Blog

I pose this question because a recent report by the Rhodium Group describes the SAFE rule’s expected 1.5 percent annual increase in average fuel efficiency as a “roll back” from the 5 percent annual increase championed by the Obama administration.

If by “rollback,” Rhodium simply means the SAFE rule standards are less stringent than those advocated by the Obama administration, that’s fine. But if the Obama standards for model years 2022-2025 were not lawfully finalized, then those standards are legal phantoms. That means the SAFE rule would establish first-ever greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for MY 2022-2025 vehicles. It would not weaken, roll back, or otherwise revise “existing” MY 2022-2025 standards, since those were counterfeit.

Under the October 2012 rulemaking that formalized the Obama-era fuel economy program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) agreed to undertake a midterm evaluation (MTE), allowing the agencies to adjust their respective standards for MYs 2022-2025 in light of new information regarding technology, compliance costs, fuel prices, consumer acceptance, job impacts, and other relevant factors (77 FR 62628).

This was necessary given the 2012 rule’s “long [14-year] time frame” and NHTSA’s “statutory obligation to conduct a de novo rulemaking in order to establish final standards for MYs 2022–2025.” Moreover, in order to “align the agencies’ proceedings for MYs 2022–2025 and to maintain a joint national program,” EPA and NHTSA committed to “finalize their actions related to MYs 2022–2025 standards concurrently” (emphasis added).

However, the Obama administration flouted those legal commitments soon after Election Day 2016.

When EPA, NHTSA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued their Draft Technical Assessment Report for the MTE in July 2016, EPA officials told automakers it would issue a draft MTE in mid-summer 2017 and finalize the evaluation by April 1, 2018. That tallied with the official explanation and accompanying chart posted on NHTSA’s Web site in July 2016.

Scrapping those plans without warning, EPA instead proposed its final MTE on November 30, 2016. The agency allowed the public only 30 days (including Christmas week) to comment on the 268-page proposal and 719-page technical support document (TSD). Despite receiving more than 100,000 comments, EPA finalized the MTE on January 13, 2017, only two weeks after the comment period closed–and one week before Inauguration Day.

There was no statutory justification for the agency’s rush to judgment, since the final determination was not due until April 1, 2018 (77 FR 62787). This was clearly a political rulemaking undertaken to confront the incoming Trump administration with a regulatory fait accompli.

In short, the Obama EPA’s final midterm evaluation of the MY 2022-2025 standards was arbitrary, capricious, and conducted in bad faith.

Worse, as the Auto Alliance explained in a December 8, 2016 letter to then EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, EPA and NHTSA had not finalized their standards “concurrently,” as required by the agencies’ October 2012 joint rulemaking.

Consequently, the Alliance explained, EPA’s “early action” compelled NHTSA to choose between two unacceptable options: (1) produce an independent evaluation that “may be substantially different and not at all harmonized with EPA’s determination,” or (2) “align itself with EPA’s determination regardless of the existence of facts and analyses that would suggest the need for a different outcome.” Bottom line: “Either way, the process now bears no resemblance to the coordinated effort that was envisioned in the midterm evaluation.”

The SAFE rule does not “rollback” the Obama administration’s MY 2022-2025 standards because those were never lawfully finalized. The SAFE rule modifies regulatory plans that were not legally executed.

I am posting here a rough English translation of the Dutch Supreme Court’s summary of its 20th December 2019 decision to uphold lower court rulings that the government must reduce the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The Summary is available here.

As reported in the Washington Post and New York Times, Chapter 29 of Vol. 2 of the 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment claims that unchecked warming could raise global temperatures 8°C by century’s end, which in turn would reduce U.S. GDP by 10 percent.

Those estimates are based on this chart from Hsiang et al. 2017:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The chart shows the probability distribution of global warming projections when the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report’s climate model ensemble, known as CMIP5, is run with the RCP8.5 forcing trajectory.

On average, CMIP5 models hind-cast about twice as much warming in the lower atmosphere over the past 40 years as actually occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although often billed as a “business as usual” scenario, RCP8.5 is actually a high emissions scenario. It assumes the kind of forcing trajectory that would emerge if coal scaled up rapidly to provide almost half of global energy from all sources by 2100–a market share not seen since 1940.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, the National Assessment ran a group of overheated models with an inflated emissions baseline. Yet, as the chart from Hsiang et al. 2017, reveals, even with that biased combo, global warming hits 8°C in only 1 percent of model projections.

Curiously, that’s a detail the National Assessment did not mention. Nor did it point out that even if U.S. GDP in the 2090s is 10 percent lower than it might otherwise be, the economy is still projected to be much bigger than it is today.

Your government at work!

The first chart shows the divergence between models and observations in the global lower atmosphere. The second shows the divergence between models and observations in the tropical bulk atmosphere. Note in both charts there is only one model, the Russian INM-CM4 represented by the purple spaghetti line in the second graph, accurately tracks observations in the tropical troposphere. For clearer images of those figures, click on Link 1 and Link 2.

Cato Institute scholars Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue recently updated Pat’s chart listing studies since 2011 that estimate lower climate sensitivities than the average sensitivity of both the CMIP5 models used by the IPCC to project climate change impacts and the Row-Baker probability distribution underpinning the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon estimates.

I tried posting the chart but it loses too much resolution. So I am making it available via this link. Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer exists and the organization’s superb monograph, “Connecting Climate Change and National Security,” is not easy to find. The topic is hot once again. So, I am pleased to post the study here. Enjoy!

Connecting Climate Change and National Security

Due to some glitch, my comment letter on the Obama EPA’s proposed “Carbon Pollution” Standards for new fossil fuel power plants was never posted on CEI’s Web site. So I am posting it here.

Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Comment on Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, May 9, 2014

 

The House is expected to vote this week on H.Con.Res.119 expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is detrimental to the U.S. economy. The House passed similar legislation in June 2016 by 237 to 163, with six Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans voting against.

The vote is apparently timed to put House members on record once again before Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R.-Fla.), co-chair of the so-called Climate Solutions Caucus, introduces a carbon tax bill he reportedly has been shopping to colleagues, businesses, and environmental groups. [click to continue…]

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to release the proposed Clean Power Plan repeal rule on Tuesday, October 10. Someone leaked the proposal on Friday, October 6. To read it, click here.

On Thursday, July 20, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on President Trump’s nomination of Kirkland & Ellis attorney Jeffrey Bossert Clark to be Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD).

To help inform public discussion of the nomination, I post below several pertinent documents. [click to continue…]