Obama to announce fuel economy standards for 2016

[Wraith]

Obama is set to announce new fuel economy standards to be met by automakers by 2016.

Daily Tech (http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Sets+Tough+New+Fuel+Economy+Standards+355+MP G+by+2016/article15168.htm) is reporting the requirement will be an average of 35.5mpg (39mpg for cars, 30mpg for light trucks), while Autoblog Green (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/18/report-obama-to-announce-new-cafe-standards-tomorrow/) says an average of 34mpg (42mpg for cars, 26mpg for light trucks).

DailyTech:Times may be tough for the automakers, with Chrysler in bankruptcy and GM also in dire straits, but President Obama is not letting them off the hook when it comes to fuel economy standards. In fact, today he will announce a dramatic emissions reduction plan to be implemented over the next seven years and essentially transform the automotive landscape.

The new rules, according to a White House official briefing reporters, will require vehicles (including trucks and SUVs) to achieve 35.5 MPG on average by 2016. The average for cars will be 39 MPG, while the average for light trucks will be 30 MPG. The White House estimates that the new regulations, along with those passed in 2007 by the Bush administration, will raise the price of a car roughly $1,700 USD.

The official stated, "You can continue to buy whatever cars you want. All cars get cleaner."

The planned reductions are similar to California's emissions plan; in fact, California has agreed to go along with the federal government and not pursue its own fuel economy standard. The plan aims to cut down on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists believe are a major cause of global warming. The Obama administration says that the plan will cut emissions by 30 percent by 2016.

...Autoblog Green:According to reports from both the New York Times and Politico, the Obama Administration plans to announce new CAFE regulations tomorrow that will finally reconcile both federal and state standards. The plan is expected to combine California's strict emission rules with the federal rule, raising the national fleet mileage to around 42 mpg for cars and approximately 26 mpg for light trucks by 2016 – an increase over the current standards of 27.5 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for trucks.

The administration set a self-imposed deadline of June 30 to grant California's request to impose the state's standard to the federal CAFE regulations, and according to the NYT, the auto industry isn't expected to challenge the new rules as they finally set both a definitive time table and a national standard. Politico is reporting that the Obama Administration sat down with several states and a number of domestic and foreign automakers to discuss the standard, including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, BMW and others. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to attend the announcement on Tuesday, at which point all the hard details will be released.New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19emissions.html?_r=1&hp):The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.Fuel economy standards passed in 2007 (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/18/its-official-congress-passes-35-mpg-cafe-standard/) would have required an average of 35mpg by 2020.

[Johan]

will raise the price of a car roughly $1,700 USD.

Good idea for the auto industry. This will drive sales of new vehicles through the roof.

[Slack3r78]

Good idea for the auto industry. This will drive sales of new vehicles through the roof.
I agree. It's perfectly reasonable for vehicles in 2016 to be no more efficient than they were in 1990.

[BlackPete]

I agree. It's perfectly reasonable for vehicles in 2016 to be no more efficient than they were in 1990.

Precisely. Technology is static by its very nature. Just ask any Creationist. ;)

[alienmastermind]

Good idea for the auto industry. This will drive sales of new vehicles through the roof.

Price of a Prius - 22,000, Hybrid, less emissions
Price of a Ford Taurus - 24,600 standard fuel, standard emissions
Price of a Honda Civic Hybrid - 23,650

Okay, United States auto manufacturers have been producing costly, unpopular cars.

Japanese manufacturers now produce hybrid vehicles which are more attractive to people who 'care about the environment'.

For less.

If the US auto manufacturers hadn't killed off the Saturn electric car line, they would have had something to compete with Japan. In an electric. Also, if they weren't the oil lobby's bitch, they'd be doing something else, again.

They brought about their own fall by not selling cars that people wanted, flat out refusing to acknowledge the success of the electric car.

People want hybrids. GM, Ford, Chrysler...don't want to make them...or can't, but I lean towards, their ownership is dependent upon oil money to keep going, so rather than rehabilitate these floundering companies, I say let them die. The pain of loss of these vehicle manufacturers and all their parts conglomerates is going to suck, but what sucks now is that they HAVE the patents for working total electric cars. They just don't want them out there.

Bye, guys.

[Doogie2K]

People want hybrids. GM, Ford, Chrysler...don't want to make them...or can't, but I lean towards, their ownership is dependent upon oil money to keep going, so rather than rehabilitate these floundering companies, I say let them die. The pain of loss of these vehicle manufacturers and all their parts conglomerates is going to suck, but what sucks now is that they HAVE the patents for working total electric cars. They just don't want them out there.

Bye, guys.

They're spending an awful lot of money on hybrid technology for companies that "don't want them out there." Shit, I get near-monthly updates on their progress with my IEEE Spectrum subscription. It's actually gotten quite tedious, because I'd rather read an extra five pages on robots and AI and the wacky next-gen semiconductor jiggery-pokery that miraculously keeps Moore's Law afloat than yet another electric car article, but happily, I've started skipping those stories. ;)

[Ox]

I agree. It's perfectly reasonable for vehicles in 2016 to be no more efficient than they were in 1990.
No, but imposing a standard isn't the best way of encouraging fuel efficiency. Far better would be scaled subsidies or taxes based on efficiency, not a diktat that simply shifts all the costs of compliance onto the automaker.

People want hybrids. GM, Ford, Chrysler...don't want to make them...or can't, but I lean towards, their ownership is dependent upon oil money to keep going
What evidence do you have that GM, Ford, and Chrysler benefit from "oil money"? Do they own substantial stock in major oil companies? Do they own oil fields in Saudi Arabia? I mean, you seem to be positing a scenario exactly the opposite of all available evidence or reason, but I'll happily acknowledge I might be missing a really obvious factor.

[Slack3r78]

No, but imposing a standard isn't the best way of encouraging fuel efficiency. Far better would be scaled subsidies or taxes based on efficiency, not a diktat that simply shifts all the costs of compliance onto the automaker.
The CAFE standard is a taxation scheme. Automakers are welcome to build cars that don't meet the minimum CAFE standards, but are taxed additionally if their overall fleet average fails to meet the set standard.

[Wraith]

Price of a Prius - 22,000, Hybrid, less emissions
Price of a Ford Taurus - 24,600 standard fuel, standard emissions
Price of a Honda Civic Hybrid - 23,650

Okay, United States auto manufacturers have been producing costly, unpopular cars.

Japanese manufacturers now produce hybrid vehicles which are more attractive to people who 'care about the environment'.

For less. You can't exactly compare the Prius and Civic Hybrid to the Taurus. The Taurus, in its current incarnation, is a largish, 263hp V6-powered car (option for AWD) that gets 18mpg/28mpg city/hwy. The HCH is rated at 110hp and the Prius at 134hp (gas engine + electric motor combined).

If anything, the Prius and Civic Hybrid are more comparable to, say, the Ford Focus (136 (PZEV) or 140hp, $15,520, 24/35 city/hwy). Maybe the Fusion, which is a midsize (175hp, $19,720, 23/34 city/hwy in 4-cyl non-hybrid form). Yes, the Prius and HCH probably get more niceties and features than a barebones Focus or Fusion, but they are cheaper. And I'm not sure how vehicles prices are these days, but you're a lot more likely to get a "deal" (advertised or negotiated) from Ford than from Honda or Toyota dealers, especially on hybrids.

I'm not saying these hybrids are a poor purchase decision, but I don't think you can judge them against a large, V6-powered sedan, when they're actually compact / small midsize.


As for hybrids and electrics, GM has the Volt coming out in 2010/2011. Ford has the Fusion hybrid (new in the last year or two) and Escape hybrid (been around for a while now). And even for non-hybrids, the upcoming Chevy Cruze and Ford Focus are supposed to get like 45mpg highway. Yeah, the domestic automakers have lagged in the affordable high-MPG market, but they are making improvements.

[Ox]

The CAFE standard is a taxation scheme. Automakers are welcome to build cars that don't meet the minimum CAFE standards, but are taxed additionally if their overall fleet average fails to meet the set standard.
Does every fine count as a tax? I suppose in a manner of speaking. But the CAFE penalty is $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon over the limit, multiplied by every car the automaker sold that year. Even cars that met the CAFE minimum mileage would be penalized if they were built by an automaker who also built a sufficient number of noncompliant cars.

Let's assume two automakers who each sell 250,000 units in the U.S. each year. In the first firm, most of the vehicles get a good 29 mpg, but ten percent (25,000) are super-luxury models that only get 10 mpg. Overall fleet average is 27.1 mpg, four-tenths below the standard, so the company must pay $5.5 million in penalties. That's the equivalent of a $220 tax on each noncompliant car, or if you prefer, $22 per car whether compliant or noncompliant.

The second firm sells 250,000 units as well, but all of its cars get 10 mpg. That's a penalty of $96.25 per car, even though they are functionally identical to the luxury cars made by the first firm. So either we're penalizing purchasers of efficient cars made by companies that also make inefficient ones, or (if you assume the company only raises prices of the cars that incur the penalty) we're unfairly favoring cars made by companies that only make inefficient cars. Either way, there's a marked disparity that doesn't seem justified by the environmental impact of each car.

[Slack3r78]

Does every fine count as a tax?
Seems like a matter of semantics to me.

Which isn't to say that the structuring couldn't be better. But if your goal is to heavily disincentivize the production of fuel inefficient vehicles, I can see the logic behind the current scheme. Penalizing the full range of a manufacturer's production would, in theory, make dabbling in vehicles that can't meet standards.

Again, not saying it's perfect, just that it's not completely without reason.

[Johan]

I anticipate a boom in used car sales. :D

[National Kato]

It launches a new beginning,” said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a statement. “The president has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table."

Auto companies and California have signed off on the proposal, ending their feud over the state’s proposed rules. California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson are both planning to attend Obama’s announcement.Nice accomplishment all around. I commend the auto manufacturers, especially, for taking these necessary steps.

[alienmastermind]

What evidence do you have that GM, Ford, and Chrysler benefit from "oil money"? Do they own substantial stock in major oil companies? Do they own oil fields in Saudi Arabia? I mean, you seem to be positing a scenario exactly the opposite of all available evidence or reason, but I'll happily acknowledge I might be missing a really obvious factor.

Cars run on gasoline, maybe? :) Seems like the link between the auto manufacturers and oil companies is kind of obvious.

Oil companies and their helpers in the government have been against the fuel economy standards for YEARS now. You can read Boone Pickens' book about that...the guy knows what he's talking about. When Bush came into office, he basically put the kibosh on the Saturn EV1 by strong-arming the California boards to hack and slash the laws regulating emissions and state emission standards that demanded that a certain percentage of cars sold be electric.

From the Wiki...which cites CBS news and other sources....

'The cancellation of the CARB mandate was due to consistant lobbying of the General Motors Company and other oil cartelles. This lobbying with the mandate, which it eventually fell to, was done so as to allow continued stagnation of the vehicle markets (internal combustion engine) so to therefore allow continued record profits by environmentally challenged companies.'

Oy. Pig-ignorant greed supplants the will of the people. :/

[Ox]

Cars run on gasoline, maybe? :)
And I run on food. But that doesn't mean I benefit from high food prices. If anything, high food prices hurt me precisely because I need food.

You claim that GM, Ford, and Chrysler benefit from high oil prices. Saying "cars run on gasoline" doesn't exactly prove you right. If anything, it proves you wrong: high oil prices should hurt demand for cars.

From the Wiki...which cites CBS news and other sources....

'The cancellation of the CARB mandate was due to consistant lobbying of the General Motors Company and other oil cartelles. This lobbying with the mandate, which it eventually fell to, was done so as to allow continued stagnation of the vehicle markets (internal combustion engine) so to therefore allow continued record profits by environmentally challenged companies.'
Gee, does that sound like it was written by someone who was biased, had an interesting definition of "record profits," and unable to spell 'cartels'? I agree that GM and the oil companies both don't like expensive regulations. But again, that doesn't demonstrate GM benefits from high oil prices. I don't like expensive regulations, but ExxonMobil doesn't send me a fat check every month.

[alienmastermind]

You can't exactly compare the Prius and Civic Hybrid to the Taurus. The Taurus, in its current incarnation, is a largish, 263hp V6-powered car (option for AWD) that gets 18mpg/28mpg city/hwy. The HCH is rated at 110hp and the Prius at 134hp (gas engine + electric motor combined).

Fair enough. One car is bigger with more oomph.

Horsepower is what it comes down to. What do I need a V6 in a four door sedan for if I'm just going to work? Well, it depends on where I live, I guess. I'm thinking that right now, in the swath of the midwest with cold winters a v6 internal combustion engine is a great idea. Probably the best idea going for the winter.

I'm not a 'everyone must own electric/hybrids' guy. I think that there are utility vehicles that should be out there for everyone for the circumstances they need. I live in an area with a LOT of snowfall, and I'd trust a hybrid about as far as I could throw it to handle the snow. I'm just saying that in the price range of the sedan/compact, Toyota and Honda are putting out hybrids, and selling them at a gain, rather than a loss.

What I'm saying is that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are reaping the folly of their focus on SUVs and super-duty trucks, now that gas prices are easing back up again.

As for hybrids and electrics, GM has the Volt coming out in 2010/2011. Ford has the Fusion hybrid (new in the last year or two) and Escape hybrid (been around for a while now). And even for non-hybrids, the upcoming Chevy Cruze and Ford Focus are supposed to get like 45mpg highway. Yeah, the domestic automakers have lagged in the affordable high-MPG market, but they are making improvements.

Ford's Fusion? Comes out in 2010. http://www.fordvehicles.com/2010fusion/

GM's plant closed in the next town over from me. Know what it made? SUVs. During 2007, they closed the Neon plant to focus on 'high-end SUVs and trucks'.

I think if they fail now, they brought this on themselves by insisting that things were just fine, and not having a secondary plan of action when gas reached the magic 2.99 during the Bush administration.

[Wraith]

Ford's Fusion? Comes out in 2010. http://www.fordvehicles.com/2010fusion/Oh yeah, my mistake, the hybrid is new as a 2010 model, available now. Maybe I was thinking of when it was announced.

[alienmastermind]

And I run on food. But that doesn't mean I benefit from high food prices. If anything, high food prices hurt me precisely because I need food.

A big difference here, is that the food you 'run' on is easily grown and kept by you. You could provide your own food, for yourself. Sustaining yourself apart from food growers, producers, and sellers is possible. It would be a less than delicious diet but you'd sustain your life, and you'd run just fine. :)

Cars require fuel to run now, and could require less if the innovations in technology were driven in that direction. Fuel needs to be purchased to have value, and gasoline is consumed every single day because it is required.
Both of the industries require one another to continue unless one finds a way to break away from the other.

A state of equilibrium benefits both. I don't mean to say GM says YIPPPEE! when gas prices skyrocket. But without gas, no matter the price, your car isn't worth a damn, unless you convert it to corn oil and peanut shells. And without auto grade gasoline, oil cartels lose a nice revenue stream.

You claim that GM, Ford, and Chrysler benefit from high oil prices.

Not my intention, man. I'm saying the two businesses benefit from the dint of the other's existence.

Saying "cars run on gasoline" doesn't exactly prove you right. If anything, it proves you wrong: high oil prices should hurt demand for cars.

High oil prices or any oil prices wasn't my intended point, Ox. Oil sales require there to be a use for oil. Gasoline for vehicles is a use for oil that provides profits for oil companies. If someone invented a car that ran on sunshine, and you owned an oil company, would you be dancing in the streets, laughing and cheering over this new way of 'cheap as free' travel? Or, would you try to stop this idiot from breaking up your monopoly on energy?

The history of this does show that they do like to keep themselves in 'power' so to speak. Pretty sure OPEC cares about electric cars, even if we don't talk about it. They'll make the oil portion of 'hybrid' cars so expensive, it will offset any economic benefit....

Gee, does that sound like it was written by someone who was biased, had an interesting definition of "record profits," and unable to spell 'cartels'?

What can I say? It's wiki, man. :)

[Ox]

A big difference here, is that the food you 'run' on is easily grown and kept by you. You could provide your own food, for yourself.
Where? I don't happen to own any arable land. I suppose I could grow mushrooms in my basement, but (a) that probably violates some sort of health code, and (b) I highly doubt you can survive very long solely on a diet of fungus. Wouldn't I get scurvy or something?

Also, I have no idea how this is relevant.

Cars require fuel to run now, and could require less if the innovations in technology were driven in that direction. Fuel needs to be purchased to have value, and gasoline is consumed every single day because it is required.
Both of the industries require one another to continue unless one finds a way to break away from the other.
Okaaaay... and?
A state of equilibrium benefits both. I don't mean to say GM says YIPPPEE! when gas prices skyrocket. But without gas, no matter the price, your car isn't worth a damn, unless you convert it to corn oil and peanut shells. And without auto grade gasoline, oil cartels lose a nice revenue stream.
All true. But this is very different from what you said before. You explicitly claimed that the auto manufacturers are "the oil lobby's bitch", that they "don't want to make" electric cars because "they just don't want them out there," and the reason why they don't want electric cars is because "their ownership is dependent upon oil money to keep going." None of which is remotely true.

If someone invented a car that ran on sunshine, and you owned an oil company, would you be dancing in the streets, laughing and cheering over this new way of 'cheap as free' travel? Or, would you try to stop this idiot from breaking up your monopoly on energy?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm not claiming the oil companies want solar-powered cars. Obviously not. But once again, you talk about the oil companies and the auto companies as if they are one and the same. They aren't.

The history of this does show that they do like to keep themselves in 'power' so to speak. Pretty sure OPEC cares about electric cars, even if we don't talk about it. They'll make the oil portion of 'hybrid' cars so expensive, it will offset any economic benefit....
How the fuck would that work? If gas costs $150 per gallon, which will be more cost-effective: an old gas guzzler, or a hybrid? Raising oil prices only encourages the adoption of hybrid cars!

I really am beginning to think you need to sit down with a piece of paper and a pencil and do some of the basic math on this one. You're getting into Rosie O'Donnell "steel doesn't melt in fire" territory.

[Johan]

...Rosie O'Donnell "steel doesn't melt in fire" territory.

I need to seek that one out in its original context. It sounds like a hoot.

[ShivaX]

I need to seek that one out in its original context. It sounds like a hoot.

I'd imagine its in category of "Bat-shit insane 9/11 conspiracy theories".

You know where people who don't understand metallurgy go to wikipedia and challenge experts.

Edit: A quick Google says I'm right on target.

[Ox]

Johan, I live to serve.

FT9fPdwxXuo

Gold begins at 0:47.

It's worth noting that, indeed, while steel does melt in fires, it probably didn't literally melt in the WTC attacks: the fire wasn't hot enough for that. But as anyone who has ever left a piece of plastic in a hot car knows, many materials -- including most metals -- become dramatically softer at temperatures below their melting points.

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread topic.

[Johan]

Johan, I live to serve.

Blocked here.

I'll check it later; thanks.

[Wraith]

Text: Obama’s Remarks on New Auto-Emissions Rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/politics/19obama.text.html) (NYT)

Highlights on Autoblog Green (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/19/obama-cafe-increase-is-an-historic-agreement-to-help-american/):

Currently, the DOT manages the fuel economy, the EPA deals with emissions, and CA can use the Clean Air Act to come up with even more stringent rules. This could create a situation where car makers have to deal with rules from three agencies. The new rule is a national standard that CA will support and the DOT and EPA will both adopt.


The CAFE standard will increase by five percent each year, building on the 2011 standard, until we get to 2016. This means an Industry standard of 35.5 mpg (for cars and trucks) by 2016, an average increase of eight mpg per vehicle.


Drivers will recoup the additional cost to buy one of these more-efficient vehicles in three years. Drivers will, over the life of the vehicle, save $2,800, on average, he said.


Obama said the new rule will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the next five years, and is the projected equivalent of taking 58 million vehicles off the road.


Despite previous disagreements between environmental and industry groups, the national policy has been agreed on and a series of "major lawsuits" will be dropped.

[Ox]

The new rule is a national standard that CA will support and the DOT and EPA will both adopt.
That's great. What happens when California has an election and a new set of California politicians want to change the regulations? Will national environmental policy be run by whichever state is strictest?

[Wraith]

Jalopnik has a listing (http://jalopnik.com/5261242/no-automakers-meet-obamas-new-fuel-economy-standard) of the fleet fuel economy ratings for individual automakers, showing their 2009 numbers and how they compare to the 2016 standard (39mpg cars, 30mpg light trucks). As expected, Honda and Toyota take the top spots for cars. Subaru has the highest light truck rating.

(Note that the CAFE figure for vehicles isn't the same as the EPA figure you see on a window sticker.)

[Inspector Fowler]

Here is a question: Does average MPG take into account things like plug-in hybrids and their expected driving? Or does it only account for the gasoline stages of driving?

In other words, what if a plug in hybrid only got 30 mpg when the gas engine was running but obviously gets infinite mpg if you only use the electric cycle? Do they try to average that out by anticipating the average driver's use?

Or is anything with a hybrid system exempt from the laws? I would almost never ever need the gas engine if I had a plug in hybrid.

I won't be able to afford a new car until they're all powered by some alien warp drive, so I guess it doesn't affect me too much. For the short term, though, I think plug in hybrid systems are awesome. All the benefits of an electric car and a gas car combined into one...if they work, that is.

[Wraith]

Here is a question: Does average MPG take into account things like plug-in hybrids and their expected driving? Or does it only account for the gasoline stages of driving?

...

Or is anything with a hybrid system exempt from the laws?Google isn't really coming up with a good answer for this. Maybe since there aren't any plug-in hybrids for sale yet. I can't imagine that plug-in hybrids or full electric vehicles are excluded from CAFE altogether. My guess is that they'll have some gas-equivalent ratio for electric power (like they do for alternative fuels), as they can't really say that running in full electric mode yields infinite mpg, since most of this power will come from the grid.

Maybe they'll have to run a different cycle for measuring plug-in hybrids that takes into account electric mode and gas mode.

[alienmastermind]

Google isn't really coming up with a good answer for this. Maybe since there aren't any plug-in hybrids for sale yet. I can't imagine that plug-in hybrids or full electric vehicles are excluded from CAFE altogether. My guess is that they'll have some gas-equivalent ratio for electric power (like they do for alternative fuels), as they can't really say that running in full electric mode yields infinite mpg, since most of this power will come from the grid.

Maybe they'll have to run a different cycle for measuring plug-in hybrids that takes into account electric mode and gas mode.

As I understood the CA model of the EV-1 vehicles, the charging stations were run on both city power and solar.

It was pretty dope, to be honest.