Obama Proposes Higher Fuel Standards

By Ucilia Wang

President Obama on Tuesday unveiled a plan to raise the national fuel economy to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years sooner than a mandate from a 2007 energy bill.

The president announced the proposal at a time when carmakers are scrambling to roll out hybrid or all-electric cars to meet the public and lawmakers' demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Daimler (DAI) just announced this morning that it's taking a 10 percent stake in Tesla Motors after being impressed by how quickly the San Carlos, Calif.-based start was able to design and launch its first model, the Roadster (see Daimler Takes 10% in Tesla, Helps with Model S Launch). General Motors (GM) has said it's committed to launching the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt next year despite its financial trouble.

Obama announced the proposal at a press event in Washington, D.C. and touted it as a good compromise among automakers, unions, environmental groups and states such as California. The proposal not only would set stricter fuel efficiency standards, but it also is the first to set tailpipe emissions rules.

California has sought a waiver from the federal government in order to implement its own, stricter rules on tailpipe emissions, but couldn't get it under the Bush administration (see EPA Rejects California Vehicle-Emission Standards). Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they would adopt what California has come up with. The stricter rules on tailpipe emission would prompt the use of more fuel-efficient cars and fuels that emit less pollution than gasoline.

Automakers have fought any state mandate, arguing that it couldn't afford to build different models in order to satisfy different state rules. But many of them also have realized that they would have to accelerate the development of low-emission cars for the U.S. market.

California's Air Resources Board adopted a low-carbon fuel standard last month that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 levels by 2020. The new standard is designed to encourage the use of biofuels, though critics said the policy would a requirement to measure emissions from land-use changes would hurt the biofuel industry (see California Adopts Low Carbon Fuel Standard).

Obama has made solving this standoff between the states and the auto industry a priority since he took office (see Obama: Cars Need to Improve Gas Mileage by 40%). But instead of granting California the waiver, he brought the feuding parties together to come up with a compromise.

The proposed, which is closely aligned with California's own policy, new standard would apply to all new passenger cars and trucks with model years 2012 to 2016. Passenger cars would have to reach 39 miles per gallon from the current 27.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Light trucks would have to bump it up to 30 miles per gallon from the roughly 23 miles per gallon today.

Obama said the proposal would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of those cars.

But a change in federal fuel economy also would add about $600 to a car, reported the Washington Post. The proposal calls for the Department of Transportation to draft the new fuel economy standards and the Environmental Protection Agency to create the new emissions regulation.

Comments

[drzarkov:]

And what happens when the law of unintended consequences kicks in, and the Government (Federal and state) suddenly realizes that all of that reduced fuel consumption means less tax revenue? You guessed it: we all get to pay more tax at the pump. Aren't we all happy for the change?

May 19 06:37 PM

[fmoolten:]

Put in perspective, the new mileage standards should probably be seen as a small step forward, but by themselves will reduce CO2 emissions less than needed for a comprehensive CO2-mitigation program. However, an encouraging additional development is the announcement of planned major upgrades in the nation's electricity grid, which will expedite the use of electric power for automobiles. Electricity is a far more efficient power source than the internal combustion engine, and the combination of an improved grid with the substitution of wind and solar energy for coal in generating most future electricity will go further than mileage standards alone to control carbon emissions at a level that contains future climate change and its consequences within tolerable limits.

The issue of costs is not irrelevant, but the Administration has appropriately decided that energy independence and climate change mitigation deserve priority. Higher automobile purchase costs are anticipated, but will be offset by lower fuel expenses. It's also important to note that the new standards are averages, and do not preclude the purchase of cars, SUVs, or trucks that deviate from the average in the case of individuals or families who require such vehicles.

Fred Moolten

May 19 09:07 PM

[think4myself:]

CAFE does not work. The correlation between the mileage standards and both personal gasoline consumption and car buying habits is weak at best. Look to every other oil importing nation. Recall last summer. Higher gas prices work much, much better at changing driving and buying habits. The simple, effective solution is to raise the gasoline tax. But our politicians (and most citizens) would rather put the responsibility on the auto industry.

If you really want the American public to use less gas, then you should push for higher gasoline taxes. Everything else is a just government bureaucracy.

May 19 09:20 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

This is a classic example of people who know nothing about real world engineering setting standards.

Efficiency is DIRECTLY related to Compression Ratio in internal combustion engines. The fuel that can be obtained at the Gas Pump does not support compression ratios much over 10 to 1. The current engine efficiency is already maxed out with the available fuel system. You can get some advantages through gearing and weight reduction but I do not think that it will be enough for large displacement engines. Probably not going to be able to buy a vehicle that has enough "Juice" to tow the boat.

VW had some promising "Clean Diesel" engines a while back - Again, compression ratio - Diesels have between 15 and 30 to 1 compression ratios.

This New Mandate Will Result In Hybrids Being The only "Real" Cars That Meet The Standard. HooRaah for regenerative breaking.

May 19 10:03 PM

[Tony101:]

Everyone drives a hybrid and shares the responsibility to save the planet what is wrong with that? If you are complaining that hybrid is expensive, Honda Insight 2010 is coming in with a price of 21k.


On May 19 10:03 PM PainfullyAware wrote:

> This is a classic example of people who know nothing about real world
> engineering setting standards.
>
> Efficiency is DIRECTLY related to Compression Ratio in internal combustion
> engines. The fuel that can be obtained at the Gas Pump does not
> support compression ratios much over 10 to 1. The current engine
> efficiency is already maxed out with the available fuel system.
> You can get some advantages through gearing and weight reduction
> but I do not think that it will be enough for large displacement
> engines. Probably not going to be able to buy a vehicle that has
> enough "Juice" to tow the boat.
>
> VW had some promising "Clean Diesel" engines a while back - Again,
> compression ratio - Diesels have between 15 and 30 to 1 compression
> ratios.
>
> This New Mandate Will Result In Hybrids Being The only "Real" Cars
> That Meet The Standard. HooRaah for regenerative breaking.

May 20 12:44 AM

[SteadfastMason:]

If you really want to save the Earth, why not take Obama's oil conservation program even further? just prohibit ALL car production and sale; Then implement a tax to produce government bicycles to be distributed for every man, woman, and child. No more oil needed to make cars. No more steel, aluminum, etc.... No more US dollars spent on foriegn cars (the soon to be only remaing car manufacturers). No more car accidents. No more car insurance or excise tax. And no more gas stations. No more obesity issues. All us comrads will be fit and trim. That will really save all of us money while saving the earth.

What a wonderful world it will be?

Woooo Hoooo!





On May 20 12:44 AM Tony101 wrote:

> Everyone drives a hybrid and shares the responsibility to save the
> planet what is wrong with that? If you are complaining that hybrid
> is expensive, Honda Insight 2010 is coming in with a price of 21k.
>

May 20 10:33 AM

[user396040:]

I think that in the long or intermediate term, we will move to plug in hybrids. For typical commuters, the use of the electric engine for in city driving is very attractive because it is so much more efficient. It will be interesting to see how they are "scored" for CAFE purposes. Plug in hybrids will also create a new demand for electricity and thus intensify the need for a better grid and more generating facilities.

May 20 12:06 PM

[SteadfastMason:]

Electric hybrids are powered by....electricity....w... is generated by power plants....powered by....OIL.


On May 20 12:06 PM user396040 wrote:

> I think that in the long or intermediate term, we will move to plug
> in hybrids. For typical commuters, the use of the electric engine
> for in city driving is very attractive because it is so much more
> efficient. It will be interesting to see how they are "scored" for
> CAFE purposes. Plug in hybrids will also create a new demand for
> electricity and thus intensify the need for a better grid and more
> generating facilities.

May 20 10:40 PM

[realist2:]

@ SteadfastMason

Not in my case.

My electric vehicle, my daily driver commuter, is 100% wind powered from a commercial, nearby wind farm, thanks to a subscription plan from my regional power company, at prices less than coal in most states, at both my residence and work place. Ok, I do my V2G with grid tied residential and small commercial solar systems, and I've charged at them a few times too, so maybe 99% wind, 1% solar.

Thus, all my fuel dollars stay in the domestic economy instead of going overseas to fund volatile parts of the world, as yours do when you drive a full gasser.

May 21 02:52 PM

[SteadfastMason:]

That is pretty good, then. How viable is solar/wind generation as the primary energy source for electricity to recharge cars across the USA? How much land area (for solar) or how many windmills are required to supply and distribute that amount of electricity?


On May 21 02:52 PM realist2 wrote:

> @ SteadfastMason
>
> Not in my case.
>
> My electric vehicle, my daily driver commuter, is 100% wind powered
> from a commercial, nearby wind farm, thanks to a subscription plan
> from my regional power company, at prices less than coal in most
> states, at both my residence and work place. Ok, I do my V2G with
> grid tied residential and small commercial solar systems, and I've
> charged at them a few times too, so maybe 99% wind, 1% solar.
>
> Thus, all my fuel dollars stay in the domestic economy instead of
> going overseas to fund volatile parts of the world, as yours do when
> you drive a full gasser.

May 21 10:22 PM

[realist2:]

Thanks for agreeing that electric vehicles are pretty good, then, especially in my case. Plus mine offers superior off the line torque and acceleration.

I'm absolutely not an expert in US energy, nor in projecting future trends, but some small, light thoughts:

1. Slightly faster current growth rate in solar/wind generation than in current electric vehicle adoption rate means it's very viable (US DOE EIA, EPA), although there's no reason to completely exclude hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy sources or other non-oil energy sources such natural gas or coal in the mix, for that matter. Electric vehicles can use any and or all of those or whatever other energy sources come along in whatever mix personal preference or society or economics or envrionmental limits allow.

2. They'll use the amount determined by the intersection of supply and demand at any time, I suspect. Right now there's more supply than demand, so demand will likely continue to chase increasing supply for some time. Carbon trading and other market mechanisms, such as subscriptions, (now and forthcoming) mean that consumers can sign up for whatever energy source/pricing they want/can get, regardless of the overall mix that's out there now. Supply will then change over time, through free market economics, to match any changes to demand based on that trading.

3. USGS, MMS and FERC reports suggest zero land area required at present due to massive offshore wind opportunities, near where most people in the US live (within 100 miles of Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Great (and other) Lakes). Nontheless, additional onland wind farms, constructed by consumer and industry preference and demand, do not "use up" land and are are fully compatible with cattle grazing, crop and marginal non-crop (for biofuel), watershed and ecosystem functions, nature and hunting preserves, recreation areas and a host of other simultaneous economic land uses (and non-uses) in less densely populated areas.

Anyway, check out EPRI, NRCD, US DOE EIA, IEA, AWEA, NABCEP, DOC MMS and FERC, EPA and even EDTA (the latter, considering that they are an advocacy group, are realists in that they acknowledge that US electric generation is currently dominated by domestic coal, natural gas, and renewable hydro electric, in that order) etc. for detailed data and studies, expertise and far better information on general US energy generation and conjectured trends than I can offer.

I will respond to no more general questions outside my area of personal knowledge, but may continue to refute future false general claims.

On May 21 10:22 PM SteadfastMason wrote:

>That is pretty good, then. How viable is solar/wind generation as >the primary energy source for electricity to recharge cars across >the USA? How much land area (for solar) or how many windmills >are required to supply and distribute that amount of electricity?

May 22 01:26 PM