EPA to put big trucks on fuel diet to cut emissions

[kscarbel2]

The New York Times / May 30, 2015

Inside the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/) here, a mammoth contraption, with steel rollers, advanced electronics and exhaust tubes, is nearing completion. The project — an enormous “truck treadmill” — is the new centerpiece of the Environmental Protection Agency’s complex.

One of the largest vehicle testing centers in the world, the truck lab will play a crucial role in shaping and enforcing a major new environmental mandate by the Obama administration that could dramatically transform America’s trucking industry.

This week, the EPA is expected to propose regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty trucks, requiring that their fuel economy increase up to 40 percent by 2027, compared with levels in 2010, according to people briefed on the proposal.

A tractor-trailer now averages five to six miles a gallon of diesel. The new regulations would seek to raise that average to as much as nine miles a gallon. A truck’s emissions can vary greatly, depending on how much it is carrying.

The hotly debated rules, which cover almost any truck larger than a standard pickup, are the latest in a stack of sweeping climate change policy measures on which President Obama hopes to build his environmental legacy. Already, his administration has proposed rules to cut emissions from power plants and has imposed significantly higher fuel efficiency standards on passenger vehicles.

The truck proposals could cut millions of tons of carbon dioxide pollution while saving millions of barrels of oil. Trucks now account for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles in the United States, even though they make up only 4 percent of traffic, the E.P.A. says.

But the rules will also impose significant burdens on America’s trucking industry — the beating heart of the nation’s economy, hauling food, raw goods and other freight across the country.

It is expected that the new rules will add $12,000 to $14,000 to the manufacturing cost of a new tractor-trailer, although E.P.A. studies estimate that cost will be recouped after 18 months by fuel savings.

Environmental advocates say that without regulation, the contribution of American trucks to global warming will soar.

“Trucking is set to be a bad actor if we don’t do something now,” Jason Mathers, head of the Green Freight program at the Environmental Defense Fund.

But some in the trucking industry are wary.

“I’ll put it this way: We told them what we can do, but they haven’t told us what they plan to do,” said Tony Greszler, vice president for government relations for Volvo Group North America, one of the largest manufacturers of big trucks. “We have concerns with how this will play out.”

The E.P.A., along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, began its initial phase of big truck fuel economy regulation in 2011, and those efforts have been widely seen within the industry as successful. But meeting the initial standards, like using more efficient tires, was not especially difficult by comparison.

The proposed rules will ask much more of the industry. They will require more investment and innovation, like tweaking engines and transmissions, improving aerodynamics and using lighter materials. More disruptive options, like recycling engine heat to drive a secondary turbine, or moving away from diesel itself, are also under consideration. Already, some bigger fleets like that of the United Parcel Service have started outfitting some of their trucks with natural gas.

To win over industry players, regulators say they have made efforts to engage companies up and down the supply chain. They have held hundreds of meetings and have tried to shape their proposal in a way that would help truck-related businesses.

“Fuel is either at the top or near the top of truck operators’ costs,” said Christopher Grundler, director of the E.P.A.’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Reducing those costs, he added, was good for business and the environment.

Mr. Obama led the cheerleading for his truck rules. In a speech last year signaling the rules, he said, “Because they haul about 70 percent of all domestic freight — 70 percent of the stuff we use, everything from flat-screen TVs to diapers to produce to you name it — every mile that we gain in fuel efficiency is worth thousands of dollars of savings every year.”

John C. Wall, chief technical officer at Cummins, a leading manufacturer of truck engines, said his company had “tried to engage proactively in the development of the regulations” and had found federal officials to be open-minded about what the company thought could be achieved.

Others in the industry, though, hold a different view.

John Yandell Jr., president of Yandell Truckaway in Pleasant Hill, Calif., said that fuel is the second-highest cost for his family business and that he would love to get better mileage on his fleet, which operates short-haul regional routes. But, he said, he is skeptical that can be achieved in the near future in a way that is affordable for him, if at all.

“Twenty years ago, my trucks were getting five miles per gallon; today they are getting around 6.2 to 6.4,” he said, but getting up to nine or 10 seemed like a pipe dream. “Talk is cheap, but I don’t see how they get there.”

Getting there, however, is a priority for Mr. Obama. The administration also hopes that ambitious government targets can help drive the innovation needed to achieve them. After the 54.5 m.p.g. requirement for cars and light trucks was announced in 2009, a wave of new research and development happened in Detroit, as automakers rushed to develop new hybrid, electric and super-efficient gasoline engines.

The new truck rules are intended to spur the same rush to innovation among the companies that build the 10-ton tractor-trailers that haul things as varied as timber, steel and frozen fish.

But as with any new environmental rules, the details are complicated and will take time to sort out. The public will be asked to comment on the proposed rules before the final version is put in place sometime next year.

Back at the testing lab, the truck treadmill was put through its paces. A semi truck was fastened down with thick chains secured to even thicker steel anchors. A driver started the engine, which roared as the truck sat atop enormous metal rollers that allowed the wheels to spin in place. Orange tubes, intended to collect the exhaust fumes when the formal testing begins, hung from the ceiling.

“This was a hole in the ground before Christmas,” said David Haugen, director of the E.P.A. lab’s testing and advanced technology division. “Now we’re ready to make history.”

[41chevy]

screwed again

[dogg rescue]

Does this administration realize how much they would be losing in fuel tax revenue?

[ws721]

Does this administration realize how much they would be losing in fuel tax revenue?

Have no fear, for they will raise taxes to cover the lose, or find a "new" tax like the mileage tax they keep talking about

[Gmerrill0516]

Maybe if they repeal the laws of physics and thermodynamics...I think what they are looking for is called a train...locomotive with many cars on a steel rail system. It would be a tremendous selling point to have a truck capable of that kind of efficency. If the cost were only $14K to make it happen it would have been done. Isn't it true that the emmison crap they have on the trucks now is driving eficiency DOWN?

I think a plan is needed but this sounds like a pipe dream to me. Why don't they mandate that trucks should be solar powered and get it over with...better fill the pantry now while the stores have stuff to sell...Dopes.

[41chevy]

Maybe if they repeal the laws of physics and thermodynamics...I think what they are looking for is called a train...locomotive with many cars on a steel rail system. It would be a tremendous selling point to have a truck capable of that kind of efficency. If the cost were only $14K to make it happen it would have been done. Isn't it true that the emmison crap they have on the trucks now is driving eficiency DOWN?

I think a plan is needed but this sounds like a pipe dream to me. Why don't they mandate that trucks should be solar powered and get it over with...better fill the pantry now while the stores have stuff to sell...Dopes.

EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel

NEW YORK TIMES, JUNE 22, 2012 BY HOWARD PORTNOY

Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?

This has got to be the ultimate example of government bureaucracy gone mad. “fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass.” The following year.

The “advanced biofuel contribution” under the law was to begin in 2010 at 0.6 billion gallons of cellulosic biomass and rise incrementally, first to 1.35 billion gallons in 2011, then to 2 billion gallons in 2012, and so on. By 2022, 21 billion gallons of fuel pumped into the nation’s cars and trucks was to be cellulosic ethanol.

The law further stipulated that if refiners failed to comply with the EPA mandate, they would pay a penalty.

The only problem with this arrangement was that the grant recipients responsible for coming up with “cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol … from wood chips and stalks or switch grass” instead came up empty. In a 2011 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.” The report also noted that the renewable fuel standard “may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” since the full life cycle of the fuel, including its transport, could lead to higher emissions than conventional petroleum.

Undaunted, the Obama administration has forged blindly ahead, continuing the elusive search for a technology that will produce cellulosic biomass—at taxpayers’ expense. Since thanks to the EPA mandate we are already paying more at the pump, the American people are truly getting nothing for something.

[Gmerrill0516]

EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel

nEW yORK TIMES, JUNE 22, 2012 BY HOWARD PORTNOY

Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?

This has got to be the ultimate example of government bureaucracy gone mad. “fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass.” The following year.

The “advanced biofuel contribution” under the law was to begin in 2010 at 0.6 billion gallons of cellulosic biomass and rise incrementally, first to 1.35 billion gallons in 2011, then to 2 billion gallons in 2012, and so on. By 2022, 21 billion gallons of fuel pumped into the nation’s cars and trucks was to be cellulosic ethanol.

The law further stipulated that if refiners failed to comply with the EPA mandate, they would pay a penalty.

The only problem with this arrangement was that the grant recipients responsible for coming up with “cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol … from wood chips and stalks or switch grass” instead came up empty. In a 2011 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.” The report also noted that the renewable fuel standard “may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” since the full life cycle of the fuel, including its transport, could lead to higher emissions than conventional petroleum.

Undaunted, the Obama administration has forged blindly ahead, continuing the elusive search for a technology that will produce cellulosic biomass—at taxpayers’ expense. Since thanks to the EPA mandate we are already paying more at the pump, the American people are truly getting nothing for something.

The sad part is that this had to really happen...you coudn't have made it up if you tried...This is what happens when you let stupid people vote and stupid people hold office...You get stupid...and you can't fix stupid...WOW!

[41chevy]

The initial regs were passed during George Bush Jr's presidency, BUT the regs were to be implemented when the technology was readily available and not before. (like California's micro stamped ammo law). Obama fast tracked it in to law and felt if the refineries are penalized enough, they will develop the technology. So the fines go down the system to the consumer at the pumps.