The RV Industry Association (RVIA) has sent comments to the EPA in reaction to the agency’s proposed stricter emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles from 2027 to 2032. The comments expressed opposition to these new regulations. RVIA seeks an exemption for motorhomes from the medium-duty vehicle standards, contending that motorhomes are not well-suited for electrification and that the proposed rule would significantly constrain their use and affordability.
The proposed EPA emissions standards, aimed at fostering the growth of the electric vehicle market and significantly reducing carbon emissions, have been touted as the strictest ever. However, the RVIA points out that implementing these rules would negatively impact the motorhome industry, which, in turn, would have a detrimental effect on manufacturers, dealers, employees, and RV buyers. Installing batteries in motorhomes would infringe on space and add unnecessary weight, thereby affecting the components typically found in a motorhome.
The proposed standards are applicable to light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and beyond, so the rules would impact both motorized RVs and tow vehicles. The rules also include provisions for credits for off-cycle and air conditioning, treatment of upstream emissions for zero-emission vehicles, and vehicle certification. Additionally, the EPA seeks to control refueling emissions or “VOC vapor and entrained droplets displaced from the fuel tank ullage [ullage or headspace is the unfilled space in a container, particularly with a liquid —Wikipedia] and any fuel spilled during [a] refueling event” for medium-duty vehicles and establish battery durability and warranty requirements for plug-in vehicles.
These stringent standards have been met with varying responses. Some, like the American Petroleum Institute, have raised concerns about the EPA’s singular focus on zero-emission vehicle technologies and suggested that fuel- and vehicle-based options that can achieve emissions reductions at a lower cost and in a more expedient manner should be considered. Others, such as Consumer Reports, view the proposed standards as a “huge step in the right direction,” calling for even stricter regulations.
The advent of these regulations has sparked significant concerns about the industry’s ability to comply with seemingly unrealistic timelines. The proposed standards, which would considerably increase the number of electric vehicles on the roads and impose green regulations on traditional vehicles, has raised concerns among producers, manufacturers, and consumers alike.
These standards, it is worth noting, are part of the Biden administration’s broader plan to combat the climate crisis, promote the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), and achieve net-zero carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. The plan targets significant reductions in CO2 emissions per mile for light- and medium-duty vehicles by 2032, potentially augmenting EV sales. Opposition, however, is expected from some small-fleet truckers and Republicans concerned about supply chain challenges and reliance on China for raw materials.
The RVIA’s criticism of the EPA’s proposed emissions standards reflects a wider debate about the feasibility, cost, and impact of these regulations. While the RVIA, API, and other critics voice concerns about the impacts and the focus on zero-emission technologies, others, like Consumer Reports and environmental advocates, hail the regulations as a crucial step towards a cleaner future.
##RVT1115
 has sent comments to the EPA in reaction to the agency's strict emissions standards.){kind=link}
Sound like the same “Chicken Littles” that were running around 50 years ago clucking about the sky falling down when carbon monoxide and leaded fuel regulations were issued.
Ohh, we’ve stepped into a mine field.
But, I’m with Toyota, and Iceland on producing hydrogen fuel using geothermal.
If all goes well, Iceland with its vast geothermal is poised to be the Saudi Arabia of hydrogen production. Cars like the Toyota Mirai have been run of hydrogen for years. Mercedes has been making hydrogen/electric busses as well.
But,…guess, I’m going to keep my vintage RV alive for a very, very long time.
I hope by now it is clear to most RVers that we need to do something to preserve the lifestyle we cherish. Not long ago the forecasts of life-changing climate change were doubted. Then the science became overwhelmingly clear. Some still asserted that it was a natural cycle that humans didn’t cause. Then evidence of human responsibility for much of the change became convincing. Some said that we couldn’t do anything about it anyway. But scientists pointed out ways that we could intervene, if we didn’t wait too long. It won’t be easy to change what we do so as to consume less energy and use less fossil fuel, but those of us who enjoy being outdoors have to be willing to make sacrifices, soon.
Consensus science is not true science.
I stopped caring after the environment supposedly killed me back in the ’80s, or so the experts of the ’70s assured me would happen.
But if you do honestly believe this, then I think that owning something called a “recreational vehicle” in such an environment is morally indefensible.
You’re certainly right that scientists have often been wrong–I remember the predictions in the 70s of catastrophic overpopulation. Unfortunately, this time many predictions environmental scientists made decades ago have come to pass, and sooner and in greater magnitude than predicted. Being right so far doesn’t mean their worst-case scenarios will come to pass, but I hate to count on that.
You are also right that my choices (including flying) can be judged as morally indefensible. I’m guilty and sometimes torn, and I try to moderate my less defensible choices. I guess, however, I feel that what any one person does is not the issue. That’s why I think we need universal policies.
“Unfortunately, this time many predictions environmental scientists made decades ago have come to pass, and sooner and in greater magnitude than predicted.”
Really? Which ones? By my count, practically none of them have.
This comes as no surprise given all the other stupid rules (especially out of CA). No more gas stoves or water heaters in homes? Huh? And the list goes on.
Take that red hat off, Tommy.
I only take it off to polish it and then proudly put it back on. 🙂
I love it…
Ditto !
You are correct about Eliminating all fossil fuels. I am a little confused, shutting down fossil fuel generatoring power plants, removing hydro electric dams and nuclear plants, where are we going to get this electricity?
New York also with our enlightened Governor…what a joke. No more of those polluting cars and stoves, just plug your EV into that magic outlet on the wall to charge your EV. Hmmmm, I wonder where that power comes from to supply the magic outlet?