BY AARON KESSLER
WASHINGTON – One of the nation’s leading consumer groups has come out in favor of a White House proposal to raise average fuel economy requirements for cars and light trucks to 56 miles per gallon by 2025.
The Consumer Federation of America said today that it concluded a 5% increase each year toward reaching 56 m.p.g. was “both cost effective and achievable” and would “help ensure that America car companies remain competitive both here and in the global market.
“Our extensive consumer surveys make it clear that the American wants more fuel efficient cars. Setting a high, but financially achievable goal, is just what consumers want,” said Jack Gillis, CFA’s director of public affairs, in a statement.
<...>
The Obama administration floated a requirement of 56 m.p.g. in separate meetings with the Detroit Three last week, as part of an accelerated effort to reach a deal on fuel economy rules for 2017-2025.
moreNRDC:
Cost Estimates by Agencies Are Reasonable and Support the Strongest Possible Fuel Economy and Pollution StandardsOn Saturday, the Detroit News
reported leaks that the Administration will propose a 5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for new cars and new trucks – equivalent to 56.2 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025. This follows up on EPA, NHTSA, and California Air Resources Board’s
joint announcement to establish harmonized standards for model years 2017 to 2025 that will reach the equivalent of 47 to 62 mpg by 2025 (a 3 to 6% annual improvement rate). We continue to support 60 mpg as the best standard for consumers, and reducing pollution and oil dependency.
Automaker trade associations are already criticizing the 56 mpg or 5% improvement level and calling for the weakest standards, even as low as a 2% annual improvement. They claim that fuel economy technologies will be too expensive to produce, citing just
one study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR 2011), an organization that receives funding from the automotive industry.
We show below that the CAR analysis relied upon by the trade associations fall on the highest end of the literature range, largely due to faulty analysis and unreasonable assumptions, while EPA/NHTSA/ARB’s joint cost estimates fall into the upper-middle of the range of forecasts.
Our review shows that the cost estimates developed by three government agencies appear reasonable and are in the upper middle of the literature range. The three federal agencies, over the past several years of rulemakings, have developed detailed assessments on current, near-term, and longer-term fuel efficient vehicle technologies. The agencies have conducted numerous analysis to evaluate costs and technology potential, including computational vehicle simulation modeling and “tear-down” studies that evaluate the costs of each component of a technology. We compare various estimates of the incremental vehicle costs of going from model year (MY) 2016 fuel economy levels to the MY2025 levels being considered by the three agencies.
<...>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
