Increased motivation for automakers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles is coalescing in the ongoing discussions over Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
This past weekend the Detroit News reported that the Obama administration presented auto executives at the White House with the idea of raising the average fleetwide mpg for cars and light trucks from 35.5 mpg set for 2016 to 56.2 mpg for 2017-2025.
Since last year the proposal of a 62 mpg CAFE standard had been bandied about, and this week’s 56.2 was a compromise between 47 mpg automakers suggested and the higher number. If imposed, it would mean automakers have to figure how to increase efficiency by about five percent per year.
This car gets excellent official EPA mileage. Battery electric vehicles get even higher eMPG ratings.
One possible way for automakers to meet the mandate would be by adding more electric and hybrid vehicles into their lineups. If deemed otherwise cost effective, this would reduce the mpg average across a respective maker’s range.
The way the CAFE numbers are calculated is different than the EPA estimates on the Monroney label (window sticker).
Edmunds figures a 56.2-mpg CAFE standard equals an EPA rating of 41 mpg in combined city and highway driving. The 2016 CAFE standard of 35.5 mpg equals about 27 mpg EPA, and a 62 mpg standard would equal a combined 44 mpg.
The 56.2 number is only a proposal yet subject to negotiations for standards that will be announced in September this year. In turn, automakers are continuing to study the issues to justify making any counter proposals.
GM’s Reaction
We have seen a wide disparity of views on the impact that such a number will have from environmentalists, administration officials and auto industry executives.
For his part, Mark Reuss, North American president of General Motors said it will not be easy to jump over a 56.2 mpg bar, but if it becomes law, the company will of course do it.
“It’s our job to take a look at it, digest it, and put together a data set of what it takes to do it. The auto industry does not get easier. It always gets tougher,” Reuss told Ward’s Auto, “That’s the challenge and that’s what our jobs are. If even-stricter guidelines require billions more in investment, so be it. It’s not an either/or thing. It’s how we get there with cars and trucks that consumers really want to buy at a [price] that doesn’t put unreasonable cost on them.”
Good or bad?
Automakers have otherwise argued that what they view as excessively high standards will not have a positive net effect. In contrast, environmentalists and administration officials say the opposite.
When the 62 mpg standard was suggested last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency released a “Notice of Intent to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2017-2025.”
In it, they stated:
“The automotive market is becoming increasingly global. The U.S. auto companies produce and sell automobiles around the world, and foreign auto companies produce and sell in the U.S. As a result, the industry has become increasingly competitive. Staying at the cutting edge of automotive technology, while maintaining profitability and consumer acceptance, has become increasingly important for the sustainability of auto companies. Trends in the world automotive market suggest that investments in improved fuel economy and advanced technology vehicles are a necessary component for maintaining competitiveness in coming years.”
Regarding the 56.2 mpg proposal, these same officials estimate price increases for new vehicles in 2025 could range from $2,100 to $2,600 – but these would pay for themselves if consumers kept their cars for three years, resulting in fuel savings of $5,500 to $7,000.
So here we have Uncle Sam saying to automakers – which some government officials have pointed out have received tens of billions in bailout money to improve their effectiveness – that staying at the cutting edge will enhance global competitiveness.
Is this going to happen? Not likely. GM will need to improve it as much as possible, then splice in high-mpg vehicles to improve the average.
In contrast, the auto industry has assembled a host of objections saying this just is not the case.
Industry estimates for what cars would cost in a world of 62 mpg average fuel efficiency have been as high as $10,000 per vehicle, and presumably these same objectors would say it would not be much less for 56.2 mpg.
Other objections were voiced to Edmunds by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s Vice President, Gloria Bergquist.
She threw the safety card into the mix saying manufacturers would be forced to lighten their vehicles, which would mean vehicles across the board would be less safe in crashes.
She also said the industry could be forced to stop making as many SUVs and pickups – many of which meet legitimate needs, and are profitable.
For example, could you see a Ford F-150 pickup averaging 41 mpg? It has been argued the cost to make vehicles of this class and heavier that efficient would be prohibitive.
Bergquist said making manufacturers perform billions in R&D needed to implement advanced tech in its vehicles would have an economic chilling effect because sales would plummet, cascading into layoffs, assembly line shut downs, and other negative effects.
Potential fuel-saving technology for internal combustion vehicles would include lightweight materials, stop-start systems, electronic steering, braking, and climate-control systems to reduce parasitic drag on internal-combustion engines, and more.
Not tough enough?
According to Roland Hwang, transportation programs director for the National Resources Defense Council, the government has already weakened its position for what the NRDC sees as an attainable goal.
“We still think 62 mpg is the right number, but if the administration wants 56.2 [mpg], then it has got to hold firm and not negotiate down from there,” Hwang said. “We think, though, that this is a lot more than just a trial balloon. In the last round of CAFE negotiations that resulted in the 35.5-mpg standard for 2016, the administration pulled automakers into talks that were aimed at ‘how to get there, not whether to get there.’”
Path of least resistance
As Reuss said above, GM – and no doubt other manufacturers – will do what they have to in order to meet mandates. Since maximizing profits is always the goal, they will do what it takes to achieve that as well.
One obvious growth area that could help fleetwide average mpg are hybrids and electrics.
Hybrids represent a mere 3 percent of the market today, and electric vehicle sales of several thousand so far barely register compared to yearly internal combustion vehicle sales.
Fortunately for GM it began four years ago on the Voltec platform and already plans to increase models as it also experiments around the globe with battery electric vehicles.
The goal will be designing, pricing and marketing them to where people will buy them. If the manufacturers’ assertions that costs will rise across their respective lines, this will affect advanced-tech vehicles too.
What will it mean for vehicles like this 505-horsepower, Corvette Z06 – or the 638-horsepower ZR1 – in a world mandated to average 56-62 mpg?
Even Bergquist conceded marketing hybrids and electrics could help, but said there are challenges.
“We have the technology to improve overall fuel efficiency,” she said. “What we’ve got to concentrate on now is how to get people to buy them.”
Only the beginning
The clamp is definitely tightening on the old paradigm but of course there are no guarantees for increased EV and hybrid proliferation even if many more are produced.
Inherent in automakers’ fears is that people will buy what they want to buy, without regard for mandates, and the last thing automakers want is to have models they cannot sufficiently sell.
These and many more issues will be debated for the next couple of months – then beyond.
Aside from this weekend’s 56.2 mpg proposal, NHTSA and the EPA are formulating a more definitive CAFE proposal to be issued in September. This will be followed by sufficient time for comment gathering and counter proposals from stakeholders including industry, environmental and safety advocates, as well as the public.
By July 2012, new CAFE regulations for 2017-2025 are due to be in place, giving automakers five years to figure out how they will meet them from 2017 onward.
No one knows how this will shake out, but in any event, the case is becoming stronger for more EVs and hybrids.
Source: Edmunds, Green Autoblog
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 30th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+8
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:32 am)Voltec is clearly positioned to perform here. Other OEM’s would be fairly compelled to compete in this manner at least in their R&D departments. Battery technologies are accelerating faster than ever before, as there are now very clearly, vast financial rewards attainable as proven by the Voltec technologies.
Electric motoring is the only way left for an OEM to increase bottom lines and to project competitiveness and competency.
+4
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:49 am)I have a proposal that many who travel by superhighways will not like, but it is a fact that slower speeds increase mileage per gallon, or per kWh. If the car manufacturer cannot reach the CAFE average, then it must reduce the engine size accordingly to reduce the maximum speed the specific vehicle can reach. Only electric vehicles can keep a very high CAFE number and travel at higher speeds.
So if this happens, those who travel over 50 MPH must buy an EV, or else stay with gas engines and travel slower.
Trucks are the most affected, since they carry more cargo, but there are electric vehicles that carry more than any trucks and spend much less fuel per ton than any truck. They are called “trains”. Use more trains across distances, and use electric trucks for local and city travel.
Raymond
+11
Jun 30th, 2011 (8:18 am)While CAFE standards might force automakers to provide more efficient vehicle options, they do not positively affect consumer behavior and they do not reduce our total consumption of gasoline (since people drive farther and more frequently to offset the fuel savings). In fact when gas prices are low, high CAFE standards cause a negative consumer perception of efficient vehicles after the automakers are forced to produce more of them than people want.
We need appropriate (and stable) fuel prices that include (tax) money to pay to correct environmental damage, healthcare costs, cost of wars to secure the fuel, and other social ills caused from use of the fuel.
Appropriate fuel prices are the only way to positively impact fuel consumption — even if it is unpopular.
+8
Jun 30th, 2011 (8:38 am)CAFE = putting the carraige before the horse.
Just create a gas tax (or remove the oil subsidies). The rest will happen on its own due to the free market.
+8
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:38 am)I agree with you completely and Kdawg too. Whoever gave you a negative one does not understand simple economic principles. I gave you a positive 1 to compensate. Ever since the first CAFE standards were implemented automakers have had to artificially raise prices on larger cars and lower prices on smaller cars to the point of losing money on smaller cars. Imagine trying to meet CAFE standards when all your customers want huge SUVs and they shun compact cars. Honda had to cancel the first generation Insight, the most fuel efficient car ever sold in the US, due to slow sales. Meanwhile, everyone and their brother was jonesing for a Hummer H2 because fuel prices were low at the time. Then fuel prices shot up and the Hummer was cancelled and cars like the Prius were finally embraced by consumers. This is why the CEOs of GM and Ford have advocated high gasoline taxes. With relatively cheap gasoline it will be next to impossible for automakers to achieve high CAFE standards. Not only do people buy larger cars when gasoline prices are low they also drive more miles and take public transportation less. They don’t think about combining trips and they certainly are not going to walk or ride a bicycle. The revenue from gasoline taxes could be used to subsidize fuel efficient cars and EVs, public transportation, solar and wind power, and other carbon reducing measures.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:50 am)Just thinking outside the box here, but is it possible to make two, smaller, 2-person cars, that can drive around on their own for daily commutes, then link them together to make a 4 or 5 person car? This way you would have the benifits of a small car and a large car when each is needed. How would the CAFE treat these cars?
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (10:08 am)The race around Nurburgring is a thrill to view and only makes me want more speed and power in a future Voltec. Time for an EV Corvette to take the place of the Tesla Roadster. GM has a history of creating a sports car that is easy to enter and exit. The frustration of entering and exiting the Tesla Roadster is an adventure one does not forget.
With large vehicle hybrids, there is plenty of space for batteries. Pickups need the pickup that electric torque can provide. Make it fun, powerful and exciting to drive while reducing mpg. Manufacturers need to give us better than ICE performance to encourage us to buy a high mpg hybrid truck.
+3
Jun 30th, 2011 (10:44 am)Gas guzzling is a luxury we can no longer afford. The best part of raising fuel efficiency standards is that it pretty much guarantees the expansion of EV alternatives. And that’s a very good thing!
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (11:24 am)There isn’t any reason in the abstract to use this higher number because you get the same benefits from a lower number much closer to that proposed by the auto manufacturers. The fact is that going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG saves as much gasoline as going from 40 MPG to 400,000 MPG. As MPG goes up you’re using less fuel so the same percentage increase saves you fewer and fewer gallons. At 50 MPG and 12,000 miles a year you’re only using 240 gallons of gas in the first place. Setting the number at 57 MPG saves you 30 gallons more a year. Not a big deal. You could save that with a better tire pressure monitoring system.
However, even the 56 MPG is a joke for an EV like the Volt. As noted in the article, calculations of CAFE are not the same as what you see on the sticker. For an EV it’s not even close. When calculating MPGe, EVs get a multiplier of 6.6667 applied to the number of kWh in a gallon of gas as a “doesn’t use gas” inventive. (Think of the incentive for bio-fuels). This means that in CD Mode the Volt’s MPGe would be 226.
Which brings up to another point about how CAFE standards can be used to promote alternative fuels. If the government gave a CAFE bonus for natural gas as it does now for electric cars and bio-fuels, then, if it also put in some incentives or disincentives or mandates on the fueling side, we might actually start seeing some market based alternatives fuels. For example, it shouldn’t cost more than $1000 per vehicle to have the Buick LaCrosse with eAssist also have a natural gas tank in addition to the gas tank. Give a 2x bonus for “not using gasoline” and you can meet the 56 MPG number today.
The problem for manufacturers is that there aren’t that many buyers for the LaCrosse while there are a lot of buyers for the less expensive Cruze. Not so easy to add $2500 to the price of the Cruze and still sell as many. I suspect this is why the manufacturers aren’t enthused about the higher number.
Finally, keep in mind that CARB can set it’s own numbers so if you want a single number of the entire country you have to set a number high enough to satisfy them as well. (I’m not a CARB fan BTW but it’s there so you have to deal with the reality).
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (11:40 am)I remember the same arguments over adding seat belts to cars. Anti-tax factions will never allow taxes to be used, even though it is simple solution. Lacking that, higher CAFE standards is the result.
Jun 30th, 2011 (11:50 am)Utilizing tech like: 2.4L DI 4cyl., E-assist, electronic AC, steering etc., are helping and are becoming standard. I have a soft spot for muscle cars; having grown up in the 60’s, however I truly believe it is time to stop producing wasteful muscle cars. The muscle car purpose is power for pleasure and would help to raise mpg standards if eliminated IMO. Similar to our national budget; changes need to happen across the whole spectrum for the good of all. Gas prices definitely affect what vehicle we buy. IMO we should put a gradual gas tax in effect and use it for the sole purpose of paying off our debt along with a balanced budget. Sorry it’s hard to keep politics out of the picture.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (12:41 pm)Raise.The.Gas.Tax.
Government shouldn’t mandate technology, we should let the free market decide.
+4
Jun 30th, 2011 (1:57 pm)#12 Jack Raise.The.Gas.Tax.
Government shouldn’t mandate technology, we should let the free market decide.
So, you would be ok with vehicles being built without: catalytic converters, air bags, seat belts mufflers, crash test standards etc? There are many other examples of why Gov. Regulation of “technologies” is for the greater good of the nation. I want clean air, clean water, and generally safer products and am not willing to let free markets destroy us and this planet. Free markets are great, as long as everyone is playing by the same rules.
+2
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:02 pm)Jack,
Just playing devils’ advocate here, but how is an arbitrary tax increase any less of a “mandate?”
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:07 pm)With the lower numbers, trucks will be a minimal part of the equation. And light trucks and SUVs can make the biggest percentage improvements. Though the added savings aren’t large for vehicles at the high end of the efficiency ratings, even there when multiplied by the billions of miles traveled nationwide there is substantial savings.
Though in the aggregate I agree with jim1961, in # 5 that higher efficiencies would lead to more miles driven and or bigger vehicles chosen by consumers.
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:14 pm)How do you compute the gas mileage of a battery EV? Since it uses no gas the MPG is infinite. Are they going to use the bogus MPGe? If so how do you take extended range EVs like the Volt into account, they operate sometimes as a pure EV and other times as a serial hybrid, how would they come-up with a number that reflects the true MPG. For example, my Volt tells me my MPG based on range over gasoline used is better than 250 MPG. If I take a 3000 mile trip where only the first 40 miles was on electric the MPG would drop way down, but then this is not how most Volt owners would use their car.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:28 pm)Volt owners (you) are creating the database right now. Based on actual driving that will show what difference driving a Volt makes, for mpg, for CAFE or equivalent, for aggregate mpg/gasoline and electric use, for gas savings etc. Hopefully it will be used in ways that are rational.
+2
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:28 pm)I am opposed to the entire CAFE regulation. Let the market (er, that would be all of us individual consumers) decide. When gas prices exceeded $4 a gallon, what happened to the sales of Hummers? The market decided. Likewise, if gas prices continue to rise, people will start paying attention to more efficient forms of transportation. Cars are not the only thing that consumes energy. Does the government impose the equivalent of CAFE standards on airlines? On the size of house you can own? On how far you can drive for recreation? Or a million other energy-consuming things we do each day?
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:32 pm)Even with consumers projected to save more in gasoline costs than the cost of CAFE per vehicle?
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:44 pm)Excellent point. It’s what happens when producers are mandated to do one thing and consumers are are given incentives to do another. The whole approach is misguided.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:50 pm)Normally I’d agree that market solutions are superior. But the problem with this approach is that there isn’t a free market for gasoline. The price of gasoline isn’t set by the market, it’s set by a cartel of foreign governments which control supply, making it absurd to talk about “market solutions” in this context.
Jun 30th, 2011 (3:03 pm)How do you explain the fact that automakers are offering safety features such as side curtain airbags, active lane keep assist, and active traction control despite the lack of a government regulation? It’s because safety features are not externality. There exist a demand for safe cars, so auto manufacturers will offer it for product differentiation.
For pollution from gas engines, there are costs not born by the users. For the free market to work properly, government needs to price those negative externalities (gas tax). Why mandate a MPG requirement when we have replacement, non-petro technologies like EV, CNG, fuel cell… Seriously, what’s the MPG of a electric vehicle? I live in California so 50% of the power generated to power my Leaf comes from non-fossil fuels. If I lived in Colorado, 98% will come from coal. Should the MPG be calculated differently depending on the mix of the generation portfolio?
How about Chevy Volt, what’s the MPG on that? For some people, it’s 1000MPG because they judiciously plug in each and every day. For others, it can be as low as 35MPG because they just buy it for the HOV sticker…
Jun 30th, 2011 (3:28 pm)Not unless you consider the oil companies sitting across the table negotiating these prices to be foreign governments. In the name of oil security we have shot our selves in the feet to be in the position to buy cheap footware.
+2
Jun 30th, 2011 (3:41 pm)#4
What you say makes perfect sense, but alas, I seriously doubt that it is going to happen any time soon.
I think that EPA and NHTSA can put CAFE standards in to place without having to go through Congress. I’m sad to say that, in today’s poisoned political climate, that’s probably the only way to get anything done. I mean, can you seriously imagine a gasoline tax increase getting through our present Congress? Likewise with taking any goodies away from the oil industry.
CAFE may be a clumsy, indirect, and imperfect tool, but it’s the only one we’ve got at the moment IMHO. Who knows, maybe it could force people to get serious about stuff like the 2 mode hybrid light trucks and SUVs. GM always said that you could save more gas by hybridizing them than you could with “little” cars like the Prius. So get busy GM and sell that idea to an obviously skeptical public.
Jun 30th, 2011 (4:01 pm)so the main reason we should root for the imperfect CAFE standard is the lack of spine on our elected representatives to do the right thing… sad, but true.
It’s sad… here in the US we have the one of the best road infrastructure and lowest gas tax among the developed world, so low that it pays for less than 1/2 the upkeep of the said roads… yet our fellow citizens complain about the high gas tax and complain with such zeal that raising it is considered to be a death sentence for any politicians.
I was in China earlier this year, they were considering raising their gas price from 8RMB/liter to 10RMB/liter. that will make price of gas higher in China than in the US ($5.85/gallon).
Jun 30th, 2011 (4:06 pm)Steverino,
I was thinking of a car that had the power of 4 or 6 cylinders, that could run less cylinders when its just moving 2 people. Then, when linked to another car, the other car would be put in nuetral and and all of the cylinders of the driving car would be used. I guess something like a smart car, but it would have to be mechanically interlocking (and of course all of the required electrical and communication connections). Heck, maybe you could even string 3 of them together, and/or get them to share power to achieve the most efficient result.
My head is in Friday mode since I get tomorrow off for the holiday.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (4:33 pm)Mark Wagner,
Thank you! Someone who gets why CAFE does not work. High gas prices have moved the market toward fuel effecient cars far more than CAFE.
As you said, CAFE is not a consumer-driven solution. Without buyers, automakers have traditionally lost money on each efficient car they sell to meet CAFE requirements. People do not realize that CAFE is sales weighted, so If GM sells a Traverse, they must sell a Cruze to offset the difference.
-3
Jun 30th, 2011 (4:58 pm)I can look forward to sending all these green watermelons, who want all others to drive pregnant roller skates to the proper oblivion that they deserve. Meanwhile they are driven about in government furnished limousines,by liveried government furnished chauffers and of coarse using government furnished gas, all tax free. Naturally.
I agree with the gentlement who recommended said “Let the market decide.” But not after artificially raising the price of fuel by giving it to true fools, who produce not a drop, and nothing but hot air.
Don’t rig the market and then let it decide. Let the people decide at each purchase decison, the prices are at a certain level, and they will respond and they will purchase vehicles appropriate to their needs, at those tehn current prices. They gave been doing a good job, reducing our cumulative national oil needs from 21 million bbl/day to 19 million bbls/day, in the first decade of this century despite America’s rising population. Our auto makers builtf better, more efficient vehicles and provide suitable vehicle chioces, that now are no different than those availble anywhere else in the world, with the proviso that their engines, can meet our world’s tightest clean air standards.
Certainly not by the lobbying from know-nothing, cynical, green loon, jackass, like Roland Hwang, from the swell sounding but meaningless,”National Resource Defense Council”.
An organization that is not national, unconcerned with resources, defending nothing, except their own fund raising, and not a council but a closed group of PR hacks, liviing off non profit contributions. The only thing the NRDC does, is fund-raise money; and let its greedy oafs dine and live well off the extorted nickels and dimes, and occasionally put together a distorted press release.
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:05 pm)The market crash of ’08 did that for us. Consumption will eventually be back. With a vengeance.
-1
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:07 pm)CAFE is a bogus bassackward way to change consumer behavior. Higher gas prices did more in 3 years than CAFE ever did.
I submit that CAFE actually had the opposite effect. By exempting trucks early on, consumers were incented to buy even worse MPG vehicles.
I don’t have any answers, but CAFE has got to go away.
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:08 pm)Except that gas prices are not up, and have not stayed up. In real terms gas prices have not moved up much for the past century.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:40 pm)Private oil companies — Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. — have no ability to influence supply or prices. The large producing countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, have national oil companies which operate as much on a political basis as on a business basis. The only counterbalance to these government suppliers are governments such as those making up the International Energy Agency.
Oil companies don’t negotiate prices any more. They take the price they’re given.
+3
Jun 30th, 2011 (6:48 pm)#28
I am a proud member of the NRDC, and have worked very hard with their brilliant legal staff here in SoCal. They are far and away the most effective environmental advocacy group in the USA today IMHO.
Based upon my own personal knowledge and experience, over many years, I am pleased to inform you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
-1, and I almost never do so, preferring to stay positive if at all possible.
Jun 30th, 2011 (7:21 pm)But they’ve gone up during the last half century. You’ve just picked a convenient starting point. The average price over the last ten years is much greater than for the previous ten years.
Plus goods and services should go down in price over time. Over the last hundred years electrical prices have dropped by 2/3rds. Any product or service that does not drop in price over time is an economic problem.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (7:24 pm)Raising the gas tax would put a floor on prices and provide the certainty to the car companies to plan what cars to build. Recognize it takes 3-5 years to design new cars, but gas prices can go up or down 10s of percentage points in a month.
How does anyone invest in the future under those circumstances? I have friends that invested millions in a bio-diesel plant, only to have the price of oil drop (and the price of raw vegetable oil go through the roof) and kill their business. They went bankrupt, lost their family savings, and had to lay off all their workers, who were also their neighbors.
Car companies can build lots of big, inefficient cars if people want to buy them, and lots of efficient cars if people want to buy those. What kills the American car companies is switching in between the two demand modes.
Jun 30th, 2011 (7:26 pm)I’ll stand corrected but I don’t think it works this way any more. The standard applies to all vehicles in a class. It’s not fleet based as it was before.
Jun 30th, 2011 (7:54 pm)Americans are spoiled and lazies ..who want cheap gas as their right.. Really..and why I may ask. Oil is a commodity and the arabs know that US citizens are addicted to big cars so why not keep the price high enuf so they can make big profits. Until folks in US change their habits about cars nothing will come out of it … How stooopid the Americans can be …to expect cheap gas as their birth right. Just look at european and many other countries ..gas is $7-10 range and many use public transporttaion …But noy in US …they all want to drive their big Humvees and lexus even when they cant pay for it …need to keep up with the Joe next door? Folks in US are the most wasteful in the world and consume the highest energy per capita …inspite of the massive oil spill in the gulf … Good luck educating the idiots in US …
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:13 pm)The market is already rigged for the oil companies. I’m saying remove the subsidies and let oil cost what it should. This will result in higher prices at the pump, but so what. The truth hurts. And if you want to put a tax on it to help pay for the defense budget that’s used to protect that product, what’s the problem with that. Maybe people will start using less of it. Forcing car companies to make green cars in a artificially cheap gas environment makes no sense.
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:15 pm)And I suppose you’re happy that most of that price goes to your respective European Governments?
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:33 pm)Not all Americans fit your description. I don’t!
I lived in New York City and my parents never had a private vehicle. We New Yorkers travel by foot, by subway, and by bus (occasionally by taxi). The trains are electric, so we have that in our favor for over a hundred years. Buses and taxis are next. I have seen plenty of Ford Escape Hybrids as taxi, but that isn’t enough. GM produced buses some time ago, but now EV buses are way past due. Two or three Voltec packs in an EREV bus can carry over fifty passengers a day, and last at least the first four hours of city travel. With that alone, half of the pollution is eliminated.
I have traveled by subway in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. So if America is changing to electrical transportation, the large cities on the East Coast are leading the way. The other large population states (including California, Texas and Florida) have hardy any EV transportation, so they are way behind. Maybe those Americans fit your description, but be careful for who you are describing, because many members of this forum are from some of those states. Only those who bought the Chevy Volt will be exceptions to your description.
Raymond
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (9:57 pm)What about feebates? Buy a guzzler and pay 5K, buy a volt and get that 5K back off the purchase price. Doesn’t cost tax dollars….. or put a floor on the price of gas at $4 per gallon and raise it every year by 50 cents….
MrEnergyCzar
Jun 30th, 2011 (10:49 pm)I like the captions on the pictures in the above article. The pickup pulling a livestock trailer and the Corvette ZR1. Obviously these vehicles will NOT get anywhere near 56 mpg. The question then is will they still be available?
Depends on how the law is written and how customers react. Farmers, RV’ers, and boaters still need towing capacity. If the heavy duty segment is rolled into these fuel economy standards then:
1: Performance will drop dramatically as engines are downsized
2: Gas guzzler tax will be oppressive, raising the cost of food and homes homes (independent contractors use these trucks to build your house).
3: They simply will not be available or built by the auto industry.
IF the answer is 3, the question is what WILL replace the Pickup truck.
The answer is Kenworth, Freightliner, Navistar, Volvo, will build downsized heavy duty rigs to replace them. Some of these rigs are available now but you rarely see them because they are only purchased by people hauling really REALLY heavy 5′th wheel’s and boats.
Check out the web sight below for an example. (No, I don’t sell these, it was just the first one I could find on Google).
http://www.mountainmaster.net/mediumdutytrucks/freightlinerexterior.html
If you can’t buy a pickup, you are gonna have to step up to a REALLY big rig. It happened before, when cars got too small to do heavy hauling and towing. Everybody moved to SUV’s. This time, government meddling will create a whole new class of gas guzzler!
Jun 30th, 2011 (11:38 pm)Great example and very well said. One more reason I’m an advocate a floor tax as a must, if not an overall gas tax increase.
Jul 1st, 2011 (2:09 am)Not arbitrary: raise the gas tax sufficiently to account for the negative externalities of gas use + road maintenance.
Jul 4th, 2011 (11:06 am)CAFE standards are not effective in reducing our nation’s total fuel consumption, since consumers will drive farther and more frequently — and even pay more to get a larger car — to offset any fuel cost savings.
While higher fuel prices may be unpopular, it is the only way to truly reduce our foreign oil dependence and carbon emissions. A gradually increasing tax on gasoline to get US gasoline prices closer to the rest of the world would be an excellent way to achieve this.