Evaluating pollution generated by EVs and gasoline-powered vehicles over the life cycle additionally results in ambiguous outcomes. In fact, EVs produce zero air pollution however they do use electrical energy, and electrical energy manufacturing causes air pollution. How does the EPA take account of this? It doesn’t. Go to web page 203 of the EPA’s 728-page proposal for its new regulation and you will notice this assertion:
EPA is proposing to make the present remedy of PEVs [plug-in electric vehicles] and FCEVs [fuel cell electric vehicles] via MY [model year] 2026 everlasting. EPA proposes to incorporate solely emissions measured immediately from the car within the car GHG [greenhouse gases] program for MYs 2027 and later (or till EPA adjustments the laws via future rulemaking) in step with the remedy of all different automobiles. Electrical car operation would due to this fact proceed to be counted as 0 g/mile, based mostly on tailpipe emissions solely.
Briefly, the EPA assumes one thing it is aware of to be false, particularly that emissions from producing electrical energy to energy EVs are zero. I’m tempted to name this the EPA’s “non-smoking gun.”
How may the EPA justify such an excessive assumption? On the identical web page, it makes an attempt to take action, writing, “This system has now been in place for a decade, since MY 2012, with no upstream accounting and has functioned as meant, encouraging the continued growth and introduction of electrical car expertise.”
Did you catch that? The EPA justifies its express bias towards gasoline-powered automobiles and in favor of EVs by arguing that doing so will encourage the continued growth of EVs. Properly, sure, simply as ignoring the price of something will justify extra of that factor. Name it the EPA’s new frontier in price/profit evaluation. Or possibly name it the Bart Simpson justification: “I solely lied as a result of it was the simplest method to get what I wished.”
The above is from David R. Henderson, “EV Mandates Are Taking Californians for a Ride,” Defining Concepts, Could 4, 2023.
The unique title I gave the piece (the editor selected a unique title) is “Assume a Tesla.” You’ll see why when you learn the primary few paragraphs of the piece.
On the finish, I give what I feel are substantial grounds for hope, based mostly partly on ideas from a deep professional on regulation, Peter Van Doren.
Learn the whole thing.
Evaluating pollution generated by EVs and gasoline-powered vehicles over the life cycle additionally results in ambiguous outcomes. In fact, EVs produce zero air pollution however they do use electrical energy, and electrical energy manufacturing causes air pollution. How does the EPA take account of this? It doesn’t. Go to web page 203 of the EPA’s 728-page proposal for its new regulation and you will notice this assertion:
EPA is proposing to make the present remedy of PEVs [plug-in electric vehicles] and FCEVs [fuel cell electric vehicles] via MY [model year] 2026 everlasting. EPA proposes to incorporate solely emissions measured immediately from the car within the car GHG [greenhouse gases] program for MYs 2027 and later (or till EPA adjustments the laws via future rulemaking) in step with the remedy of all different automobiles. Electrical car operation would due to this fact proceed to be counted as 0 g/mile, based mostly on tailpipe emissions solely.
Briefly, the EPA assumes one thing it is aware of to be false, particularly that emissions from producing electrical energy to energy EVs are zero. I’m tempted to name this the EPA’s “non-smoking gun.”
How may the EPA justify such an excessive assumption? On the identical web page, it makes an attempt to take action, writing, “This system has now been in place for a decade, since MY 2012, with no upstream accounting and has functioned as meant, encouraging the continued growth and introduction of electrical car expertise.”
Did you catch that? The EPA justifies its express bias towards gasoline-powered automobiles and in favor of EVs by arguing that doing so will encourage the continued growth of EVs. Properly, sure, simply as ignoring the price of something will justify extra of that factor. Name it the EPA’s new frontier in price/profit evaluation. Or possibly name it the Bart Simpson justification: “I solely lied as a result of it was the simplest method to get what I wished.”
The above is from David R. Henderson, “EV Mandates Are Taking Californians for a Ride,” Defining Concepts, Could 4, 2023.
The unique title I gave the piece (the editor selected a unique title) is “Assume a Tesla.” You’ll see why when you learn the primary few paragraphs of the piece.
On the finish, I give what I feel are substantial grounds for hope, based mostly partly on ideas from a deep professional on regulation, Peter Van Doren.
Learn the whole thing.