Props to The Car Connection (TCC) for pointing out that the Energy Bill President Bush will sign later today won't resolve the key issue bedeviling U.S. automakers: who controls fuel economy standards? Although TCC misses the fact (as did we) that the 35mpg by 2020 target is an industry-wide standard, they correctly identify California's air quality ambitions as a major threat to the Energy Bill's mpg mandate. Apparently, a "senior GM executive" told TCC that the California initiative– classifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas they can limit– amounts to a 43-mile per gallon fuel economy standard. And, ladies and gentlemen, THAT standard is REAL; although there are generous E85 credits it contains no industry average targets or "attribute based calculations" and phases-in four years earlier than the federal target. The GM exec [supposedly] told TCC that his employer can "probably offset most of the impact from the new CAFE legislation by selling '300,000 or 400,000 Volts' and some hybrid SUVs, there is no way to meet the California standards without a dramatic downsizing of vehicles that would reach across the entire vehicle lines." It's too bad TCC feels obliged to end their insight with a cheer leading quote about the Energy Bill. "It… will reduce its global warming pollution by the equivalent of taking 28 million cars off the road," Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts Campaign for Fuel Efficiency asserted. "There's nothing underwhelming about that," she said.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Does the CA standard have a phase-in period to 43 mpg, or does it require 43 mpg right off the bat, that is, in the 2009 model year? If the latter, there’s no way that’s going to happen, even if the EPA grants CA its waiver.
I still find it hard to believe the much-ballyhooed US Energy Bill allows each manufacturer to have a different standard based on nebulous vehicle “attributes.” What a joke!
Look at it this way. There may be fewer cars on the road since there will be fewer manufacturers that will meet the standard. THis alone should reduce pollution and maybe get people out of their cars. Win for the environment/win for health. Win for the people. Loss for Detroit and Japan.
It would funny if in 2020, a 2018 camcord costs more than a brand new 2020 camcord. Of course, most of the politicians that voted this in will be retired by then and can not be held accountable.
Well consider that the origin is a GM executive. Sounds like the California initiative is a fly in the ointment to have virtually meaningless standards. So GM is ratcheting up their PR campaign against the California initiative. Whats good for GM may be good for GM but no longer so for America. So much for the famous old tired saying, whats good for GM is good for america.
210 delray:
There’s a phase-in period, but it only extends from 2009 to 2016, after which all cars and light trucks will have to meet the standard. Handy little fact sheets and such can be found here.
Unfortunately, the information on the page is not completely useful since the limits are expressed in grams of CO2 equivalents emitted per mile. It’s the automakers who have changed it to a mpg standard, since by far the most effective way to reduce GHG emissions is to increase fuel efficiency.
RF is right on the money. These are substantive actions taken by CA to reduce GHG emissions, which will create very real changes in fuel economy.
And haven’t eleven other states signed on to the CA standards (I know Oregon has)? They’re just waiting for CA to get the EPA waiver. The problem for the industry is bigger than just CA.
Unless the industry plans on making aluminum/composite cars, good luck meeting those targets selling anything larger than econoboxes like the Fit and Pri(o)us. And I know the mindless copycats here in the northeast will latch onto whatever ganja smelling smokecloud of an idea they come up with in Kal-e-for-nia.
This is an end to the second (or maybe this is the third) golden age of automobiles. Selection and availibility will go down while prices go up. Better stock up on V8 Mustang’s, Charger’s, Tundra’s and Silverado’s while you can.
All because our politicians and the sycophant “environmentalists” are too womanly and scared to just place a consumption tax on gasoline (as an actually viable means of reducing gasoline consumption instead of nanny state regulation).
Re Morbo, directly above:
1. The industry damn well should be planning on composite cars by now, and working towards that.
2. I agree enthusiastically on last point about gas consumption tax.
Morbo:
I just bought an FC with a hardly chugging 13B-REW and am going to be picking up an MGB here in the next month or so. Once the weather calms down and I can trailer up to Virginia. Indeed, stock up whilst you can.
California supplies 1950’s road technology for the modern auto. Why are the governments not held accountable for the pathetic condition of the road system? How much fuel do you think is wasted when the California roads turn into a parking lot each and every day? and how much extro greenhouse gasses are emmitted?
The solution to the problem is easy. Let the auto companies build the roads and the government build the autos. Problem solved overnight.
It could possibly mean Ford or Chrysler, perhaps GM pull out of the California market. Their market share is dwindling here anyway, and in the next five years plus will continue to dwindle no doubt.
Also, by the time 2016 rolls around it will interesting to see how many Californians will be able to afford a new car. The state’s economy is in horrible condition (facing a $14 billion dollar deficit) and the progstication is it is not turning around anytime soon. The new regulations on cars could add $4K to $6K per vehicle. Remember Jerry Brown (affectionately known as Moonbeam for when he was Govenor of the state) is now the Attorney General of the California, he has made it his highest priority to push climate change regulations (never mind some cities in this state are being overrun by gangs and undocumented aliens).
Perhaps this is why GM and Ford are pushing to get footholds outside the U.S.? Why would they want to put up with the California nonsense?
“….. 2020 camcord …. ”
There is no such thing as a Camcord and the term is an annoying affectation.
We don’t hear about Malibusions or Impauruses. The Camry and Accord are very different cars which have in common only the fact that they both come from Japanese parent companies and are targeted at the volume US midrange sedan market.
California isn’t showing leadership on this issue. California doesn’t need federal law or regulation (a waiver from the EPA or stringent CAFE standards); it can do all of the regulation of CO2 by enhancing existing regulation on market participants (consumers and suppliers) in California. In fact, all of the States can implement these changes thereby taking leadership for greenhouse gas emissions away from the federal government.
Some ideas:
1. Increasing the price of fuel. A price increase of 100% would reduce demand for fuel by about 60% according to a study I read. Implementing this 100% increase in fuel would require California to increase the excise tax on fuel from its current USD0.18/gal (that’s right: 18 cents per gallon) to about USD4.00/gal.
2. Increasing the cost of commuting by implementing congestion charges. One way is how London UK does it: If you enter a sector of the city you pay a daily flat fee. Other ways include tolling intersections of interstate, federal, and state shielded highways or tolling distance over road. This doesn’t mean building toll plazas, either; but by using license plate recognition (Toronto Ontario’s Highway 407 ETR) and transponders to assess the tolls.
3. Taxing car ownership based on CO2 footprint. Every year when California’s residents renew their plates they are taxed for its CO2 footprint by vehicle type, mileage driven, and hours the engine operated.
In this scheme California can assist the poor or privileged by refunding some or all of the fees and taxes through their income tax system.
The likelihood that California has the political will to implement these local changes for a local problem: darn near zero.
Autoblog is reporting that the new law supercedes a states ability to legislate this and that manufacturers now only have to follow the Federal law instead of individual states.
Is Autoblog wrong or did I miss read something (as in the Co2 thing is something else they can legislate)?