Yes, well, it's a bit a late to be singing that refrain, what with the new Energy Bill slapping a 35 by 2020 bumper sticker on every legislator and carmaker's ass. Still, as Shakespeare once said, there's many a slip between the cup and the lip; substitute  "loopholes" and "federal court cases" for "slip" and you've got a pretty clear picture of what lies ahead. Meanwhile, conservative thinkers have suddenly woken from their torpor to explain why the new federal fuel economy regulations (such as they aren't) aren't such a good idea. Cato Institute senior [good] fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren attack the underlying principle that automobile manufacturers are fuel economy foot draggers. "Automakers… would hardly be more ignorant than the casual observers at the Sierra Club and Rep. Nancy Pelosi's office about how much money they're leaving on the table. Suffice it to say this argument suggests that consumers are indeed getting exactly the kind of cars that they want." They also point out that consumers have valid priorities– which don't jibe with global warming crusaders. "They don't like the fact that many consumers seem to like other attributes — such as vehicle size and acceleration — that mitigate against fuel economy." After suggesting that a fuel tax would be the best way to correct so-called "market failures," Taylor and Van Doren put the [stillborn] fuel economy debate to bed. "For many, however, there is no such thing as too much energy conservation, and society always gains the less we consume. But if that were true, why not just ban cars from the road altogether?" Where were you guys six months ago?

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.

Following the passage of the Energy Bill today, Chrysler posted the following statement on the media blog, TheFirehouse.biz. It hails from from Robert Nardelli, Chairman and CEO, Chrysler LLC, regarding new, nationwide U.S. fuel economy standards. "We commend the Congress for passing an energy bill today and we fully support it being signed into law. Chrysler is committed to meeting the fuel economy standards of the bill and doing our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our country's reliance on foreign oil. We continue to devote significant resources to develop quality, fuel efficient products that our customers expect. This year alone, we offer six vehicles that get 28 miles per gallon or better, and more are on the way." Wow, SIX whole vehicles? My goodness, that's incredible. Twenty-eight miles per gallon– without the "highway" caveat? Astonishing! And we get to choose from such fantastic products as the Caliber, Patriot, Compass, Sebring, Avenger, or Sebring Convertible! All with the puniest engines Chrysler sells. For fuel economy purposes. Why are they leaving out the amazing E85 Durango that has EPA ratings of 12 highway, 9 city? Just wonderin'…

OK, so, I called up the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers to chase-up a few loose ends regarding the new Energy Bill headed for the President's John Hancock. Wayde Newton sent over a pdf. I'm bushed (so to speak), so if TTAC's best and brightest can give the Energy Bill the once-over and report their major and minor findings below, I'd consider it an important demonstration of the power of citizen journalism and a bloody great weight off my shoulders. Anyway and meanwhile, Wayde gave me some important insights. It seems the actual calculations that will determine what any given manufacturer's car or truck must achieve mpg-wise is STILL up in the air, headed over to The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) for their boffins to unravel (ravel?). Truth to tell, I was wrong about two key points. First, the bumper sticker– 35mpg by 2020– refers to the entire U.S. auto industry's annual output of both cars and trucks combined. No one manufacturer has to hit that target. They all have to do it together. Second, the new regs will NOT be footprint based. They'll be based on a range of potential "attributes" as determined by NHTSA, that could include engine size, torque, payload, four wheel-drive, towing ability, etc. In other words, the regs will vary by both manufacturer AND vehicle type. And that means that the Energy Bill fuel economy provisions are a nightmare for NHTSA's hard-working bureaucrats and a bit of a con for the average citizen. 

After stripping-out an alt energy directive to America's power providers, removing new taxes on oil companies and upping the ethanol mandate to 36b gallons by 2022, the Senate passed the Energy Bill. Huzzah! While the bumper sticker remains the same– 35mpg by 2020!– all the loopholes, subsidies and devious rule changes remain as well. As The Detroit News reports, we're still talking about $25b in federal loan guarantees to The Big 2.8 for "re-tooling"– in addition to a provision funneling 50 percent of fuel economy fines back to (domestic?) automakers. We're still looking at a switch to footprint (vs. fleet-wide) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations and separate numbers for cars vs. light trucks– which help protect the automakers' SUV heavy "blended families." [NB: the sticker mpgs you see are NOT the figures used for CAFE.] We're still going to see E85 "credits" for vehicles that raise their [theoretical] mileage figures. But most ridiculous of all, the Senate failed to establish whether the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls federal fuel economy standards, placing any and all such regulations in legal jeopardy. Oh wait, that wouldn't be the most ridiculous rider of the day. If Porsche got its exemption from CAFE regulations, THAT would be the icing on this saccharine cake. President Bush is set to sign this mishegoss next week.

One of the less publicized reasons the White House said it will veto the new Energy Bill: the legislation fails to sort out who controls fuel economy standards. It's become an urgent issue since California lawmakers decided CO2– produced in direct proportion to a vehicle's fuel efficiency– is a "greenhouse gas," and thus a pollutant. Hisotrically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has waived their federal mandate to set air pollution standards, allowing the state to set their own. So when California decided that CO2 was tailpipe poison, they asked the EPA to set a national CO2 standard or get the Hell out of the way. The EPA said hang on, give us a minute, we'll get back to you. California said time's up and filed suit against the feds. As USA Today reports, a California federal judge has now ruled in California's favor, green lighting the state's efforts to set a combined car and light truck fuel economy standard of 43.7 miles per gallon by 2016, with all other trucks to average 26.9 mpg. The move completely usurps the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is in charge of monitoring and enforcing federal fuel economy standards. Needless to say, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is sure to appeal the court's decision, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court if needs be. Now do you see why the White House wants Congress to clear up this jurisdictional bun fight? I mean, jeez. 

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington. All these states want to follow California's lead and implement new tailpipe legislation designed to curb greenhouse gases. Problem: automotive emission standards are a federal gig. So California applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a waiver that would allow them to, in effect, usurp Uncle Sam's powers in this regard (commercial considerations would continue to force all automakers to meet the California standard). The EPA said we'll think about it and get back to you by the end of the year. Seems that ain't good enough for California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. As the AP reports, the former Hummer H2 driver/promoter's Attorney General has filed suit against the feds yesterday to force a right now dammit decision. The battle lines are drawn. Automakers are, obviously, against state standards; they're appealing a Vermont decision that allows The Green Mountain State to use California emissions legislation. For their part, the EPA says California "is more interested in getting a good headline than allowing us to make a good decision." They're also considering legislation that's tougher than CA standards. Meanwhile, Ahnold is determined to win this battle. If the lawsuit is unsuccessful and the EPA says go fish, "We'll sue again, sue again and sue again until we get it."

Just-Auto [sub] reports Honda's catching flack over hiring practices at their new Greensburg, Indiana factory. No, it has nothing to do with unions or affirmative action; this time it's the state's legislators who are whining. Honda wants to only hire workers who live within a 20-county area (about a one-hour drive) around the new plant. Representatives whose constituents were excluded from applying don't like "granting state incentives to companies that selective exclude certain Hoosiers from even applying for employment." A representative from the governor's office stated that in exchange for the incentives, they only asked that Honda hire state residents. She added that the state had no plans "to prescribe hiring practices to private companies." Even with the geographic restrictions, over 30K people applied online for 2K jobs. The new Honda plant is set to open in early '08 to build 200K Civics per year.

The Daily Telegraph reveals that the Labour govenment has ditched plans to introduce a "pay-as-you-go" pricing scheme for UK motorists. The move comes after an on-line petition against so-called road pricing (a.k.a. "Electronic Road Pricing" or ERP) garnered an unprecedented 1.8m signatures. The Telegraph, which lead a journalistic campaign to strangle the idea in its metaphorical, non-MTV crib, predicts that the Department for Transport will officially signal a shift from national road pricing to local schemes (a la London's Congestion Charge) in a statement to Parliament next week, as follows: "We agree that there are congestion problems on parts of the strategic road network, but 88 per cent of congestion is in urban areas. Therefore it is sensible to prioritise the assessment of road pricing in these areas." Reading between the lines, the government has left the door open to local or country officials seeking to introduce ERP schemes on national or trunk roads within their territory. In other words, the battleground has now shifted to Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle. Watch this space (and we're not charging you for it either). 

According to Jacksonville.com, the legislation requiring that Florida drivers carry no-fault personal injury policies (PIP) expires next Monday. Insurers welcome the end of the (PIP) system, which is rife with fraud. Problem: the Florida legislature may attempt to pass a measure that will renew the requirement. If so, insurance companies will need time to re-program their computers, figure out new rates and apply for their approval. Fort Lauderdale Rep Ellyn Bogdanoff sums up the mess: "The companies simply do not have the capacity to turn around in 24 hours." In the meantime, Sam Miller of the Florida Insurance Council has a message for drivers with current PIP policies: "Your contract with the insurance company is not voided by PIP going away." Yes but… Florida drivers who renew or take out a new policy after October first may find that a wreck may leads to a court fight over fault.

According to the Mercury News, in 2005, California officials entered discussions with GM on how to integrate flex-fuel (read "E85") vehicles into the state's fleet. This in spite of a then-three-year-old policy prohibiting the purchase of such vehicles because the fuel wasn't available. Several months later, the state and GM entered an agreement for a "small pilot project of 50 to 100 vehicles"– without allowing other automakers a chance to bid on the contract. Not long after that, the state bought a fleet of 1300 flex-fuel Impalas and Silverados totaling $17m, as only these vehicles qualified for purchase. Now for a few inconvenient truths: The 2002 policy prohibiting flex-fuel vehicles was conveniently eliminated "at the last minute." California has state laws requiring officials to seek competitive bids on large purchases; it's illegal to hold private meetings with one supplier to set the specifications. GM has contributed more than any other automaker to Governor Schwarzenegger's charitable and political causes. State contracting manager Rita Hamilton stated the E85 vehicles were added to the fleet "per the Governors (sic) request." On top of all that, the Mercury News reported in July, "the alternative fuel fleet was running exclusively on standard gasoline because high-grade ethanol has never been widely available in California." State senator Dean Florez has launched a legislative investigation of the contract, which could lead to a criminal investigation by the state's Attorney General. 

Have yourself a pint and celebrate, it’s almost time for National Metric Week! The Charlotte (FL) Sun Herald reports that Florida Gulf Coast University kicked off this year’s festivities a bit early by becoming the state’s first university to introduce metric speed limits along its campus roadways. Tony Planas, a FGCU math instructor and advocate of the much-maligned-in-America base-ten measuring system, paid for the recently installed signage. But Mr. Planas may have many miles to go before his metric dreams are realized.  Since Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, the US has only inched forward with its metrication efforts. Despite the proliferation of two-liter soda bottles and 5.7-liter engines from sea to shining sea, the US remains the only nation in the industrialized world, aside from the UK, that still uses traditional English measurements for its speed limits. 

Yesterday, we reported that Saudi Arabia's blanket ban on women drivers was rooted in clerical  fatwas– rather than secular or Islamic law. As if to prove the point, African Business reports that the predominantly conservative, 95 percent Muslim west African country of Senegal is training two thousand women taxi drivers. Project "Taxi Sister" is the result of a government fund to help would-be female entrepreneurs and car dealer Espace-Auto. To allay critics, the taxi drivers will only work from seven AM to seven PM, wear distinctive (and chaste) uniforms and receive martial arts training. Espace-Auto's MD claims the project it's not all about the art of the deal. "(Male-female) parity should not be just a slogan," Serigne Mboup said. "It must be applied in the economic sphere." Amen.  

The trend toward class-action law suits against auto companies isn't just an American phenomenon. The Straits Times reports that major Japanese automakers and the Tokyo city government have settled a lawsuit filed by asthma patients 11 years ago over the city's air pollution. More than 520 Tokyo residents claimed that diesel fumes caused their asthma (before authorities imposed strict standards in 2003). The settlement specifies $29m to set up a five-year health plan and a one-time $10.9m payment to the plaintiffs (and their lawyers). Plaintiff Hiroko Ozawa was not satisfied with the pay-out. "The benefits will only be given to asthma patients, not to those suffering chronic bronchitis and other lung problems."

USA Today is running a story headlined "Cities get at illegal immigrants through cars." The article begins with a bold proclamation: "Local officials getting tough on illegal immigrants have a new target: their cars." Only "getting tough" has nothing to do with immigration or deportation. "Communities in Alabama, California, Illinois and elsewhere are using laws that punish drivers without licenses. Cities often tow cars immediately." So drivers without a license get big fines, a tow job and that's it. But wait! Even this approach is under attack. "'There's been a long history of ordinances that don't say anything about immigrants and nothing about national origin, but clearly are aimed at particular groups,' says John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'They have uniformly been struck down.'" For example, they're challenging a law in Waukegan, Illinois that fines a driver without a license or insurance $500 and impounds their car (more fees). "Ramon Becerra, regional head of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, says it [the city ordinance] promotes racial profiling. Most drivers whose cars are towed are Hispanic, he says." Am I the only one that wonders why this article never questions the fact that police don't/can't check these dangerous drivers' citizenship and pass their cases to immigration authorities where appropriate?