[arpad_m]

Okay, I'll try one last time, then I'll let it go, pinky promise. Here is a contrived but relevant to the discussion example.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say we are back in the 1990s with two competing engine technologies, OHV and DOHC, everything else is irrelevant, because it either only exists on paper or is grossly cost ineffective. (Yeah, I know this isn't true, but it's just an example, okay?)

Now, if you are the EPA and mandate that each manufacturer must commit to increasing the minimum number of valves per cylinder from 2.0 to 4.0 on average across their vehicle fleet in a timespan of 5 years (we could have chosen another arbitrary metric such as horsepower per liter, too), is this a DOHC "mandate" in the dictionary definition of the word?

Of course not, after all, everyone is free to invent brand new technologies and pay $$$$ just to appease the regulators, or simply play along and switch to DOHC... realistically speaking to the context, however, I don't see how in the world anyone can say this isn't a DOHC mandate.

Exact same thing with the EPA fuel economy regulations. Everyone knows full well that a gasoline engine that achieves a fuel economy of 51+ mpg while actually satisfying today's customer expectations from a modern vehicle is not possible. Hybrids could do it, but of course the arbitrary tightening of this metric didn't end with 51.3 mpg and model year 2025, eventually it reaches the point where hybrids fall away, too.

This is how such regulation becomes an effective EV mandate, because it focuses on the one metric that vastly favors EVs and prescribes levels impossible to attain but using this one propulsion technology.

And before anyone says again that I'm anti-EV, nope, I have nothing against them, in fact I've been considering one as a commuter and grocery getter for the wife or kids. There is nothing wrong with electric propulsion per se---and everything is wrong with these concealed mandates.