Biden EPA Mandates New Regulations To Force Electric Vehicle Transition

From The Daily Caller

THOMAS CATENACCI on December 22, 2021 5:44 PM

The Biden administration rolled out a series of new emissions regulations for passenger vehicles and light trucks that it said would “unlock” $190 billion in benefits for American consumers.

The regulations will be enforced beginning with 2023 car models and will be revised with more stringent standards in 2027, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.

The EPA said the new emissions standards would ultimately quicken the transition from traditional engine vehicles to zero-emission cars.

“This day is truly historic,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said during an event on Monday.

“At EPA, our priority is to protect public health, especially in overburdened communities, while responding to the President’s ambitious climate agenda,” Regan said in a statement prior to the event.

“Today we take a giant step forward in delivering on those goals while paving the way toward an all-electric, zero-emissions transportation future.”

The standards are the “most ambitious” rules of their kind ever put into place, the EPA said. They are projected to cut car emissions by 3 billion tons over the next three decades, the equivalent of half the carbon dioxide emitted in the U.S. per year.

The rule announced Monday will also lead to 15% less gasoline consumption nationwide, according to the agency.

“Today’s action is a tremendous step in the right direction in our fight against the climate crisis,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone said in a statement.

“Paired with the investments in the bipartisan infrastructure law, this action will accelerate the process of transforming our transportation sector to the benefit of public health and the environment.”

“I applaud the Biden EPA for meaningfully addressing the climate crisis once again, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to swiftly and ambitiously tackle climate pollution from the rest of the transportation sector,” Pallone added.

The action Monday is the latest move in the Biden administration’s crusade against climate change which aims to lean heavily on pushing Americans to buy electric vehicles.

Read more at Daily Caller

2 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
December 22, 2021 10:16 pm

The Biden administration rolled out a series of new emissions regulations for passenger vehicles and light trucks that it said would “unlock” $190 billion in benefits for American consumers.

‘Unlock’ meaning take from taxpayers, and give to people rich enough to afford Electric Status Symbols.

At EPA, our priority is to protect public health, especially in overburdened communities, while responding to the President’s ambitious climate agenda.

“At EPA, our priority is to set the President’s ambitious climate agenda”

Fixed it for ya!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 22, 2021 11:13 pm

I am predicting this will not be a vote winner as lots of people love there cars 🙂

Reply to  LdB
December 23, 2021 12:31 am

Yup. This sucks royally for Brandon, because electric vehicles are the pits.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
December 23, 2021 1:46 am

In an hour I am hitting the road, from western PA to South Mississippi, in my Grand Caravan. I don’t even want to think how long it would take to do it in an electric toy.

Reply to  2hotel9
December 23, 2021 1:58 am

It would depend on how fast you could push it; or if you are wealthy you could buy a horse to pull it.

Reply to  Oldseadog
December 23, 2021 4:41 am

I hope it doesn’t come to that. These mustang’s don’t consume fossil fuels and have a gait that is friendly for long rides.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Oldseadog
December 23, 2021 8:07 am

. . . or buy a trailer towed by the electric toy that is loaded with a 100 kVA gasoline-powered generator to enable “fast recharging” during the trip.

Reply to  Oldseadog
December 31, 2021 5:21 am

I bought a 2021 Ford Escape PHEV in August and I absolutely love it. So far, I’ve driven 90% electric and 10% gas. Zero range anxiety. What’s not to like about that? I get the best of both worlds.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  2hotel9
December 23, 2021 2:47 am

My girlfriend has a Tesla 3, all wheel, dual motor, long range option. Two days ago it was snowy, upper teens, the roads were crappy so the traction control was probably working over time. She was making house-calls, (she’s a personal trainer for people with way too much money), She had the defroster going full blast most of the day and the car had to sit long enough at each stop that it would completely cool down. Total mileage for the day was about 85 and she had a 37% charge remaining when she got home. I try not to make any comments when these things happen, but even she said, “you get 15 seconds of trash-talking, then shut the f..k up cause I get the point.”

Reply to  mark from the midwest
December 23, 2021 3:07 am

Why say two words on a subject when one covers it well. 😉

Reply to  mark from the midwest
December 23, 2021 4:45 am

We get a blizzard every once in a while in the Denver area that creates road havoc. Inevitably, stranded cars are over represented by EVs.

Reply to  Scissor
December 23, 2021 5:02 am

Statistics to matter, y’know, especially in this instance.

Reply to  Scissor
December 23, 2021 7:34 am

Most of the off-road vehiles found on the side of I-91 after a snow storm are from out of state and driven by those who just throw it into 4 wheel and off they go (literally).

Joe Crawford
Reply to  yirgach
December 23, 2021 10:33 am

4 wheel is fun going down the mountain on black ice, especially when the engine, backing off, brakes lose all 4 tires at the same time :<)

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Scissor
December 23, 2021 10:29 am

Wonder if anybody has tried studded snows on ’em? When I lived out that way (half way up the mountain toward Ward) I had to run ’em from Thanksgiving to Easter. It was fun passing all the stuck SUVs in my 260Z.

Rich Lentz
Reply to  mark from the midwest
December 23, 2021 4:08 pm

My very wealthy neighbor sold hers after the second year of not being able to drive up the snow covered winding driveway when it snowed. Even when plowed before she came home.

Reply to  LdB
December 23, 2021 6:04 am

Given it’s the EPA doing it, there’s not a lot of voting. Excising this bit of nonsense will take more effort than you think.

December 22, 2021 10:19 pm

“Today we take a giant step forward in delivering on those goals while paving the way toward an all-electric, zero-emissions transportation future.”

Pray tell what law Congress passed instructs the EPA to do this.

Don Perry
Reply to  Independent
December 23, 2021 4:10 am

From the actions of the Biden administration, the “giant step forward” is sounding more and more like the “Great Leap Forward” of Chairman Mao around 1960. Gives me the creeps.

Reply to  Don Perry
December 23, 2021 5:13 am

Reminds me of an old Polish saying from the communist times.

“Today we are standing on a precipice of a cliff. Tomorrow, we are taking a giant step forward.”

Reply to  Laertes
December 23, 2021 10:15 am

That reminds me of another old communist Romania joke
” We are seeing The West is right on the cliff and they will soon fall. Unfortunately we are seeing them from the bottom!”

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Don Perry
December 23, 2021 11:05 am


Just so!

In his inaugural speech (searchable copy available from ), Biden used the word “together” a total of six times. His last use of “together” in that speech was in this sentence that led into his closing remarks: “And together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear.”

But, IMHO, what US citizens have witnessed since Biden took office is just the opposite of that statement.

Biden has issued mandates to US citizens as if he was a king . . . there’s very little togetherness when edicts are issued.

Biden did not obtain approval from Congress or the Supreme Court over his mandate that Federal contractors (mostly private corporations) must have all their employees receive “full” COVID-19 vaccinations by a certain date. Moreover, neither did he obtain such approvals for his separate, overarching mandate that all private businesses having more than 100 employees must get all of their employees “fully” vaccinated against COVID-19 by a given date. These mandates are driven by an American story of fear, not hope.

And most recently—and most offensively to me, and I am sure many others that believe in and would willingly fight to defend the principles the USA was founded upon—is Biden’s declaration that “It is your patriotic duty to get vaccinated” (ref: ). How very shameful to say such a thing . . . as if freedom of speech (via freedom of action and freedom of choice and freedom of religion, not to mention following medical advice from one’s physician) is now second fiddle to what a mere President defines to be “patriotism”.

No, President Biden is not bringing this country together . . . he, more than any other person in the last year has been the source of divisiveness in these United States. Do I need to go into the divisiveness engendered by his massive Build Back Better bill, now headed into the dustbin of history?

So very, very sad. There goes the hope that very many had . . . at a time not all that long ago.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 11:20 am

Whenever a politician tells me what my “patriotic duty” is, I’m reminded of the following passage from the U.S. Supreme Court decision West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox [normal] in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Now think about how radical those words sound today (compared to what you hear from the chattering class), and you will realize how far we have drifted from the ideals of our founders.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 23, 2021 12:59 pm


Thank you for your thoughtful response and for passing along the eloquent passage from the referenced 1943 SCOTUS decision.

Words to live by . . . given the mind-bent of today’s politicians (most of whom don’t deserve the title “leader”).

Reply to  Independent
December 23, 2021 7:36 am

… well, surely it was the mandate of Bidinh’s election

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Kenji
December 23, 2021 11:41 am

Of course it was! He had 81M votes to support it – didn’t he (?).

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 23, 2021 1:03 pm

I cannot recall a single campaign speech, “town hall meeting”, or debate wherein Joe Biden said that he would be using mandates as President to force change in the United States.

Had he said so, he would have lost the Presidential election for sure.

Dan Kurt
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 3:21 pm

RE: “[Buyden] would have lost the Presidential election for sure.” GADressler

Bedet never won the election as the Democrats stole the election.

Dan Kurt

Reply to  Dan Kurt
December 23, 2021 4:59 pm

Yawn. Get over it. Stop being a childish sore loser.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 3:51 pm

I remember Biden promising several times that he would use executive orders.

The Biden administration asked the Federal Trade Commission to ban or limit noncompete agreements nationwide as part of a broad executive order Friday.”

The Biden administration’s messaging around the noncompete measures has focused on what the change would mean for blue-collar workers in particular, and Friday’s action marks the culmination of at least one campaign promise.”

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  ATheoK
December 23, 2021 5:12 pm

“To be lawful, an executive order must either relate to how the executive branch operates or exercise an authority delegated to the President by Congress. But that last power is limited: Congress can’t delegate legislative powers to the president that are specifically assigned to Congress in the Constitution.” (my underlining emphasis added)

“The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
— US Constitution, Article. I. – The Legislative Branch, Section 8 – Powers of Congress, first paragraph therein

Clearly, taking means to fight the COVID-19 epidemic throughout all segments of the nation is within specifically-defined Congressional power/responsibility to “provide for . . . the general Welfare of the United States.” Thus, this power is not and constitutionally cannot be delegated to the President and the Administrative Branch of government.

History has shown that there have been Executive Orders that have been judged to be legal, but also those that have declared illegal by Federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 25, 2021 8:38 am

To be fair, the broadband market in the USA is quite a mess, with effective non-compete agreements everywhere. The tales of price gouging, lousy service and underhand are legion!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 4:44 pm

Early on PSnarki declared they would never do WuFlu mandates. Of course this was before Branden’s “100 days to beat it” promise expired.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
December 23, 2021 10:18 pm

Well then, let’s go Brandon!

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 24, 2021 8:02 pm

Well, Joe Biden apparently agrees. At least, that’s what he said on live TV.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  anthropic
December 25, 2021 9:23 am

Agrees with what?

John Pickens
December 22, 2021 10:46 pm

The entire premise of this EPA action is fraudulent. As stated in the EPA document, the goal is to move to Electric cars, which are repeatedly referred to as “zero emission” vehicles. In fact, the energy needed to charge and produce the EV batteries, charging points, transmission lines, “renewable” wind and solar systems, and the load balancing conventional backup systems would far exceed any ability for “renewables” to take CO2 out of the equation.

The whole goal of this regulation is to reduce CO2 emissions, and any meaningful analysis will conclude that the only way this will reduce CO2 is by depriving Americans of the freedom to get in a car and drive anywhere and anytime they need to.

Reply to  John Pickens
December 22, 2021 11:05 pm

Yep, that’s the goal all right.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  John Pickens
December 23, 2021 12:02 am

Yep, that’s the whole point of the exercise, reduce peoples freedom of movement around the USA!!! The people MUST be controlled!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 23, 2021 12:18 am

Except if you are an immigrant from the southern border.

Reply to  gowest
December 23, 2021 6:06 am

Then they’ll probably just give you a damn Tesla for free.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 23, 2021 5:25 am

They also claim that when forced out of your car you will walk and bicycle more leading to a healthier life style so there are societal health benefits “proving” that these programs are actually beneficial.

Max P
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
December 23, 2021 8:37 am

Sure. It will be, something, like this.

Get up at 4 AM and get ready to go to work. You have to be out the door by 4:30 AM to do the 3 mile walk to where you catch your bus. They don’t start running until 5 AM and you have to catch the very first one to get to work by 8 AM; the trip requires two transfers and includes another 2 mile walk, for good measure. Breakfast is quick and cold, just like the ‘bath’. There’s no power before 6 AM and it will be on for only a few hours. You have a fridge and open it, sparingly. Such is the morning grind in these enlightened, green, times.

You get off work at 5 PM and, pretty much, run the 2 miles to the bus stop so you won’t miss the last bus back. You only have one transfer for the trip home but you also have a longer walk on the return because the bus you catch in the morning stops running 2hours before you need it in the evening, but, you are fortunate enough to have made friends with a delivery driver who, for a modest recompense, give you a lift to within a mile of your apartment building. The delivery van, because it is considered essential for business, has the ability to charge at stations that are never off line but the driver is not permitted to deviate, even a mile, from his route or risk being fined and fired. A bit tired, you enter your apartment around 8:30 PM. The power will go off at 9 PM so, with no time to spare, you heat dinner, eat and go to bed.

I think I might be a bit optimistic in my description.

Max P

Reply to  Max P
December 23, 2021 12:37 pm

You are optimistic. The reality is that all of us (if the Media Party vision is put in place) will live right where we work, engaged in subsistence agriculture in the shadow of the windmills that provide electricity for our overlords in the few remaining big cities. The morning rush will be to look for bird or bat carcasses near the windmills for your protein, because those will run out soon enough and the only other source will be hunting rats with clubs.

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  John Pickens
December 23, 2021 12:12 am

You’re so right, there is no such thing as zero emmissions, its a fallacy ! !

Reply to  John Pickens
December 23, 2021 9:19 am

I’ve always called them Zero Emissions Here vehicles

Jeffrey C. Briggs
Reply to  John Pickens
December 23, 2021 9:21 am

The Left wants the proletariat to stop driving. What better way than to first limit everyone to a type of vehicle that simply won’t be available to all (expense) and which won’t really work for those who can afford them? As soon as the transition occurs, we will be told that these vehicles indirectly cause emissions and will have to be restricted even further. And there won’t be enough electricity to support them anyway. This is just a way to stop most people from driving. For some it is about emissions, for others it is about control, but the end game is the same: Stay put and do as you are told.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Jeffrey C. Briggs
December 23, 2021 10:40 am

Besides, if most of ’em are Teslas all you have to do is turn off the Tesla internet servers and no one can get in to drive them :<)

December 22, 2021 11:24 pm

projected to cut car emissions by 3 billion tons over the next three decades, the equivalent of half the carbon dioxide emitted in the U.S. per year.

Such clever wordplay, did you see what they did? The US emitted about 6.5 billion tons in 2019, so their ” the equivalent of half the CO2 emitted in the US per year” but spread out over 30 years amounts to a reduction of about 1/60th. Even less when you consider the fossil fuels that will be used to charge those cars in many cases and to make them in all cases. smaller still when you consider that the announcement is back end loaded to 2027 and may never even be implemented.

A nothing burger dressed up as a nine.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 22, 2021 11:54 pm

Not only that, but only “car emissions” will be reduced. The coal or gas needed to charge those cars will increase proportionally.

Add to that the coal, oil and gas required to actually manufacture these unnecessary EVs, and it’s a massive net plus of CO2. Let’s not even mention the litium and cobalt mining, eh?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 23, 2021 5:11 am

Twos turn into Tens at closin time …..


Phillip Bratby
December 22, 2021 11:44 pm

Meanwhile in the real world:


No more electric buses in Germany
We can’t believe our eyes!!!
It’s even more serious than we think .
And of course not a word in the TV journal…

It turns out that electric buses were three times responsible for major fires in the depots of Stuttgart, Düsseldorf and Munich while being charged at night .
These fires destroyed huge caravan parks . They have been banned in the city of Munich since yesterday .
It is surprising that neither the Belgian and French press nor the green party are talking about it .
Soon there will be a ban on parking electric cars in public parking garages, just like in the time of gas cars . Electricity as a battery system actually has no future .
The only solution is undoubtedly the hydrogen fuel cell . Scotland is taking advantage of the
Hydrogen and utility companies use hydrogen cars .
What are we doing now? Nothing but the unique thought of ecologists, those who never have a permanent solution and only problems to face, poisoning everyone’s existence and ruining the economy .
Imagine a line of electric and thermal cars being charged along the sidewalks in the city, with 318 volt electric voltage,
What do you think the firefighters will be able to do? No more streets and probably no more buildings!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 22, 2021 11:56 pm

All any half-brained terrorist would need to do is drive a hydrogen-powered car at the lot

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 23, 2021 12:16 am

Not happy about your hydrogen, where’s it gonna come ?
More emmissions of course ! !

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 23, 2021 12:51 am

Hydrogen is much more dangerous than diesel or benzin. Think of the Zeppelin crash in 1937:

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Hari Seldon
December 23, 2021 4:06 am

Honored to read you ‘Hari Seldon’ please hurry with development of Psychohistory.

Hydrogen has the largest variation in dangerous concentrations of fuels, from 2% to 75%, too lean to too rich.

Hari Seldon, established two axioms:

  • that the population whose behavior was modeled should be sufficiently large
  • that the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses because if it is aware, the group changes its behaviour.
Reply to  Hari Seldon
December 23, 2021 7:26 pm

Unfortunately, the picture is a bit of propaganda prior to WW-II, which was on the horizon.
The huge fire was caused by a paint with a mixture of iron oxide dust and aluminum dust, used for durability. It burns at ~2500degC. It doesn’t produce many gases so it isn’t useful in explosives, except maybe as part of the fuse.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 23, 2021 6:09 am

Yeah but the smoke from those electric bus fires was “green” smoke.

Alan the Brit
December 23, 2021 12:00 am

I suspect that WW3 will start as soon as the entire military in the West have all converted to electric vehicles, but at least we will be able to fire depleted uranium out the barrel but hey….no emissions at the rear!!!

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 23, 2021 12:17 am

Maybe sooner than that . .

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 23, 2021 3:53 am

The Bah-stin Globe thinks the military isn’t doing its part.

“How the US military fuels climate change”

“The US Department of Defense is the largest institutional greenhouse gas polluter in the world. Thanks to its bases and vast fleets of aircraft carriers, jets, drones, and trucks, it is also the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the federal government, using more oil and gas than the entire countries of Sweden and Denmark, according to a landmark 2019 study.”

Wow, more than Sweden and Denmark- those hugely populated nations!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2021 5:10 am

Umm,… Joseph, our aircraft carriers and submarines are NUKES, not diesel.

Reply to  Sara
December 23, 2021 6:12 am

Ahh yes but the manufacture of these carriers and subs requires vast amounts of hydrocarbons

Peter W
Reply to  Sara
December 23, 2021 8:42 am

And how many of the airplanes on those carriers are CO2 free in operations?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peter W
December 23, 2021 9:41 am

What? There are airplanes on carriers? Who’da thunk?

December 23, 2021 12:01 am

I hate to complain, but


The Biden administration just dictated that CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is now

!!! 55 MPG !!!

Absolutely Unobtainable. Beyond the realm of possibility.
Now it is law.

Have a nice day.

Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 12:18 am

work around use yiur own private car and charge the company back not a corporate car

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 3:55 am

well, we can all drive around in a toy car

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2021 4:53 am

Great cars for parking.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Scissor
December 23, 2021 4:57 am

not so great if you’re in an accident

oeman 50
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2021 7:50 am

How many clowns can you get in that car?

Reply to  oeman 50
December 23, 2021 8:10 am

Just one, but it’s a big one.

Reply to  oeman 50
December 23, 2021 10:21 am

As many persons as are in it. 🙂

Doug Huffman
Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 4:12 am

My 2003 VW TDI Jetta diesel regularly produced 50 MPG and peaked at 56 MPG under optimal conditions.

My 6,000# 2012 BMW X5 35d DIESEL produces 30+ MPG under optimal conditions; not often achieved as I have a heavy foot.

Jules Guidry
Reply to  Doug Huffman
December 23, 2021 6:15 am

My 2014 Hyundai Sonata regularly gets 36+ mpg under optimal conditions, on the interstate at 80mph. And I do have a heavy foot when needing to pass the big trucks and pokies. Depending upon where I get the fuel, been known to achieve 40mpg with no headwind.

JimH in CA
Reply to  Jules Guidry
December 23, 2021 7:58 am

My 1997 Chevy Cavalier, 5 speed regularly gets 30+ mpg around town and 40+ on the freeway at 80 mph. It now has 224k miles and passes the CA smog test at 3ppm and 0.0 CO.!

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 8:28 am

Democrats once again trying to legislate the laws of physics. I wonder why they didn’t just go for 100 mpg?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 8:29 am

The Biden administration just dictated that CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is now
!!! 55 MPG !!!
Absolutely Unobtainable. Beyond the realm of possibility.
Now it is law.
Have a nice day. ”

” Now it is law.” NONSENSE ! Not even voted upon . Brandon is not congress !

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
December 26, 2021 9:38 am

Sweet Old Bob posted:
“CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is now
!!! 55 MPG !!!
Absolutely Unobtainable. Beyond the realm of possibility.”

Sorry, SOB, but this is not correct. The CAFE rating is for a given car manufacturer’s AVERAGE MPG (gasoline or diesel) when taken over all passenger vehicles produced by just that manufacturer.

Hence, if a given manufacturer produced a mix of 50% fossil-fueled vehicles averaging an EPA-rated 30mpg AND 50% battery electric vehicles, they would considered a having a CAFE rating of 60 MPG!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 26, 2021 10:02 am

Furthermore, you can also look at it this way: since Tesla does not produce any vehicles that use fossil fuels, they have a CAFE rating equivalent to INFINITE MPG. As a matter of fact, because of this, one of Tesla’s biggest sources of annual income is selling their “Regulatory Credits”.  

Regulatory Credits are credits or points given by the state and federal government for contributing zero pollution to the environment. Tesla received nearly nearly a billion dollars in the 1st half of fiscal 2021 from the sale of these. (Source: )

This EPA/CAFE-induced market distortion is also the primary reason that such a broad range of vehicle manufacturers are now flooding the US markets with BEVs . . . there really is no great demand for them from customers but, instead, by producing them each company is able to achieve—or come closer to achieving—mandated CAFE regulations without having to purchase such on the open market.

Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 9:43 am

It’s a hidden tax from the dimocrats, that’s what it us. All manufacturers who sell a full line of vehicles from cars to SUVs to pickups capable of towing a trailer will not be able to meet the standard, they’ll be fined, and they’ll have to charge a gas guzzler tax. So they’ll introduce EVs, like the new GM Hummer that costs $110,000 dollars. Very few people will buy such expensive EVs, especially since they have limited capabilities, so they’ll probably just get a gasoline powered vehicle and pay the tax. If the tax makes the new vehicle unaffordable, they’ll have to buy a used vehicle and fix it up. The new car market will shrink. Shades of Socialist Cuba, but that’s the dimocrats for you.

JimH in CA
Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 9:45 am

Doing some math, if 2% of the fleet sales are 100 MPGe vehicles, then the 98 % balance of the IC vehicles n eed to only average 36 mpg.
If they sell 3% 100 MPGe EVs, the balance of the fleet requirement drops to 26 mpg, which they are close to now.!

So, watch for EV incentives near the end of the model year.!!

Reply to  JimH in CA
December 23, 2021 2:43 pm

Better go back to elementary school and learn some arithmetic, Jimmy. Your first example gives a fleet average of 37 mpg, a far cry from OBiden’s 55 mpg standard. You didn’t happen to go to school in California, did you? Sheesh.

JimH in CA
Reply to  meab
December 23, 2021 5:48 pm

oopsed on the 20% vs 2 %…my bad.

Reply to  TonyL
December 23, 2021 10:20 am

Absolutely Unobtainable.

That’s the point of course.

Reply to  TonyL
December 24, 2021 8:10 pm

Absolutely Unobtainable under current conditions. Once we mine enough Unobtainium, no problem!

Geoffrey Williams
December 23, 2021 12:11 am

Forced EV’s and then forced ride sharing, thin end of the wedge towards total control . .

Louis Hunt
December 23, 2021 12:11 am

Why is it that everything Democrats claim they are going to do ends up doing the opposite? The increase in electricity consumption and battery production will do more harm to the environment than gas-powered vehicles. Even their plan to tax the rich and give generous benefits to the poor ends up creating a hidden tax of inflation that hurts the poor most. Only government elites and their cronies end up richer under increased regulations, green new deals, and higher taxes.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Louis Hunt
December 23, 2021 1:18 am

Same the world over – governments are generally ill-informed and when they act they get it wrong and make things worse. A normal person then does a face-palm and says ‘I could have told you that would happen.’ Rather than admit failure, governments then do something else to mitigate the problems that their earlier action created – which makes things worse again.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
December 23, 2021 1:12 pm

“Why is it that everything Democrats claim they are going to do ends up doing the opposite?“

Because their end goal is power and their statements are just false advertising in order to gain more.

December 23, 2021 1:44 am

“The more you tighten your grip the more systems slip between your fingers.” Leia Organa. Who is cleasrly more intelligent than Faux Joe Xiden or anyone working in USG.

Jules Guidry
Reply to  2hotel9
December 23, 2021 6:18 am

Like trying to hold on to a wet hard boiled egg. Or a greased pig. The latter sorta fits for a description of liberals. Leftist pols comes to mind.

December 23, 2021 1:47 am

Christiana Figureres admitted that the climate hoax was all about wrecking the capitalist system and redistribution of developed nation’s wealth in October 2015 just before the IPCC Paris Conference.

More recently the non-government activist organisation called World Economic Forum announced a Big New Deal, to Build Back Better from COVID-19 and the New Green Deal … climate hoax again.

WEF claimed we ordinary people will be happier with no assets to worry about and we will be looked after by the state, like a Communist country claim where the ordinary people have nothing and including nothing much to eat while the elites live in luxury and shop at department stores well stocked with foreign goods. Example USSR before it collapsed. Check out Cuba or the majority of nobodies in Communist China who are controlled and managed.

Get behind the patriots and turn your backs on the leftists.

Jules Guidry
Reply to  Dennis
December 23, 2021 6:21 am

Ya left out Venezuela. Another commie success story which does make much news these days cuz the whole country is in the pits.

December 23, 2021 1:54 am

Another day another loony announcement

December 23, 2021 1:55 am

Ha ha ha haaa! Morons. The EPA has no authority to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions”. The Clean Air Act detailed the regulation of specific “criteria” air pollutants widely understood to be harmful to human health: ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and lead.

On page 9 of the 298-page joke, the EPA conjures its imaginary authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from thin air:

Section 202(a) requires EPA to establish standards for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicles which, in the Administrator’s judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act deals with pollution from new cars. They quote paragraph (1), but left out paragraph (3) which says:

(3)(A) In general.—(i) Unless the standard is changed as provided in subparagraph (B), regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter from classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines manufactured during or after model year 1983…

The act is very specific about what is to be regulated. “Greenhouse gas emissions” and carbon dioxide aren’t listed.

No rational reading of the clause that allows revision of emissions standards or inclusion of “any air pollutant” which “in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” would include carbon dioxide. It is not a “pollutant” by any stretch of the imagination. It not only does not endanger public health, carbon dioxide is essential to public health and welfare. Without carbon dioxide, we would all be dead along with every plant and animal on our planet. All plants that produce oxygen that animals breath require carbon dioxide.

Even if you seriously consider the lunatic idea that human carbon dioxide emissions significantly contribute to global warming, the rate of warming and sea level rise is so slow that it can easily be adapted to, as humans have done for thousands of years.

Reply to  stinkerp
December 23, 2021 3:37 am

You are right but who is going to stop them?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  stinkerp
December 23, 2021 4:01 am

“On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under Section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.”

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2021 6:23 am

The EPA’s Endangerment Finding was just scuttled by 3 new peer-reviewed studies. They show clearly that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide are irrelevant.
Without the Endangerment Finding, the EPA has no authority over human emissions. Even if it did, these studies show that regulating them wouldn’t change diddly.

oeman 50
Reply to  Bill
December 23, 2021 8:02 am

It is not “scuttled” until EPA rescinds it, which did not happen even during the last administration. It’s technical and procedural validity have always been questionable, even back when it was first issued (see the Carlin Report).

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  oeman 50
December 23, 2021 10:13 am

I suspect if Trump won his second term he (his administration) would have raised the issue with the supreme court.

Reply to  oeman 50
December 23, 2021 10:36 am

It was sustained by court action. It can be repudiated by court action.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 23, 2021 10:24 pm

I said, “No rational reading of the clause that allows revision of emissions standards or inclusion of ‘any air pollutant’ would include carbon dioxide.”

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer demonstrated their inability for rational understanding of the plain wording of the Clean Air Act; one of many times these activist judges applied creative interpretations of law.

The Supreme Court also found that segregating people by race wasn’t a violation of the constitution in Plessy v. Ferguson, that women have a constitutionally protected “right” to terminate a human life growing in their womb for any reason they want in Roe v. Wade, that “marriage” between two people of the same sex is also a constitutionally protected “right” in Obergefell v. Hodges; all cases criticized for their bizarre interpretation of the constitution. One was overturned long ago. One is in the process of being overturned. And one should be challenged and overturned. Just because a divided Supreme Court (5 to 4) says the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, when the law clearly gives them no authority to do so, doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is right. It is open to legal challenge and would likely be overturned by the current court which has a decent number of fair-minded, thoughtful justices who actually know the constitution to balance out the 4 activist justices remaining on the court.

Reply to  stinkerp
December 23, 2021 7:11 am


Actchally, a court ruling now allows the EPA to consider carbon dioxide a “pollutant”, so it now has authority to regulate Co2. So the original Clean Act standards are moot. The poor government defense attorneys of the “W” admnistration lost versus the half dozen or so states that sued, claiming Co2 was a pollutant and could be regulated!!

Gums sends…

December 23, 2021 2:34 am

The Biden administration has no respect for the free market economy. When governments start interfering like this, it only ends badly. But then again, everything Biden does ends badly for Americans and America.

December 23, 2021 3:25 am

Is there a rule that requires consumers to buy vehicles that conform to the standards? If so, I did not see it.

Reply to  Tom
December 23, 2021 7:04 am

The automakers have to meet the standard so they will control what they sell. It is called rationing.

Peter W
Reply to  David Wojick
December 23, 2021 8:49 am

Of course, in order to sell, they have to provide something worthwhile enough for enough people to buy.

Intelligent Dasein
December 23, 2021 3:26 am

There is no description in the article about what the changes are. It’s just a bunch of laudatory fluff.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Intelligent Dasein
December 23, 2021 11:01 am

The article did say they were going to make it more difficult over time to pass the emissions test. They didn’t say how they planned to enforce the new regulations if your car doesn’t pass or whether older cars would be grandfathered in. But if new cars have to pass their more restrictive tests, it could make it difficult to find a gas-powered replacement when your old car bites the dust.

Doug Huffman
December 23, 2021 3:48 am

The value of my 6,000# 2012 BMW X5 35d just keeps appreciating.

I wonder, will the US auto population become like Cuba’s under Castro, but with old PC’s mounted on the hood to emulate all of the failed electronic ECU’s?

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Doug Huffman
December 23, 2021 5:06 am

I just repaired the computer in my 92 F150. $2.80 in capacitors and she is good as new. Who needs a new car?😉

Bruce Cobb
December 23, 2021 4:18 am

The EPA is the “enemy within” which threatens the very underpinnings of our democratic system of government, and they blatantly employ the Big Lie of “carbon pollution”. Among their many tactics, they conflate CO2, which is a completely benign “emission” (a loaded word in itself) with other exhausts from vehicles, which can indeed contribute to smog in urban settings during certain atmospheric conditions. But this isn’t about eliminating smog, which is certainly nothing new, and which is far less of a problem now than it used to be. Oh no. Because CO2 has nothing to do with smog.

December 23, 2021 4:20 am

You can push people all you like, but it has no effect if they can’t afford what you are trying to persuade them to buy.

Peter W
Reply to  Damon
December 23, 2021 8:51 am

Or if they do not want to purchase what you are trying to sell.

Intelligent Dasein
Reply to  Damon
December 23, 2021 3:03 pm

That’s part of the plan. The goal is not electric cars for everyone but “no cars for you, peasant!”

Willem Post
December 23, 2021 4:23 am



THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.
He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note
NOTE: Range-driving is not recommended, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile.
Charging at 32F or less
Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.
Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.

Reply to  Willem Post
December 23, 2021 10:18 am

Oh, the irony!

The question is “Will the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology have learned anything at all from this event?

Waiting patiently for the answer…

Willem Post
December 23, 2021 4:25 am



This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.
In this article,

Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicleson a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg – CO2 emissions of an EV
Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs
It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:
1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.
High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs
The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:
1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.
2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home 
3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.
Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:
1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours. 
3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.

Reply to  Willem Post
December 23, 2021 12:36 pm

Hybrid Toyota Camry. Initial cost is only about a couple thousand more than a standard Camry. I get 45 MPG in a car that easily seats 5 and rides nice and quiet. Fuel range is 600 miles. maintenance intervals are 15,000 miles, the engine runs at a programmed speed which is best for electric generation. Just hit 300,000 miles, no loss of power or comfort. Never heard of a Toyota Hybrid catching fire either.

Michael in Dublin
December 23, 2021 4:41 am

Is there even one single engineer who has successfully built a vehicle among the key EPA advisors? I think not – only bureaucrats and theoretical academics

December 23, 2021 4:45 am

Reported in the Daily Mail…
Owner blows up his Tesla and incinerates an effigy of Elon Musk inside in protest at £17,000 cost of replacing the battery in Finland

Willem Post
Reply to  JBW
December 23, 2021 6:23 am

17,000 UK pounds (about $20,000) seems a tad high.

GM is paying only $1.8 billion to change out the batteries of 140,000 Bolts sold during the past 6 years, or $12,000 per car, because they kept on catching fire.

Reply to  Willem Post
December 23, 2021 11:33 pm

Go look at Rich Rebuilds and he shows a Tesla quote for around $22,000 for a new battery install in a 2013 Model S.
They repaired the defect cells for about $7,000 if I remember correctly.
Tesla always wants to install a new battery at full price …. even a model 3 is quoted at $16,000 by tesla. See here at 1:28 mark for the invoice The TRUTH about the $22,500 Tesla battery repair – YouTube

Jules Guidry
Reply to  JBW
December 23, 2021 6:28 am

Watch the video. It could be a “hold my beer” moment if done in the US. An expensive one, but still funny. And, so fitting for the EVs of our time.

December 23, 2021 4:58 am

Sooooooo……… Biden is thrusting unwanted vehicular units upon us, despite their egregious track record of incinerating their drivers or just spontaneous ignitions when no one is around. Is that individual I’ve named going to pay for funerals and replacement vehicles and compensate the families of those burned alive?

If this nonsense keeps up, I may go back to Horse & Buggy transportation. Being a considerable fan of Georgette Heyer’s Regency romance novels, I’ve learned a huge lot about transportation back in Them There Olden Times. A good mule was as valuable as any farm tractor is now, and a steady-tempered coach horse for the phaeton or a gig or a curricle could get you anywhere you wanted to go. Of course, I ‘d have to take my maid with me, for protection from you reprobates, but horse farts aren’t nearly as offensive as an automotive vehicle that can set itself on fire with no notice.

Peter W
Reply to  Sara
December 23, 2021 8:54 am

You could try voting Republican . . . .

Reply to  Peter W
December 23, 2021 1:01 pm

Yes, and now and then, that kind of insanity does hit me. I did not vote for Nixon, although the other choice was not much better.

December 23, 2021 5:11 am

How will the car makers force people to but enough EVs to meet this nutty regulation? The only way is (1) cross subsidize EVs to make them cheaper and ICE cars expensive and (2) ration ICE cars by making a lot fewer than people need.

Reply to  David Wojick
December 23, 2021 8:53 am

You forgetting used gas-powered cars? They’re still good to go and there are plenty of people who will buy them.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  David Wojick
December 23, 2021 9:24 am

There are currently around 1.4 billion ICE vehicles in the world.

The IEA in their Global EV Outlook 2021 estimate sales of EVs will be over 25m by 2030 and account for 7% of the road vehicle fleet by that time. (Note a large proportion of these vehicles will be two and three wheelers in China and other parts of Asia)

In other reports the IEA estimate on their best scenario there will be c.72m EVs in the world by 2040.

It is obvious that ICE vehicles are going to be the major form of transport for a very long time and sooner or later governments are going to have to recognise that reality or be voted out

December 23, 2021 5:12 am

I earlier wrote about this nonsense:

Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7
December 23, 2021 5:35 am

Government regulators live in a world where they come to believe thier own Orwellean language.

The benefits of this rule exceed the costs by as much as $190 billion. Benefits include reduced impacts of climate change, improved public health from lower pollution, and cost savings for vehicle owners through improved fuel efficiency. American drivers will save between $210 billion and $420 billion through 2050 on fuel costs.  On average over the lifetime of an individual MY 2026 vehicle, EPA estimates that the fuel savings will exceed the initial increase in vehicle costs by more than $1,000 for consumers.

The economic rigor behind the assertion that “benfits exceed cost by as much as $190 billion” is the same as that allowing Biden to assert that a $3 trillion “build back better” bill would actually cost nothing. I.e., pure fantasy. The claimed public health benefits exist only in computer models which are about as believable as RCP8.5.

The net fuel savings over increased price argument is equally deceptive. It is absolutely not worth spending an extra $10,000 dollars today to buy a car that will save you $1,000 over the next 10 years.

The EPA release goes into no details on exactly what the regulations are, but I assume they are simply racheting up CAFE standards; they certainly can’t require new technology on 2023 models at this point; it takes much longer. For example, the backup camera requirement which went into effect for all 2016 model cars was authorized in legislation signed by President Bush in 2008. And that was simple technology that was well understood and widely used elsewhere at the time.

If so, increased EV sales will be the minor effect. The first effect of regulations which add signifcant cost to new vehicles will be to make people hang on to current cars longer. The average age of US passenger vehicles on the road today is a little over 12 years and it has been increasing steadily. So it will be more than 12 years for 50% of the cars on the road to incorporate any new technology mandated today. Making new cars more expensive will stretch that out further.

The second effect will be to make hybrids more attractive. The cost penalty for a hybrid is about $2,000 – $3,000 — much less than the premium for an EV. You can already get over 50mpg with a Prius and close to that with the new hybrid Camry. I just drove from Atlanta to Indianapolis (558 miles) at mostly 70 mph and averaged 37.8 mpg in a 2013 Avalon hybrid which used the same drivetrain as the Camry.

I suspect this is really nothing more than restoring the higher CAFE requirements scaled back by President Trump and dressed up to look like Biden actually did something new.

Willem Post
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7
December 23, 2021 6:30 am


Bull manure.

My wife and I drive Subaru Outbacks, 30 mpg, $54,000 total cost

Replacing those with EVs, with equivalent storage and utility, would require 2 Tesla Model X, at a cost of $200,000

The financing and depreciation costs would be killers

We would be saving $2000/y in gas?

Biden and his BBB bill are first-class idiocies.

Jules Guidry
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7
December 23, 2021 6:51 am

Trump Derangement Syndrome living large in the leftist head. Rent-free. Anything Trump did while POTUS, now must be flipped. Can’t have anything which benefits the US, and the world, left standing. The Brandon administration has nothing to stand on and will make sure the accomplishments of the Trump era are removed from the public arena. Trump is still a major threat to the commies. Close to the time for the “resist” movement to go full throttle, on premium fuel. Its getting ridiculous, more so with each passing day.
Just sayin’.

Peter W
Reply to  Jules Guidry
December 23, 2021 8:57 am

As a conservative, I say Trump is a bit of an idiot and a B.S. artist, but even so, I voted for him twice in the end, as he is FAR better than any liberal!

oeman 50
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7
December 23, 2021 8:11 am

My ’05 Impreza is looking better and better. The most complicated thing I have to deal with is the aftermarket radio I installed when the original one died.

December 23, 2021 6:14 am

Hey Brandon,
You could also dictate the EPA to place windmills on top of the cars. It would save on the placement of charging stations.
‘Now that’s savy!

Coach Springer
December 23, 2021 6:28 am

I am 70 with a 2005 Tahoe – fair amount of rust / 278,000 miles. Old ICE vehicles held together by something like duct tape and junk yard visits will become very popular. I fully expect them to start going after replacement parts when they realize what is happening – despite the fact that they will raise the price of all fuels by 1000%.

December 23, 2021 6:36 am

I used to believe a lot of people were really stupid until it became apparent that they just an indoctrinated cult of the “woke again” flock that worships the government. However, anyone that doesn’t understand that electricity must be generated by using more fossil fuel than using it directly to move a vehicle really are stupid.

Chris Nisbet
December 23, 2021 7:02 am

These people never seem to be able to mention any downsides. If people really wanted to transition to EVs, they wouldn’t need to be ‘encouraged’ by government, would they?

Michael in Dublin
December 23, 2021 7:15 am

Hundreds of billions of dollars going down a black hole sorry green hole!

Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 8:00 am

From the above article:

“The standards are the ‘most ambitious’ rules of their kind ever put into place, the EPA said. They are projected to cut car emissions by 3 billion tons over the next three decades, the equivalent of half the carbon dioxide emitted in the U.S. per year.”


Left unmentioned: the standards are the “most ambitious” rules of their kind ever put into place because they are projected to increase power plant emissions by over 4 billion tons over the next three decades* due to the simple fact that there is no credible path to supply the amount of extra electrical power needed for the projected increase in EVs in the next 30 years without using fossil fuel-based power plants. Solar?, nope. Wind?, nope. Hydro?, nope. Nuclear?, you gotta be kidding.

[*My scientific WAG based on the inefficiencies of distributing electrical energy across the grid and the inefficiency of AC-DC current conversion and the inefficiencies inherent in battery storage of electrical energy. . . no, I haven’t done the detailed calculations . . . is there anyone—anyone at all—the believes calculations 30 years into the future are credible???]

Another point: anyone notice the sleight-of-hand being played in the above-quoted statement? “the equivalent of half the carbon dioxide emitted in the U.S. per year” sounds really impressive until you realize that it is in comparison to EPA projected vehicle emission reductions savings OVER 30 YEARS. In other words, the annual projected vehicle emissions savings from forcing a huge increase in EVs (while just not accounting for the increased emissions from fossil fuel power plants) would really be (3 billion tons/30 years)/(6 billion tons/year) = .0167 = 1.7%. Not so impressive now, is it?

As I said earlier: Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha . . .

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 9:07 am

You are making FAR too much sense, Mr. Dressler. You will confuse people who have low comprehension skills, people such as ecohippies and greenbeaners.

Please continue. I will enjoy watching them squirm.

Kit P
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 23, 2021 6:25 pm

“Nuclear?, you gotta be kidding.”

You would need one new nuke for each million new BEV. So it is doable.

Of course it would make more sense to just build new nukes and skip the BEV.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kit P
December 23, 2021 10:42 pm

Kit P posted: “You would need one new nuke for each million new BEV. So it is doable.”

Really? The newest reactor to enter service is Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which began operation in June 2016. The next-youngest operating reactor is Watts Bar Unit 1, also in Tennessee, which entered service in May 1996.

Therefore, over a recent 20 year-span, the US managed to build and put into operation just one nuclear reactor.

As of end-2020, there were about 287 million passenger vehicles registered in the US. So, an increase of one million EVs, an increase of about 0.35% of the amount EVs in that total, would be “doable” (your claim) every 20 years or so based on this data.

Doable? . . . methinks you need a reality check.

Kit P
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
December 24, 2021 3:08 pm

Clearly Gordon is not a doer.

Between the US navy and the US commercial nuke industry, we are the world leaders in building and operating nuke plants there is no close second.

My last job was at a nuke plant in China. The reactor vessels were forged forged for US reactors but ended up in China.

At the time in the US, near the planned US plant was a LNG facility importing natural gas. Now it is exporting natural gas.

As part of the doing class, we do things that need to be done.

So when fracking changed the economics of US nukes, I went from working on the same standard design were using for some US plants to a plant in China.

In other words, nuke plants like other power plants are constructed to meet a need not the current POTUS fantasy.

Is there a ‘need’ for BEV in the US?

No not at the moment. Since I am a doer, I know doing takes a lot of work and engineering. There are no magic wands.

Looking back 20 years, it looked like there might be a need for more nuke plants and BEV because the US was not producing enough oil and gas. Under POTUS Bush research on several different options for increasing domestic energy supply.

I consider myself fortunate to live in a country with lots of doers in the coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries. It is good to have choices for reliable power.

Clearly nuclear is doable for producing power.

Since climate is a political issue and not a real problem, real solutions that do not fit the same political agenda are not being considered.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kit P
December 25, 2021 10:05 am

“Clearly nuclear is doable for producing power.”

Even though you may claim to be a “doer” and disparage those you assert, without any evidence, are not “doers”, you would do well to follow the advice of fictional maverick cop Harry Callahan (played in movies by actor Clint Eastwood) who famously said ” A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Nuclear power plants may indeed by “doable” in China, or India or other countries outside of the USA. However, the topic of the above article (and my responding, relevant comments) is the EPA putting into place regulations that would force a massive increase in electric vehicles, and hence a large need for additional large-scale power plants, within the United States.

While the technology exists to build modern nuclear power plants, political and financial and environmental-concern factors prevent such from happening today at any significant pace in a non-military setting within the US. To reiterate, a demonstrated pace of bringing just one commercial nuclear power plant on-line every 20 years will not support the EPA’s plans for increasing by more than 1% or so the EV share of the total number of US passenger vehicles.

Of course, since you are self-identified as a “doer”, I anxiously await your successful campaign to overcome the above-mentioned impediments so that perhaps the US can emplace 20-30 new commercial nuclear power plants to support 20-30 million BEVs being on the road within the next 30 years. 🙂

December 23, 2021 8:07 am

My guess: 2022 models are going to fly off the shelf, if they can ever get the chips to finish making them, that is.

December 23, 2021 8:11 am

I know most people here think EV’s are a complete joke, but obviously not everyone is of that mindset…EV stocks soared in 2021; investors betting revenue to follow in 2022 (

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom
December 23, 2021 8:18 am

The operative word in your post is “betting”.

Reply to  Tom
December 23, 2021 1:17 pm

Investors aren’t betting that EV’s are rational, they’re betting that governments will give out enough tax dollars to make them profit.

Shanghai Dan
December 23, 2021 8:29 am

Half a year’s emissions over 30 years?

So 29.5 year’s of emissions is just fine and dandy, 30 years is DEATH.

I wonder what happens in year 31…

Thomas Gasloli
December 23, 2021 8:50 am

To be repealed in 4 years by President DeSantis.

Andy Pattullo
December 23, 2021 9:35 am

He is governing by regulation based on ideology. Nothing democratic about it. But this type of behavior has a very short shelf life and when you get up each morning thinking you can repeal the laws of physics on a whim, there is a good chance you will go to bed beaten and impoverished with no allies to speak of.

December 23, 2021 10:52 am

It’s beginning to look a lot like Facism.

December 23, 2021 12:58 pm

Is there a regulatory agency that is not corrupt?

Robert of Texas
December 23, 2021 1:52 pm

I wonder what the voters will think when power outages due to too many electric vehicles charging at the same time hit? All that new grid infrastructure to connect to wind turbines that may or may not be working. Meanwhile lots of new fossil fuel power plants to supply constant baseload power. It’s going to get expensive.

Walter Kowalczyk
December 23, 2021 3:55 pm

I never liked electric car race tracks as a gift either, just saying.

Rod Evans
December 24, 2021 1:02 am

I am getting the impression the globalists needed a patsy and Biden was the perfect candidate.
He is so perfect, he doesn’t know what he is doing and has no capacity to remember what he has done or will do.
You don’t get gifts like that everyday.

December 24, 2021 1:32 pm

And not ONE politician has proposed reducing the speed limit, even though doing so would immediately reduce ’emissions’. And that is beacuse the people would immediately see the results of doing so and would revolt.

Walter Sobchak
December 24, 2021 2:46 pm

Boy am I glad we bought new cars this year. I am 74. My new Avalon may last me until my kids take away my keys. At any rate, I will probably not have to buy one of those overpriced golf carts.

Yes, even the fanciest most expensive “electric” vehicle is a golf cart.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights