Government Caught Cheating……..Oh the irony.

[Units]

Has anyone seen this? (Link below)
Sounds to me like a double standard in regards to diesel and ev standards. Guess someone owes Cummins some money back!

BREAKING: Government Cheating Scandal Unveils EV's as a Massive Scam!

BREAKING: EV’s are A SCAM - PROOF Government Cheating Scandal REVEALED! By Lauren Fix The Biden administration and the Department of Energy colluded to rig estimated gas mileage from EVs to look seven times more efficient than gas powered cars - but they're not! This is a cheating scandal the...

carcoachreports.substack.com

 

[JimKIII]

To help back this up:

The Electric-Car Cheating Scandal

It’s hard to think of a worse environmental scandal in recent year

wallstreetjournal-ny.newsmemory.com

I tried to search the Federal Register but ran out of time. Maybe someone can try to do that. This was my search string...try some others.

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[CharlieL]

To help back this up:

The Electric-Car Cheating Scandal

It’s hard to think of a worse environmental scandal in recent year

wallstreetjournal-ny.newsmemory.com

I tried to search the Federal Register but ran out of time. Maybe someone can try to do that. This was my search string...try some others.

Federal Register :: Request Access

Do a google search for 65 FR 36987. The federal register page will take you to a proposed rule published 4/11 /2023 For “Petroleum Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation.” I haven’t taken the time to read the whole thing, but knowing it is a proposed Rule, not an adopted rule means I won’t be buying her a cup of coffee.

 

[JimKIII]

The

Do a google search for 65 FR 36987. The federal register page will take you to a proposed rule published 4/11 /2023 For “Petroleum Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation.” I haven’t taken the time to read the whole thing, but knowing it is a proposed Rule, not an adopted rule means I won’t be buying her a cup of coffee.

I read that FR and it can't be discounted completely as only 'proposed'. Check out this part of that FR:

"The extant EV equivalency values are instead based on other statutory provisions applicable to gaseous fueled vehicles, with the consequence that EV CAFE values are driven by the seven-fold multiplier of the “fuel content factor”[41] rather than the statutory factors applicable to EVs. The effect is that EV CAFE values are significantly inflated beyond what the relevant statutory factors contemplate.

The consequences of outdated regulations are not academic. Because NHTSA is prohibited from considering the fuel economy of EVs when determining the maximum feasible CAFE standards for a given model year,[42] but must include EVs when calculating compliance with those standards,[43] excessively high imputed fuel economy values for EVs means that a relatively small number of EVs will mathematically guarantee compliance without meaningful improvements in the real-world average fuel economy of automakers' overall fleets."

I BOLDED the critical point. If the 'proposed' factor/calculation is to be 6.67, is this FR stating/implying that it is already 7x's?

 

[JimKIII]

OK - I finally found Federal Register Vol 65 page 36987. This is not a proposal but a final rule. Whether that final rule has been amended is another question. It may be that what @CharlieL posted is a proposed rule change to this final rule? I don't know.

GovInfo

Official Publications from the U.S. Government Publishing Office.

www.govinfo.gov

The PDF of the final rule is here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-06-12/pdf/00-14446.pdf

"EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective July 12, 2000."

This is what the article is referring to.

 

[gimmie11s]

Do as I say, not as I do.

--US Gov

 

[CaptainMike]

It's okay when they do it.

 

[JimKIII]

Do a google search for 65 FR 36987. The federal register page will take you to a proposed rule published 4/11 /2023 For “Petroleum Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation.” I haven’t taken the time to read the whole thing, but knowing it is a proposed Rule, not an adopted rule means I won’t be buying her a cup of coffee.

One last comment on this. In the 4/11/2023 "Petroleum Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation", which indeed is a proposal, the crux of the article is:

"DOE also included a provision for DOE to review part 474 five years after the date of publication of the June 2000 Final Rule to determine whether any updates and/or revisions are necessary. See10 CFR 474.5.
DOE has not updated part 474 since the June 2000 Final Rule. "

Explicitly stated in '65 FR 36986', which the OP's linked article references is:
"The NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) explicitly states (§ 474.5) that DOE will perform a review five years after publication of the final rule to determine whether any updates and/or revisions are necessary."

Conclusion: I will buy this article's author a coffee anytime. She was spot on in accusing the govment of underhandedness by correctly reading the July 12, 2000, Federal Register rule. That rule still stands as 'FINAL', almost 20 years after it was to have been reviewed -- which never happened.

 

[Brutal_HO]

Do as I say, not as I do.

--US Gov

EPA gave themselves a (monetary) pass on polluting waterways in 3 states in 2015.

2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gimmie11s]

EPA gave themselves a (monetary) pass on polluting waterways in 3 states in 2015.

2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The examples are too numerous to count. It really is upsetting once one goes on deep dive researching this type of stuff.

Dont even get me started on Eminent Domain.

 

[jebruns]

 

[CdnHO]

EVs are a fantasy that the leaf licking government created to line their own pockets. Manufacturers and consumers are finally starting to realize it is not going anywhere for a myriad of reasons. And the states haven't even started to charge a per mile road tax to offset the gas tax they EVs are not paying. It is what we in the north call a Goat Ropin.

 

[Units]

Just glad I don’t have to worry about my vehicle range dropping 30% because it’s cold out.

 

[brv10]

Way to many overpaid people in Washington that don't have a clue and yet they make the confusing overlapping useless rules

 

[sanda]

Just glad I don’t have to worry about my vehicle range dropping 30% because it’s cold out.

That's called shrinkage. Most of us experience that in cold weather.

 

[Units]

That's called shrinkage. Most of us experience that in cold weather.

Well, if “shrinkage” did occur and I used the government’s sliding scale for ev’s, then I wouldn’t have to worry about getting any pee on my pants when it’s cold out and I stop to relieve myself by the road while driving my emissions defeating diesel powered truck.

 

[UglyViking]

It's kind of ironic how concerned the government is with people being "radicalized" by outside sources when they have done such a good job of radicalizing people themselves…

 

[jebruns]

And the states haven't even started to charge a per mile road tax to offset the gas tax they EVs are not paying.

Most of the states in the USA are doing that, with an extra fee tacked on when you get your plates renewed each year. My state even has a $50 charge for non-plug in hybrids.

 

[Brutal_HO]

Guy over on 5thgenrams is fighting GA that they assessed a Hybrid fee to his e-torque when the law is clearly written it does not meet the criteria for their definition of a Hybrid.