Originally Posted by Washington Post

The Obama administration today plans to propose tough standards for tailpipe emissions from new automobiles, establishing the first nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

It will also raise fuel efficiency targets to 35.5 miles per gallon for new passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2016, four years earlier than required under the 2007 energy bill, sources close to the administration said.

The measures are significant steps forward for the administration's energy agenda by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change and by easing U.S. dependence on oil, most of which is imported.

The administration is embracing standards stringent enough to satisfy the state of California, which has been fighting for a waiver from federal law so that it could set its own guidelines, sources said. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.) will be among a variety of state and industry officials who plan to attend an announcement today, according to sources close to the administration.

The deal has been under negotiation since the first days of the administration. It represents a compromise among the White House; the state of California; and the auto industry, which has long sought national mileage standards and has waged an expensive legal battle against the California waiver. The industry will get its national standard, but at the price of one that approximates California's targets. Industry officials said they would drop all related lawsuits.

David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said that the agreement reached late Sunday night would provide the industry with "clarity and predictability."

That predictability won't come cheap. A senior administration official said the new standards would raise the cost of an average car by $1,300, $600 of which could be attributed to the rules being announced today. The remaining increase would stem from previous energy policy.

"Consumers can retain choice but for more fuel-efficient cars. Every single category of car will be more efficient," the official said, noting that fuel savings would offset much of the higher cost.

The announcement planned for today marks a major change in tone from the Bush administration, which had rejected California's waiver in March 2008, barring states from setting their own limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. At the time, 13 other states and the District of Columbia were also seeking permission to impose standards similar to California's.

Obama had ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the ruling.

Under the compromise, the federal government would establish two sets of standards, one for mileage and one for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would set the new fuel-economy standards, which would raise the average fuel efficiency of a new car by 30 percent. Cars, for instance, would need to average 39 miles per gallon by 2016, while light trucks would need to reach 30 mpg.

The EPA, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, plans a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA needs to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect.

One person involved in the negotiation said the Supreme Court's ruling on regulating emissions helped push companies to bargain because they feared the prospect of having to comply with separate EPA standards in addition to those from NHTSA and California.

"That's what brought the companies to the table," the person said.

In addition, many of the automakers that originally fought California's standards are now struggling for survival and in a weaker position to fight. Their opposition also waned after last year's high gasoline prices and consumers' newfound frugality shifted the mix of vehicles being sold toward more fuel-efficient models. General Motors said yesterday that in 2008, its cars got an average of 29.7 miles a gallon, higher than the 27.5 requirement; its new trucks got 23.2 mpg, higher than the 22.6-mpg requirement for last year.

"We are pleased that President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will be good for the environment and the economy," Ford said in a statement.

The EPA is also expected to impose restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from leaks of air-conditioning coolant in vehicles. The automakers would be able to use some credits for complying with those regulations to offset a small part of fuel-efficiency requirements, sources familiar with the talks said.

California made modest concessions in the negotiations. From 2012 to 2015, the new mileage standards will be slightly less stringent than required under California's rules, which will be amended. In addition, EPA and NHTSA will use the federal approach of pegging standards to the "attributes" of vehicles, such as size and engine type, said sources familiar with the negotiations. California, by contrast, used just two broad categories of vehicles.

Sources close to the administration said the EPA would still grant a waiver to California at the end of June, but that the state would not exercise it in light of the new national standards.

Proponents of tougher fuel-efficiency standards hailed reports of today's announcement.

"If media reports are true, after years of oil price inflation, policy stagnation and automotive industry litigation, President Obama has solved the energy and economic policy equivalent of a Rubik's Cube," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who was a principal author of the 35-mpg standard that Congress adopted in 2007.

"In addition to dramatically reducing the global warming emissions from our vehicles, this move will slash our dependence on oil and make us more energy independent," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. "Congress put us on the road toward more fuel efficient vehicles two years ago when it passed the first increase in fuel economy standards in more than 30 years. Now President Obama is dramatically accelerating our progress."

Originally Posted by gwd

"A senior administration official said the new standards would raise the cost of an average car by $1,300, $600 of which could be attributed to the rules being announced today. "

I don't understand how this could be true, unless they mean that the "average car" has the same power and weight as the average car sold in 2008. I'd prefer
that each person on the planet gets 100gallons or whatever of motor fuel per
year and let the free market do its job to allocate the resource optimally. The
yearly limit could be what was pumped in 1960 or whatever wouldn't contribute to global warming.

The poor people without cars could have a nice safety net as they sold their credits to the SUV drivers.

I get the sick feeling that the Obama crowd want to preserve the unsustainable way of life that he said we wouldn't apologize for in his inauguration speech.

Originally Posted by gwd

" I'd prefer
that each person on the planet gets 100gallons or whatever of motor fuel per
year and let the free market do its job to allocate the resource optimally.

Originally Posted by gwd

The yearly limit could be what was pumped in 1960 or whatever wouldn't contribute to global warming.

Originally Posted by gwd

I get the sick feeling that the Obama crowd want to preserve the unsustainable way of life that he said we wouldn't apologize for in his inauguration speech.

Originally Posted by E.A. Webb

That wouldn't cause an economic meltdown or undue hardship for anyone who didn't live in New York or some such megaopolis.

Originally Posted by dynodonn

The proposed CAFE mileage is doable, since the technology is currently there. The auto makers used that technology and stagnant standards to give the public what they wanted, horsepower.
Some of today's cars can make upwards of 600 NET horspower and still get over 20 miles per gallon, unheard of 20 or 30 plus years ago. Just trade off some of that power for fuel mileage, and the proposed CAFE standard should be a shoo in.

Originally Posted by Robert Foster

There is part of me that is glad they may finally be doing something that will make EVs an option for some of the major manufacturers. And EV would give the companies producing them enough credits so they could still produce sports cars and trucks if they wanted but give the consumer a chance to get out of the ICE rut.

Then there is the realistic part of me that reads that China is now buying more cars than the US and India is quickly becoming a car producing nation. These two countries alone represent something like 2/3 of the world’s population. My fear is that all that is happening is that the problem is moving to the other side of the planet. California changed the rules on heavy diesel equipment and required industry to purchase new cleaner diesels. What was the result? Almost all of the old equipment was sold to China. So the very same diesel equipment that was declared too dirty for California air is simply producing 24/7 in China. They don’t have unions or Cal OSHA controlling working hours like we do. Does anyone remember Carl Sagen’s explination of a Nuclear winter? Remember how the air in China ends up being our air?

So as I view it through a skeptical lens, for every new cleaner car Americans are forced to pay an extra $1600.00 for two less efficient cars will be bought in China and India. It seems like that is one step forward and two steps back? I thought this was supposed to be a global problem? But at least they are trying something. I wonder what they plan on doing with the millions of cars, SUVs and Trucks on the road now. I would be willing to bet that people will hold on to their old cars longer and buy more used cars before they will buy a new smaller, less powerful car for more money. In fact that seems to be just what people are doing right now.

Originally Posted by Roody

There probably won't even be a trade-off. Ford announced something called the Eco-boost (not sure of name) that sounded like a dual turbo thing that they said will make a small V-6 have the power of a large V-8. I think other companies will make similar adjustments, or work on vehicle weight and aerodynamics.

Originally Posted by dynodonn

Roody, here's a link to Ford's new Eco-boost engine.

Originally Posted by Roody

Thanks very much. The name "ecoboost" is revealing. Cars with ecoboost will still be "fun to drive" and economy isn't really better--just the engine is more powerful at 340 hp. That's absurd, IMO.

They just don't get it.

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse

Would love a link of the interview.

CE

Originally Posted by E.A. Webb

That wouldn't cause an economic meltdown or undue hardship for anyone who didn't live in New York or some such megaopolis.



WTF?
Seriously.

Originally Posted by Robert Foster

So as I view it through a skeptical lens, for every new cleaner car Americans are forced to pay an extra $1600.00 for two less efficient cars will be bought in China and India. [/size][/font]

Originally Posted by chriswnw

Or even worse, five *highly* efficient cars will be bought in China and India by new drivers. Increased efficiency will make driving practical for millions of people in developing countries who haven't previously driven, thus increasing the rate of consumption of the fossil fuels that remain.

I don't believe that we will run out of oil -- just the oil with low extraction and processing costs. When shale, tar sands, and deep sea oil is all that remains, it will begin to become a luxury item.

Originally Posted by chriswnw

That's certainly noble, but I suspect that it will not result in any reduction of CO2 emissions or energy use. More fuel efficient vehicles may temporarily extend the amount of time that it will be practical for Americans to make long commutes. For any reduction in domestic oil consumption that takes place, the slack will quickly be taken up by the Indians and Chinese. These measures will free up energy resources for people in developing countries to drive for the first time -- they will use whatever we don't. We will continue to consume oil until the production costs are priced beyond our purchasing power. Obviously, some will be able to afford it for longer than others.

Originally Posted by Roody

Unfortunately, Congress is stuck on cap and trade and efficiency standards as the only possible solutions. I don't know if revenue-neutral taxation will work, but I think we at least owe ourselves a discussion of it merits and drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Tabor;8966383[SIZE="1"

]How is revenue neutral taxation better than cap and trade? I am just curious.

The nice thing about cap and trade, is that you can trade your carbon credits on a free market. That means that if you can reduce your carbon emissions for less than the going rate of carbon credits, you turn a profit (you can turn around and sell the carbon credits you didn't have to use). A lot of people like this system because it lets the market does what it does best: optimize the distribution of goods (in this case, carbon credits[/SIZE]).

Originally Posted by Roody

First, cap and trade isn't working as well for carbon as it did for sulfur and particulate emissions, for a lot of reasons I won't go into.