Bill proposed to raise fuel economy standards 4% a year through 2018
U.S. Representative Ed Markey, D-Mass., is introducing a bill today that will require automakers to raise their fuel economy standards by 4% a year starting in late 2009 for cars and late 2011 for trucks. The key word here is "require," as President Bush proposed a similar plan that was more of a really strong suggestion with a few loopholes than an actual law with penalties for not being followed. On the brightside, Markey's plan is reportedly less severe than previous ones he's proposed, though it is estimated that raising fuel economy standards 4% a year will cost the auto industry a grand total of $114 billion between 2010 and 2017. U.S. automakers would likely shoulder about $85 billion of that expense. Markey's plan would even require that fuel economy standards continue to rise 4% a year in 2018 and beyond, that is, if it's technologically feasible. Talk about a big if.
The ultimate goal of Markey's plan would get fuel economy standards for automaker fleets to 35 mpg by 2018. In truth, that's a decade of time to add an additional 10 mpg to the current standard. It doesn't sound impossible, especially if vehicles like the GM Volt reach production and prove that hyper mileage cars can be sold alongside relative gas guzzlers to even out the MPG balance sheets. Unfortunately, that doesn't really account for gas guzzlers outselling high-mileage vehicles many times over.
[Source: The Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Robert O 7:50PM (3/13/2007)
Good for Congressman Markey. Fuel economy standards have not improved in years, and the environmental costs, as well as the instability of the middle-East requires us to rethink our approach to oil independence. If there is a focus on improving fuel efficiency, who knows what new, innovative technologies will allow us to exceed on current abilities.
Reply
Juan 7:57PM (3/13/2007)
A lot can happen in 10 years. The Volt might be a more popular option than is anticipated. Consumers are really the unpredictable factor in this equation, though.
Reply
5 Watt 7:57PM (3/13/2007)
I wonder if our knuckleheads in Washington will ever understand that it’s not the tail that wags the dog. If you want to cut back on consumption you have to tax the drug. Adding 25C tax a year for a couple of years should to the job.
Reply
Joel H 8:13PM (3/13/2007)
So two of the largest employers in this country are having a hard time making money and they're going to make them jump through more hoops?
Why not tax the fuel like someone else said and directly pump that money into gov't funded research for public domain?
I wonder if they realized what that would do to the cost of trucks used in actual hauling and work: contractors, builders, farmers, etc?
Reply
Bob 8:19PM (3/13/2007)
so, he support ppl driving boring cars like Hybrids?
Reply
DJ 8:23PM (3/13/2007)
Normally, I consider Edward Markey to be one of the biggest horse's asses in Congress, but I have to admit, this plan makes sense. It's also acheivable. Think about it, 10 years ago, there were NO hybrids on the market because the technology to make it feasible wasn't affordable.Now GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan and a few others all offer at least two mainstream hybrids and within the next three years, the number will grow to an average of five. As a result, production costs, much due to higher volumes and productivity, will drop nearly the same level as non-hybrid. Once that happens, why would anyone choose the non-hybrid and market forces would take over.
But, they need to eliminate some of the stupid loopholes, like calling a PT Cruiser or Dodge Magnum a "TRUCK", just to keep it out of the final tally.
Reply
Gardiner Westbound 8:32PM (3/13/2007)
Voluntary compliance does not work with the domestic automakers.
Reply
carbuzzard 9:35PM (3/13/2007)
Can someone tell me what government program was responsible for the production of one hybrid car? That's right, none. CAFE, the poster child for "unintended consequences," had nothing to do with it, nor did punitive taxation.
Perhaps a tax...for national security...wouldn't be a bad idea, but sponsoring a gov't research program? Why not on better roads which will reduce congestion, further reducing fuel consumption? If fuel economy becomes a higher priority for car buyers, it will become more of an incentive for carmakers to develop more fuel efficient automobiles.
How about a contest to find new words for the acronym CAFE. I'll give you a headstart: Congress and Fraud. You come up with the other two words.
Reply
zetha 8:42PM (3/13/2007)
yes, lets have non car people who dont know anything about engines tell us about cars. next, pass a bill that requires cars to run on love
Reply
Bruiser 8:52PM (3/13/2007)
You can't put a heavy tax on gas because it would making shipping costs way too expensive. It would also hurt construction because many of the workers rely on large trucks and heavy equipment to provide their service (Amen Joel). Taxing gas more wouldn't work, it would just piss people off especially since the market doesn't yet have the product to support such an extreme measure.
I don't have a problem with raising the fuel economy but the cost is very high and there has to be a way to help offset this. Maybe a more staggered approach like 2% for a couple years, then 4% for another year or two and then 6% by 2015. Then make them increase it by 2% each year after to keep it up.
Reply
far jr 8:52PM (3/13/2007)
I agree with increasing gasoline prices and let the free market sort out the direction we will take. If gas gets higher and higher, more people will buy economical vehicles because they want too, not because they are the only cars our government will allow us to drive. We will also see more investment into alternatives to gasoline... more electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, bio-diesel. Raising the price of fuel will reduce it's use and spur research into alternatives. Thats my 2 centavos.
Reply
Tool 9:06PM (3/13/2007)
Four per cent is too much too fast.
The federal government should mandate a 1-2% increase beginning 2010 with no loopholes whatsoever. And HUGE penalties if they aren't realized.
Historically, the automakers have fought any real change in this regard and they have not done anything on their own, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.
Much of this MPG improvement could be accomplished through technological innovation. For example, the new 6-speed automatics bring a 5-7% increase and I'm sure there are a lot of other low hanging fruit that would increase overall corporate MPG.
Reply
Carlos 9:09PM (3/13/2007)
Bruiser, it's true for construction pickups, but heavy equipment can use red diesel which isn't taxed. The real hit in construction (my industry) would be to the trucks involved in hauling dirt and delivering materials.
Reply
Tal 9:09PM (3/13/2007)
Go diesel...diesel/hybrid
Reply
chewy 9:11PM (3/13/2007)
Why are SUVs/pickups getting breaks again? (time wise this time) The standard must be the same. Last year about 8 millions cars were sold. I think these average about 25 mpg on average. And 8 million SUVs/pickups sold that average 15 mpg or less. This is the real problem. Rediculous to make the cars get 48 mpg while the trucks will be allowed something pathetic like 24 (just estimates that are likely necessary to achieve 35 mpg fleetwide.)
Reply
thomas 9:53PM (3/13/2007)
I agree- raise gas taxes
use the money to take the health care burden off of the domestic automakers so they can better compete
kill two birds with one stone
Reply
Tool 10:12PM (3/13/2007)
carbuzzard, look at the C.A.R.B. regulations of the late 1990's if you are looking for a government program responsible for the production of one hybrid car.
If there had been consistent policy making, there might have been consistent improvement in not only MPG, but GHG emissions.
Reply
Jim 10:20PM (3/13/2007)
"On the brightside, Markey's plan is reportedly less severe than previous ones he's proposed"
For some of us, the proposal IS the bright side! Carmakers could do a lot more to improve mileage. And car buyers could make smarter choices, too. Maybe this new law AND a 25 cent gas tax?
Reply
Ernest 10:27PM (3/13/2007)
That's good news.. stop the horsepower race (why do we need 300hp family sedan buring so much fuel ?? ) and up the fuel economy!
Car should be tax by fuel economy/engine size just like most of world.
Reply
Ernest 10:29PM (3/13/2007)
higher gas tax doesn't work.. I really doubt those tax money goes to where it should be..
Reply