Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Diesel Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-11-2015, 04:11 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Barrington, RI
Posts: 5,874
Diesel Emissions, the EPA, and Sweden

Diesel related (albeit not MB)....

Holman Jenkins: The EPA Annexes Sweden - WSJ

__________________
14 E250 Bluetec "Sinclair", Palladium Silver on Black, 153k miles
06 E320 CDI "Rutherford", Black on Tan, 171k mi, Stage 1 tune, tuned TCU
91 300D "Otis", Smoke Silver, 142k mi, wastegate conversion

19 Honda CR-V EX 61k mi
Fourteen other MB's owned and sold
1961 Very Tolerant Wife
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-11-2015, 04:31 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 3,850
I get a subscription wall. Care to summarize?
__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2015, 04:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Barrington, RI
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
I get a subscription wall. Care to summarize?
I do too when I go straight to WSJ....somehow it lets you through when you go through Real Clear Politics link. Anyway, here's the article:

The diesel engine is a wonder of torque and thermal efficiency, but it emits soot and other unpleasantness. The Environmental Protection Agency is a wonder among regulatory agencies, having discovered authority to regulate diesel-engine pollution in other countries.

Or maybe not so wonderful: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has more than once criticized what he has called “the growing power of the administrative state,” by which he presumably means arbitrary power. Here’s such a case: Sweden’s Volvo last month appealed to the high court to overturn EPA penalties imposed on Volvo engines not built in America, not sold in America, unlikely ever to end up in America, and not subject in any way to the EPA’s statutory jurisdiction.

Volvo will be supported by a National Association of Manufacturers friend-of-the-court brief written by none other than liberal superhero Laurence Tribe of Harvard. Across the spectrum, philosophical types share a distaste for unauthorized behavior by government enforcers, in this case via the increasingly popular and troubling method of the arbitrary consent decree.

But there’s so much more to the Volvo story. If consistent and impartial parenting is the way to healthy-minded children, the EPA is a Freudian disaster, raising a bunch of regulatory tattle tales and industrial saboteurs.

In 1991, the EPA ignored complaints from several makers of non-road engines that rivals were cheating, in order to save fuel, on emissions rules for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Then environmental groups took up the same complaint, whereupon the agency demanded face-saving consent decrees with numerous engine makers, including two Volvo affiliates.

In essence, the engine makers apologized by agreeing in 1999 to accelerate by a single year compliance with a new emissions standard scheduled to take effect in 2006.

Meanwhile, with another NOx standard looming in 2010, Navistar sued the EPA claiming rival engine-makers were seeking to meet the rule with a defective technology. In turn, Navistar’s competitors sued claiming the EPA was unfairly favoring a defective technology pursued by Navistar (these are only the barest highlights of what became a truck-makers’ legal holy war).

While all this was going on, a Navistar joint-venture partner, Caterpillar, complained that 7,262 Volvo stationary engines made in Sweden before 2006 had violated the 1999 consent decree. Now let’s credit Caterpillar with a certain paperwork ingenuity: The Volvo engines were not imported to the U.S. and were made by a Volvo affiliate that wasn’t a party to the consent decree. EPA itself happily certified the engines under its then-current NOx standard, only changing its mind four years later, prodded by a competitor with a clear interest in damaging Volvo’s business.

To complete the parody, a federal district court would later agree that the 1999 consent terms “do not clearly apply” to the engines in question, but upheld an EPA penalty anyway because Volvo otherwise might enjoy a “competitive advantage” against engines to which the consent decree applied.

Volvo would not be relegated to the poorhouse if it paid the $72 million fine. The company has persisted in its fight, says outside counsel Joe Hollingsworth, mainly because it’s highly annoyed (not his exact words) at how the company has been treated.

Let it be said that the EPA’s NOx regulation must have done some good for the American people, though how much good is hard to know. The EPA relies on dubious extrapolations to estimate the benefits to public health. What’s more, the agency appears to have stopped publishing estimates of NOx pollution after 2005. Maybe that’s because the EPA’s focus has shifted to climate change, and its NOx regulations actually increase greenhouse emissions by increasing fuel burn.

Weighing cost against benefit is always a good idea no matter how heroic-sounding a regulation’s stated purpose. The same NOx rules just ended the 70-year U.S. career of the most successful freight locomotive in history, built by Electro-Motive Diesel. Now U.S. railroads face a locomotive shortage, inevitably leading to increased emissions as freight shifts from rail to truck.

One cost seldom mentioned but evident in the Volvo case is the cost of politicizing entire sectors of the economy. Wastefully, companies become obligated to fight each other with lobbyists and lawyers instead of competing in the marketplace.

So here’s Mr. Roberts’s chance. Interested parties will be filing their briefs in the next few days arguing why the Supreme Court should hear the Volvo appeal. If reining in arbitrary bureaucratic power is important, an opportunity is at hand.
__________________
14 E250 Bluetec "Sinclair", Palladium Silver on Black, 153k miles
06 E320 CDI "Rutherford", Black on Tan, 171k mi, Stage 1 tune, tuned TCU
91 300D "Otis", Smoke Silver, 142k mi, wastegate conversion

19 Honda CR-V EX 61k mi
Fourteen other MB's owned and sold
1961 Very Tolerant Wife
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-11-2015, 04:38 PM
mach4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego County, CA
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy View Post
I get a subscription wall.
Try this - go to Google, search "EPA Annexes Sweden", click on the link. You should get the whole article
__________________
Current Stable
  • 380SL (diesel)
  • Corvette C5
  • Manx
  • Baja Bug
  • F350 Powerstroke
  • Auburn Boattail Speedster replica
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-11-2015, 04:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 3,850
While I appreciate that it is a necessary evil, I really think the EPA needs to be kept on a tight leash.
__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-11-2015, 05:27 PM
mach4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego County, CA
Posts: 2,736
No evil is necessary....

just 'sayin
__________________
Current Stable
  • 380SL (diesel)
  • Corvette C5
  • Manx
  • Baja Bug
  • F350 Powerstroke
  • Auburn Boattail Speedster replica
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-11-2015, 06:12 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The slums of Beverly Hills
Posts: 8,065
Quote:
Weighing cost against benefit is always a good idea no matter how heroic-sounding a regulation’s stated purpose.
The EPA is explicitly prohibited by federal law (aka Congress) from weighing cost vs benefits of any emissions regulation. They are only allowed calculated financial benefit for any regulation to the entire US economy.
__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-11-2015, 06:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 3,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
The EPA is explicitly prohibited by federal law (aka Congress) from weighing cost vs benefits of any emissions regulation. They are only allowed calculated financial benefit for any regulation to the entire US economy.
That strikes me as completely idiotic, and consequently probably true of the federal government. What title/section of code includes this gem?
__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-11-2015, 07:13 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
I wonder if the EPA has the same effectiveness as the California Air Resources Board. CARB seems to set the regs that the entire industry follows because of their market potential.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page