CAFE what? California law could require 40-plus miles per gallon by 2020
While the federal government massages the details of the 35-by-2020 CAFE standard into existence and the
EPA and California (along with other states) are in court over state-based CO2 emissions laws, regulators in California are moving ahead with proposals to force automakers to sell vehicles with a fleet average of over 40 mpg by 2020 in that state based on greenhouse gas emissions. Since at least 15 other states have signed on to California's auto laws, the California rules could mean that almost a third of the states in the U.S. (those that make up about half the U.S. new-vehicle market) would have laws much stricter than the federal CAFE standard. The auto industry - surprise - is vehemently against this proposal but the three remaining major presidential candidates, according to Automotive News, are in favor of allowing states to enforce their own greenhouse gas rules.
[Source: Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1985 Gripen 1:03PM (2/27/2008)
I think what this would result in is that some automakers would simply stop selling cars in California (HUMMER for example) or would sell only cars that would enable their California fleet to average 40 mpg (like Chevrolet selling smaller cars but not bigger ones for example).
The automakers will do whatever makes financial sense to them. If pulling-out of the California market is better for the bottom line than making their entire U.S. fleet more fuel efficient, then they'll do that. It's up to the bean counters.
It's like when California enacted stringent emissions standards in the 70s. At first carmakers would sell slightly differently-equipped cars in California than the rest of the country, but then realized it's cheaper to just make all the cars they sell in the country meet the California standard.
Reply
steven 1:40PM (2/27/2008)
@1. Please check your 2007/2008 EPA mileage guides. Toyota/Lexus sells four SUVs that get worse mileage than Hummer. I guess Toyota should stop selling those in CA as well.
Reply
GoodCheer 1:46PM (2/27/2008)
Before anyone mentions higher prices, I'd like to note that it would only be the vehicles that are NOT CA compliant that would face a smaller US market.
The vehicles that meet the CA standard would still be available on a national market, and would see increased demand in the CA states, so would (in theory) drop in price as greater economies of scale are realized.
Reply
Mike Z 1:53PM (2/27/2008)
I think a better question is on what mpg cycle will this 40mpg standard be applied. IF its the new EPA cycle, and not the old CAFE cycle, then I really question if 40 mpg in 10 years is technically possible. A Prius only gets mid-40s on that cycle, so to argue that a fleet average could be upgraded that high in that big a hurry would take >$10/gal gas.
Reply
Chad 2:15PM (2/27/2008)
The EPA has it's own MPG testing cycle. It's similar to the old (pre-2008) testing, so it wouldn't be as difficult to achieve.
Reply
Chad 2:21PM (2/27/2008)
Sorry my previous post should have read "The EPA is using a cycle that's similar to the old (pre-2008) CAFE testing, so it wouldn't be as difficult to achieve."
Reply
Chad 2:24PM (2/27/2008)
Sorry again, it should read "The CAFE standard is using a cycle that's similar to the old (pre-2008) EPA testing, so it wouldn't be as difficult to achieve."
Reply
Yggdrasilly 3:12PM (2/27/2008)
I think Poster #1 hit the nail on the head. The intent of this bill is not to force a technological increase in MPG across all models until a 40MPG average is reached--the people behind it know that's impossible (I hope). Rather it's an attempt to force automakers to stop selling bigger, more powerful cars in California.
Unfortunately I think this will just cause the people who want and can afford such cars to simply go across the border into Arizona and Nevada to buy them.
But maybe the people behind this bill know that too. They're positioning themselves as crusaders for the public interest, safe in the knowledge that by the time their policies fail, they'll be out of office and their failure can be blamed on someone else.
Or, as Mark Twain put it, "If the bubble Reputation could be obtained only in the cannon's mouth, I was willing to go there for it, provided the cannon was unloaded."
Reply
steven 3:14PM (2/27/2008)
Although 40MPG seems to have caught everyone's attention, and although the post does say over 40 MPG, according to the analysis by the California Air Resources Board "...Cars and trucks sold in the nation's most populous state would have to average almost 44 mpg by 2020...". Based on your own personal mathematical training, I leave it to others with the task of coming up with a number that is "over 40MPG" and is also "almost 44MPG".
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 3:16PM (2/27/2008)
Going to 40 MPG would preclude rear-wheel drive cars and more than likely mandate that only hybrids would be sold in California. My question is where is the state going to find the funds to buy hybrids that cost twice as much as the Crown Victoria and the funds to re-train CHP officers high-speed manuvers for front-wheel drive cars?
Reply
Luke 4:17PM (2/27/2008)
Gripen@1,
That's the point of the proposal!
If it passes, California may look a little more like Europe from the car-side -- but having recently visited the UK, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Ford and GM sell a lot of nifty little cars there, and I saw a lot of zippy little diesels that I'd love to drive. After mulling over what I saw in the UK, it seems that the small cars that Ford/GM sell here are intended to be cars that people don't really want -- it looks like they're intended as stopgap vehicles that people can drive while they save up for Ford/GM's "real" products. However, as a guy who likes zippy little cars for their own sake, I think this is kind of a dumb way to manipulate people's tastes. I guess it makes them money, but it also means that I'll probably be buying a Subaru or a Volkswagen for my little-zippy-car.
Reply
Mike Z 4:31PM (2/27/2008)
Diesels in CA? With even most T2B5 Diesels not able to meet CA emissions, forget diesel in CA.
Reply
KarenRei 5:43PM (2/27/2008)
Mike Z:
Indeed. CA's emissions standards meant that Aptera couldn't find a suitable small diesel *anywhere* and had to go with a gasoline engine instead for the Typ-1h. If California's standards had been rational and been based on emissions per mile instead of emissions per gallon, it'd be a whole different story.
Reply
PJD 5:39PM (2/27/2008)
A few thoughts on some posted comments...
The difference between 40 and 44 might have to do with the assumptions about diesel vs gas... maybe? I think this reg is actually CO2 emissions based rather than MPG.
It would seem that this stringent of a goal probably would have two effects. One, while maybe not removing certain models from CA entirely, car companies could just price them such that very few sold. Big SUVs would be even more of a status symbol. Two, there probably would have to be a fair amount of plug-ins by 2020... one wonders how they will assign an emissions rating for them. Given that CA electricity is approaching 50% non CO2 producing... the equivalent MPG based on emissions could be pretty high if battery only range matches the test cycles well.
Reply
rgseidl 7:35PM (2/27/2008)
Meeting different fleet CO2 emissions targets requires adjusting the model mix sold into the various markets. It's just that CA, NY and most of the other states tripping over themselves to enact stricter targets are also home to many affluent consumers. Unsurprisingly, car makers want to sell them models with higher profit margins, which tend to guzzle more fuel. It's much harder to get people to open their wallets for fuel efficiency than it is to sell them a bigger engine or comfier seats.
Even though the legal cover for CA's ambitions regarding CO2 is the Clean Air Act, the situation cannot be compared to differential emissions regs. Those lead either to two sets of equipment per model or else to overfulfillment of the EPA norms in states not subject to California emissions.
@ MikeZ -
EPA T2B5 is identical to CA LEV II, that is why meeting it means you have a 50-state solution.
Note that California has already permitted Mercedes to lease its current 320 Bluetec for up to two years - it meets LEV II when new but the state is not yet convinced the LNT has adequate longevity. Even with ULSD, the device infrequently has to be purged of accumulated sulfur compounds because they inhibit NOx adsorption. LNTs currently in production still require temperatures in excess of 700 degC for several minutes during desulfurization. With improved catalyst technology from e.g. Umicore, the next generation of LNTs will make do with 100 degC less, which has a marked impact on life expectancy / expensive overengineering.
Reply
Bob 8:39PM (2/27/2008)
Americans will not drive the types of cars that get 40mpg until the price of gas goes up enough to force them to. If cars get better mileage and gas is still cheap people will just drive more and use the same amount of gas. The government is not putting any responsibilty upon the consumer.
Reply
rob 9:12PM (2/27/2008)
It's a damn shame that all 44 mpg cars are tiny, squinchy, slow FWD penalty boxes like, say, the AWD Audi TT-D. I'd hate to have to drive one of those.
Reply
Shady 12:40AM (2/28/2008)
First of all, the Audi TT-D is the exception to the rule. Most of the really fuel efficient diesel economy cars that get better than 45 mpg (US)would be absolutely dreadful to drive. I'm pretty sure that some of them would have trouble getting up to highway speed. I know everyone on this site seems to think that that's what everyone in America wants, but they'd be wrong. I just don't feel that I should have to drive an ugly, slow, cheap sh*tbox because some nut in California just wants to thumb his nose at the automakers. I guess I better buy a decent looking car now before the government forces me to buy a Honda Fit.
@#11.
No one is "manipulating" buyers' taste by making the small cars cheap. If a company were to make some kind of luxury hatchback, it would be a total dud. Why? Because people who have money don't want to drive tiny, ugly cars around. Its called making what people want to buy and its what car companies do when they don't want to go out of business.
Reply
psarhjinian 12:47AM (2/28/2008)
@rob.
BMW 118d and 120d. Small, agile and rear-drive.
There's also a quite a number of fairly fun front-drivers (the Mazda3 comes to mind) that can ge equipped with a diesel.
Or were you expected a two-tonne dragstrip queen like the Challenger? Sure, I can see how going a few hundred feet in a straight line and then stopping is fun. Not.
Reply
Julius 10:12AM (2/28/2008)
And just to add my $0.02 - how does this plan really work to reduce greenhouse gas production? There's no mention on any way to reduce the actual consumption of gasoline directly - just indirectly by forcing manufacturers to sell more efficient cars. Never mind that BMW has had to pay CAFE fines for years now, and that obviously had an impact on that marque's INCREASING sales.
Reply