Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

benjaminh

Auto News:

"Is CAFE making cars bigger?
Size-based mpg targets create strange incentive for automakers
August 14, 2016 @ 12:01 am
Ryan Beene

WASHINGTON -- The tough fuel-economy standards that took effect in 2012 are getting tougher every year. So why are cars getting bigger?

The average new vehicle's "footprint" -- the rectangle formed by its wheelbase and track width -- hit a record 49.9 square feet in the 2015 model year, according to the EPA, up by about 1 square foot, or 2 percent, since the agency been tracking the measure in 2008.

The EPA says that growth mostly reflects shifting sales toward trucks and SUVs. And to be sure, cars and trucks have been growing for decades to reflect the visual tastes of designers, the safety concerns of engineers and consumer desire for more interior space.

But these days, analysts say, automakers have an added incentive to make their cars a little bit larger: more forgiving fuel economy targets...."

More at the link, but here's the key: "Expanding a car's footprint — the wheelbase multiplied by the track width — gives it a lower fuel-economy target to meet under the CAFE standards negotiated by automakers and regulators. Over the long term, the difference can be more than 2 mpg in a given model year."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160814/OEM11/308159946/is-cafe-making-cars-bigger

benjaminh

And now, two years later, CAFE seems likely to die....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/climate/epa-car-pollution-rollback.html

"E.P.A. Takes a Major Step to Roll Back Clean Car Rules
By Coral Davenport
May 31, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration took a major step toward dramatically weakening an Obama-era rule designed to cut pollution from vehicle tailpipes, setting the stage for a legal clash with California that could potentially split the nation’s auto market in two.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday formally submitted its proposal to roll back rules that required automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The rules, which would have significantly lowered the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, were opposed by automakers who said they were overly burdensome.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. confirmed on Thursday that the agency had completed its work on the proposed regulatory rollback and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Typically that is the final step before a proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The rules are then open for public comment before taking effect, during which the terms could still be modified.

One of the central and most controversial elements of the proposed rule would formally challenge California’s special status under the 1970 Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle pollution standards...."



It's nuts that the NY Times and others are still quoting this 54 mpg figure. That's the number based on unrealistic testing from c. 1975, which is what CAFE is based on. Based on the EPA window sticker in used today that more closely parallels real mileage, the actual number would be c. 37 mpg combined city/hwy on your window sticker in 2025. And that's only if CAFE is kept. Since CAFE is being killed, we can expect that improvements in mpg will probably slow down.

"Kill the insane 54 mpg rule" sounds almost sensible, but the reality, which would be "Kill the 2025 standard of 37 mpg for midsize sedans and the 22 mpg standard for trucks," given pollution and global warming doesn't sound nearly as sensible.

The 2018 Honda Accord already gets 33 mpg. Are we really saying we can get 4 more mpg in 7 years?

berri

You just have to decide whether the costs, comfort and performance tradeoffs are worth it. Personally, I think it has just led to more truck and SUV sales in lieu of cars. I think the prior administration targets went a little too aggressive for the time span though and I also think the overall economic impact of regulatory rules and changes needs to be better evaluated as tradeoff impacts.