Senate panel approves plan for 35mpg by 2020
A Senate panel has approved a plan to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg by 2020, with a 4% increase every year until 2030. That's almost 40% higher than today's standard for cars, which is 27.5 mpg . Currently, vans and trucks must get at least 22.2 mpg.
This bill, however, has a long, long, long way to go before any of its components are agreed upon. With this bill, work trucks and semis would have to meet CAFE standards for the first time -- but requirements can't be changed for those vehicles without first conducting a federal study. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said he'll filibuster this kind of legislation since it's unfair to the Big Three. Senators Ted Stevens (AK) and Trent Lott (MS) wonder if it's fair and how it will affect trucking. Senator Bill Nelson (FL) wants the 2020 standard to be 40 mpg. John Kerry (MA) wants 31 mpg by 2015 and 35 by 2020. The Big Three and Toyota don't like it because they think it's unattainable. The UAW doesn't like it because they say it will cause closures and job losses -- even though those have been rampant with the standards we already have. Environmentalists don't like it because it's weaker than President Bush's proposal and there aren't more alternative energy provisions. David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists likens the bill to Swiss cheese because of its loopholes, while Senator Daniel Inouye (HI) thinks it's fair as is.
The bill will go before the full Senate in June. Democrats expect it to pass. Our Magic 8-ball seems to think otherwise. . . .
[Source: Autoblog Green via AP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Chet 11:43AM (5/09/2007)
Will SUVs be included in the 35mpg average?
Reply
Mike 11:58AM (5/09/2007)
welcome to the current state of affairs, finger pointing and blame, with nobody on any side actually working for a solution.
D.C. has turned into nothing more than selling out principles and progress in the name of scoring a point in the media against the opposing side (see the KS governor's completely FALSE statemtns re: NG supplies and the Iraq was vs. disaster response)
but I think this is the first time in history that environuts are siding WITH the President...
Reply
Tool 11:57AM (5/09/2007)
The old argument that increasing MPG and reducing GHG emissions that it will cost too much and harm jobs is ridiculous.
If the Big Three and Toyota don't like the proposed legislation because they think it's unattainable, then why don't they come up with "legitimate" goals themselves?
Did you know that the GM L26 3800 V6--which is the oldest and arguably crudest--engine on the planet is now rated SULEV?
"In 2005, General Motors' 3800 Series III V6 engines became the industry's first gasoline V6s to carry the SULEV rating and can be found in the Pontiac Grand Prix (optionally supercharged), Buick LaCrosse, and the Buick Lucerne." Source: Wikipedia
SULEV vehicles generate typically less than 10% pollution of that of an equivalent ordinary vehicle.
If GM can bring SULEV to the 40-year-old 3800, why can't they do it to their other large engines? Surely this didn't cost $5,000, as Lutz has said, and it didn't impact MPG.
Therefore, the technology is already in place. It just needs to be leveraged across the line.
Reply
Jed 10:34PM (5/09/2007)
I believe that is the target fleet average.
So you can have one 25 mpg vehicle for every two 40 mpg vehicle if you like.
Reply
Tom Miller 12:04PM (5/09/2007)
Yes, and many trucks, too. Sure will have to sell a lot of super efficient cars to bring the average up to 35mpg. Obviously those that already sell mainly small cars will have an advantage.
Companies that always made small, high mpg cars because gasoline was expensive in their countries start out with an advantage.
Reply
emor8t 12:07PM (5/09/2007)
Once again, the point is missed.
Nobody cares what the mileage is persay. What they care about is. . .
1. Hurst the environment
2. It's >$3.00 a gallon
3. The supply of gas is running out (choose your own time frame, but it's a reality)
Those issues need to be taken care of, not MPG.
Reply
Chet 12:21PM (5/09/2007)
Good to hear that SUVs count. SUVs became popular in no small part because they were the escape from the downsizing and emasculation of cars.
I hope the separation of domestic and imported fleets is eliminated. Trying to force small cars to be built in the US will more likely force a further reduction in domestic production, which the manufacturers are inclined to do already. Not that it isn't all moving to Mexico anyway...
Reply
Steve 12:32PM (5/09/2007)
Recently read something on TTAC about this:
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Must Die
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3655
Reply
Zo 12:39PM (5/09/2007)
The problem with these laws is they put the emphasis to change on the wrong group of people. Companies sell what people will buy -- plain and simple.
Put the burden on the consumer in this case. Raise the gas guzzler tax and make it a requirement for any car that does less than 30mpg. This would be done at the federal level.
At the state level, raise tax on gas. Add another 50 cents on gas. This will force people to drive less, be more efficient and seek out more fuel efficient cars.
At the local level, raise or put property taxes on automobiles with a certain engine displacement or that do less than 30mpg.
Consumers will then demand more fuel efficient cars and will then pay more for fuel efficient cars so that the auto companies can make a profit. Manufacturers would then build and sell more fuel efficient cars because that is where the demand will be.
Forcing this on manufactures is just plain stupid and shows that D.C. really has no clue about how markets work. Demand drives markets -- change that equation and other things change. Companies will change without legislation because the demand will be for more fuel efficient cars because people will want to pay less on fuel.
Reply
Mulad 12:39PM (5/09/2007)
SULEV ratings have no relation to the amount of carbon dioxide coming out of the tailpipe, and correspondingly have very little to do with the mpg rating of a vehicle. I've heard the McLaren F1 gets a SULEV rating. Jay Leno has an old steam-powered car from the early 20th century which also passes current emissions tests because its fuel burns completely.
mpg ratings correspond highly with the carbon output of petroleum-powered vehicles (well, excepting natural gas vehicles, which have an inherently lower carbon footprint because methane only has one carbon atom per molecule). If you want to reduce carbon dioxide, setting mpg numbers is a good way to do it.
The big automakers may complain, but it won't be hard for them to attain if they sell a relatively small number of electric vehicles. This actually looks like a loophole to me. EPA ratings and CAFE numbers can be completely separate beasts. For instance, the Tesla Roadster is expected to turn in EPA numbers in the neighborhood of 135 mpg equivalent. However, its CAFE numbers will likely be in the range of 330 mpg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Fuel_efficiency
Oh, and just in case you think a 135 mpg rating is completely preposterous, check out the EPA numbers for the 2000 Nissan Altra EV station wagon: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001cartablef.jsp?id=16423
Reply
cman 12:45PM (5/09/2007)
I've got a list of all the vehicles that get 30 or more MPG combined.
Chevrolet Aveo
Ford Escape Hybrid
Ford Focus
Honda Accord Hybrid
Honda Civic
Honda Civic Hybrid
Honda Fit
Hyundai Accent
Hyundai Elantra
Kia Rio
Mazda3
Mini Cooper
Nissan Altima Hybrid
Nissan Sentra
Nissan Versa
Pontiac Vibe
Toyota Camry Hybrid
Toyota Corolla
Toyota Matrix
Toyota Prius
Toyota Yaris
VW Jetta Diesel
The ones that don't get 35 aren't missing the mark by much...the lowest averages on this list are the Mazda 3 at 31.5 and the Aveo and Focus at 32. This won't be hard to do.
Reply
paul34 12:51PM (5/09/2007)
Is that really fair, though? Even though my car is rated at 22/27 or something, I can get over 30 MPG. So you'd still stick me as a "gas guzzler" if I were to buy the tC in the future.
Reply
bill 12:55PM (5/09/2007)
Welcome to the democratic vision! - no smoking, all drive a yaris - hand the remaining 6 million us auto jobs to japan and china, largest tax increase in history, universal health care from the same people who brought you the dmv and our magnificent k-12 system(big payroll tax to help pay for that!), no fatty foods, take the guns, move 500 million poor here (truly open the borders and stop our racist border policies), noone must utter any non PC phrases, put the ladies in charge, and oh yeah - let Iran build and sell suitcase nukes and weapons on the open market!! Yeah, what a bright, fun time we will have.
Reply
Kevin 12:56PM (5/09/2007)
First, it is absurd that they are only raising the limit on cars to 35 mpg. The requirement should be 45 or 50 mpg for cars. We would already be well above the 35 mpg if the average weight of a car had not almost doubled within the past 15 years.
Second, one of the main problems with fuel standards is the CAFE standards only applying to cars. SUVs and personal trucks should have been included in this a long time ago. When the standards were originally created, almost no individuals drove trucks for their personal lives. Now, we have companies releasing SUVs that are really mini-vans (e.g. Mercedes M-class) just so that they do not have to meet the CAFE standards.
Reply
Mike 1:17PM (5/09/2007)
Zo, are you really proposing government mandates and taxes to socially engineer vehicle choice? 'Progressive' thouht really is the new marxism... and the scary thing is, you are absolutely, 100% convinced that your worldview is the riteous path, and there are no alternatives. You are utterly convinced of your moral superiority.
Reply
The FedEx Man 1:17PM (5/09/2007)
This has to be a good thing, I mean 35mpg is hardl a huge ask and ss cman pointed out most meet or are close to the 35mpg standard already. It doesn't mean the demise of powerful performance cars - although why a 911 can get 30mpg cruising while others struggle is a bit wierd - just the elimination of the pointless large displacement family car that are doing naff all other than pootling to the shops, pumping out needless CO2.
The plus side for car enthusiasts is that it could, and hopefully will, mean lighter cars! More agile, faster, efficient motoring - whats wrong with that?
Reply
Jeremy 1:40PM (5/09/2007)
Can this fuel economy be achieved? Absolutely? Can it be achieved without bankrupting half of the automotive sector? No.
This isn't just a Big 3 issue, this will send waves throughout the industry, costing jobs and hurting the economy as it goes.
Here's a novel idea. Maybe the government can push spending on alternative fuel research to new heights. Then, we can take the strain of the petroleum industry, and slowly but surely ween ourselves off of our oil dependence.
Or...they could just do the other thing, whine, bitch, and complain, and force the automakers to comply with unrealistic goals, to appease the tree huggers and get a few more votes.
All this environmental crap is getting on my nerves. This does nothing for the environment, we're still using oil, we're just trying to force people to use less of it. But guess what, if people get more economy out of the cars, they'll drive more. The same amount of gas will be used in the end, so this is a pointless endeavor.
Kick start the alternative fuel research. Oil isn't getting cheaper, and it won't be around forever. All this political saber rattling is getting a tad bit tiring. It's going to cost jobs. Its going to ruin communities. It's going to drive the cost of new vehicles through the roof. And in the end, it doesn't solve the biggest problem of all, oil dependence.
So maybe its time the bureaucrats in Washington go back to the drawing board and come up with a REAL plan, not an half-baked concoction that will cripple the auto industry to appease the eco-nazis.
Reply
spdracerut 1:37PM (5/09/2007)
It shouldn't be that hard to attain if they modify the emissions regulations to allow more diesels. The BMW 330d averages over 40mpg combined and is no slouch in the power department (~231hp, ~370 ft-lb tq!).
Reply
Colin Smith 1:43PM (5/09/2007)
#12. Fantastic! Thanks for that. I am planning an expedition to the US and hope to explore the deep south: is that where you're from? I guessed so from your patronising depracation of women and your hostility towards poor people being able to see a doctor. You obviously need lots of guns to kill people with too, and hate the idea of Iran having nuclear power because you don't want them to sell, er, weapons to other countries, like, er...oh, never mind.
America can easily design and build superb, fuel efficient cars. Just get on with it and give the rest of the world more choice when we come to choose a new car for ourselves. Be more self confident for god's sake and stop railing at the rest of humanity.
Reply
aaron 1:58PM (5/09/2007)
"I guessed so from your patronising depracation of women and your hostility towards poor people being able to see a doctor."
So, you support the continued "pantronising" of men in the U.S.? Are you willing to pay an exorbitant amount of doctors fees and such to cover costs for illegal immigrants in an antiquated health system? You know what I can't stand? People like you that have this need to defend the "innocent" and not-so-fortunate. They have representation. They don't need you.
Reply