Breaking Down the New Fuel Efficiency Proposal
Posted on May 20, 2009 by
By now you’ve probably heard about the new fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Obama administration. In case you haven’t, here’s a quick breakdown:
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would require passenger cars and light trucks to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. By that year, cars are expected to average about 39 mpg and trucks would get an average of 30 mpg. Current fuel economy standards are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks.
The new standards would cut greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks 30 percent by 2016. This would put the auto industry more on par with California, whose strict standards have previously outpaced federal guidelines. Furthermore, the plan would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, and scientists say it will curb global warming. Because this plan would amend existing rules, there is no need for Congressional action after a period of public comment.
This is good, right? From an environmental standpoint, all signs point to yes. But in the interest of keeping things balanced, let’s examine the possible cons: The Obama administration estimates these rules will add about $600 to the cost of a car. That’s on top of an estimated $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been enacted. (But remember that these cars are going to be more fuel-efficient, so that $1,300 may be recovered in savings at the gas pump in the long run.)
Not all automakers will be treated the same under the new plan. Companies like GM and Toyota, which produce full-size trucks and SUVs, would have lower fuel economy goals than companies like Honda and Mitsubishi that only produce smaller vehicles.
Under the current standards, when automakers beat their fuel economy goals, they earn credits that they may use toward future penalties. Electric cars are making a comeback, with the Chevy Volt expected in 2010 and an electric version of the Ford Focus shortly after, and under the proposed new standards, automakers are likely to hang on to those credits for as long as possible.
A few electric or hybrid vehicle sales could offset a lot of SUV sales, so automakers are likely to sell the electrics and hybrids cheaply to ramp up their credits and then jack up the price on large trucks and SUVs. Again, this is good from an environmental standpoint, but some say this unfairly penalizes large families and rural residents, who may require large vehicles.
And there you have it — the CAFÉ standards in a nutshell. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
As long as I can save money at the pump and the cars are well-made enough that they will last me a long time I don’t mind the extra costs involved. Still, I hope that my next car is a hybrid or electric car anyway.
I wish the government would try to get in advance of the needs. California already has better gas mileage, why not take one step ahead of that? Just like schools always build for the number of students they have now instead of the number they will have by the time the school actually opens. Let’s try anticipating.
[...] By now you’ve probably heard about the new fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Obama administration. In case you haven’t, here’s a quick breakdown. [...]
As long as the government doesn’t favor one technology over another, then I’m good with any and all regulations that raise automotive efficiency. Right now there is a huge push for hybrids and electrics because that is what is available now. However, few are thinking of the total cost of ownership. They focus on one metric and that is miles per gallon. Most don’t realize that the batteries in hybrids and electrics “wear out” where they can no longer hold a full charge. The battery power capacity goes down after numerous cycles and the owner is forced to replace the batteries. This is not cheap and there is a huge question mark about what to do with the used batteries? The obvious answer is to recycle them but let’s not fool ourselves here. That requires a huge amount of power and energy which will most likely come from a coal plant somewhere. Recycling batteries is not cheap or easy.
Personally, I think hydrogen or natural gas powered cars will take over. Battery technology still has a way to go before it can be considered for the long haul (i.e. 10 to 20 years of car ownership).
The automaker’s concern stops at profits and taxes. What happens 10 to 20 years after the hybrid is built is the consumers problem. See how they treated owners of full size SUVs. If you have a gas guzzler then that’s your problem. Allie hinted quite rightly that the automakers will play every game and bend every rule possible with this new legislation. Hybrids and electrics will flood the market place and so will used and exhausted batteries.
Today we’re talking about excessive fuel consumption. Tomorrow we’ll be talking about a glut and dump of batteries. What new legislation will come out in 20 years to deal with the nasty chemicals going down our sewers?
This legislation seemingly does not provide a comprehensive energy strategy. It simply feeds the population with a simple number that even the most feeble minded can track. There will still be an oil dependence here. Nothing is changing.
Oh well…
[...] Breaking Down the New Fuel Efficiency Proposal That’s on top of an estimated $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been enacted. (But remember that these cars are going to be more fuel-efficient, so that $1300 may be recovered in savings at the gas pump. [...]
Considering other countries were the automakers sell cars already have higher standards for fuel economy or the cars are already more fuel efficient, I don’t know if this pushes them enough to look for new technology. If companies can produce cars that already meet this standard, but they aren’t available here, I hope they aim higher than the standard.