Expensive gasoline is a signature of the Obama Era, and it’s going to shoot up another 6 to 9 cents per gallon under new Environmental Protection Agency rules, if the oil industry’s estimates are correct. An estimated additional cost of $130 per car on new vehicles will also be part of the package. The goal of these regulations is to reduce tailpipe emissions by cutting down on the amount of sulfur and nitrogen oxide in gasoline. The cost won’t be easily absorbed by a weak economy struggling to emerge from years of anemic growth. The EPA, of course, says the gas price increase will be much smaller – only a penny or two per gallon – but as Charles Drevna, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, ruefully noted to Fox News, “I haven’t seen an EPA rule on fuels that has come out since 1995 that hasn’t said it would cost only a penny or two more.” For what it’s worth, the American Energy Alliance notes that the price of gasoline in California, where these fuel standards are already in effect, is 38.9 cents per gallon higher than the national average.
http://vimeo.com/4893960
-- Modified on 3/29/2013 11:06:48 AM
I like the cleaner air we have here in CA. As a kid growing up, it was difficult to play ball during the middle of the day, because everyone's eyes stung so badly. Hard to see a pop-fly with your eyes tearing up. Hell, even back in the early 80's, in Glendale, there were times I couldn't even see the houses on the other side of the street. It was like smoke from a grass fire. And, I'd like to see much fewer big SUV's. trucks and vans on the streets and roads, and much better mass transportation. Loved the bullet train in Japan. Most of the people I see, in these gas guzzlers seldom have more than the driver and one passenger. And, I know, I know, it will cost us more for consumer goods, because of transportation costs. I haven't seen a whole lot of people who couldn't be more discerning shoppers. After my travels in other countries, I had my eyes open to how frugal people can be, and still have a good quality of life. It might mean we would have to shift our search for jobs to those having to do with infra-structure repair and maintenance vs. making produces that people don't need, but which much of the money they spend on them goes for advertizing to convince them to buy the junk, even thought they don't need it. Obama is just doing what should have been done in earlier administrations.
He is not raising a tax on gas!
He proposes to change the gas standards to a cleaner blend that California already uses.
It is disputable how much this would change the price.
Most refineries can make this blend now with existing equipment.
The big gas companies don't bat an eyelash at raising the price a dime now.
Other than the reduction in smog, I doubt anyone would notice a change.
Provided the "summer blend" is what California uses all year. This should be better for your automobile, I doubt if changing the type of fuel we use every six months can be good for an engine. In all acctuality this should mean less work for the refineries as well, since they won't have to switch back and forth between blends?
Also I think they only add more detergent to the fuel.
All be it ancient history, the TREAD act, and the mandatory use of Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems TMPS on automobiles. What a waste of the consumers money. You can feel it in the drivers seat when a tire is under inflated.
TPMS Draws Fire
It seems everyone has a different take about NHTSA’s tire pressure monitoring system regulations. Everyone, that is, except TPMS producers.
This is the next TREAD Act provision that will impact you in a big way.
The intent of the law is to warn drivers if their tires are losing air pressure, causing them to be underinflated and dangerous. Once again, the intent of the law is noble enough, but the manner of execution remains open for discussion.
Since NHTSA issued its final TPMS rule in June 2002, the RMA has filed a petition calling for an inflation pressure reserve system, and three consumer safety groups have filed suit to block implementation of the final rule.
As this time, the TPMS regs are in legal limbo. But before it even reached that stage, NHTSA’s initial rule was overturned by the White House, which bowed to automaker concerns that the then-mandated direct TPMS was too costly.
At stake here are consumer lives, a big cash layout for vehicle makers and, no less important, nagging questions about the actual validity of pressure monitoring systems.
The harshest critics say such devices will give consumers a false sense of security. "If you had a TPMS in your car would you ever bother checking your inflation pressure?" asks one dealer, who answered his own question. "I sure wouldn’t. I'd rely on the system to tell me if I had an inflation problem. In my opinion, this could cause consumers to pay less attention to tire inflation pressure, not more."
The same dealer has an indirect TPMS on his own vehicle, and says he could set the inflation warning level to 15 psi and the system would not trigger an alarm because it reads the rotation of the tires, not the actual inflation pressure.
"Are we training consumers to ignore inflation pressure until a light or a buzzer sounds on the dashboard?" the dealer asks. "I’m concerned that we are."
NHTSA’s final ruling provides for two compliance options. The first is a direct TPMS that warns drivers when the air pressure in any or all of their tires drops at least 25% below the recommended cold inflation pressure. The second is an indirect system that would warn when any single tire lost at least 30% of its air pressure.
http://www.tirereview.com/Article/60270/cutting_the_tape_what_the_tread_act_means_to_you__today.aspx