More

Fuel Efficiency: NEW Standards Announced By Obama Administration

Obama Fuel Efficiency

KEN THOMAS   04/ 2/10 12:13 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Drivers will have to pay more for cars and trucks, but they'll save at the pump under tough new federal rules aimed at boosting mileage, cutting emissions and hastening the next generation of fuel-stingy hybrids and electric cars.

The new standards, announced Thursday, call for a 35.5 miles-per-gallon average within six years, up nearly 10 mpg from now.

By setting national standards for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, the government hopes to squeeze out more miles per gallon whether you buy a tiny Smart fortwo micro car, a rugged Dodge Ram pickup truck or something in between.

The rules will cost consumers an estimated $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, the government said. But the heads of the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency said car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage.

Touting the plan, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "Putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road isn't just the right thing to do for our environment, it's also a great way for Americans to save a lot of money at the pump."

The requirements for the 2012-2016 model years pleased environmentalists who have criticized sluggish efforts by previous administrations to boost fuel efficiency. They also were welcomed by automakers who have been seeking a single standard after California and a dozen states tried to create their own rules.

Dave McCurdy, a former Oklahoma congressman who leads the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, said the industry supported the single national standard for future vehicles. He said the program made "sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers."

Not all dealers were pleased. Ed Tonkin, a Portland, Ore., car dealer who chairs the National Automobile Dealers Association, said the rules were the "most expensive fuel economy mandates in history" and would turn many new cars and trucks into luxury items for consumers.

"Under these new mandates, the price of new cars and light trucks will rise significantly, meaning fewer Americans will be able to buy the new vehicles of their choice," Tonkin said.

Environmental groups said the changes would actually give consumers more choices because they would ensure that every new car would get slightly more fuel-efficient each year.

"Because of these standards, Americans will drive vehicles that save them money at the pump, cut the country's oil dependence and produce a lot less global warming pollution," said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program.

The regulations set a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The figure could actually be as low as 34.1 mpg because automakers can receive credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in other ways, including preventing the leaking of coolant from air conditioners.

The changes will cost the auto industry about $52 billion, but the government says the program will provide $240 billion in savings to consumers, mostly through lower fuel consumption. The changes also could help U.S. manufacturers who produce advanced vehicles, batteries and engines, the government said.

The EPA is setting a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. This represents the EPA's first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, following a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

Each auto company will have a different fuel-efficiency target, based on its mix of vehicles. Automakers that build more small cars will have a higher target than car companies that manufacture a broad range of cars and trucks. For example, passenger cars built by General Motors Co. will need to hit a target of 32.7 mpg in 2012 and increase to 36.9 mpg by 2016. Honda Motor Co., meanwhile, will need to reach passenger car targets of 33.8 mpg in 2012 and ramp up to 38.3 mpg in 2016.

Some small-volume auto companies such as Porsche, Aston Martin and Lamborghini will not have to meet the standards initially, but all automakers will need to comply by 2017.

Consumers can expect improvements to engines, transmissions and tires, and the use of start-stop technology that halts the engine at stop lights to save fuel. Automakers are expanding their portfolio of gas-electric hybrid vehicles and beginning to introduce electric cars and plug-in hybrids.

Nissan recently announced pricing for its electric car, the Leaf, which will be available in limited numbers later this year. Toyota is launching plug-in hybrids along with battery-powered cars running solely on electricity starting in model-year 2012.

In Michigan, the first version of the Chevrolet Volt, which can go 40 miles on battery power before an engine kicks in to generate power, rolled off the assembly line this week and is scheduled to be sold in limited numbers later this year.

Beyond electric cars, Ford is aggressively promoting its "EcoBoost" line of direct-injection turbocharged engines, which provide a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency. General Motors will begin assembling the Chevrolet Cruze, a replacement for the Cobalt, in Ohio later this summer. The compact Cruze is expected to achieve about 40 mpg on the highway thanks to a 1.4-liter turbocharged engine.

"All the automakers are doing what we're calling 'downsize and boost.' You take the engine, you make it smaller, you boost it, you put a turbocharger, a supercharger on it, and you get the same kind of results with better fuel economy," said Aaron Bragman, an auto industry analyst with IHS Global Insight in Troy, Mich.

LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020.

EPA and the Transportation Department said the requirements would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, or the equivalent of taking 50 million cars and light trucks off the road in 2030.

Environmental groups have sought curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, and they challenged the Bush administration for blocking a waiver request from California to pursue more stringent air pollution rules than required by the federal government. The request was granted by the Obama administration last year.

___

On the Net:

Transportation Department: http://www.dot.gov/

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Drivers will have to pay more for cars and trucks, but they'll save at the pump under tough new federal rules aimed at boosting mileage, cutting emissions and hastening the next gen...
WASHINGTON — Drivers will have to pay more for cars and trucks, but they'll save at the pump under tough new federal rules aimed at boosting mileage, cutting emissions and hastening the next gen...
Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,309
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
09:17 PM on 04/04/2010
We have loads of oil right here in the good old USA.
Shale oil, oil tar sands, off-shore oil to name just three sources. Not to mention bio-fuel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
10:27 AM on 04/04/2010
Bush and reagan were perhaps the two worst leaders when it came to the environment in the history of this country. I feel like they both went well out of their way to block the EPA from doing anything worthwhile during their respective tenures. It was almost disgusting as they seemed to have a particular axe to grind with environmentalists so they would agitate and instigate at times, for no apparent reason and at times, making things far worse than better for the environment. Im not sure who was worse. They were both brutal - but the fact is the epa knew a lot more and could have done a lot more under bush and that should not be overlooked. Bush probably set this country back a good decade or two on this front. And I doubt obama will ever put it into full gear and actually catch up to where we would have been without a president bush. Remember his hydrogen fuel cell ploy? Lets pick the most expensive, unrealistic technology and pretend that is the center-piece of our environmental policy brilliant! McCain was smart enough to be that creative and evil.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
10:14 AM on 04/04/2010
WOW - A score for environmentalism. How about that? Its nice to get a victory every once a decade or so. Makes me feel like there is actually still some sort of real environmentalist movement out there besides all the talk and obama flip-flopping. I am ecstatic to hear this news!!!!! It warms my heart. After compromise, after compromise, after loss, after compromise, it is nice to see a nice solid win for progressives here. This is what I love - all upside, no downside - benefits are seen immediately and it is not too difficult, not some major rapid transition and requires some matter of innovation. This is how climate change legislation should probably be - instead of a comprehensive bill.

Just a program a week or so with a moderate bill somewhere during the next yr or so. Essentially - energy reform like the stimulus package could be a jobs bill and it should be portrayed as such in a recession. The jobs bill has also been passed in increments similar to the way this legislation could go forward for now. Start with investments - tax breaks and subsidies in a various fields - solar, water, biofuel just identifying and federally subsidizing various Private employers or private programs that already or are planning to work in these specific jobs. Then, invest in research.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
10:13 AM on 04/04/2010
Then, invest in various other jobs in the same or slightly related fields. And continue to do this week by week through the yr. Once, the public sees that energy reform is essentially another stimulus, the majority public should support it at which point a more comprehensive bill can be passed next yr which incorporate some moderate version of cap and trade that has the potential to expand or some tax on all oil distributors to raise the price of oil while heavily subsidizing all jobs or the creation of jobs that implement alternative energy usage - these would include construction jobs, architecture, engineering, plumbing but those who specialize in implementing alternative energy usage in buildings and homes to lower the price of alternative energy usage while already having dramatically reduced the price of production throughout the previous year.

Then, add the drilling proposal in this legislation for real b/c it wont happen for quite some time and some sort of nuclear power, natural gas and/or coal if we need bipartisan support, Such a bill should also focus on this - better utilization of oil and making electric or hybrid cars as cheap and efficient as possible while continuing to raise the price of oil raising the cost of owning gas guzzlers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wethepeople3884
10:13 AM on 04/04/2010
Finally, we can begin to tighten the rope on oil costs by very slowly but progressively strengthening cap and trade while continuing to heavily subsidize all forms of alternative energy sources using this money over the next twenty yrs. Some domestic drilling may or may not be required down the lines to help this process but i really fail to see how this is good policy to help this process. If anything, it will lengthen it, confuse the issue and increase the dissent among voters. But i think cap and trade should start out as the most moderate, lax, minor add on to the bill as possible at first. But the proposal from dems should start with a really strong bill - and they should use this to negotiate it down to a lax policy which can later by strengthened after alternative energy is sufficiently cheap and available. Certainly natural gas, coal, electricity and nuclear can play a role in all of this without being the sole center of attention. I feel like encouraging the use of anything outside of fossil fuels should be done while not setting one far above all the rest and while providing an enormous array of alternatives to see what works best in the end. I think this would be the best approach politically and policy-wise.
03:07 PM on 04/03/2010
The best cars today can get 50 mpg easy. In 6 years 35 mpg would still be very light, but will dramatically reduce the increase in greenhouse gases. I personally have a car that is 10 years old and very reliable. I'm taking excellent car of it and it still looks and runs like new. I'm going to hold onto it until an electric car will be developed to suit my needs or a mass transit system comes into place where I don't need my car.
03:24 PM on 04/03/2010
Didn’t you get the memo? We will all be driving tanks in ten years otherwise someone might get a bruise out there.
11:57 AM on 04/03/2010
This is silly. Obama should simply declare that gas costs $1.00 a gallon. No American should have to choose between a tank of gas and a case of ripple wine. It’s wrong, it’s heartbreaking, and it’s un-American.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
05:19 PM on 04/02/2010
Why not just take out your catalyst and install a "Test Pipe"? You can Google "test pipe" if you so choose.
photo
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
01:53 PM on 04/02/2010
More auto-industry job-killing by The Job Killer, Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
05:21 PM on 04/02/2010
I don't want the government telling me what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, what kind of insurance I can buy, what I can do with my own body, what I can or cannot drive, etc., etc.
02:14 PM on 04/04/2010
Then I'll tell you. Hey motherf***er, stop killing MY f***ing planet.
11:22 AM on 04/02/2010
This is a rerun of what has happened in the UK over the last 20 years.

There is a 6% tax on new cars because it is a car.
Additionally, cars attract 17.5% VAT
Petrol has an excise tax that is $3-4 per gallon.
Additionally, fuel attracts VAT at 17.5%
Cost of petrol today is close to $8.00 per gallon.

This revenue goes into general funds used to support unemployment and social programs. Very little is used for "Global Warming" This is just the 'vehicle' used to raise the money.
photo
F4Phantom
Freelance Writer
12:08 PM on 04/02/2010
Painfully true. I'd like to see gas taxes and vehicle taxes MANDATED for mass transit improvements.

The government has a long history of misusing funds, like tobacco settlement.
photo
F4Phantom
Freelance Writer
11:14 AM on 04/02/2010
Americans, collectively, could bring speculators TO THEIR KNEES in 2 weeks or less simply by cutting back consumption 10% or more.

With bililons of gallons per day flowing through pipelines, tankers, tank farms, a 10% reduction in consumption would, within DAYS, have all of these facilities filled to the brim.

At that point the producers become DESPERATE because they ALREADY have more oil, under contract, arriving daily.

WAKE UP AMERICA! QUIT BEING SHEEP! Be wolves, JUST FOR TWO WEEKS!
10:05 AM on 04/02/2010
Engine technology is rather mature. Finding some new way of making engines drastically burn less gas to produce the same horsepower is unlikely. What's the solution to achieving these new standards? Make the cars LIGHTER and less sturdy. And what happens when lighter cars crash? More people DIE than they would have if they had been in a heavier car.

http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/13701/Federal_Study_Finds_Lighter_Vehicles_Cause_More_Deaths.html

Is this REALLY acceptable?
photo
F4Phantom
Freelance Writer
11:12 AM on 04/02/2010
Did you see Robocop?

When their car crashed, something like expansive foam filled the cockpit, protecting the occupants. Then they either cut you out of it or dissolve it from around you.

No different than cars with 8-12 airbags surrounding the passengers in a Mercedes.

The only THREAT to smaller, lighter cars is all the UNNECESSARY heavy trucks / SUV's on the road, without a load, without even a 2nd passenger.
11:45 AM on 04/02/2010
Is EVERY new car going to have all those airbags? Is the government going to mandate that everybody must buy a Mercedes? Are you EVER going to eliminate every heavy truck or mandate that they can't be driven without a full load or filled with passengers? And what about semi's? Our economy would pretty much grind to a halt if THEY were eliminated. Have fun driving around in your new car!

http://jalopnik.com/343003/the-2500-tata-nano-unveiled-in-india
09:03 PM on 04/04/2010
Just because sometimes there is only one passenger, it does not mean the the vehicle was not purchased with the need to SOMETIMES transport more. If I need to tranport 6-8 people regularly (not necesarily on every trip) I shoulld be able to own a vehicle that suits those purposes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitanguran
08:43 AM on 04/02/2010
Just doin' a little math...

Assuming the added cost figures and savings figure are right, lets look.

Assuming gas @ $3 a gallon, it would take 8 years and 124,500 miles at 15k per year to realize the savings Obama is talking about.

At $4 a gallon, 6.25 years.

Now, if you finance for 6 years @ 7.5%, you'd be paying an extra 1250 bucks in interest on that car.
02:18 PM on 04/04/2010
Cool. Buy a f***ing bike and breathe easy.
09:04 PM on 04/04/2010
I don't want you or the government telling me what to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
idisVA
07:06 AM on 04/02/2010
Virginia's AG Ken Cuccenelli has announced in intent to challenge this decision as well.
12:37 AM on 04/02/2010
35 mpg is a bit timid by today's standards. Most cars are getting that already. They need to up the mpg's to 50 if they are serious about this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Piper
01:58 AM on 04/02/2010
Most do not get 35, not even close. The average is closer to 24.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitar63
07:55 PM on 04/02/2010
Yeah, although maybe not any more now that GM has shut down. Probably boosted those numbers a bit.