Lawmaker: 25% higher CAFE by 2015 not enough

[Oracle of Delphi]

Harry Stoffer

Automotive News

June 26, 2008 - 3:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's plan to raise fuel economy standards 25 percent over five model years isn't tough enough, a group of lawmakers said today.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of a House committee on climate change and energy independence, said high gasoline prices should compel the administration to go even higher.

Markey said pending fuel economy rules should require cars and trucks to average 35 mpg by 2015 -- about 40 percent higher than today.

He and other lawmakers will be making that point in a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Markey said. The agency is receiving comment on proposed fuel economy rules until Tuesday, July 1.

Congress and President Bush in December enacted a law requiring vehicles to average at least 35 mpg -- but not until 2020.

In rules to begin implementing the law in the 2011-15 model years, NHTSA in April proposed that by 2015 cars average 35.7 mpg and trucks average 28.6 mpg -- a combined 31.6 mpg.

The cost-effectiveness of those targets is based on gasoline priced at $2.42 a gallon at the end of that period, administration officials acknowledge.

With gasoline already averaging more than $4 a gallon, Markey called the calculation "absurd."

He made the remarks at the opening of a hearing on the effects of fuel economy standards on gasoline prices.

Tyler Duvall, assistant secretary of transportation, representing the administration, said energy prices are volatile, but many experts expect them to fall in the long term.

Automakers and their allies have called the 35 mpg standard by 2020 difficult but achievable. But some have said the rapid start proposed by the administration in the 2011-15 model years already is too aggressive.

Among others testifying today was Dominique Thormann, senior vice president for finance and administration at Nissan North America Inc.

Thormann reiterated Nissan's plan to have all-electric cars in the market by 2010. He also said that full electrification of the automobile is the only way to achieve the goal of climate scientists to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by mid-century.

That means today's hybrid vehicles represent transitional technology, he added.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the committee, said Congress should work with the Detroit 3 rather than "providing a forum for a Japanese company."

Link: http://www.autonews.com/article/20080626/A...paign_id=alerts

[Intrepidation]

These idiots fail to realize that meeting these requirements takes time and money, and since the government would rather let the last of the great industries die, you can bet they won't want to help fund it.

[loki]

[sacrasm] yay! this dem from Mass. is a great man! push these very real ideas onto us we await the auto revolution! [/sarcasm]

i hope a prius hits this guy, he doesn't die, and he sees a light.... maybe a camaro speeding at him next.

[thegriffon]

Idiots. $4 a gallon gas makes beating the targets more achievable, as people voluntarily buy smaller, more efficient vehicles. There is no need to change the proposed rules. GM is talking about a 46 mpg compact, a vehicle which would blow past the target, and in the current climate need a second plant.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Could the leadership in this country be more ignorant?

[Camino LS6]

Could the leadership in this country be more ignorant?

A dangerous question to ask.

This Masshole seems to be typical of the idiots we elect to public office these days.

His proposal is asinine and impossible, as well as backward and uninformed.

[Intrepidation]

Masshole

Did I ever mention Assachusetts blows?

[Camino LS6]

Masshole

Did I ever mention Assachusetts blows?

Maybe once or twice...

My Uncle (a resident) calls it Taxachusetts

[Hudson]

Idiots. $4 a gallon gas makes beating the targets more achievable, as people voluntarily buy smaller, more efficient vehicles. There is no need to change the proposed rules. GM is talking about a 46 mpg compact, a vehicle which would blow past the target, and in the current climate need a second plant.

This is one idea that it seems most on this thread are missing. If the price of gas REMAINS in the $4 range, then we might need some enticing to build high-mileage vehicles in four or five years. But if gas prices continue to rise (and $5 a gallon doesn't seem out of the question in the next year or so), reaching the current legislation should be the MINIMUM required just to stay competitive. The market will demand more than the government.

[traumadog]

And you could argue that having $4/gal gas has already done way more than anything CAFE or the proposed California regs have ever done or will do...

Edited June 30, 2008 by traumadog

[michaelv13]

Another example of how dim-witted lawmakers are suffocating this country to death.

[CSpec]

Maybe once or twice...

My Uncle (a resident) calls it Taxachusetts

A misnomer, IMO. New York State has unbelievable taxes.

[Camino LS6]

A misnomer, IMO. New York State has unbelievable taxes.

From what I understand, Mass is also brutal on this front.