Anonymous public comment
AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter, identifying as an industry worker, supports the EPA's plan to delay and roll back emission requirements. They argue that current standards have reached a point of diminishing returns, leading to increased vehicle costs, weight, and complexity without significant public health benefits.
As someone who works in industry, I support the EPA's plan to push back these requirements. The alleged claims on public health is questionable, at best. While I can concede that pollution controls on motor vehicles has been a good thing in general, there is a point of diminishing returns. When you go on a diet, your goal weight is not zero. EPA's own standards for harmful chemicals in drinking water, such as arsenic, is not zero. Why is it assumed that pushing EVs and "zero emission" vehicles is needed (or even wanted!)? Emission standards have become ridiculously low, only resulting in increased cost, weight (CO2!) and complexity for new vehicles. The average price of a new vehicle today is over $50K. This is partially due to the continuously increasing emission requirements. This makes vehicles more costly to purchase, own, and repair and increases the likelihood that they will malfunction. The increased complexity makes them more difficult to root cause and repair properly when they do malfunction. While EVs are technically zero emission vehicles, they are not zero emission from a complete life-cycle viewpoint, which is how they should be analyzed. Delaying and rolling back (not eliminating!) emission standards is the right thing to do, as we have gone past the point of providing measurable benefit.