Nah, We're Keeping Our Fuel Economy Targets: EPA

by Steph Willems

Published: November 30th, 2016

nah we re keeping our fuel economy targets epa

Fuel economy standards set by the Obama administration for the 2022 to 2025 model years will remain, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated.

The environmental regulator announced its proposed determination earlier today, part of its midterm review of the country’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) targets. Forget cheap gas and never mind the SUV craze — 54.5 miles per gallon is still the government’s goal.

While it still needs to make a final determination, it appears the EPA won’t be swayed by recent changes in the automotive landscape. The current targets were issued in 2012.

The regulator claims it made its determination after updating its analyses, consulting the industry and other stakeholders, and reviewing a technical assessment. More than 200,000 public comments flowed in from July’s draft technical assessment report (TAR).

In the TAR, the EPA, National Highway Traffic Transportation Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) predicted that, on their present course, automakers would undercut the 2025 target. By its estimate, the country’s average gas mileage would only hit 50 to 52.6 miles per gallon by 2025.

Still, the regulators applauded automakers for adopting fuel-saving technologies. Smaller-displacement, turbocharged engines, stop-start systems, hybridization, direct injection and battery electric vehicles helped the industry make large strides towards the goal.

Lobby groups, especially the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, cried foul. Meeting the target meant an average of $1,800 tacked onto the sticker price of a vehicle, the Alliance claimed. The EPA disagreed, and now claims the actual cost is lower than it predicted in the TAR. According to the regulator, automakers and carbuyers can afford to reach the target.

“The auto industry can meet the standards primarily with advanced gasoline vehicle technologies and with very low levels of strong hybridization and full electrification (plug-in vehicles),” the determination reads.

The public comment period for the determination ends on December 30, 2016.

#CAFE #EPA #FuelEconomy #FuelEconomyTargets #GasMileage

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 55 comments

Duaney on Nov 30, 2016

Possibly the Trump administration can reign in the EPA. I've mentioned before, in this same forum, dramatically increasing fuel economy of automobiles can lead to increased highway deaths. If the manufacturers have to reduce weight to extremes to achieve these MPH figures, occupants will have less mass there to protect them resulting in more injuries and deaths. The EPA has never taken responsibility for this. Previous dramatic downsizing has done this before.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- Colin42 on Nov 30, 2016
  
  Duaney. Please provide a source for you claim for EPA regs causing increase in deaths from lighter smaller cars Death per million miles drive has been on average falling for decades http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data
  
  Like
- Lorenzo on Dec 01, 2016
  
  @colin42 Provide a source for an internet comment? Is TTAC now a scientific journal? BTW, your link dates back to 2011. Here's one from last February: www.newsweek.com/2015-brought-biggest-us-traffic-death-increase-50-years-427759
  
  Like
- Lou_BC on Dec 01, 2016
  
  @Lorenzo "Neither the sheer number of miles driven nor a change in population seem to fully explain the jump in 2015. Motor-vehicle mileage increased by 3.5 percent between 2014 and 2015. The annual mileage death rate in 2015 was 1.22 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, up 5 percent from the previous year. Meanwhile, the annual population death rate rose by 7 percent to 11.87 deaths per 100,000 people." More data is required but part of that increase in death rate is due to miles driven. Miles driven is up 3.5% and deaths by car 5%. What is accounting for that 1.5% difference? We did see another news article stating that current restraint devices may not be adequately protecting the aging population of drivers. Heavier vehicles aren't necessarily safer than lighter ones. IIRC the aluminum F150 has better crash ratings than its predecessor.
  
  Like
- ToddAtlasF1 on Dec 01, 2016
  
  @Lou_BC Light vehicles can perform well in barrier crashes, where the force involved is a function of their own mass. They do less well in multi-vehicle accidents, where mass relative to other vehicles involved is significant. There was a test a number of years ago involving partial offset crashes between small and mid-sized cars from the same manufacturers that illustrated this point extremely effectively. I believe all the cars used were good performers in contemporary crash testing, but the midsized cars annihilated the small ones. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies
  
  Like
- Truckducken on Dec 01, 2016
  
  Duaney, there is a game-changing factor afoot here: active safety systems. If vehicles suddenly get much better at avoiding collisions, this can reduce the significance of the mass-safety relationship. We'll see if the crash test folks start to back off on their requirements if and when crashes decline (which apparently isn't happening yet). We may be close to peak mass today.
  
  Like
- Delerium75 on Dec 01, 2016
  
  @Lou_BC Certainly smartphones, infotainment systems and consequently distracted driving is some part of that increase. Exactly what percentage, I don't know but $5 says the true number (where the driver knows exactly what they were doing but didn't cop to the truth) would likely make one go "wow."
  
  Like
- Alluster on Dec 01, 2016
  
  "I’ve mentioned before, in this same forum, dramatically increasing fuel economy of automobiles can lead to increased highway deaths." Are you sure this is not due to the USB ports they keep putting in new cars? In 1936 none of the cars sold came with USB ports and the highway deaths were far fewer.
  
  Like
Kendahl on Dec 01, 2016

I'm sure any of the major automobile manufacturers can produce vehicles that meet the EPA's gas mileage target. The question is whether those vehicles will satisfy consumers and whether they will be affordable. Very few people keep their cars until they are worn beyond the point of practical repairability. If they did, the used car market wouldn't exist. If the EPA pushes too hard on emissions and the NHTSA on safety, buyers will opt to keep their old cars longer instead of trading them in on new ones. Both agencies might get their wishes on new vehicles but performance of the fleet actually on the road will change very little.

Like Reply