Congress Set to Boost Fuel Economy Limit

[mikeyb]

WASHINGTON (AP) Congress is set to increase fuel mileage requirements for automobiles and SUVs for the first time in 32 years and President Bush has signaled he will accept the new mandates on the auto industry.
Democratic leaders were confident the House will pass an energy bill Tuesday that includes a new 35-miles-per-gallon standard, a huge increase in the use of ethanol and new energy efficiency standards for appliances and building construction.
"This legislation is a historic turning point in energy policy," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland because it will cut demand for foreign oil and promote nonfossil fuels that will cut greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
It increases energy efficiency "from light bulbs to light trucks," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry who was key to a compromise on vehicle efficiency increases.
Many Republicans denounced the Democratic-crafted bill for failing to push for more domestic production of fossil fuels and for mandates some GOP lawmakers warned will not be possible.
"What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that both the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.
Democrats disagreed. The legislation takes measured and concrete steps that are achievable, said Dingell.
The Senate passed the bill last week after discarding billions of dollars in higher taxes on oil companies and a solar and wind power mandate that opponents said would raise electric rates in the Southeast. Those measures were opposed by President Bush and Senate Republicans.
The centerpiece of the bill remained the requirement for automakers to increase their industrywide vehicle fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 mpg by 2020 compared to today's 25 mpg when including passenger cars as well as SUVs and small trucks.
Congress has not changed the auto mileage requirement since it was first enacted in 1975.
Democrats said the fuel economy requirements eventually when the fleet of gas-miser vehicles are widely on the road will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. They maintain the overall bill, including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will reduce U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf.
The automakers have repeatedly fought an increase in the federal fuel standard, known as CAFE, maintaining it would limit the range of vehicles consumers will have available in showrooms and threaten auto industry jobs. Bush also has argued against an arbitrary, numerical increase in the fuel efficiency requirement, preferring instead legislation to streamline the federal requirements and market incentives to get rid of gas guzzling vehicles.
But the automakers have accepted the political shift toward a tougher requirement. After the Senate approved the legislation last week, the White House immediately said Bush would sign it once it reaches his desk.
The bill requires a massive increase in the production of ethanol for motor fuels, outlining a rampup of ethanol use from the roughly 6 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. After 2015, the emphasis would be on expanded use of cellulosic ethanol, made from such feedstock as switchgrass and wood chips, with two thirds of the ethanol 21 billion gallons a year from such non-corn sources.
However, commercially viable production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to be proven and some Republicans have argued that the new requirements could be impossible to meet and may raise corn prices and food supplies.
The bill requires improved efficiency standards for lighting, commercial and government buildings, and appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers and freezers. It also tells the Energy Department to issue efficiency standards more quickly.
Democrats failed to get through a broad tax package that they had designed to pay for incentives aimed at spurring the development of wind, solar and alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation programs.
The package would have rolled back $13.5 billion in tax breaks enjoyed by the country's five largest oil companies. The tax package passed the House earlier this month, but was rejected in the Senate as Democrats failed by one vote to overcome a GOP filibuster. The White House said Bush opposed singling out the oil industry for higher taxes and that if the taxes were included, he would veto the bill.
The bill is HR 6.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imPz0z6szykAL-CAKZDEZOAiDREgD8TK0GJ00

 

[knowledge007]

Sweet, now only to make our speeds get that kind of mileage...hehe

 

[jred321]

i hate to say it but i like bush's approach better than the seemingly shot in the dark 35mpg. adjust taxes to make it less desirable to sell and own an inefficient vehicle and it'll sort itself out. something like 35mpg and outlining how companies are going to do it sounds like the govt is overstepping its bounds and trying to be experts on something that they're not experts at. also who knows, maybe by 2020 they'll figure out a simple way to get 60mpg so 35mpg is a terrible number

i think the intent is good but i think the dems failed on the execution

 

[mikeyb]

I feel that we should be taxed on the amount of fuel we use.

 

[TinmanMS6]

I feel that we should be taxed on the amount of fuel we use.

Agreed. Increased gas taxes would sort the whole thing out without forcing the automakers hands artificially. Increased gas prices has already begun a shift toward smaller and more fuel efficient cars and trucks, while demand for bigger SUVs is still there for those that can afford to fuel them. This trend would only continue with increased fuel taxes.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with the new CAFE regulations, but it's not going to be easy for the manufacturers to continue to produce SUVs and still hit the new numbers. With emissions regulations also tightening, and California pushing for them to get even tighter, diesels are going to get more and more expensive to produce. Hybrids, EVs, and fuel cells are going to be the only reasonable options.

I think Honda is going to have a huge advantage over all other automakers in this new market. They've been the only ones consistently pushing development in all forms of alternative power. They have good solutions for gas-electric hybrids, diesels (soon), and hydrogen vehicles in the US market.

 

[mikeyb]

This morning President Bush put pen to paper (no doubt one of those really cool American President pens) and signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, all 822 pages of it. As we all know by now, the pillar of the law is an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020. The increases will be built up over time beginning with the 2011 model year, which really isn't that far away. The measures regarding CAFE also don't apply fleetwide as one single standard, but will be adjusted based on the type of car or truck being measured. Nevertheless, after decades of nary a budge in this country's CAFE standards, an increase of some 40% is monumental and will likely begin immediately affecting the cars and trucks we buy.

In order to meet the standards, we expect automakers to begin producing more mild hybrids in the near future, with full-on parallel hybrids being at least an option on most vehicles after that. The use of modern clean-diesel engines will also proliferate, especially in light-duty half-ton trucks like the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado that would have trouble meeting their own CAFE targets with traditional V8 engines. Then there's more exotic technology, like the series hybrid system being developed by GM for the Chevy Volt. If successful, expect other automakers to very quickly follow suit with their own series hybrid drivetrains. There's lots of simple and more complex technologies on the table that automakers will utilize to increase their CAFE rating, and no doubt the cost of developing these systems will be passed on to the consumer to some degree, as well. Supporters of the bill, however, remind us that reducing our dependance on foreign oil is a very good thing, and in the end, we only get one Earth on which to live.

 

[magnumP5]

A lot of this is my own personal opinion but...

There goes the industry... Now I know this is an industry average and don't get me wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty of technological increases between now and 2020 but I just don't see this helping at all. This is going to do nothing but hurt American automakers - anybody remember mid 1970-1980's American cars? Most of them were crap. I see Ford/GM/Chrysler reverted to a similar strategy in the U.S. while they continue production/innovation as usual throughout the rest of the world due to less restrictions. I mean, this is already the reason we don't get half the cars the rest of the world gets. Also, this means less domestic production which means an even larger trade deficite therefore the dollar falls even more. I'm not saying this is the death of the U.S. but it is not helping at all. Way to go government...

 

[TinmanMS6]

In the '70's and '80's, the domestics were crap because they couldn't adjust to the new regulations, opening the door for the foreign brands that have since entered the US market. If the domestics knew how to make a good small car, Toyota and Honda would not be the powers that they are today. Detroit seems to have forgotten the lessons they learned then, and have continued to neglect the small car market, and they're going to suffer for it again. While I don't like this legislation either, the government can not be blamed for Detroit's failure to innovate.

The vast majority of the cars that are sold overseas that we don't get here are much more fuel efficient than the models that are currently on sale here. Fuel prices in Europe are MUCH higher than they are in the US. The reason that hot hatches and wagons are more popular in Europe is that they have steered clear of the big trucks and SUVs we buy here, and opted to develop more efficient solutions. In Europe, also, diesels are around half of all vehicles sold. They don't have any less restrictions there, and many of those innovations are due to different or greater restrictions.

 

[magnumP5]

^^^ That is true, which is why I agree that we should be taxed based on what we drive/how much gas we use. Of course it doesn't help that I drive a small turbocharged wagon that can still get 32 mpg highway

 

[mikeyb]

The Etanol Fallacy

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=46

Why the New 35-MPG Fuel Economy Standard Is a Bad Idea

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4235773.html?series=19

 

[magnumP5]

I was discussing this bill with my g/f the other day and she went on and on about ethanol. I pretty much told her what that article said and all she could say is "oh". I'm pretty sure the U.S. government is going to say something similar when they realize this fact as well. However, that article mentioned hybrids and electrics which have the same problem. Sure, you can plug them in at night but where's that energy coming from? More than likely it's fossil fuel burning power plant.

 

[mikeyb]

I think auto manufacturers need too do these 4 things to meet the new energy bill.

CUT THE FAT
BUILD A BETTER POWERTRAIN
KEEP ON ROLLING (better tires)
GIVE 'EM MORE GEARS

 

[mikeyb]

I was discussing this bill with my g/f the other day and she went on and on about ethanol. I pretty much told her what that article said and all she could say is "oh". I'm pretty sure the U.S. government is going to say something similar when they realize this fact as well. However, that article mentioned hybrids and electrics which have the same problem. Sure, you can plug them in at night but where's that energy coming from? More than likely it's fossil fuel burning power plant.

It will be from a fossil fuel buring power plant.

 

[jred321]

nuclear power ftw

 

[mikeyb]

nuclear power ftw

I do not know about that......

 

[TinmanMS6]

I think that the problem we're going to be faced with in the coming years, more than anything else, is going to be an increase in the cost of the average vehicle. All of the technology that will help make the vehicles we all want to drive viable within the 35mpg framework are going to add thousands of dollars to the price of a car.

 

[jred321]

I do not know about that......

we have one in south eastern CT. i think that might be where my power comes from when i'm at home. i know there are very few of them in the country though

 

[jred321]

I think that the problem we're going to be faced with in the coming years, more than anything else, is going to be an increase in the cost of the average vehicle. All of the technology that will help make the vehicles we all want to drive viable within the 35mpg framework are going to add thousands of dollars to the price of a car.

unless it's just stupid ethanol that cars use which just requires a few modifications to fuel lines and a different tune to run. hm i wonder why ethanol was so heavily pushed in the bill...

 

[magnumP5]

And my g/f wonders why I'm going to run my '86 Toyota pickup on biodiesel (yes it's diesel already)... Yes, I know that requires fossil fuel energy as well.

 

[mikeyb]

we have one in south eastern CT. i think that might be where my power comes from when i'm at home. i know there are very few of them in the country though

There is one here in NH that is partly operational. I do not think nuclear power is the answer either. I would love to have a house off the gird sometime in the near future.

unless it's just stupid ethanol that cars use which just requires a few modifications to fuel lines and a different tune to run. hm i wonder why ethanol was so heavily pushed in the bill...

Its heavily pushed because its keeping farms working that were other wise not being productive. Personally they should be growing food for people not a fuel source for vehicles.