Auto Alliance favors new federal fuel economy proposals

[pow]

After years of fighting fuel economy and emissions rules at both the federal and state levels, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is finally coming out in favor of the new regulatory framework that will be announced by President Obama tomorrow. The biggest sticking point in recent years has been the move to block California and other states from effectively setting their own fuel economy standards by regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Tomorrow the president is expected to announce new federal rules that will effectively bring CAFE up to the same standard as California's proposal. Because the new rules will retain the footprint based standards from both the California and 2008 NHTSA proposals, it won't completely eliminate larger vehicles. It will, however, be a tough standard, with cars expected to hit 42 mpg by 2016 and trucks coming up to 26 mpg.

The alliance supports the proposal because it will allow automakers to work toward one set of regulations. The next big hurdle will be getting everyone to agree on a common standard for calculating the mileage of plug-in hybrid and extended range electric vehicles. The fuel consumption of those vehicles is highly dependent on the duty cycle, including how often they're charged and how far they are driven past battery depletion. But that's tomorrow's fight. The AAM press release is after the jump.

---

Washington, DC – On Tuesday, May 19, automakers will join with President Obama, federal agencies,

governors and environmental leaders to announce a commitment to establish a National Program that

will reduce carbon emissions and increase fuel economy.

"For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should

regulate autos. President Obama's announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking

to set a National Program," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers. "Automakers are committed to working with the President to develop a National

Program administered by the federal government."

"What's significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation.

The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and

many environmental groups to the table," said McCurdy. "We're all agreeing to work together on a

National Program."

A National Program is a priority to automakers because a national fuel economy program allows

manufacturers to average sales nationwide, so customers in all 50 states can continue to buy the types

of vehicles they need for family, business and leisure. A National Program also avoids conflicting

standards from different regulatory agencies, and it gives automakers much needed certainty for long-

term product planning. In addition, a National Program delivers overall greenhouse gas reductions

equal to or better than those that would be realized under separate programs by different regulatory

bodies.

EPA and NHTSA intend to initiate a joint rulemaking that reflects a coordinated and harmonized

approach to implementing the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The

rulemaking is expected to include several elements important to automakers, including:

• Preserving Vehicle Diversity: Harmonized NHTSA and EPA standards would be attribute-

based, or based on a vehicle's "footprint." This approach allows for a range of sizes of vehicles

to meet consumer needs for passenger and cargo room.

• Providing Certainty for Long-term Planning: Automakers would know what standards will

be through 2016, which is critical in an industry where bringing a product to market typically

takes 5-7 years. The National Program is intended to give automakers sufficient lead-time to

incorporate technology as part of existing vehicle design schedules, so manufacturers would

not have to incur added costs from redesigning all their models at one time.

• Providing Flexibility in Achieving CO2-Reduction Goals: EPA and NHTSA would consider

a range of compliance flexibility measures, such as earned credits, credit trading, air

conditioning credits, and credits for using additional technologies that reduce carbon dioxide

(CO2).

"The debate over who sets CO2 and fuel economy standards for autos has been decided, but there is

still more to talk about. We have the broad outlines of an agreement, but we will need to work closely

with NHTSA, EPA and California in the rulemaking process to resolve multiple issues, trying to fit all

the elements together into one program. There is a strong commitment from everyone to move past

any hurdles that may arise as we work through differences in the way these two federal agencies set

standards," said McCurdy.

"We want to finalize a national program so we can move on to policy discussions on what the future of

sustainable mobility looks like and how we can get there faster," said McCurdy. "Alliance members

are supporting measures that reduce carbon dioxide even more, like low carbon fuels, advancements in

battery technology and consumer incentives to get more advanced technology autos on our roads."

Autos represent 17% of all man-made CO2 in the U.S, according to EPA. Carbon dioxide is created

when any fossil fuel burns, whether it is a car burning gasoline or a backyard grill burning charcoal.

Therefore, to reduce CO2, automobiles will need to burn less fuel. That means automakers will need to

sell fuel-efficient technologies that will produce less CO2.

"All industries will be called upon to reduce carbon emissions," said McCurdy. "Automakers play an

important role. Today, there are more than 50 auto technologies on sale that reduce emissions,

increase mileage and run on clean fuels." Automakers are selling 130 models of automobiles that

achieve 30 mpg or greater on the highway. Consumers can now test drive 35 models of hybrids or

clean diesel in dealer showrooms. More technology is on its way to market.

"We will need to use every engineer we have and every investment dollar available to make our vision

of sustainable mobility a reality. And, we are going to need Americans to buy our clean, fuel-efficient

autos in large numbers in order to meet this climate change commitment," said McCurdy.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is a trade association of 11 car and light truck

manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land

Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. For more

information, visit the Alliance website at www.autoalliance.org.

[regfootball]

they have to. the gun is held to their head.

[Oracle of Delphi]

The United States will mirror Europe now, sweet ...

[Camino LS6]

The United States will mirror Europe now, sweet ...

Nothing is sweet about that.

But the Solstice Targa in your sig defines sweet!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Camino LS6

[Intrepidation]

Why thank you.

Re: this news, I can see why they would be pleased abut this news. Now they have one standard to follow now, instead of three separate standards to try and follow.

[Robert Hall]

Why thank you.

Re: this news, I can see why they would be pleased abut this news. Now they have one standard to follow now, instead of three separate standards to try and follow.

Yes...a single standard is the way to go.

[David]

Yes...a single standard is the way to go.

Personally this is just one of a few items I feel the feds need to stomp on states about. I find the following is a list of my pet peeves that I wish the feds would stomp into 1 single standard and all states have to follow. It is crazy to have states applying multiple taxes for the same purpose such as a state that has a gas tax, toll road fees and auto license fees to pay for the roads but then they put all the money into a general fund and spend it on other things and complain about not having the money to pay for what the tax was originally supposed to be for.

Standard list:

single taxation, a state has to decide if it wants a Income tax or sales tax, but not both.

Roads have one support fee from either gas tax, auto license fee, toll system or sales tax but not multiple

Schools have a dedicated fund, either the state supplies the money via the single taxation or the schools are funded by Levies. if the state has approved lotteries like Washington which is supposed to support the school system then it must go directly into the school fund, not into the general fund as the Idiots in Olympia does now.

Cell Phone fee's / taxation. No more various taxations and city use fee's. Currently depending on where you live each city has it's own use fee. Mountlake terrace add's a $9 per cell phone fee to your monthly bill cause you live in their city and use their air space. This compared to lynnwoods use fee of $3. It is a crazy rip off of the hardworking people.

No more add on taxation for sports stadiums etc. Add this as a cost fee onto the tickets for those that wish to support those teams / companies. Ticket price + end user stadium fee = true ticket cost.

Time for the hard working people of this country to stand up and demand clear accountability by the government and states.

No more wasted budget money on programs that have no accountability other than a free be to those specific groups that supported a political party. Perfect example is the $187 million the Bitch of a Govenor of Washington state is spending during a budget shortfall to the Quack Association that supported her into office for hireing 4 dozen quacks to counsel the street people to get off the street. These people should be helped by the churches, not the politicians especially when there is no accountability or standards to measure if they are doing any good. Just 3 years wasted money IMO.

I am sure many of you also have your own bitch about things you would like to see standardized.

Sounds off on what you would like to see!

[Z-06]

America's problem is Liars, Liemakers, and Liebbyists. Get rid of them and the country will be better.

I have never seen middlemen creating so much havoc in the administration of any other countries like the lobbyists do in America.

[David]

America's problem is Liars, Liemakers, and Liebbyists. Get rid of them and the country will be better.

I have never seen middlemen creating so much havoc in the administration of any other countries like the lobbyists do in America.

While I usually see no use for guns and do not own one, I could support taking these morons out and shooting them.

[pow]

they have to. the gun is held to their head.

No, it's because they lobbied for and designed this new proposal - which includes one national standard, delayed implementation, and a footprint-based system that allows, say, GM to have a lower CAFE target because they make larger vehicles.

The Auto Alliance has always been in favor of higher fuel economy standards - but only those that are consistent in all 50 states.

Edited May 19, 2009 by empowah

[David]

No, it's because they lobbied for and designed this new proposal - which includes one national standard, delayed implementation, and a footprint-based system that allows, say, GM to have a lower CAFE target because they make larger vehicles.

The Auto Alliance has always been in favor of higher fuel economy standards - but only those that are consistent in all 50 states.

Very true. I agree with you.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Autos represent 17% of all man-made CO2 in the U.S, according to EPA. Carbon dioxide is created

when any fossil fuel burns, whether it is a car burning gasoline or a backyard grill burning charcoal.

Therefore, to reduce CO2, automobiles will need to burn less fuel. That means automakers will need to

sell fuel-efficient technologies that will produce less CO2.

Yet they spend 80% of their time creating laws to decrease autos CO2 emissions. What about the other 83%? Shouldn't that be more of a target than taking away cars people enjoy?

[pow]

Yet they spend 80% of their time creating laws to decrease autos CO2 emissions. What about the other 83%? Shouldn't that be more of a target than taking away cars people enjoy?

As an auto enthusiast, that may be the only part of pollution regulation you notice - but there are tons of other industries as well. Recently there's been a lot of focus on ports, which are a huge source of local particulate matter emissions.

And for the record, nobody is taking your cars away - this is all based on corporate average fuel economy, and a Volt can more than offset a ZR1. GM's decision to stop STS-V production and G6 GXP excitement has more to do with those vehicles' poor sales.

[CaddyXLR-V]

As an auto enthusiast, that may be the only part of pollution regulation you notice - but there are tons of other industries as well. Recently there's been a lot of focus on ports, which are a huge source of local particulate matter emissions.

And for the record, nobody is taking your cars away - this is all based on corporate average fuel economy, and a Volt can more than offset a ZR1. GM's decision to stop STS-V production and G6 GXP excitement has more to do with those vehicles' poor sales.

If the Volt sells, maybe. But if GM sells 5000 Volts, will that offset 30,000 G8s?

[David]

Would it not make sense and could drop the amount of CO2 faster if there were conversion kits for existing auto's? Create a electric or hybrid kit that can handle the elements, maintain towing and off road capabilities and allow people to take their existing auto to the shop and have a conversion done for only a quarter of what a new auto would cost.

I bet many would rather do that and hold onto their stylish rides than buy one of the many new boring auto's this country seems to be getting ready to sell.

H'mmm I think I need to look into what it would take to convert my lovely Suburban to Electric or hybrid. That could be a fun project.

In regards to this thread, in the short run no amount of Volts, Prius, hybrids or electric auto's will make any major change, might as well enjoy the G8's of the world.

On top of this, one BIG issue that is missing from every f@#king review of Hybrids and Electric auto's and is missing from past and current administrations when they talk about going green on auto's is the massive amount of CO2 AKA Green House Gas created when you build these massive battery packs for the auto's.

So we trade in 10 years of Green house gas created by a current econo car for producing 10 years worth in a day for building the battery pack and then the little bit that is produced by the engine running to recharge the battery pack.

Seems to me to be more of a smoke screen on the gas issue. Where is the report that clearly states how much gas is produced at the battery production companies?

[pow]

If the Volt sells, maybe. But if GM sells 5000 Volts, will that offset 30,000 G8s?

It all depends on how the Volt mpg is calculated. The 304-hp Camaro already gets 30 MPG in CAFE-speak, by the way, and the G8/Lumina/Commodore is getting that engine.