Congress Strikes Deal To Match China's Fuel Efficiency Standards By 2020
Congress will require American automakers to achieve fleet-wide fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The deal struck late last night by Congressional negotiators and hailed as "an historic advancement," would put America on the slow track towards meeting the same efficiency standards that Europe, China, and most of the developed world already enjoy.
Automakers are currently required to achieve fuel efficiency of 27.5 mpg for cars, and 22.2 mpg for light trucks, minivans, and SUVs. The Senate voted to raise fuel efficiency standards in June, but opposition from Detroit's favorite spokesman, Michigan Congressman John Dingell, delayed House assent until now.
The package nearly fell apart this week when Mr. Dingell insisted on leaving sole authority to regulate automobile mileage standards with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department. That would have weakened the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, led by California, to regulate auto emissions of carbon dioxide, which are in large measure a function of the amount of fuel burned.The fuel efficiency increase is part of a larger energy bill that the House and Senate leadership hope to pass by the end of the year.Federal court rulings this year have decided this so-called pre-emption issue in favor of the E.P.A. and the states, decisions that Mr. Dingell hoped to undo by Congressional action. The traffic safety administration has had authority over fuel-efficiency standards since 1975 but has not imposed any significant increase since 1985. The E.P.A. is currently writing rules to comply with a Supreme Court ruling this year that gave it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and is weighing an application by California and 14 other states to set their own emissions standard.
The authority of the E.P.A. to regulate tailpipe emissions and the right of California and other states to set their own, higher standards were considered deal-breakers by Ms. Pelosi and her fellow California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, weighed in late in the week to tell negotiators that he would oppose the bill if the Mr. Dingell's preemption language stayed in.
Mrs. Pelosi and Democratic leaders in the Senate rejected Mr. Dingell's preemption effort, but softened the blow by agreeing to allow the car companies to retain a credit for vehicles capable of running on a blend of gasoline and ethanol. That credit was set to expire in 2008 but now will begin to decline in 2014 and be eliminated entirely by 2020.
Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency [NYT]
(Photo: *USB*)
Post a comment
Comments:
Congress is the opposite of progress.
Well prepare for heavy fog when burning ethanol.
The thing burns fine and has a smaller carbon footprint than gas, but leaves suspended particles (I think, correction anyone?).
Pretty weak, for two main reasons. First, this is way too long of a time frame to give for way too modest of an improvement. And second, the light-truck distinction was left in. That distinction is woefully outdated, as so-called "light trucks" are rarely used in traditional truck roles (e.g., farm work) but instead are used primarily as passenger vehicles. There's no reason for some passenger vehicles to have an easier target than others.
I hope the alien overlords that take over what's left of this planet in 2020, enjoy their higher mileage vehicles. Thank you, Congress. Yes, this truly is an historic advancement in how ineffectual you are.
@rioja951: Even if what you say is true, it's not like gasoline is really much better. Particulates and oxides of nitrogen already contribute to urban haze. The real solution to this problem (and so many others) is plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles. With those, pollution is moved to a centralized location, where it can be cleaned. Or, as we continue our move to renewable electricity, no pollution at all may be generated from or because of your car.
I guess I'm the only one that thinks this is a bad idea because there should be no regulation at all.
For some reason all of you feel that more government interference is the way to go.
If you feel that using less gasoline is the right thing to do then fine, but to force it upon others is not.
@scraejtp: What about forcing water shortages, starvation, floods, and infectious disease upon others? That's okay? Because if we don't act quickly and effectively, that's what's going to happen.
@rioja951: What you describe sounds like older diesel engines. The issue of particulates from diesel fuel combustion is a longstanding problem. However, it's quickly becoming less of an issue thanks to the development of better filtration and regulations which require vehicle makers to use it.
Modern diesel engines can get much better mileage than typical gasoline engines. Late model Volkswagen TDI's can easily average 40+mpg. 2008's should be even better.
2020? ................................
@scraejtp: These types of arguments are among the stupidest ever. If you don't mind the CO2, then close your garage door and inhale away...
This pathetic. 13 years to get to 35mpg... Just like the dems from California cow-towing to the MPAA and the RIAA... Michigan's rep cow-tows to the auto industry. Much like the failing Sears/KMart chain, US automakers have no one to blame for their shortfalls than themselves. I mean really, Dodge is putting out ANOTHER muscle car for Christ sake! Yeah, that's what we need.
Not all of us share that doom and gloom mentality, and those of us that do, believe that market forces will ultimately solve the problem themselves regardless of government intervention.
IE, if the majority consumers truly do want cars capable of 35mpg, then automakers without any governmental compulsion. The fact that (with a few exceptions)they pretty much don't shows that the general public does not want those cars, but will be forced to buy them anyway by 2020.
If the majority of the public believed the planet was in danger or that oil supplies were running out (they aren't, but the easily recoverable ones are), then a demand for alternative fuels and high efficiency would exist on its own, to which automakers would have to respond. The fact that such demand is minimal shows that the majority do not share that mindset.
Besides, since the market can react much more quickly to changing forces than the government ever could, who's to say that petroleum-burning cars will even be relevant in 2020? Congress may react to present concerns in 13-year lags, but if companies want to stay in business, they better react much faster than that.
If the first practical electric and hydrogen cars become runaway successes in the early to mid 2010s, automakers will build more of them so that by 2020, talk of fuel economy standards may just become irrelevant.
@scraejtp: Sounds like someone has been reading a little too much Ayn Rand.
Don't worry, for most people it's something they outgrow by age 16, or 19 at the latest.
Twenty years? I refuse to buy anything that gets less that 30mpg in town today. Either make something with appropriate mpg or your not getting any cash from me.
@ranwhenparked: All I can say is that the market can not and will not respond with the swiftness that is required in order to avert the worst predictions of climate science. Government regulation is the only thing that can bring about the needed improvements in the needed timeframe.
@ranwhenparked: Uhh, 'market forces' got us to where we are now. So, we should now trust these very same market forces to clean up the mess they made? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Great so we'll produce as little poison as China does now by 2010.
DOH! 2020, even better.
Oh wow, 35mpg, get back to me when it actually hits a worthwhile target.
@rioja951: Someone else may want to directly address if the "suspended exhaust particles" exist when buring ethanol, but I have always heard ethanol was a great motor fuel/additive.
Ethanol as a motor fuel is not new, and there is a history of why we use gasoline vs. ethanol. The whole ethanol/gasoline story also ties into why they added tetraethyl lead to gasoline for so many years. Ethanol has great anti-knock properties. So does tetraethyl lead. Guess which one could be controlled by big business?
For more information, check out The Secret History of Lead - The Nation
[www.thenation.com]
This is such a shot in hte nuts for environmentalists. And I mean that literally. Their kids WILL feel this.
2020????????????????????????????????
ridiculous.
Those other countries "enjoy" their high efficiency standards. Wow, all those 35mpg cars must make them sooooo happy.
I'm with scraejtp and Ayn Rand on this one. And I'm way over 16. Or 19.
If the regulatory stick is more effective at forcing the automakers to get with the program then the the regulatory carrot did then great sound public policy should necessarily inform the regulatorym enviroment... change will do them (automakers) good. The alternative is that their business plunges off a cliff in a couple years, when their customers can no longer afford to use the products they sell.
If this results in the R and D dollars being spent in places that decrease the environmental or economic footprint of automotive use that has more direct benefit to everyone who drives (the people who read this blog for example) than figuring out how to get 750hp instead of 500 from a 4l v8.
I can't believe that something so consumer-oriented forgets so readily that the consumer is the one at fault here. We're talking CAFE -- corporate average fuel economy. Every manufacturer already makes cars that meet these standards. Hell, they sell them today in China, Europe, and most of the rest of the developed world. It means shit though, if you sell that car to six people in North America if you sell 20 gas guzzlers. It's an average. Those big cars seriously offset the small cars. Ford can come out with the most awesome, B-size car in the world tomorrow, and it might get 60 mpg, but it's meaningless if I don't want to be a European, and choose to drive in something spacious, comfortable, and happens to use more gas.
What we need to do is provide some incentive to choose to drive smaller cars.
@randotheking: There's no way the big 3 auto makers could do this before 20/20 without going bankrupt... in fact I'm interested to see if they will be able to get this done by 2020.
@Sam: "What about forcing water shortages, starvation, floods, and infectious disease upon others? That's okay? Because if we don't act quickly and effectively, that's what's going to happen."
Right, yet another person who has bought hook line and sinker into the whole bs that is global warming and its impending doom to us all.
@joelja:
I prefer my big block V8s with high horse and high torque, go drive your prius and leave my vette, stang, camero, charger, challenger and full size pickups alone.
Ok Folks, what will happen is when the next President will come to power he will increase MPG beyond this puny increase.
Of all serious the presidential candidades only Mitt Romney is against the increase.
Let's hope that Rudy will win.
I recently got rid of a big 17 mpg wagon and got an old civic station wagon that gets 27 mpg in town and 35 or so on the freeway. The first time I filled it up it felt like gas prices had dropped almost in half.
Also the old wagon made me feel (as far as the environment went) that I was needlessly burning barrels of gasoline in the street.
BTW, isn't China one of those emerging economies that pollution apologists like to cite when they argue, "Why do we have to do our part for the Earth when these countries are worse than us? Waaaah!"?
I can't express how depressingly lame it is to shoot for a goal of 35MPG. By 2020. One would think there would be revolutionary changes by then. Way to aim for the ground.
Wow. 13 years to get where Europe was three years ago.
@scraejtp: I may be one of the few here that agree with you! There should be no interference from the government at all. When they learn how to squeeze 35 MPH from passenger vehicles (that all passengers actually want to purchase and drive) then the natural forces shall prevail! Until then, I'll keep driving to work alone in my full-size F-150.
@Logan26: Thanks Logan. You stole my thunder. It seems that 90% of Consumerist readers actually belive that Al Gore shit.
AD8BC:
Get a diesel PU.
Great mileage and you can use it to blow thick black smoke into the face of that Prius driver behind you.
My huge diesel Suburban can be driven over 1700 miles on 80 gallons of diesel ... about the amount of diesel you would get by using heat-depolymerization to reduce 1 metric ton of dead Gore-worshipping hippy into fuel.
I like efficiency but I can't stand the American fuel mileage lobby. The attitude seems to be that GM has a super secret full size SUV hidden in a warehouse in Detroit that runs on hugs and sunshine comes out of the tailpipe. No, no, and no. The consumers themselves are the problem.
Fuel efficient cars have existed for ages, people just wont buy them unless the gas guzzlers are penalized heavily with higher registration fees and increased gasoline taxes = This is why Europeans "enjoy" higher mileage standards. Heck, a '91 Hyundai Scoupe with stickshift and no AC or power steering will achieve 45 MPG when cruising at 55mph.
The solution is simple, but you can understand why no politician with a survival instinct wants to suggest it. Idea: Take the revenue and use it to fund nationalized healthcare. If gas price doubled my monthly expenses would increase $150-200 but I'd save $300 in insurance costs.
The market determines whether or not a problem even exists in the first place.
If consumers continue to buy gas guzzlers, then obviously, the country as a whole has decided that fuel efficiency isn't a problem. If the market shifts to demanding 35mpg cars, than the public has decided it IS a problem.
In both cases, its up to the public to decide what types of cars they want to buy. And, with 13 major manufacturers competing in the U.S. market (and more on the way in), the automaker that doesn't respond will feel the pain. Again, government involvement is unnecessary. Carmakers will build whatever the public wants them to build.
We elect Congress to represent us in political affairs, but in economic matters, we are quite capable of representing ourselves. Every purchase we make is a vote for the product/company we patronize and a vote against the ones we don't. We vote every 2 years for Congress, but vote a dozen times a day for the companies that supply our consumer goods.
Look at the facts- the Big Three automakers once controlled our car market by building big, thirsty landyachts. Then the Japanese essentially took over in the 70s and 80s by selling the opposite- small, thrifty compacts. Americans didn't start buying Hondas, Toyotas, and Datsuns because Congress ordered them to, they did so because those companies best satisfied the needs of the public at the time.
The Family of 7 that now has to travel in 2 smaller cars thanks you.
Wow...I cant believe there are people who still don't believe in global warming...it is going to be the gloom and doom of the world if people don't start taking this more seriously (just look at the facts) and while your looking at the facts look at those that don't believe global warming is a reality, what's their motive? Everyone gets so pissy when it comes to talking about this, but I have failed to see the benifits of "pretending" that a global crisis IS here.
Oh and I feel really bad for that family of sevens grandchildren cause at the rate were destroying this planet there is not going to be much left for them.
@coaster.n3rd: Pure nonsense. That family will be driving the same size vehicle except that it'll be powered by a 2.5L turbodiesel instead of 6.0L gasoline incinerator, and they'll be forced to actually depress the accelerator pedal all the way down to merge on to the highway. Oh, horror!
I've seen enough many large European families load themselves into a Nissan Patrol or Mitsubishi Pajero truck, and their sanity or lives weren't in danger because of a smaller engine.
The small minded, short-sighted pinheads that bought Bush's crap hook line and sinker can't give it up even after Bush himself has coped to it. What do you expect though, these are the same morons that believe that the Earth is only 5000 years old and the rapture is due any day now. They haven't the intelligence or the common sense to see a gun staring them in the face. I just wish there were a way to blow their heads off without taking the rest of us with them.
@courtneywoah: Here is some reading for you to see the other side and why some of us don't believe the non-existent consensus-debate-is-over-UN-study bull crap the is being spread around.
read some good stuff here: [schnittshow.970wfla.com]
Many different sources for you.
Thats because they aren't trying to merge onto US highways where if you aint atleast doing the speed limit by the time you are ready to merge, you'll get run over. Or shot in certain cities.
@goller321: I hope someone says that about you next time you are wrong on something and see how you take it. Quite rude and unnecessary.
It's pretty sad when you have to "catch up" to China on something like that. Meanwhile, I'm trying to even imagine the price of a gallon of gasoline in 2020 (assuming there's any left by then).