Ford Wants To Build Hybrids Instead of All-Electric Cars. The EPA Hates That.

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2016
16,826
29,901
2,430

Ford Wants To Build Hybrids Instead of All-Electric Cars.

The EPA Hates That.

The automaker is choosing to prioritize hybrids, which are more popular and provide a better option for many motorists. But the EPA only foresees a minor role for hybrids.

23 Aug 2024 ~~ By Joe Lancaster

One of the country's largest automakers announced this week that it was shifting its focus away from battery-powered electric vehicles (E.V.s) in favor of hybrids that still use some amount of gasoline. The decision to prioritize a transitional technology makes sense, even though federal regulators might not be happy.
Ford Motor Co. CFO John Lawler told journalists Wednesday that the company would be shifting its focus away from all-electric vehicles. This included scrapping an electric three-row SUV previously planned for release in 2025.
The decision marks a major shift in the company's priorities. Two years ago, the automaker restructured, cleaving its production line into two divisions: Ford Blue, which would continue to make traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines, and Ford Model e, which would make its growing line of E.V.s.
~Snip~
In March, the EPA released rules that would cut the number of new gas-burning vehicles on the road over the next decade. Under its "more stringent emissions standards" for consumer vehicles, the agency foresaw that by 2032, 56 percent of all new vehicles on the road would be electric, while only 16 percent would be hybrids.
The National Automobile Dealers Association called the rule "flawed," as "other market conditions to make EVs broadly attractive to consumers…simply do not yet exist." It cited "vehicle affordability, a sufficient and reliable charging infrastructure, and acceptable charging speeds" as obstacles to widespread acceptance.
Besides, the EPA rule disincentivizes hybrids, needlessly forestalling a feasible transition between gas and electricity.
~Snip~
But importantly, it's Ford's decision based on changing consumer demand. Switching to cleaner forms of transportation is one of the easiest ways to cut down on our carbon emissions, and the market has spoken: People prefer hybrids to all-electric vehicles. And yet, as usual, government regulators are stuck trying to mandate something for which the demand simply isn't there.


Commentary:
I have no problem with them regulating emissions from facilities or making standards for drinking water, waste control, or use and importation of chemicals. However, when it gets to mandating what consumer goods get made, far too much power is delegated.
We shouldn’t abolish the EPA. But we certinly do need to get their scope in line.
Lest we firget the disasters that the EPA has created.
The created farm animals as a pollution source. Wait what was that REAL ozone destroying science of the 80s? Something about "Cow and Pig Farts." Then there was the "Gold King mine disaster that polluted Colorado river water for a thousand miles endanhering the lives of those using the river resources.
Of course those who control the EPA beliebe they know and have decided that the people should only drive electric vehicles, no matter whether they meet the customer’s needs or not?
As it is, the auto industry has made great inroads in getting better economy from fueled engines using Natural gas (Methane), LPG and Hydrogen...
European manufacturers continue to make inroads using Natural Gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles..
**********​
 
Hybrids are a necessary intermediate step until the infrastructure for all electric is better established.

I don't think the EPA minds.

Cool straw man though.
 
Commentary:
I have no problem with them regulating emissions from facilities or making standards for drinking water, waste control, or use and importation of chemicals. However, when it gets to mandating what consumer goods get made, far too much power is delegated.
If you have no problem with the regulation of emissions, what possible objection can you have with the EPA regulating CO2-emitting engines out of existence? And when you say "far too much power is delegated", what power are you talking about and who is delegating it to whom?
 
If you have no problem with the regulation of emissions, what possible objection can you have with the EPA regulating CO2-emitting engines out of existence? And when you say "far too much power is delegated", what power are you talking about and who is delegating it to whom?
You will be finding out soon enough as more and more agencies like the EPA and BATF get their dicks slapped in court for overstepping with "rules" that have no basis in the laws that were passed. They will no longer be able to ride roughshod over the American people.

Killing the Chevron deference was the best thing SCOTUS has done for our freedoms in decades.

Now congress will have to do their fucking jobs.....You want a new green weenie mandate? Now congress will have to rewrite the applicable law to allow it.
 
You will be finding out soon enough as more and more agencies like the EPA and BATF get their dicks slapped in court for overstepping with "rules" that have no basis in the laws that were passed. They will no longer be able to ride roughshod over the American people.

Killing the Chevron deference was the best thing SCOTUS has done for our freedoms in decades.

Now congress will have to do their fucking jobs.....You want a new green weenie mandate? Now congress will have to rewrite the applicable law to allow it.
If clean air or water standards are lowered for big business, it will be a travesty. Nprofits over people. Just the way you want it.
 

Ford Wants To Build Hybrids Instead of All-Electric Cars.

The EPA Hates That.

The automaker is choosing to prioritize hybrids, which are more popular and provide a better option for many motorists. But the EPA only foresees a minor role for hybrids.

23 Aug 2024 ~~ By Joe Lancaster

One of the country's largest automakers announced this week that it was shifting its focus away from battery-powered electric vehicles (E.V.s) in favor of hybrids that still use some amount of gasoline. The decision to prioritize a transitional technology makes sense, even though federal regulators might not be happy.
Ford Motor Co. CFO John Lawler told journalists Wednesday that the company would be shifting its focus away from all-electric vehicles. This included scrapping an electric three-row SUV previously planned for release in 2025.
The decision marks a major shift in the company's priorities. Two years ago, the automaker restructured, cleaving its production line into two divisions: Ford Blue, which would continue to make traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines, and Ford Model e, which would make its growing line of E.V.s.
~Snip~
In March, the EPA released rules that would cut the number of new gas-burning vehicles on the road over the next decade. Under its "more stringent emissions standards" for consumer vehicles, the agency foresaw that by 2032, 56 percent of all new vehicles on the road would be electric, while only 16 percent would be hybrids.
The National Automobile Dealers Association called the rule "flawed," as "other market conditions to make EVs broadly attractive to consumers…simply do not yet exist." It cited "vehicle affordability, a sufficient and reliable charging infrastructure, and acceptable charging speeds" as obstacles to widespread acceptance.
Besides, the EPA rule disincentivizes hybrids, needlessly forestalling a feasible transition between gas and electricity.
~Snip~
But importantly, it's Ford's decision based on changing consumer demand. Switching to cleaner forms of transportation is one of the easiest ways to cut down on our carbon emissions, and the market has spoken: People prefer hybrids to all-electric vehicles. And yet, as usual, government regulators are stuck trying to mandate something for which the demand simply isn't there.


Commentary:
I have no problem with them regulating emissions from facilities or making standards for drinking water, waste control, or use and importation of chemicals. However, when it gets to mandating what consumer goods get made, far too much power is delegated.
We shouldn’t abolish the EPA. But we certinly do need to get their scope in line.
Lest we firget the disasters that the EPA has created.
The created farm animals as a pollution source. Wait what was that REAL ozone destroying science of the 80s? Something about "Cow and Pig Farts." Then there was the "Gold King mine disaster that polluted Colorado river water for a thousand miles endanhering the lives of those using the river resources.
Of course those who control the EPA beliebe they know and have decided that the people should only drive electric vehicles, no matter whether they meet the customer’s needs or not?
As it is, the auto industry has made great inroads in getting better economy from fueled engines using Natural gas (Methane), LPG and Hydrogen...
European manufacturers continue to make inroads using Natural Gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles..
**********​
Can you show us the source that leads you to believe the EPA "hates" Ford building hybrids? As far as the laws currently stand, Ford could decide that most of their fleet needs to run on 6.8L V-10s. I don't think the EPA is as gung-ho for EVs as you suspect.
 
Seems you're a big of letting big oil do whatever.


Solar doesnt work to heat your Somali in DEC in MINN you ignorant OX. Batteries cant be trusted at 25 below zero. Many people drive 75-200 miles per day commute to work in CA. They need Gasoline.

American Big Oil is probably the most needed American company. Yet idiots bark non-stop about it? And you bozo are going after Natural Gas. You fools dont let up. All for nothing. Hope you and yours freeze to death in your stranded battery car.
 

Forum List

Back
Top