They want more: CA petitions to raise automaker fleet standard to 40 mpg
Depending on your viewpoint, California is trying to make the world better for people everywhere, or trying to kill all the joy of automobiles and perhaps the entire domestic auto industry. In 2004, California adopted a requirement declaring that automakers reduce their fleets' CO2 emissions from September 2008, which would begin the 2009 model year. The first year's cut would be 1-2%, culminating in 2016 with a 24-36% reduction from the amount of 2002 CO2 levels. Eleven states have followed California's lead, but in order for the requirement to go into effect, California has to be granted a waiver for federal permission from the EPA.
The state of Vermont, which adopted California's stance, was sued last month by GM and a collection of auto industry partners. A verdict is still awaited. In that trial, it was said that in order to achieve that CO2 reduction, average mpg would need to be 43.1 in 2016. The cost to automakers would be billions upon billions. Chrysler has said it could only sell Smarts in states with the measure. GM said it could stop selling cars entirely in those states. There's howling on all sides, and it appears every side will not rest until it gains complete victory. Senators, meanwhile, are busy trying to protect their constituents and assuage voters with their own alternatives.
In 40 years, the EPA has never declined a waiver. If it approves California's request, six or so additional states are expected to adopt the same measures.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Tool 1:46PM (5/23/2007)
Like Peter DeLorenzo said in AutoExtremist this morning, "the prevailing attitude is that Detroit has fought every safety, emissions and fuel efficiency regulation since the late 60s"
Detroit continues to fight any credible ideas, because it attacks their remaining profit centers. Then they give us false arguments, like the beauty from Bob Lutz that to reach the 40 MPG standard it will cost $5,000 per vehicle.
Reply
Tim 1:56PM (5/23/2007)
I agree! If CA can have AGERAGE fuel econ at 40mpg, they need to get their engineers to work on it. 40mpg is possible but it cost money, money that gets passed down to the consumer. Maybe if CA subsidized EVERYONE in the USA to offset the $2,000 - $5,000 difference.... If that were to happen, I bet they would jump off their soapbox and come up with more feesible ideas. Like work from home, better public transport, car pool lanes that REQUIRE more than two people in the car rather than, "well, if you drive a hybrid by yourself, you can use the HOV lane." How STUPID!!! I think carpooling should be mandatory if your going to use a HOV lane - none of these rules to pamper hybrid drivers. That takes away the idea of a HOV lane. My car gets 36mpg (ITS GM TOO) and I carry 3 other people with me. Thats like getting 144mpg! (36x4) Driving by myself I get 38mpg.
So, here is the fix CA: SLOW DOWN, DRIVE DURING OFF-PEAK HOURS TO LESSEN TRAFFIC JAMS, WORK FROM HOME, CAR POOL, COMBINE ERRANDS INTO ONE TRIP, RIDE A BIKE, WALK.
Jay Evans 3:15PM (5/23/2007)
If any of the automakers could build a 30+mpg full size SUV they would because they would own the market 100% and be rolling in money.
Brian Dreggors 1:48PM (5/23/2007)
You think if California would've regulated their own growth over the past 70 years, they wouldn't have to adopt such ridiculous measures to improve their own air quality? How come most other metro areas don't have such an abundance of air quality problems? Oh yeah, its called URBAN PLANNING.
Reply
srivendel 1:49PM (5/23/2007)
Let's give California what it wants. It would be great if, in 2016, Californians could only buy Pruises, Smarts, and diesel Jettas.
But keep the rest of us out of it.
Reply
Drewboy 1:54PM (5/23/2007)
With peak oil already being reached, or being reached soon, supply issues and costs are what is going to kill the auto industry unless it seriously innovates. I don't have a problem with these high requirements, it will force them to innovate if they want to survive.
Reply
rrr 1:57PM (5/23/2007)
#1 Exactly. At some point people said enough is enough.
If GM doesn't want to sell its cars in those states........hey by all means. If they do they have to follow the law of the land.
Also why is everyone saying this will kill fun of driving.
#1 All SUVs need to become hybrids, hardly anyone can call SUVs fun to drive now.
And all other FUN cars need to simply lose some weight.
Reply
John 1:59PM (5/23/2007)
srivendel - and even when that's all they can drive they will STILL have crummy air quality!
Reply
Max 1:58PM (5/23/2007)
regardless of Detroit's stance, CARB is completely crazy. CARB is saying all of these things will help air quality, but it has no research to support their claims. Considering they have already sued auto manufacturers for selling vehicles that pollute the air (vehicles that meet their guidelines BTW,) I'd say CARB has no interest in a solution that works well for everyone.
If GM is accurate in the cost of developing cars that meet the proposed guidelines, I say they should move forward with refusing to sell vehicles in those states.
The uproar from constituents in the effected states should be sufficient to get lawmakers to rethink their air quality policies.
My hope is now that the EPA is forced to deal with vehicle emissions, CARB's power will be cut back and none of this will be an issue.
Reply
rrr 2:01PM (5/23/2007)
MAX---"Considering they have already sued auto manufacturers for selling vehicles that pollute the air (vehicles that meet their guidelines BTW,) I'd say CARB has no interest in a solution that works well for everyone"
Good point, but do GM and Ford have a solution that works for everyone? They fought tooth ans nail even the smallest increases in MPG. They are not interested AT ALL in changing their ways.
Reply
Mike 2:03PM (5/23/2007)
I wish we could nuke California.
Reply
epp_b 2:27PM (5/23/2007)
California can suck it and move to the moon as far as I'm concerned. Man, I hate that place.
Reply
Edsel 2:14PM (5/23/2007)
I live in Massachusetts and we "goose-step" right along with California's environmental diktats.
Automakers should convert their California & Massachusetts auto dealers into bicycle dealers. Apparently, there's a huge surplus of bicycles to be had in China.
Reply
verdegrrl 2:17PM (5/23/2007)
I find it amusing that often the people who push the high miles low cost car agenda are driving some old soot belching crap-box because they themselves admit they can't afford the latest flyweight tree-hugger special. Yet they want the rest of the non-Birkenstock wearing public to spend their dollars buying their utopian dream.
These folks need to work in a dealership for a little while and see what people buy. Safety and features. Those things add weight. The only thing that doesn't add weight are the incentives that are often used to entice buyers into showrooms. Folks aren't interested in getting less car for more cash. Going to all manual transmissions would probably save a lot of fuel, but that isn't going to happen either. Just because you build it, doesn't mean people are going to buy it.
Instead of reinforcing a consumerist society where you solve things by buying new stuff, why not learn to maintain what we have? Even that old crap-box doesn't need to belch smoke if the owner (and all the previous owners) bothers to take proper care of it. It's as simple as checking tire pressures weekly and changing filters/plugs/wires every once in a while.
Reply
Matthew 2:20PM (5/23/2007)
I don't think California realizes what they're asking for.
First off, Srivendel, you can't even buy a diesel Jetta in California. it doesn't meet the air standards.
Second, the Prius is the ONLY car for sale in CA right now that has a combined rating of 40mpg. And they want the whole fleet to meet that!? 2016 is only 8.5 years away. Fuel economy would need to take a quantum leap to get there.
Consider this: Toyota would have to sell 3 prius... (whatever the plural of prius is) for every two Yaris just to avergae 40mpg on those two cars!! (Using the 31mpg combined driving for the yaris auto).
Imagine how many Prius they would have to sell if they wanted to sell a Tundra.
Reply
Tim 2:20PM (5/23/2007)
These rules should be made up in DC, not CA. One set of rules for everyone. Once CA breaks off into the Pacific, we won't have to worry about them anymore.
Reply
BC 2:23PM (5/23/2007)
Brian Dreggors you said the two words that everything boils down to and nobody ever mentions.
In theory, I'm in favor of some sort of MPG standards, but the devil is in the details. Sure, Honda can claim they have the highest fleet MPG, because they don't sell real trucks. Putting the burden of MPG standards on the automakers is a cop-out because it doesn't require any change in consumer behavior. People can't have their cake and eat it too. Nobody wants to talk about it, but the best way to increase the market of and for higher MPG vehicles, reduce oil imports, reduce CO2 blah blah blah is to tax gas more. People react to economic incentives & disincentives that way. Honestly, I think it will take some sort of "crisis" situation, a la Arab Oil Embargo 1970's, before any serious change (political, or personal) will occur.
Reply
bmoredlj 2:24PM (5/23/2007)
American fuel economy is way too low, and has been for a long time. In Japan, AFE is already 45 mpg. True, you can't just flip a switch and make more than half of the market - gas-guzzling light-trucks - disappear overnight.
But we're not talking about overnight, we're talking about nine years....nine years to get to where Japan is today.
In WWII virtually all industry converted to war production...in much less than nine years. So don't tell me big changes can't occur in relatively brief periods of time.
Now we're in a new war - a war against gasoline we have to buy abroad from autocrats and sponsors of anti-Western violence. They're peddling a finite quantity of fuel. China and the rest of the developing world will be competing fiercely for it as the years go by.
We can't afford to be obstinate and refuse to change anymore. No amount of corporate protests or lawsuits against states will change the fact that our auto industry has changed in the past, can change, must change, and will change.
Reply
Tim 2:27PM (5/23/2007)
AMEN verdegrrl!!! I have a 1992 Saturn that gets 38mpg on the highway. Why, because I take care of it! I also drive 5mph under the posted speed too. What a great car!
Reply
jeffinToronto 2:27PM (5/23/2007)
Relax people! This won't kill the fun car, it forces companies to innovate rather than stagnate, and that is good for the consumers. Otherwise, we would all be driving cars that resemble the 1940's and have no seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and get 8-10 MPG. Clearly, the auto industry (especially the US - where gas is still cheap) won't change without a push from regulators. The big 3 should be thanking them. The Asian and European car companies have had to deal with fuel prices that are double the US and so they have had to implement hybrid and other technologies quicker, making the domestics even less competitive.
Reply