Group sues Obama administration over weak MPG standards
When the next step in the road to 35 mpg by 2020 CAFE standards was announced recently, those in the know made clear that the Obama administration upcoming goal of 27.3 mpg by 2011 would not be hard for automakers to meet. In fact, the 2007 average was already 31.3, so the 2011 goal would not require any change in product lineup (more difficult changes are scheduled to come into effect down the line). The 2011 standards were so light, in fact, that the Center for Biological Diversity took the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Department of Transportation to court last week, saying that the Obama administration's standards "ignore greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis, are illogical, illegal, and very disappointing from a president who has promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming."
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Center filed suit in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to push the 2011 standards to "the maximum feasible level, in light of current technology, economic impact, and the nation's need to conserve energy." Read the Center's press release after the jump.
[Source: Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco Chronicle]
PRESS RELEASE:
Lawsuit Challenges Obama Fuel Economy Standards
National Gas-mileage Standard for Cars, Trucks, SUVs Weaker Than Bush Proposal, Fails to Account for Global Warming
SAN FRANCISCO- The Center for Biological Diversity today filed suit to strike down the Obama administration's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs for model year 2011. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires miles-per-gallon standards be set at the "maximum feasible level," yet the Obama rule sets a significantly lower standard than proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, and is much lower than current standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries.
The lawsuit was filed against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Department of Transportation in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Obama rule, issued last Friday, requires that passenger cars achieve only 30.2 mpg and that SUVs and pick-up trucks achieve only 24.1 mpg in 2011. Both these numbers are lower than Bush's proposal of 31.2 mpg for passenger cars and 25 mpg for SUVs and light trucks. It will result in millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions more than the Bush proposal.
"Reducing the proposed fuel economy standards is a step backwards from the clean energy future President Obama has promised," said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These low standards, which ignore greenhouse gas emissions and the climate crisis, are illogical, illegal, and very disappointing from a president who has promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming."
The current European and Japanese standards are about 43.3 and 42.6 mpg, respectively. China's current standard is 35.8.
"The technology for better, smarter, safer vehicles exists today," said Siegel. "The U.S. auto industry is collapsing in large part because it has rejected new, more efficient technologies. These standards embrace instead of reversing this failed approach."
The transportation sector accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and any rational plan to address the climate crisis must achieve dramatic fuel economy improvements. Despite the existing legal mandate from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that the standards be set at the "maximum feasible level," the U.S. standards lag far below current standards in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries.
"The Obama standards keep the U.S. in last place when it comes to fuel economy," said Deborah Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, who is representing the Center in the case. "This lawsuit will force the administration to live up to its promise to lead the way in technological innovation and greenhouse gas reductions."
The new standards come in response to a federal appeals court decision won by the Center and others in 2007 striking down the Bush standards issued in 2006. The court ruled that the standards failed to adequately consider the vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. As the Bush administration was formulating new standards, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in December 2007, which mandates that the agency require the combined car and truck fleet reach a minimum of 35 mpg by 2020. In May 2008, the Bush administration issued a new proposal. While those standards were well below what are technically feasible and required by law, they were higher than the final decision issued by the Obama administration last week.
The standards finalized by the Obama administration for passenger cars are a full 1 mpg lower than the Bush proposal. The standards for the light truck category, which includes both SUVs and pick-up trucks, are 0.9 mpg lower than the Bush proposal and only .1 mpg higher than the 2006 standard, which was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as inadequate.
The Bush administration postponed finalizing the standards as Congress and the administration developed options for a bailout of U.S. automakers. President Obama issued a memorandum in January directing the Department of Transportation to revise the rule to incorporate relevant technological and scientific considerations. Today's regulations affect only model year 2011; later model years will be the subject of a future rulemaking.
"Obama promised change, but this is change in the wrong direction," said Siegel. "With all the bailout money spent, the U.S. government practically owns the U.S. auto industry, but unfortunately the bankrupt policies of auto industry lobbyists are still behind the wheel at the Department of Transportation."
Table 1: U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy for Model Year 2011
Table 1: U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy for Model Year 2011
|
|
2006 Bush Final Rule |
2008 Bush Proposed Rule |
2009 Obama Final Rule |
|
Passenger Cars |
n/a |
31.2 |
30.2 |
|
Light Trucks |
24 |
25.0 |
24.1 |
|
Combined Fleet |
n/a |
27.8 |
27.3 |
Figure 1: Fuel Economy by Country/Region. Source: Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update, ICCT (December, 2008); Bush proposal for 2011-2015 and the final Obama standard of 27.3 mpg has been added to the ICCT graphic.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mark 9:49AM (4/06/2009)
The car industry could have had 50mpg 20 years ago if they wanted. We should be pushing for 100mpg. All new cars should be hybrid, ineffiency is such an old way of thinking.
Reply
Julius 11:17AM (4/06/2009)
How about 200 mpg?
Or even better - how about a 0 gallons per mile mandate?
I mean, electric cars exist - why not ban gasoline?
That is, unless you really believe what is "feasible" given the economic and political environment. And the economy's proving that fuel economy isn't #1 on the list - especially since larger cars are back on a relative upswing with $2/gal gas.
If you really think 50mpg fleetwide is doable, then we should have put the policies in place to get there - e.g. a carbon tax. Anything else will just defer the costs to someone else (and still will come back to each of us somehow - whether it's a bailout or a tax, there is no end difference).
Julius 11:19AM (4/06/2009)
I forgot to add - battery companies are straining now to meet a ~2% hybrid market share. It'll take alot of investment to make up the rest - to where we get anywhere close to universal application. So I doubt a "fleetwide 50-mpg goal tomorrow" is really feasible.
Noz 12:35PM (4/06/2009)
Seems "economically feasible" to piss away a trillion or more on war in the 6 years...and billions and billions and billions on useless crap like a Joint Strike Fighters and high energy weapons...so why is it that when it comes to improving technology that will benefit everyone it suddenly "needs to be feasible"??????
jeff smith 8:18PM (4/11/2009)
Screw you !!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark 9:23AM (4/12/2009)
Why Jeff?
DG 10:02AM (4/06/2009)
How different are the tests for japan and Europe? Just last week it was reported that on the Japan test the prius got 89.4 (us.) mpg or 76.7 (us.) mpg of the Jo08 test cycle www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/03/japanese-ratings-call-prius-worlds-most-efficient-car-89-4-mpg/.
The same U.S. model received a rating of 50mpg on the U.S. test at minimum a 26 mpg difference. I would love to see the standards rasied on mpg but I didn't see where these test are converted so they are equivalent and if their not then it's apples and oranges.
Reply
Scorch 10:15AM (4/06/2009)
If you can't change the car to get the requisite gas mileage, change the test.
Swede 10:19AM (4/06/2009)
Well I don't know how different the tests are but my car is quoted an average of 5.1l/100km according to the European standard running cycle (ECE R101) and I average about 5.9.
There is a great site called spritmonitor.de where you can check actual mileage. Most cars are normal family cars but there are a few of the new generation DRIVe and Bluemotion cars.
http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/309812.html
Swede 10:24AM (4/06/2009)
I just wanted to add a great example of how you can keep track of all costs with the site, not just fuel. http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/290266.html
Herm 12:24PM (4/06/2009)
The Japanes test is done at an average speed of 16mph or so, very slow.. thats why you get such high numbers.
ME 10:18AM (4/06/2009)
"In fact, the 2007 average was already 31.3"
Where did that number come from?
The average for 2007 was 26.7.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/fleet-economy.html
Reply
Scorch 10:23AM (4/06/2009)
Wow, this is coming out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, what a surprise. I'm glad the enlightened citizens of San Francisco see fit to keep the rest of us grubby little people from hurting ourselves.
I really don't see how a car can be fun to drive and reasonably priced if the requirement is 45 mpg. Even though not all cars have to make that, the ones that don't will be prohibitively expensive. Six cylinder engines will be a thing of the past and the era of the anaemic 4 cylinder turbodiesel powered sedans will be ushered in. I have a sinking feeling that all of this efficient technology being added onto cars is just going to be one giant headache after your warranty is up.
I know my compaints are falling on deaf ears. Some of the people around here think that hard sport seats, a noisy 4-cylinder engine, and 10 sec 0-60 times constitute driving excitement.
Not all of us want to drive a Prius, get over it.
Reply
Swede 10:26AM (4/06/2009)
You clearly have little experience with a modern turbodiesel car.
~D. 3:13PM (4/06/2009)
seriously. I drive a turbodiesel Golf, and it is a rip-snorting BLAST to drive. Most people in the US are driving around with automatic transmissions to boot. I will bet MONEY that if more Americans were exposed to manual trans, turbodiesel cars (in whatever segment or shape you like, they would sell like hotcakes. It's an option both sporty and economical. The US is MISSING OUT.
Chris M 11:59PM (4/06/2009)
Considering the thrilling performance of the Tesla Roadster, which doesn't use liquid fuels at all, it should indeed be possible to achieve over 45 mpg and still have thrilling performance.
It just takes really clever (and expensive!) electric drive engineering.
Bill 11:40AM (4/06/2009)
Well, we did have a 2-seat lean-burn Civic 20 years ago that got impressive highway mileage, but wouldn't meey safety or emission standards today.
And except for VW's not-too-reliable offerings, forget mass-market turbodiesels, thanks to CARB.
Reply
Carney 2:50PM (4/06/2009)
The low-hanging fruit on MPG has already been picked. All the easy, obvious stuff has already been done, long ago. The internal combustion engine is a mature, well-understood, heavily tweaked technology.
After this point there's nowhere further to go without pain. Give up power, speed, comfort, passenger and cargo space, safety, or all of the above.
Before we rush ahead with mandating all that, maybe we should actually stop, think, and look critically at what we are trying to accomplish and why, and whether prior MPG mandates have been effective at accomplishing their purported goals.
To the latter point, it is relevant to note that the increase in average MPGs from 13 in 1976 to 20 in 1990 (i.e., the aforementioned low-hanging fruit-picking) not only failed to reduce gasoline use, gasoline consumption actually went UP from 89 to 103 billion gallons, and then on to 140 by 2005.
Cutting back on the quantity of gasoline necessary to move a car a given distance doesn't help when existing drivers just drive more and there are MANY more drivers.
So conservation is more than out-stripped by growth in demand. That demand is only going to accelerate as more people and nations reach the tipping point of wealth necessary to buy cars (and as soon as people anywhere can, they do). China's car ownership has quadrupled in eight years and is still 1/100th the US rate, so there is staggering room for growth. India is forging ahead with the Nano.
What to do? If the goal is to break free of oil, then I suggest SWITCHING FUELS to some non-oil fuel.
The most affordable, broadly applicable, practical method that is ready and feasible NOW is alcohol fuels, which are renewable, clean-burning, price-stable, and do not fund terror. Proven, reliable "flex fuel" technology costing automakers only $100 per car exists that would allow cars of ANY size, shape, power, or price to run equally easily on any alcohol fuel as on gasoline (in contrast to EVs which are pricey and/or small). Mandate this as standard on all new cars and within a few years alcohol pumps become common at gas stations.
Imagine a big fuel-guzzling SUV slashing its gasoline use a whopping 85% without fussing with far less effective and far more expensive (by thousands) hybrid tech. It's already happening at 1,900 E85 pumps around the country (up from less than 300 in 2003). Let's make that the norm by making flex fuel capability in new cars mandatory, like seat belts.
By making this the standard for our market, we will in effect make flex-fuel the international standard, since no automaker is going to abandon the US market and none will bother with the extra expense of keeping open production lines for redundant gasoline-only parts when the total cost of flex-fuel tech is so low.
Alcohol is likely to be cheaper than gasoline since the market for it can't be cornered by an OPEC-like cartel, but in case the petro-tyrants flood the market with oil to make it temporarily cheaper and drown alcohol in its crib, we should stand ready to tax or tariff oil.
Our environment, our prosperity, and our national security are too important not to do this. We must MANDATE that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled.
Of course, if the real goal, rather than cleaner air and water, an economy safe from oil shocks, and terrorists and nuclear programs starved for funds, is just to punish industrialization, impose unneeded and pointless painful sacrifice, and restrict all human movement, activity, and aspirations, then by all means proceed with even stricter MPG standards.
Reply
stas peterson 9:44PM (4/06/2009)
I love these idiotic Greenies here. The ones who say I voted for Obamassiah and I want the cars to get 200 mpg. I've done my part, why isn't it available right now?
They are the same people who say I'm outside and I voted for Obamassiah and I want nice sunny days. Why is it still raining and ruining my day?
They don't see what is stupid about either want.
Reply