Three Lawmakers Want Regulators to Pump the Brakes on Fuel Economy Review

by Steph Willems

Published: August 30th, 2016

three lawmakers want regulators to pump the brakes on fuel economy review

Whoa, slow down a minute. That’s the message from three Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is reviewing fuel economy targets set out for automakers.

The members want more time for car companies to respond to a key report about the 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) target, The Detroit Free Press reports.

The midterm review looks at whether the 2025 mileage target is realistic and achievable. Already, the process has yielded a technical assessment report that heaped praise on automakers for installing fuel-saving technology on their vehicles. Three key regulators concluded that the industry will see a light vehicle average of 50 and 52.6 miles per gallon by 2025, if things stay on the current path.

The review process is ongoing, but the regulators (Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and California Air Resources Board) seem to be leaning towards keeping the target in place. A final recommendation won’t come until 2018.

Automakers were given 60 days to respond to the July report. Now, three members want the comment period extended. Chairman Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph), Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky), and Michael Burgess (R-Texas) are seeking an extra 60 days. Why? The report is too damn long, it appears.

“We assert that the current comment period does not provide the necessary time for an adequate public review,” the members wrote in a letter dated yesterday. “The draft (technical assessment report) exceeds 1,000 pages in length, contains extensive technical information, and references a large number of supporting documents.”

They added that some of the supporting documents weren’t available at the beginning of the public comment period, which runs out on September 26. The regulators responded by saying they’d review the request.

The 2025 target was signed into law in 2012, covering both fuel economy and tailpipe emissions levels. In the draft TAR, regulators were encouraged by the use of turbocharging, gasoline direct injection, electrification and other technologies to raise fleet-wide fuel economy.

Some groups aren’t happy with the 54.5 mpg target. The largest backlash is from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which claims that fuel-saving technology adds excessive costs to a new vehicle.

#CAFE #CARB #EmissionTargets #EPA #FuelEconomy #GasMileage #Government #NHTSA

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 57 comments

Redapple on Aug 31, 2016

55 MPG CAFE is STUPID, Slow, lazy way to save fuel. TAX it like Europe does. Washington cowards like to hide behind CAFE s stupid autocratic edicts. A$$hats.

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- Old Man Pants on Aug 31, 2016
  
  "55 MPG CAFE is STUPID" Ask the Expert!
  
  Like
- Duaney on Aug 31, 2016
  
  We already know what happens when they tax everything in sight, destruction of the economy, especially the tourist industry, massive loss of jobs, hello Socialism! How's that working out for you Venezuela?
  
  Like
- SCE to AUX on Aug 31, 2016
  
  32% of the current pump price ($2.25) in Pennsylvania is taxes - the highest in the country. What tax rate do you suggest would reduce truck sales to the point where the CAFE rule is achieved without technical advances? Should we raise the price to $4.50? Well, at that not-long-ago price, the F-150 was still the best-selling vehicle. Gasoline demand in the US is very price-inelastic over long periods of time, which is a unique cultural phenomenon. I suspect that we'd see the F-150 outselling other vehicles even with $9 gas.
  
  Like
Jeff Waingrow on Aug 31, 2016

There's always a reason why car companies can't do something. It started with seat belts. Too expensive and nobody will use them anyway. Air bags. You're kidding, they'd cost a fortune. Now you can get a six-pack in the cheapest cars. It never ends. All these bogus claims were never about what was claimed. The manufacturers had their own interests at heart, not yours. So will they kindly explain why my $28,000 GTI doesn't even have a back-up camera. Probably too expensive, right? Soon, no doubt, every vehicle will have one and it will add beans to the cost.

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- True_Blue on Aug 31, 2016
  
  In 2018, they'll be federally mandated, per the NHSTA. http://blog.caranddriver.com/backup-cameras-coming-to-all-new-cars-in-2018/
  
  Like
- Xeranar on Aug 31, 2016
  
  It's more marketing gimmicks, keeping the good stuff for 'luxury cars' then trickling it down when it's found to be a true safety feature.
  
  Like
- Ronnie Schreiber on Sep 01, 2016
  
  It's an untruth to say that car companies have been uninterested in safety. Bela Barenyi at Mercedes-Benz invented crush zones and safety cells. Nils Bohlin invented the three point seat/shoulder belt for Volvo (which gave away the patent). Ford first offered seat belts in 1956. GM, Ford and Chrysler all worked on developing airbags. The first practical airbags were developed by Eaton and offered on FoMoCo products in the early 1970s. As it happened, consumers weren't interested and Eaton got out of the business. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/06/automotive-archaeology-where-eaton-crash-tested-the-first-practical-airbags/
  
  Like
- Duaney on Sep 01, 2016
  
  @Ronnie Schreiber In addition, the 1951 Kaiser was promoted as the safety first car, with such features as better visibility, pop out front and rear glass, recessed knobs, right hand emergency brake handle, and the 1948 Tucker had many safety features as well, pop out windows, safety crash cell under the dash, rotating cyclops head light. Of course today we know seat belts are a better way than the pop out windows, but at least they tried and cared.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Wolfwagen Pennsylvania - Two long straights, 1 medium straight, 1 super short straight and a bunch of curves all on one end
Haze3 EV median weight is in the range of 4500-5500lbs, similar to the low end of full size pickup trucks and SUV's or typical mid-size PU's and SUV's. Obviously, EV Hummers and PU's are heavier but, on average, EV=PU or mid/full SUV is about right. EV's currently account for ~1% of the cars on the road. PU's account for 17% and SUV's count for over 40%. If we take out light SUV's, then call it 30% SUV or so. So, large-ish PU's and SUV's, together, account for ~50% of the US fleet vs 1% for EV's. As such, the fleet is ALREADY heavy. The problem is that EV's will be making the currently lighter 50% heavier, not that PU/SUV haven't already done most of the damage on avg mass.Sure, the issue is real but EV responsibility is not. If you want to get after heavies, that means getting after PU/SUV's (the current problem by 40-50x) first and foremost.
Redapple2 Telluride over Acadian (sic-tip cap-canada). 1 better car. 2 60 % us/can content vs 39 THIRTY NINE for an "American" car. 3 no UAW labor. Smart people drive Tellurides. Not so smart for the GMC. Dont support the Evil GM Vampire.!
Theflyersfan My dad had a 1998 C280 that was rock solid reliable until around 80,000 miles and then it wasn't. Corey might develop a slight right eyelid twitch right about now, but it started with a sunroof that leaked. And the water likely damaged some electric components because soon after the leaks developed, the sunroof stopped working. And then the electrical gremlins took hold. Displays that flickered at times, lights that sometimes decided illumination was for wimps so stayed home, and then the single wiper issue. That thing decided to eat motors. He loved that car but knew when to fold the hand. So he bought a lightly used, off lease E-class. Had that for less than two years before he was ready to leave it in South Philly, keys in the ignition, doors unlocked, and a "Take it please" sign on the windshield. He won't touch another Benz now.
Detlump A lot of people buy SUVs because they're easier to get in and out of. After decades of longer, lower, wider it was refreshing to have easier ingress/egress offered by an SUV.Ironically, the ease of getting in and out of my Highlander is very similar to my 56 Cadillac.