Filed under: Government/Legal
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 2 of 2)
Jay Evans 2:11PM (5/09/2007)
#10 "This won't be hard to do."
uhh... for every car that gets 30 (combined) MPG they will have to build (here in US, imports don't count) and sell one that gets 40 MPG.
For every car that get 25 (combined) MPG they will have to biuld and sell 2 that get 40 mpg (combined)
Oh, on that list. IIRC only about 3 or 4 of those cars are built in the the US, and as I said, imports don't count towards domestic CAFE.
Not easy
Reply
bob 2:35PM (5/09/2007)
If the goal is to reduce energy consumption, which in turn reduce our dependence on foreign oil the solution is simple and proven. No need to mess with complicated CAFE standards that will always be prone to loop hole. Just increase fuel tax. This has been done with great success in all of europe, Japan and other G5 countries. The money raised by the incremental tax can go toward funding alternative energy research and enhancement public transportation.
Reply
Mike 2:56PM (5/09/2007)
When a reasonable conclusion cannot be reached, just raise taxes and increase government, right? Higher taxes and greater bureaucracy is the answer to everything, right bob?
Reply
The Other Bob 3:05PM (5/09/2007)
I toally agree with Jeremy. Increasing CAFE won't work and the only solution is new technology in batteries and cleaner power generation.
Reply
The FedEx Man 3:09PM (5/09/2007)
What on earth are you on about mike? Bob raises a very good point - the US would probably benefit from higher fuel duties. As well as this encouraging more effiecient cars it also has the benefit of raisng money for research into other fuel souces - something that cost millions and that very few car comapnies can manage on their own.
Furthermore if the price of oil goes up the difference is less noticeable if 75% (I think thats what is here in the UK - high whatever it is) of the cost is tax. I remeber when the prices went up a while back - the US saw the cost of petrol rocket while in the UK the percentage change was noticeable, but no where near as big.
Reply
Nik 4:16PM (5/09/2007)
You all know CAFE standards apply to a company's entire range of vehicles, right? So say a company has 4 models, one gets 40mpg, another gets 33mpg, the third gets 25mpg, and the last one gets 15mpg...their CAFE rating would be 28.25mpg combined...so in essence, all they would have to do is bump up the two lagging cars a few miles per gallon...to say 30mpg and 20mpg respectively, and they would be at a CAFE rating of 37.8, and be able to pass.
CAFE laws are bulls***.
Reply
P to the C 4:24PM (5/09/2007)
Fuel taxes are terribly regressive, that's why they're a bad idea. And it's no more wrong for the government to mandate that automobiles average a certain MPG than it is for the government to mandate that pesticides don't contain DDT or your drinking water doesn't contain lead.
For the record, these are the same crybaby excuses that were given by the car companies (et al.) back in the 70's when CAFE was first enacted but guess what - we're all better off today and the world didn't come to an end.
The monied establishment always resists progress because that could trigger a change in power and they don't like it. Don't be their huckleberry.
Reply
MikeW 4:31PM (5/09/2007)
The 3800 uses secondary air injection to reach its PZEV rating now (unique that it is only one bank, but look at the convoluted exhaust manifold)
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/Whats%20New/07_L26.doc
At least they try with NVH
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/Spec%20Sheet/90%20Degree%20V6%203800/2007_L26_011706.xls
Reply
Mulad 5:02PM (5/09/2007)
#21: Did you get past the first line of my post? If a company builds an electric vehicle with economy like the Tesla Roadster, with CAFE rating of 330 mpg, they can sell 65 vehicles at 30 mpg and still attain a 35 mpg CAFE rating. They could sell 21 vehicles at 20 mpg and still attain a 35 mpg CAFE rating.
Reply
akgrown 5:08PM (5/09/2007)
ha ha, like there'll be any gas left for civilian consumption in 2020!
Reply
spdracerut 5:21PM (5/09/2007)
There is a major downside to 'increasing the fuel tax', and that will be that it will hurt the people of lower income the most.
The idea of raising the tax to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars... well, the people currently driving inefficient cars are those people that already have money. Say, people driving Escalades, Ferraris, F250s in the city, etc. Sure, a higher gas tax will hurt their pocketbook some, but that's about it.
There are those that live check-by-check and depend on their vehicle to get to their jobs. Higher gas prices will hurt them the most; they're probably already driving something with decent gas mileage or something old, but don't have the money to buy something newer.
If you're going to increase a 'tax', increase the 'gas guzzler' tax. Of course, the Big 2.5 won't be happy about that if it's applied to trucks/suvs.
Reply
dan 6:01PM (5/09/2007)
This handwringing over mileage doesn't make any sense.
If I arrange my life to have a reasonable commute and put on 150 miles a week in a big car with a V8, using 8 gallons of gas, I'm a bad guy.
If I choose live 2 counties away from the city where my job is and sit on someone's bumper 15 hours a week in a 4 cylinder Civic, using 15 gallons of gas, I'm being responsible.
Just idiotic.
Reply
proud like cow 6:03PM (5/09/2007)
the senate mind as well have approved a bill mandating a 40% increase in rainbows and smiles.
Reply
Chet 9:44PM (5/09/2007)
Crazy question: WHY are we trying so hard to improve the fuel economy of our vehicles? Honestly, if we wanted vehicles that used less gas, WE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THEM.
Is a majority of the populace really ready to pay the price to reach our goals? What ARE those goals -- can we even get a consensus on that? I doubt it.
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
Rick Lyon 1:21PM (5/10/2007)
So we'll see decent mpg figures for cars by the time electric hover crafts come out?
Reply
mikeb 1:43AM (5/11/2007)
The reason the 3800 does so well is because a simple design always does better. Look at the power curve. if the torque is in a relatively flat curve, The HP increase up the RPM range will use the torque as a function. We just need more LOW end power. If your 1cyl 1.0 liter engine draws in 1l of fuel mixture every intake stroke at 1000 rpm, you use 500l of fuel/air mixture. The problem is that you have no low end power and you need to cruise at 2,000rpm. which means that you have to use 1,000l of air fuel mixture.
Reply