California regulators shooting for 40 mpg by 2020
The recently passed federal regulations adjust the average vehicle fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020. Long before the Federal Government passed the new standards, the State of California had their mind set on enforcing their own rules. In order to individualize the regulations, California and the 15 other states following on its heels, needed a waiver from the EPA. The Golden State had never been previously denied a request, but the EPA lagged in issuing an approval. After all that waiting the waiver never came. Shortly after President Bush signed the new federal standards into law, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson shot down the request. Now as politicians battle over the right to gain state control on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, California legislators arelooking to expand upon their intended greenhouse gas controls. The original plan outlined adjustments from 2009 through 2016, but the revised outlook will shift focus up to the year 2020, which lines with the target date of the federal regulations. The major difference is that the California Air Resources Board believes cars and trucks should average close to 44 mpg by 2020. That breaks down to a 50.8 mpg car and small truck average and a 33.5 mpg average for vehicles tipping the scales. Considering variations across the country it's estimated to be an average of about 40 mpg for the whole of the United States. It also makes for an enormous 62-percent improvement upon today's vehicles.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
geo.stewart 8:06AM (2/27/2008)
that earthquake dropping CA into the ocean cant come soon enough!
Reply
chuck goolsbee 11:01AM (2/27/2008)
Well, that *would* improve the position of Diesel in North America.
--chuck
Timsvtgen1 12:32PM (2/27/2008)
Stole the words right out of my mouth. Thank god for the san andres fault.
Mr X 8:09AM (2/27/2008)
This is getting ineresting, we'll be rididing around in matchboxes and poorer due to the economical divide that gets worse while the politicians, movies stars and athletes will be richer and riding in their custom vehicles and or limos. Maybe I should run for office since I can't be a professional athlete or an actor, but then again if I can't act would I be a good politician??? Damn it I guess I can always move to Colombia...
Reply
Guenther 8:37AM (2/27/2008)
You cannot blame actors and athletes for making you poorer. Hell, I would love to see a fan boycott for ridiculous baseball salaries, but I know it wont happen.
psarhjinian 11:01AM (2/27/2008)
You do know that, for every politician, athlete or movie star making millions, there's a business executive, team owner or producer (sometimes all three in one person) making billions, right?
I mean, rattle the populist chain all you like, but the groups you listed are being paid their market value by _their masters_. If you want to know who's really pulling the strings, you need to look one or two levels up the income ladder.
John Johnson 8:12AM (2/27/2008)
This is why they didn't want to let California make up its own rules. No matter what we do, they have to go one step better. 35MPG is a huge ask as it is, so chill out. Soon enough there'll probably be some silly congestion charge.
Reply
Richard 8:20AM (2/27/2008)
"35MPG is a huge ask"
Actually, that's pretty much only true in the US these days. In Europe - where, it will amaze some Autoblog readers to find out, they also have large families, plumbers, boats, horses, and all the other stuff that we have to deal with - high mileage cars and trucks are the norm, and people don't get excited until you're looking in the 60+ MPG range.
Just check out the story 3 spots down the page about the 44MPG Audi TT (0-60 in 7 seconds, while not spectacular, is still pretty fun...) Or check out the 70MPG Mini D. Or the more efficient work trucks and vans (and yes, they might have to downshift to go up a hill at speed when fully loaded, but that's what transmissions are for).
There's really no good excuse to be down where we are as far as national fuel economy goes.
Reply
TORR 8:27AM (2/27/2008)
if you like what they are doing in Europe, move there. There emissions rules are not as tough as they are here, there roads are smaller and there economy isnt as diverse as ours.
Matt 8:40AM (2/27/2008)
Firstly, You can't compare British MPG (or even Canadian MPG) to US MPG. The Imperial Gallon contains more than 20% more volume than a US gallon.
35 MPG in US gallons is 42 MPG in Imperial gallons, right off the bat.
Secondly, as we all know, fuel economy is high in europe because gas is expensive, and it's actually worthwhile for a consumer to buy a fuel efficient vehicle.
Which leads me to this, and this is an open question, Can anyone explain the thought process behind legislating fuel economy?
Rather than force the automakers to build cars that no one actually wants, why are we not re-pricing gasoline through taxation to make a 35 MPG appealing to consumers? It's like going into a flower shop and telling the owners they can't sell roses for Valentine's day anymore, that they have to sell dandelions. Nevermind that no one wants ugly dandelions. Dandelions have never gotten anyone laid, for the record.
I always thought the US was founded on capitalist, free-market economics. CAFE is the clearest evidence that the US has become too willing to intervene in the mechanics of the Market. even more frightening, it might be more likely that no one in power who knows anything about how the economy actually works, or how to foster a prosperous nation.
Oh wait.... isn't there a recession coming?
It's enough to make you want to hole up in the 'ole cellar with canned goods and bottled water.
L.Wood 10:07AM (2/27/2008)
Richard, I don't understand this fixation with what is being done in Europe. If anything we should study Europe closely and do just the opposite of what they are doing. If it was not for the U.S. Europe would not exist as we know it. Socialized medicine is big in England if you enjoy waiting in line and possibly dying before your turn for "service" arrives. So why do we want to pattern ourselves after Europe?
Alex 9:54AM (2/27/2008)
@ Matt - you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Your solution to tax gas is no more effective than mandating fuel economy. The only difference is whether we pay in front or the back.
High MPG cars will be more expensive, but will save money in the long run by sipping fuel. Conversely low MPG cars would be less expensive but you'll be paying out the wazoo in the long run on gas.
Personally i would rather see a mandate on fuel economy. My reason being that people with low income generally can't afford new cars but can afford a used car. They pick up an old Civic (which gets fine MPG) and pay less at the pump than they would if we taxed the hell out of fuels and they can continue with their lives. The reverse makes that much harder.
Polly Prissy Pants 12:42PM (2/27/2008)
"If it was not for the U.S. Europe would not exist as we know it. Socialized medicine is big in England if you enjoy waiting in line and possibly dying before your turn for "service" arrives. So why do we want to pattern ourselves after Europe?"
If it was not for Europe the U.S. would not exist as we know it. Socialized medicine is big in EVERY idustrialized country on planet earth except the U.S. Why? Because you pay less and get more. That's about as debatable as arguing the world is flat (yes, I know). Instead of spewing someone elses FUD do some research and draw _your own_ conclusion.
Thinking that you do everything right and everyone else does everything wrong is just a sign of ignorance.
Volk 3:32PM (2/27/2008)
TO: Polly Prissy Pants
"Socialized medicine is big in EVERY idustrialized country on planet earth except the U.S. Why? Because you pay less and get more. That's about as debatable as arguing the world is flat (yes, I know)."
Even though you try to avoid the debate brining up front "flat world" statement - I'll tell you a real story. My boss's wife was diagnosed with cancer here in Canada which has Big Socialized medicine. True, they paid nothing for getting the initial diagnose, but then she is put on a waiting list that is many months long, close to a year. It's ovarian cancer - she might be long dead before her turn for surgery comes. So, they mortgaged their house and paid $150K to the US hospital to do the treatment before it is late. This is the story. And it's not something exceptional, it happens to a lot of people who, while healthy, are paying ENORMOUS taxes (up to 50% !!) and live with the ILLUSION of free medicine. What makes it worse – companies here do not provide any medical plans - just a cheap stuff like upgrade from semi-private to a private room. So, when you're facing serious health problem, you're on your own. This is your Socialism in Action. There is no free breakfast – someone has to pay. Your Socialized medicine is an expensive ineffective illusion.
Rich Straton 8:26AM (2/27/2008)
I have a question. Isn't air quality and mpg two different things? Last week I saw an item that said that someone invented a foam for catalytic converters that absorbed CO2. If such a thing existed, then clean air would be here in five years without any changes to drive trains. The need for 35 vs 44 mpg is an economic question that is turning into a national strategic issue. Where are we going going to get all that fuel? At what cost to our balance of payments and our ability to influence international events. To me, these are two different public policy issues to me, and California is getting them mixed up. Am I wrong in my thinking?
Reply
TORR 8:34AM (2/27/2008)
Rich Straton, I agree. Why do we have to mandate that everyone drive little tiny cars? Why dont we just clean up the emissions of what we currently offer since this is also the type of vehicle that the consumer demands. There are way too many occupations and personal interests that demand something more than a little car for transporting goods or families.
geo.stewart 8:36AM (2/27/2008)
no you are not.
but the really stupid thing about government is that they will always go for the low hanging fruit and regulate what thy can rather than what they should...
In reality, they could just as easily take the emissions test values and charge a person based on the emissions x the mileage driven over last year and solve the whole problem, but they dont.
Its easier to go after the mftr. and its easier to go after something the feds already are working on. gives them the excuse to tell their folks "the federal gov't doesnt care as much as we do. See the comparison"
No matter how much we curtail fuel usage, it is going to continue to go up because India and China are going to use gobs more than we can save.
Guenther 8:49AM (2/27/2008)
Stewart- what you're proposing is pretty easy (almost).
Many countries in the EU have tiered vehicle tax (registration) that adjusts for emissions level and displacement. To that, add a generous fuel tax, and you charged polluters and over-consumers. It isn't perfect, but that would do what you're proposing. Sure, it would make it expensive to register a '70 440 Charger, but you could make state-by-state allowances there.
Jay 9:00AM (2/27/2008)
" a foam for catalytic converters that absorbed CO2. If such a thing existed, then clean air would be here in five years without any changes to drive trains."
CO2 is not a "pollutant". It does not cause dirty air.....
As for Europe, if you are watching their sales trends, they are moving to large and larger vehicles.
Colin Smith 11:21AM (2/27/2008)
"If it was not for the U.S. Europe would not exist as we know it."
And the reverse of course.
"Socialized medicine is big in England if you enjoy waiting in line and possibly dying before your turn for "service" arrives."
Not quite like that actually.
What exactly is the problem with fuel efficient cars?