EPA proposes removal of Greenhouse Gas regulations for all commercial and passenger vehicles

Did they HAVE to cheat? Or did they CHOOSE to cheat?

If they HAD to cheat, they should have been up front about it. If it's not possible to build vehicles according to Standard XXX, so you don't build any vehicles resulting in a shortage. That shortage would force regulatory change. Same story if the manufacturer can meet Standard XXX, but only by increasing the price point by 20%, which if the market couldn't bear would result in regulatory change. Instead of letting the "invisible hand of the market" do it's thing, VW and Cummins decided it was in their financial interests to lie and cheat.

Fun fact - most of the comeuppance for VW came from the US, not the European Union or Germany. Why? Because the US focused on the fraud aspect. The violations of environmental regulations were an after thought. It was the LYING that got VW in trouble, not the violations. The engines could easily meet the emissions standards - just not with the advertised fuel economy.

Another fun fact - it was publicly funded researchers at West Virginia University that first uncovered the fraud.

And let's not ignore that Elite Diesel is still in business, they've just lost their multi-state criminal enterprise which earned them far more than the fines and legal fees combined. The man did the math and decided to do the crime and is now doing the time. He didn't HAVE to violate the law. His business was unaffected by the regulations - if anything he could have profited from the regulations. Repair services make money by repairing things. If those things break more frequently, they make more money. Mr. Lake CHOSE to offer delete services, for which he received more than $500,000 over a 5 year period. As a penalty he has paid $60,000 in fines and served a year in jail. Digging into his co-conspirators, they all seem to still be in business. Seems these "onerous regulations" with "draconian penalties" aren't that onerous or draconian.

 

A) If Detroit Diesel, Cummins, Paccar, and CAT each independently did the math and said "I can't make an engine that complies" and exited the market the market would have to change. CAT made that choice and left the market, the other three found a way to make it work. A couple years later, CAT tried to re-enter the market and failed miserably.

B) Malicious compliance is the point. Remember the "customer is always right in matters of taste, provided he can pay". Imagine the hell that would have broken loose if the big 4 engine makers had decided to close up shop rather than comply. Issue WARN act notification with a 6 month time line and watch the regulations fall. The risk of that course wasn't worth the reward. The companies chose a path of compliance because that would result in greater profits for themselves. You can argue that the end consumer hasn't benefited, but the engine manufacturers haven't lost a cent of profit.

C) They did ask. They took the answer and made the regulatory timeline. The companies then moaned about not being given enough time.

D) Remember Thomas Midgely. He did a press conference where he washed his hands in leaded gasoline to prove it was safer alternative to ethanol additives. It wasn't safer, and he knew that - it was more profitable for him. Ultimately, it was the War Office that cast the deciding vote between TEL and ethanol.