Richard Hebditch’s Post

View profile for Richard Hebditch, graphic

Policy and public affairs professional

Screen grab below is from today's statement on Stellantis' Luton plant. From this, it does seem like Jonathan Reynold's main issue with the ZEV mandate is the trading where those who under-perform on EV sales have to buy credits from those who over-perform or else face penalties. But removing trading ("transfers" as he calls it) as the main flexibility mechanism does pretty much undermine the ZEV mandate as a whole, which gets it statutory basis from the Climate Change Act's power for government to introduce emissions trading schemes under secondary legislation. Undermine that trading and the whole legal basis for the ZEV mandate could look a bit iffy surely? Or am I missing something? Matt Finch Ralph Palmer Ben Nelmes

  • text, letter

Trading is just a cheaper option than paying the fine. No-one if forced to trade. But equally, with the flexibilities in place, not a single manufacturer would have faced a fine for underperforming this year - even if they didn't manufacture a single EV...

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics