Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds

[Scotsman]

Better snatch up those V8's fellas....

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Feds: 36 mpg for cars by 2015
New fuel rules to be unveiled today will increase cost of vehicles
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Transportation Department today will propose a sweeping increase in fuel economy standards, requiring passenger cars to average 35.7 miles per gallon and light trucks 28.6 mpg by 2015, The Detroit News has learned.

The proposal sets a more aggressive timetable than what Congress required when it passed an energy bill in December that calls for an industry fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 for cars and trucks combined.

The proposed regulation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will cost the auto industry an estimated $47 billion to meet the requirements through 2015, a person familiar with the announcement said.

The overall fleet of new passenger cars and light trucks will have to average 31.8 mpg by 2015 -- an annual increase of 4.6 percent per year and above the 4 percent figure Congress required. That compares to the fleet's overall average of 26.7 mpg in the 2007 model year.

The proposal is the first regulatory step on the road to an overall fleet average of at least 35 mpg by 2020 and achieves more than half of that target. The Bush administration hopes to make the proposal final before the next president takes office.

If finalized, the proposed increases will force dramatic changes in automakers' vehicle lineups, with a greater focus on hybrids and diesels and wider use of smaller, less powerful engines to meet the requirements.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters will unveil the proposed regulation at an Earth Day event in McLean, Va., at a Federal Highway Research facility. Peters will make the announcement against a backdrop of vehicles from the large automakers, including Detroit's Big Three. A source who saw her prepared remarks said Peters plans to call the proposal "ambitious but achievable."

Peters' spokesman, Brian Turmail, declined to comment in advance of the announcement.

The proposal creates "a credit transfer system" and a "credit trading system." The program allows automakers to apply credits earned from exceeding passenger car fleet requirements to the light-truck fleet. It also allows less efficient automakers to buy credits from more efficient automakers.

Automakers aren't likely to offer much criticism of the new proposal because they face pressure from California and 16 other states that want permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to impose their own tougher standards that would increase passenger car fuel economy to 43.7 mpg by 2016. All three presidential candidates have endorsed California's efforts, while Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have called for even higher fuel economy requirements.

The public and automakers will have a chance to comment on the plan before it becomes final.

The proposal also reforms the way fuel economy numbers are set for passenger cars. Instead of one overall number, the proposal sets a series of requirements based on the size, or attributes of the car. It's not clear how the attributes will be defined or how the system will differ from a similar reform of light truck fuel rules in 2006.

"Our guys are going to do it, but it's not going to be easy," said Mike Stanton, who heads the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., among others. "You're going to see more hybrids, more diesels, more improvements in the gasoline engine to get there."

Eli Hopson, a Washington official with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, said the proposal "sounds like a good first step, but the devil's in the details."

The Bush administration is under pressure to show it is taking action to address soaring oil prices, which spiked to a record $117.48 a barrel Monday. The Energy Department said gas prices hit a new record national average Monday of $3.51 a gallon, up 12 cents over the last week.

Congress ordered NHTSA as part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act bill to set yearly requirements to reach an industrywide, fleet average of at least 35 mpg for both passenger cars and light trucks.

The increase in fuel economy requirements for passenger cars is the first since Congress created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program in 1975, when in the wake of the Arab oil embargo it ordered automakers to boost fuel efficiency from 13 mpg to 27.5 mpg over a decade.

Automakers have outstripped the federal requirements, making it easier in the short run for them to meet the new requirements. In the 2007 model year, automakers averaged 31.3 mpg for passenger cars, far above the 27.5 mpg requirement, and 23.1 mpg for light trucks, above the 22.2 mpg mandate.

Light trucks account for more than half of all sales in the United States, though they declined 2.3 percent in 2007 and dropped 12.1 percent in the first three months of 2008, while car sales were down only 3.1 percent.

In April 2006, NHTSA ordered light-truck fuel economy to increase from 21.6 mpg to 24 mpg by model year 2012.

Automakers have said they will take different steps to meet the new requirements. General Motors Corp. has said it will have to build many more hybrid vehicles and by 2020 will add $6,000 to the price of a vehicle.

Ford Motor Co. said in its annual report it "plans to increase the fuel economy of its vehicles through the deployment of various fuel-saving technologies, some of which have been announced publicly, and through a shift in its fleet mix toward smaller and lighter vehicles."

NHTSA estimated in December 2006 that a 40 percent increase in fuel economy requirements could cost the industry $114 billion over 10 years, including $85 billion for the Big Three.

The proposal will add nearly $1,000 to the price of building light trucks and hundreds of dollars to the average cost of new passenger cars, people briefed on the program said.

When NHTSA boosted light truck fuel economy in 2006, it assumed gas prices would average an inflation-adjusted $2.46, about $1 below current prices. NHTSA was required to set the "maximum feasible" yearly standards.

The agency sent its proposal to the White House in February for approval and several federal agencies including the EPA offered comments on the proposal. NHTSA must have its final proposal in place before the end of March to take effect for the 2011 model year, since automakers get 18 months lead time.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...804220375/1148

[Scotsman]

Automakers response:

Automakers Respond to New Nationwide Fuel Economy Proposal

"Congress has set an aggressive, single, nationwide standard and automakers are prepared to meet that challenge. This proposal represents an important mile marker on the road to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020." --Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

· In supporting the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) the Alliance and its member companies acknowledge that we have a responsibility to increase fuel economy and limit greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles.

· This proposed rule would require the industry to achieve fleetwide fuel economy standards of 35.7 mpg for cars and 28.6 mpg for trucks, vans and SUVs by 2015.

· When fully implemented EISA will result in a minimum 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards and a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through 2020.

· Achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from automotive sector will require a comprehensive approach involving the vehicles, fuels, and drivers.

· Automakers believe this tough, nationwide, proposed fuel economy increase will be good for both consumers and energy security. While these increases will present a challenge, it is critical that automakers and consumers have the certainty that this nationwide, 50-state fuel economy rule provides.

· Automakers are committed to enhancing energy security and reducing carbon dioxide emissions through the use of alternative fuel autos. Our goal as manufacturers is to offer fuel-efficient vehicle options, with a wide range of attributes, at an affordable price. Last year, more than 1.8 million hybrid-electric, ethanol capable flexible fuel vehicles and clean diesel vehicles were sold in the U.S. That was a 15 percent increase over 2006. This year, more than 70 models of alternative fuel autos are available on dealer lots throughout the country.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04...nomy-proposal/

[stovt001]

Good news for GM, the Volt should be out by 2010 and be turning out pretty good volume by 2015. That should go a nice long way towards that 36 mpg. A couple more dual mode hybrids, mild hybrids across the board, some ethanol credits, and they're there.

[1st Gen Forever]

Below released today at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5608.htm

More details at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nht...7529cdba046a0/

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Contact: Brian Turmail, Tel.: (202) 366-4570
DOT 56-08

Secretary Peters Proposes 25 Percent Increase in Fuel Efficiency Standards Over 5 Years for Passenger Vehicles, Light Trucks

Fuel efficiency standards for both passenger vehicles and light trucks would increase by 4.5 percent per year over the five-year period ending in 2015 – a 25 percent total improvement that exceeds the 3.3 percent baseline proposed by Congress last year – under an ambitious new proposal announced today by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

“This proposal is historically ambitious, yet achievable,” Secretary Peters said. “It will help us all breathe a little easier by reducing tailpipe emissions, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable.”

For passenger cars, the proposal would increase fuel economy from the current 27.5 miles per gallon to 35.7 miles per gallon by 2015. For light trucks, the proposal calls for increases from 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 28.6 miles per gallon in 2015.

All told, the proposal will save nearly 55 billion gallons of fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions estimated at 521 million metric tons. The plan will save America’s drivers over $100 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles covered by the rule, Secretary Peters said.

As required by Congress, the proposed rule allows for automakers to earn credits for exceeding Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards. This will serve as an incentive for companies to exceed these goals while giving manufacturers flexibility to meet the standards without compromising their economic vitality. The goal is to save fuel, not endanger jobs, Secretary Peters said.

“Looking at the fuel-efficient technologies already available, it’s easy to see a not-too-distant future when cars fueled by something other than gasoline will be readily available and affordable,” Secretary Peters said. “Until that time, however, we will continue to do what we can, safely and efficiently, to improve gas mileage and help consumers spend less time and less money at the pump.”

Over the last six years, the Administration has twice made changes to the nation’s CAFE standards, including the first since 1975 to increase mileage requirements for light trucks. Last year, President Bush called for an energy plan that goes even further by requiring attribute-based fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles. A copy of the CAFE proposal can be found at www.nhtsa.gov.

For the Secretary's speech, click here.

[GTAHVIT]

I'm sorry but this means very little. In the end we either pay for more gas because we drive less efficient cars. Or, we pay more for our new cars because they have more expensive fuel efficient technology in them. I'm all for taking on the challenge of being more green. But, There are far better ways for our government to help us with fuel prices. These new statndards only look like our government is doing something. We pay for it one way or the other.

If they'd put the same effort into Cel. Ethanol, or more refineries, or offshore drilling I'd by much happier.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1st Gen Forever

....

Merged

Originally Posted by gtahvit

If they'd put the same effort into Cel. Ethanol, or more refineries, or offshore drilling I'd by much happier.

Camarospike keeps saying it, and I agree: They shouldn't be changing the efficiency, they should be changing the fuel source. And I see very little of that happening on the government's part.


Stovt001, Do we know how the Ethanol credit thing is going to work into this new CAFE law? That's what I'd like to know.

[Mindz]

[stovt001]

Dragon, I guess we don't know. Hopefully given the shortened timeline they'll leave it in there. Luckily GM has both the affordable mild hybrid system as well as the more effective dual mode hybrid system. As gas prices get higher hybrids will come closer to being economically logical, so we'll probably seem GM's hybrid line of both types expand a good deal. It seems to me a mild-hybrid Cobalt and Aveo would do quite well. Seeing how much mileage I lose just sitting still on a clogged freeway, I'd be interested.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by stovt001

It seems to me a mild-hybrid Cobalt and Aveo would do quite well. Seeing how much mileage I lose just sitting still on a clogged freeway, I'd be interested.

Absolutely. The relatively low cost of such systems could be absorbed into the SUV's pricetag...Come to think on it, that would also add an incentive not to buy SUV's if you don't truly need on. And GM's system is extremely effective, moreso than their name "Mild Hybrid" implies. Soon they are going to be replacing the NiMH batteries with Li-Ion...further amplifying their effects.
I'd love for my Cobalt to have such a system...it'd be great. (I'm already getting 32 mpg easy. this couls easily boost it to 35, I'd think.)
Hell, I'd love a Camaro with this system.



Also, I put this together trying to illustrate my point that CAFE is going to have the opposite impact of what it was intended to have.

Originally Posted by Me

Here's a chart I prepared showing my costs of ownership of these vehicles. Assume I buy both vehicles in full, in cash. (CAFE Cobalt = 20k, mine = 15k.)Assuming gas rises approx. a dollar every year for the next 5 years, and I drive 10,000 miles a year. Also assume the Fuel economy rating (hwy) is 31mpg in my Cobalt, and 36mpg in the "CAFE Cobalt". Here is how the "CAFE Cobalt" will perform cost-wise versus my current Cobalt will perform.

...............................Year 1...........Year 2...........Year 3..........Year 4..........Year 5.......Total 5-year life
Cost of gasoline:.........3.50................4.50........ .....5.50...............6.50............7.50...... .......of vehicle

Cost of Ownership
CAFE Cobalt:..........$21,012.55.......$1,301.85....... $1,591.15.....$1,880.45......$2,169.75..........$2 7,956.75
My Cobalt:.............$16,203.13.......$1,546.88.... ...$1,890.63.....$2,234.38......$2,578.13......... ..$24453.15

CAFE Savings........................................... .................................................. ....................-$3,503.60



Granted this is not scientific, but I think it's darn close. And you can see that the "CAFE Cobalt" does pay off some of it's CAFE-induced premium despite rising gas prices. But only about 1,000 dollars worth, and only after a full 5 years of owning it.

That's a 3 thousand dollar "markup" if you will, that the brainiacs in Government are imposing on us. More for some vehicles, and yet less for others. But the principal is the same, imho; CAFE is not worth it in terms of economics, and finances. I don't like being charged 3,000 dollars, when an equivalent vehicle not influenced by CAFE will still be cheaper to own, and fill up.:shrug:

I think GM can reach, and even surpass the standard without a doubt...but I'm afraid at what cost. If they need to mark up vehicles as shown...this is a stupid idea.

[DGthe3]

If GM continues its trend with making cars E85 capable, they would have no problems. They just can't make every car E85 capable or else the loophole will get closed -a sudden jump from 28 mpg to 53 mpg won't go unnoticed. But they should make every hybrid E85 capable -reinforce the green image

[Scotsman]

HYBRIDS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. I don't know how many times i have to say that, they will help but that sure as hell isn't all there is. The name is DIESEL, it's the cheapest quick fix the domestics have and virtually all trucks and SUV's will become diesel powered, not to mention some of the cars, regardless of what Debbie-downer-Lutz says.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

HYBRIDS ARE NOT THE ANSWER. I don't know how many times i have to say that, they will help but that sure as hell isn't all there is. The name is DIESEL, it's the cheapest quick fix the domestics have and virtually all trucks and SUV's will become diesel powered, not to mention some of the cars, regardless of what Debbie-downer-Lutz says.

agreed

[Mindz]

The problem is oil companies spiked the price up for diesel. It just so happened that it was an acceptable substitute and companies were looking into it until the price jump. Now they are shying away and wanting to stick with conventional crude oil.....

Coincidence.....

[Scotsman]

Did I really post this in general discussions? I meant to post it in the other cars section. Oops