EPA Changing Fuel Rules

An interesting article.

---
Adjustments to light truck regulations mark first policy overhaul since
guidelines were made.

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will unveil landmark changes to
federal fuel economy standards for light trucks this week, the first
major overhaul since Congress mandated them for all vehicles in 1975
after an Arab oil embargo sent gasoline prices soaring.

The new fuel economy rules covering pickups, SUVs and minivans could be
a watershed event for the auto industry, which has strained to meet
consumer desire for bigger and more powerful vehicles while still
meeting the government's minimum fuel economy targets.

With gas prices reaching all-time highs, the regulations are expected
to renew a debate over the best way to achieve more miles per gallon
without harming automakers or reducing passenger safety.

Detroit automakers believe the new system will provide them with
flexibility they don't have under existing rules that set an overall
mileage requirement for the entire fleet of light trucks they sell.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to
establish different fuel economy requirements based on a light truck's
size. That is expected to make it easier for General Motors Corp., Ford
Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler to sell bigger pickups and
SUVs -- a key source of profits -- without penalty.

Automakers are required to maintain an average of 27.5 mpg for cars and
21.0 mpg for light trucks, which include pickups, SUVs and minivans.

Detroit's Big Three argue that current rules reward companies like
Honda Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor Corp., which primarily sell smaller
SUVs and minivans while amassing credits that can be used to offset
sales of bigger vehicles.

Larger pickups and SUVs, such as the Ford F-series and the Chevrolet
Suburban, have been a profit stronghold for Detroit. GM, Ford and
Chrysler say the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy program puts
them at a disadvantage because sales of the biggest gas-guzzlers need
to be offset by smaller, more efficient models.

"On a model-to-model basis, we know our models stack up well against
the competition," said GM spokesman Chris Preuss. "Yet if you look at
the CAFE numbers, it doesn't appear we're doing as well."

Environmental groups believe the new rules will do little to meet the
primary goal of the fuel economy program -- saving oil.

The Bush administration has made improved fuel economy a major
initiative to address rising gas prices, national security concerns
about foreign oil imports and the link between auto emissions and
global warming. In 2003, the administration proposed a modest increase
in light-truck fuel economy, from 20.7 mpg in the 2004 model year to
22.2 mpg in the 2007 model year. The new rules will take effect with
2008 models.

The fuel economy rules are the industry's single most expensive
regulatory obligation, and Detroit automakers say any stiff new
requirements could further strain the industry. In North America, GM
and Ford are already coping with major financial losses.

In the official notice that it would overhaul Corporate Average Fuel
Economy rules, NHTSA said it would look only at light trucks because it
is required by law to set a fleet average for light trucks every year.
Officials considered adjusting rules covering cars, but the legal
authority for the agency to do so was unclear.

NHTSA has also emphasized safety in revising the rules. The agency's
emphasis on standards for different sizes of vehicles is a response, in
part, to a 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences that said a
size-based system might save lives by reducing the number of crashes
between mismatched vehicles. Congressional efforts to raise fuel
economy standards have failed in part because of fears automakers would
sell lighter vehicles to improve mileage, making them less sturdy in
crashes.

Environmental groups are disappointed the new rules will not target
passenger cars, which have fallen out of favor with many consumers but
still account for 44 percent of industry sales.

"The big question is: With this new structure, will they save oil?"
said David Doniger, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. "If they change the structure, and they don't save oil, then
all you're doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

On Friday, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report
outlining gaps in the fuel economy rules, including provisions that
allow car-like vehicles such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser to be counted
as trucks. NHTSA also excludes trucks that weigh more than 8,500 pounds
and gives fuel-economy credits to companies for selling "flexible fuel"
vehicles. The loopholes have undercut the fuel economy program by 1
million barrels of oil a day, the group said.

NHTSA is expected to retain the exemption from fuel economy
requirements for trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, such as the
Hummer H2.

Today's cars get double the mileage of equivalent models in the 1970s,
said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers. While fuel economy of the average vehicle has remained
flat since the late 1980s, Shosteck said today's cars have bigger, more
powerful engines without losing fuel economy.

"Automakers can do one part of the equation: They provide the
vehicles," Shosteck said. "They don't have control over the other part,
what people buy and how they drive."
---

Patrick
'93 Cobra

> Detroit's Big Three argue that current rules reward companies like
> Honda Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor Corp., which primarily sell smaller
> SUVs and minivans while amassing credits that can be used to offset
> sales of bigger vehicles.

Isn't that the whole point; sell more of the fuel efficient cars, and fewer
gas hogs?

They have several choices:
1. lower the price on the most fuel efficient cars and raise the price on
the less fuel efficient.
2. Invest more in newer technology to boost mileage.
3. Sit back and whine while they slowly go broke.

JC Hall
69 Mustang
01 Civic



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> An interesting article.
>
> ---
> Adjustments to light truck regulations mark first policy overhaul since
> guidelines were made.
>
> By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will unveil landmark changes to
> federal fuel economy standards for light trucks this week, the first
> major overhaul since Congress mandated them for all vehicles in 1975
> after an Arab oil embargo sent gasoline prices soaring.
>
> The new fuel economy rules covering pickups, SUVs and minivans could be
> a watershed event for the auto industry, which has strained to meet
> consumer desire for bigger and more powerful vehicles while still
> meeting the government's minimum fuel economy targets.
>
> With gas prices reaching all-time highs, the regulations are expected
> to renew a debate over the best way to achieve more miles per gallon
> without harming automakers or reducing passenger safety.
>
> Detroit automakers believe the new system will provide them with
> flexibility they don't have under existing rules that set an overall
> mileage requirement for the entire fleet of light trucks they sell.
>
> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to
> establish different fuel economy requirements based on a light truck's
> size. That is expected to make it easier for General Motors Corp., Ford
> Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler to sell bigger pickups and
> SUVs -- a key source of profits -- without penalty.
>
> Automakers are required to maintain an average of 27.5 mpg for cars and
> 21.0 mpg for light trucks, which include pickups, SUVs and minivans.
>
> Detroit's Big Three argue that current rules reward companies like
> Honda Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor Corp., which primarily sell smaller
> SUVs and minivans while amassing credits that can be used to offset
> sales of bigger vehicles.
>
> Larger pickups and SUVs, such as the Ford F-series and the Chevrolet
> Suburban, have been a profit stronghold for Detroit. GM, Ford and
> Chrysler say the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy program puts
> them at a disadvantage because sales of the biggest gas-guzzlers need
> to be offset by smaller, more efficient models.
>
> "On a model-to-model basis, we know our models stack up well against
> the competition," said GM spokesman Chris Preuss. "Yet if you look at
> the CAFE numbers, it doesn't appear we're doing as well."
>
> Environmental groups believe the new rules will do little to meet the
> primary goal of the fuel economy program -- saving oil.
>
> The Bush administration has made improved fuel economy a major
> initiative to address rising gas prices, national security concerns
> about foreign oil imports and the link between auto emissions and
> global warming. In 2003, the administration proposed a modest increase
> in light-truck fuel economy, from 20.7 mpg in the 2004 model year to
> 22.2 mpg in the 2007 model year. The new rules will take effect with
> 2008 models.
>
> The fuel economy rules are the industry's single most expensive
> regulatory obligation, and Detroit automakers say any stiff new
> requirements could further strain the industry. In North America, GM
> and Ford are already coping with major financial losses.
>
> In the official notice that it would overhaul Corporate Average Fuel
> Economy rules, NHTSA said it would look only at light trucks because it
> is required by law to set a fleet average for light trucks every year.
> Officials considered adjusting rules covering cars, but the legal
> authority for the agency to do so was unclear.
>
> NHTSA has also emphasized safety in revising the rules. The agency's
> emphasis on standards for different sizes of vehicles is a response, in
> part, to a 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences that said a
> size-based system might save lives by reducing the number of crashes
> between mismatched vehicles. Congressional efforts to raise fuel
> economy standards have failed in part because of fears automakers would
> sell lighter vehicles to improve mileage, making them less sturdy in
> crashes.
>
> Environmental groups are disappointed the new rules will not target
> passenger cars, which have fallen out of favor with many consumers but
> still account for 44 percent of industry sales.
>
> "The big question is: With this new structure, will they save oil?"
> said David Doniger, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense
> Council. "If they change the structure, and they don't save oil, then
> all you're doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."
>
> On Friday, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report
> outlining gaps in the fuel economy rules, including provisions that
> allow car-like vehicles such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser to be counted
> as trucks. NHTSA also excludes trucks that weigh more than 8,500 pounds
> and gives fuel-economy credits to companies for selling "flexible fuel"
> vehicles. The loopholes have undercut the fuel economy program by 1
> million barrels of oil a day, the group said.
>
> NHTSA is expected to retain the exemption from fuel economy
> requirements for trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, such as the
> Hummer H2.
>
> Today's cars get double the mileage of equivalent models in the 1970s,
> said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile
> Manufacturers. While fuel economy of the average vehicle has remained
> flat since the late 1980s, Shosteck said today's cars have bigger, more
> powerful engines without losing fuel economy.
>
> "Automakers can do one part of the equation: They provide the
> vehicles," Shosteck said. "They don't have control over the other part,
> what people buy and how they drive."
> ---
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>

In article <IQRef.22188$5R4.3402@trnddc06>, JERRY HALL wrote:

> Isn't that the whole point; sell more of the fuel efficient cars, and fewer
> gas hogs?

The point was the government trying to control our choice in vehicles.

If the point was to encourage fuel efficient vehicles, a huge tax on fuel
offset by a reduction in tax on income would be the way to go.

But instead of that, the government buracrats who think they know what's
best for us decided on CAFE to eliminate the large passenger car. After
all, if automakers don't make them, we can't buy them. Well it
worked. The large passenger car models were reduced to a scant few by
1986. Trouble is, people still wanted the room so they started buying
enclosed trucks.

Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If
we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing
income and start taxing consumption.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:25:26 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article <IQRef.22188$5R4.3402@trnddc06>, JERRY HALL wrote:
>
>> Isn't that the whole point; sell more of the fuel efficient cars, and fewer
>> gas hogs?
>
>The point was the government trying to control our choice in vehicles.
>
>If the point was to encourage fuel efficient vehicles, a huge tax on fuel
>offset by a reduction in tax on income would be the way to go.
>
>But instead of that, the government buracrats who think they know what's
>best for us decided on CAFE to eliminate the large passenger car. After
>all, if automakers don't make them, we can't buy them. Well it
>worked. The large passenger car models were reduced to a scant few by
>1986. Trouble is, people still wanted the room so they started buying
>enclosed trucks.
>
>Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If
>we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing
>income and start taxing consumption.
>
But who gets hurt? No matter what you do, add one tax and eliminate
another, you're hitting the ones who can least afford it. People on
low or fixed incomes, who may pay nothing in income tax for the low
wages they make which still keeps them below poverty level, will now
have to pay a tax in order to earn that low income. So, survival for
them is taking a step backward and deeper into poverty. Meanwhile,
those who are bringing down a good income, will now drop one tax and
pick up a different one, so little changes for them.

Perhaps it would be simpler to just euthanize the low and fixed income
people? That would reduce their consumption in all aspects of energy
consumption. Yes, it's sarcasm. I just find that too many people have
a simple solution to societies woes, and do not stop to consider all
the ramifications of those solutions. Society is intricate, so the
solutions are like to be as well.
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

In article >, Spike wrote:

>>Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If
>>we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing
>>income and start taxing consumption.

> But who gets hurt? No matter what you do, add one tax and eliminate
> another, you're hitting the ones who can least afford it.

Well, if you want to reduce consumption, that's what you do. Not come up
with half-assed schemes to restrict market choices. If you don't like the
implications of it, then maybe government should butt out entirely.

Do you really want the government telling you what you can drive? Because
one of the first cars the government will eliminate is the Ford Mustang.

Hell, it's practically dumb luck the Mustang survived CAFE. Remember the
probe? The mazda platform car that was supposed to be the mustang for
1989?

<idiotcy about mass killing>

Ya, know, that is uncalled for.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:31:50 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Spike wrote:
>
>>>Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If
>>>we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing
>>>income and start taxing consumption.
>
>> But who gets hurt? No matter what you do, add one tax and eliminate
>> another, you're hitting the ones who can least afford it.
>
>Well, if you want to reduce consumption, that's what you do. Not come up
>with half-assed schemes to restrict market choices. If you don't like the
>implications of it, then maybe government should butt out entirely.
>
>Do you really want the government telling you what you can drive? Because
>one of the first cars the government will eliminate is the Ford Mustang.
>
>Hell, it's practically dumb luck the Mustang survived CAFE. Remember the
>probe? The mazda platform car that was supposed to be the mustang for
>1989?
>
><idiotcy about mass killing>

>
>Ya, know, that is uncalled for.
no problemo... it was intended idiocy..
>
>
>
but hopefully you see the point. It might seem that there is a simple
answer to the problem, but such is rarely the case. Life is so
interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect
that usually has impacts which were not even considered.

Like California's special non-emission fuels. Good idea. Clean the
air. So the price goes up "a little" on top of the federal tax. Then
they discover that the fuel actually ruins engines, especially 18
wheeler engines. That leads to higher repair costs for fleet
maintenance, and those are passed on to the consumer. So, indirectly,
that "a little" is increased. And they find that it not only does not
help clean the air, it actually causes more environmental problems.
So, California gets smart and says ditch that junk. Ah, but in steps
the EPA who tells California, it has BIG problems with the feds if
they quit the special fuel. So the fuel is continued... causing more
damage. Add to that, that truckers who work within California are
required to use the fuel which messes everything up, but truckers from
out of state fill up before entering the state, and again when they
leave. So, add in lost revenues for truck stops.

As I recall, the last ruling said California had to use up all the
stocks, but did not have to mandate the production of more. It's still
being used up today.

And that's just for vehicles... in only one state. There is still the
home heating situation across the northern tier states.

No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately,
a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to
intrude. Such cases include the gun ownership issue, recruiters on
campus, religious symbols on public property, etc. If the founding
fathers could see what has become of the nation they'd rise up out of
their graves and lynch us all. Saw a woman in Seattle who was
fighting military recruitment who said she sees much to die for but
nothing worth killing for....
--
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

In article >, Spike wrote:

> but hopefully you see the point. It might seem that there is a simple
> answer to the problem, but such is rarely the case. Life is so
> interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect
> that usually has impacts which were not even considered.

Obviously you are not seeing mine. I am not making a case of a simple
solution. I am saying what achieves the goal. CAFE has resulted in LOWER
fuel economy on a fleet wide average because instead of big passenger
cars, we have passenger trucks. CAFE has not achieved reduced consumption.

What's the goal? To control people's choices or reduce consumption?

Government needs to stop trying to control people, stop trying to limit
people.


> No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately,
> a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to
> intrude.

And that will lead us to tyranny.

This country has way too many control freaks who think that everything
will be well if they can force everyone else to make the same choices
they do.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:19:01 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Spike wrote:
>
>> but hopefully you see the point. It might seem that there is a simple
>> answer to the problem, but such is rarely the case. Life is so
>> interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect
>> that usually has impacts which were not even considered.
>
>Obviously you are not seeing mine. I am not making a case of a simple
>solution. I am saying what achieves the goal. CAFE has resulted in LOWER
>fuel economy on a fleet wide average because instead of big passenger
>cars, we have passenger trucks. CAFE has not achieved reduced consumption.
>
>What's the goal? To control people's choices or reduce consumption?
>
>Government needs to stop trying to control people, stop trying to limit
>people.
>
>
>> No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately,
>> a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to
>> intrude.
>
>And that will lead us to tyranny.
>
>This country has way too many control freaks who think that everything
>will be well if they can force everyone else to make the same choices
>they do.
And if you don't have some of that you have anarchy....

Thank heaven we have the 9th Circuit Court to help screw things up....
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

In article >, Spike wrote:

>>And that will lead us to tyranny.
>>
>>This country has way too many control freaks who think that everything
>>will be well if they can force everyone else to make the same choices
>>they do.

> And if you don't have some of that you have anarchy....

Not at all. There is no need to control people's personal decisions.

> Thank heaven we have the 9th Circuit Court to help screw things up....

So long as you want the USA to continue towards tryanny.


Keep pushing for solutions like CAFE, and soon there will be no more
mustangs. After all, there are people who don't like cars like this and
they may act to prevent you from owning such a vehicle.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:32:55 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Spike wrote:
>
>>>And that will lead us to tyranny.
>>>
>>>This country has way too many control freaks who think that everything
>>>will be well if they can force everyone else to make the same choices
>>>they do.
>
>> And if you don't have some of that you have anarchy....
>
>Not at all. There is no need to control people's personal decisions.
>
>> Thank heaven we have the 9th Circuit Court to help screw things up....
>
>So long as you want the USA to continue towards tryanny.
>
>
>Keep pushing for solutions like CAFE, and soon there will be no more
>mustangs. After all, there are people who don't like cars like this and
>they may act to prevent you from owning such a vehicle.
>

No need to control people's personal decisions? It's my decision to
shoot your dog because it barked all night. That's OK? It's my
decision not to put my garbage out at the curb, but let it accumulate
in my house where rats and roaches breed and spread to my neighbors
homes. That's OK?

In society, people's personal decisions are restricted in many ways
for the good of the society. That is what government is for. The
degree of intrusion is viewed differently depending on which side of
the fence you view it from.

For example, a non-smoke might view restrictions on smoking as not
going far enough if it's allowed at all, while a smoker would feel it
has gone too far when there is even a limited amount of restriction.

This is not to say that all such restrictions are a good thing, but,
there are many restrictions of personal choice which are necessary to
keep society from chaos.

While you might be vehemently opposed to things like CAFE, I am sure
there must be those on the other side who support it. So. Who becomes
the final arbiter? You? Me? The wino living under the overpass? Or a
governmental body representing the best interests of all of the people
and not just a select group. Granted, there is a lot where it doesn't
work the way it should, but, what is the option?

We might not have a perfect system, but it is about the best system
available.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg