We CAN Drive 54.5

on Jim Motavalli

RSS

On Tuesday, the Obama Administration made it official: The U.S. will require America’s auto fleets to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Although the environmental community is generally performing handsprings over that (and only the auto dealers are scowling), there’s still some controversy over continuing loopholes that the industry can drive a lot of trucks through. Now we’re in a comment period, so be sure and say what you think.

The good news is that the industry, long stuck in idle on improving mileage, will be seriously stretched to achieve the goal. There’s not much doubt the targets can be achieved, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the roads will be full of electric cars. Challenged to innovate, the auto companies have been sharply improving both gasoline and diesel engines, using off-the-shelf technologies such as start-stop, cylinder deactivation, small-engine turbocharging, direct injection and widespread hybridization, including diesel hybrids.

The Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4: 62 mpg in the European cycle. Who says we can't reach 54.5 mpg without electric cars?
(Peugeot photo)

Obama, said to be pleased that he’s gotten the EPA and Department of Transportation to work together, is making much of the potential benefits: $1.7 trillion saved at the pump (and $8,000 per vehicle) by 2025, oil dependence slashed by 12 billion barrels (and 2.2 million barrels per day) by 2025. That could offset 25 percent of our current imports. Greenhouse gas reduction: six billion metric tons over the course of the program.

So the greens are applauding:

“These standards will help consumers save money at the gas pump, cut pollution and reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil,” says Shannon Baker-Branstetter, policy counsel for Consumers Union. A CU poll indicates that 80 percent of respondents approve of the 54.5 mpg standard;
“As a third-generation auto dealer, all I can say is it’s about time,” says Adam Lee, chairman of Lee Auto Malls;
“We’ve long said—and demonstrated with unbiased research—that higher mileage standards are a huge win for our society,” said CERES President Mindy Lubber;
“American cars and trucks are, once again, poised to lead the world in technological advances that will benefit us all,” according to Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp.

But hark, there are also voices of dissent, on both sides of the aisle. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) doesn’t like 54.5 because, “This regulation gambles that millions of consumers will be able to afford thousands more for generally smaller, more expensive vehicles that may not meet their needs.”

That view is echoed by Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl, who asks, “Are we moving too far too fast? The risk is that the proposed standards take us down the same path as the 1970s when a wave of safety, environmental and fuel efficiency regulations resulted in a generation of market-unworthy vehicles.” The Auto Alliance, representing 12 automakers, wants changes that don’t favor electric vehicles. “During the comment period, we hope the Obama Administration is open to continuing discussions on technology-neutral, real-world fuel economy gains,” it said.

The Tesla Model S: 300-mile range. Who says we can't have our electrics, and really good range, too?
(Tesla photo)

And then there are the loopholes, which leave some stalwart greens supporting the standards but cautious about how the automakers will put them into practice. “By taking advantage of loopholes they lobbied to get, automakers can evade the spirit of the rules,” says Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety. Becker points out that the industry got $80 billion from us taxpayers, and owes us clean cars.

The loopholes a) allow pickups and SUVs to make slower gains (3.5 percent better fuel economy in 2017 to 2021, versus five percent for cars); and b) encourage automakers to make their cars larger, so they fit into more leniently regulated categories. Becker told me, “There’s a perverse incentive for companies to add size to vehicles that are already big enough.” The industry has a history here: By adding four-wheel-drive and a few styling cues, it managed to get car-type vehicles like the Chevy HHR, Chrysler PT Cruiser and Subaru Outback classified as trucks—thus meeting lower mpg standards.

David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists is singing out of the same hymnal as Becker. He told me, “”The industry is going to take advantage of flexibility mechanisms that will allow them to do less. I hope I’m wrong, because we’d all be better off if I am. But the auto companies are experts at meeting the letter and not the spirit of the law.”

For its part, the EPA is denying that loopholes even exist. Gina McCarthy, an assistant EPA administrator, told me during a conference call announcing the rules, “There are no loopholes in this rule, and none will get in during the comment period.” I don’t mean to disparage McCarthy here, because she was one of the EPA officials (along with Margo Oge, director of the office of transportation and air quality) who pushed hardest to keep the standards strong. But there are loopholes here.

But let’s end on a positive note. On the same day of the EPA/NHTSA announcement, California came out with its own clean car standards, which aim to have battery cars, fuel cell and plug-in hybrids amount to 15 percent of all vehicle sales in the state by 2025. Between 2018 and 2025, that could mean 1.4 million clean cars hitting the roads.

The 54.5 mpg announcement was made against the backdrop of the Los Angeles Auto Show, which was awash in clean electric cars. Even as they grumble, automakers are proving they can meet—and probably exceed—54.5 mpg. Friedman put it best: “There’s no doubt that this is an incredible day for the future of the automobile. I have a two-year-old, and he’ll have his driver’s license in 2025, the year the strongest standards go into effect. So he’ll be driving a gas car that gets 50 mpg or an electric. That’s incredibly exciting.”

Comments

Login or Register to post comments

jason

Thu, 2011-11-17 16:21

Excellent blog. I hate that we have to force car companies to do this but it's needed.

ryanov

Fri, 2011-11-18 13:11

Too far too fast? Are they kidding?! That is just under FIFTEEN YEARS FROM NOW! What an embarassingly stupid thing to say. "It is too little too late" makes a lot more sense.

JaylaHayen

Sat, 2011-11-19 02:27

Car manufacturers are now working on making their cars boost engine power performance. Electric and hybrid vehicles are also getting popular now. In fact, as the holiday season is arriving many holiday shoppers are now grabbing car deals to get fair purchase.

The J Man

Sun, 2011-11-20 09:42

Now, don't forget...the higher gas-milage will hurt GOV. revinue! They will immediately raise [gasoline-tax]to replace the lost revinue, and all your great savings will fill GOV coffers in taxes. no net gain for us, at all.

john c

Mon, 2011-11-21 08:46

ray asked who would buy a 1975 vw bus. well i can answer that question . i am 53 my first job was paperboy for the boston herald, my boss frank maglio( yes thats his name) bought a bus about that time to carry all the news papers every morning seven days aweek to deliver to me , my brother and all the other lowell area paperboys. he came from salem n.h. that bus had the capacity to carry all those lowell area customers and keep them dry nand not blown away in inclement weather. sincerly; john parker

Jash

Mon, 2011-11-21 22:39

What works well in other countries (or even other states) doesn't mean it will work well for EVERYONE. If people want cars that get better mileage, by all means they should go out and buy them. What works well for a librarian in San Diego will not be a good choice for a rancher in North Dakota. Let the consumer decide the future of automobiles. The consumer has more influence on industry than a non-communist government ever will. You cant force better technology on a capitalistic society, it has to be marketable and usable and that takes time. I think its absurd to think that US automakers are not trying to make more fuel efficient vehicles already. You simply cant predict when the "Perfect Car" will debut any more than you can demand it by 2025. I guess I'm upset that our government is going to have some control over consumer choice and private industry by establishing a deadline on MPG.

Mustangman

Sat, 2011-12-03 13:15

Loopholes? Like the one that allows flex-fuel vehicles, the ones that can run on gas or E85, to compute mileage based on the 15% of gas in E85? This allows automakers to claim 80+ mpg (of gasoline) while actually getting 17 mpg of E85. Is that why US automakers are OK with this? Consumers migrated to SUV's and trucks in the 80's and 90's because large cars no longer met their needs or wants. The HHR's and PT Cruisers we classified as trucks so that more Suburbans and Lexus LX's could be sold and still meet the mileage standards. The point is, You cannot force buyers to purchase what they don't want.

We CAN Drive 54.5

on Jim Motavalli

2012

2011

2010

jason

ryanov

JaylaHayen

The J Man

john c

Jash

Mustangman

Donate Your Car,
Support Your NPR Station

...and get a tax break!

Find a Mechanic

Join the Car Talk Community!

We CAN Drive 54.5

on Jim Motavalli

Donate Your Car, Support Your NPR Station

...and get a tax break!

Find a Mechanic

Donate Your Car,
Support Your NPR Station