the cheaper the tech gets and the more it improves. We are not there just yet, but give it ten years. We are going to see major changes if these companies open in markets like Arizona, florida, and Texas.
 

romad

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
Prescott, AZ
TDI
2005 Jetta GLS Wagon "Cranberry"
Re an earlier post about CARB's new assault on the agricultural sector of the CPR economy, there was an article in my local paper today about it. Seems that it was originally to be limited to Federal non-attainment areas down in the San Joaquin Valley, but CARB decided to attack ALL of California agriculture. One local farmer here said it would cost him almost $600,000 to replace his perfectly good diesel tractors; due to the boom/bust cycle of farming, there are years when he can't afford to replace one tractor even if needed.

Kill CARB!
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Re an earlier post about CARB's new assault on the agricultural sector of the CPR economy, there was an article in my local paper today about it. Seems that it was originally to be limited to Federal non-attainment areas down in the San Joaquin Valley, but CARB decided to attack ALL of California agriculture. One local farmer here said it would cost him almost $600,000 to replace his perfectly good diesel tractors; due to the boom/bust cycle of farming, there are years when he can't afford to replace one tractor even if needed.

Kill CARB!

heck, there are farmers in the midwest that probably can't afford to replace tires on a tractor after their miserable crop year!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top