NewUsed

Find by category:

Exhaust Notes

White House Sets Final Fuel Economy Standards Through 2025

The 54.5-mpg industry average includes provisions for hybrid pickups, EVs, and small automakers like Rolls-Royce.

By Clifford Atiyeh Aug 28, 2012 10:59AM

The White House today released its final rules mandating all new cars and trucks to reach a 54.5-mpg fleet average by 2025.


The rules for updating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards -- which each automaker's model lineup is required to meet -- are essentially identical to a 2011 draft issued by the Environnental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


However, unlike when the Obama administration first proposed increasing CAFE to 62 mpg, a significant number of automakers now support the new standards. The new mandate establishes higher yearly increases starting in 2017 and finishing with 54.5 mpg in 2025. By 2016, automakers have to meet an average of 35.5 mpg.


EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said on a conference call that the new rules “call for steady improvements, not radical overnight changes.” The U.S. would save $1.7 billion in fuel costs and reduce oil consumption by 12 billion barrels through 2025, Jackson said. 


But while gasoline and diesel consumption have been cut considerably -- between 2006 and 2011, fuel stations sold about 35 percent less fuel -- it's unclear if CAFE rules are actually attributable to such massive savings. More so, the U.S. continues to use foreign oil at breakneck pace (since 2000, the U.S. has imported more than 4 billion gallons of crude every year) and while the trends show slight decreases, it's still a large challenge as alternative fuels like ethanol and natural gas remain grounded and fast-charging EV networks are non-existent.


The federal pressure, however, will force automakers to build large pickup trucks that average 33 mpg and full-size cars, with the EPA using the Chrysler 300 as one example, to meet 48 mpg. Such figures all but state the necessity of equipping today's vehicles with electric and hybrid powertrains.


Future 2025 model-year vehicles would save buyers an estimated $8,000 per vehicle in fuel costs over their lifetimes when compared to 2010 models. The EPA did not take into account what the price of fuel would be in 2025, but the White House said the savings are the equivalent of dropping the price of gasoline by $1 per gallon.


However, not all cars are treated the same way. Under CAFE, each automaker has a certain amount of EPA credits to meet regarding its overall fuel economy. Manufacturers can sell excess credits to other manufacturers, or buy credits in lieu of a less efficient fleet. Other automakers, such as Mercedes-Benz, have paid the EPA millions of dollars in fines for not meeting the quotas. While the credit-swapping program remains in place, automakers will gain additional credits for selling electric, plug-in hybrids, natural gas, and fuel cell vehicles. Hybrid pickup trucks are also worth more credits under the new program.


Small automakers like Rolls-Royce that sell less than 5,000 cars per year will be able to petition the EPA directly on a “case-by-case basis” for their own standards. Automakers that sell between 5,000 and 50,000 vehicles are allowed to meet lower fuel efficiency standards but must meet the higher goals in by 2021. Trucks like the Ford F-150 will be allowed more time than cars to meet the higher standards.


According to transportation secretary Ray LaHood, the changes required to make cars more fuel efficient will increase the average cost of new cars by at least $1,800. The new rules are expected to cost as much as $192 billion, according to federal estimates. But the cost savings have some government officials eager to propose mileage taxes -- such as the GPS-tracking measure proposed by California Bay Area cities in July -- to offset declines in fuel tax revenues. In 2009, LaHood suggested a national mileage tax, but the White House shot down that idea almost immediately.

61Comments
Aug 28, 2012 12:37PM
avatar
Greater MPG will not help the average consumer because these vehicles are priced to high for middle  America. Also as mpg goes up so will the price of fuel. Fifty mpg is not a good deal if gas is 10 to 20 dollars a gallon. We have stop speculators and companies from pushing prices up everytime something might happen but never does.
Aug 28, 2012 12:31PM
avatar
How stupid are we the sheep of this once great country? We demand that our cars get x amount of gas milage when I stop at 8 out of 10 traffic lights on my way to work. How much gas, and hot air which is a big concern here in phoenix, could we save by timing these lights. I stop so cars that are already stopped can go. I stop for a highway. ITS 20 FT ABOVE ME ! so basically I stop for a off ramp at 8 out of every 10 lights in my city. Any city pick it, I travel all the time just look out the window next time you fly into a city, any city, dont take my word for it, check yourself and you will see it. Its amazing.
Aug 28, 2012 12:34PM
avatar
Less gas will be used, if this happens, which will cause the prices to soar! Be prepares for $15 gallon when this happens. Obama fails once again. He thinks this will force us to use alternative energy like electric ? If even just 25% of Americans used electric cars, the power grids would fail. Charging a power cell for a car isnt like running and extra load of laundry

Aug 28, 2012 12:22PM
avatar
While I think this is a GREAT idea, the problem is that if it is the equivalent of lowering gas prices by $1 per gallon, and no standard for where gas prices will be capped, the oil companies will charge $1 more per gallon tan they charge now to ensure they are not loosing money.  The problem needs to be addressed with the COST of OIL before it can be addressed elsewhere, otherwise the consumer looses!
Aug 28, 2012 2:50PM
avatar
"The White House release Its' rules"?  Oh, really?  Where exactly in the lawful delineation of authority called our Constitution does it grant the White House that power?  As I recall, it is Congress that makes all laws, and all rules & regulations promulgated by any agency of the government must be in compliance with the authorizing law, else those rules & regs are null and void.  Or at least so said the supreme Court.  So where is the law, and what is its' specific language, authorizing the White House or anyone to tell automakers and their stockholder owners what they must do?
Aug 28, 2012 2:45PM
avatar

I would like to know how many gas or hybrid American model cars currently get 54.4 mpg? I can't think of any. I know the Toyota priu**** the number but this is the only car I can think of. Why doesn't Obama endorse 40mpg as this number may be possible for a fleet average for American cars. 54.4 mpg seems impossible to me and would only hurt US manufacturing jobs. Or how about keeping Big brother out of what cars we drive.

Aug 28, 2012 1:32PM
avatar
CattyCakes21
Electric and hydro cars will be the norm when the technology to make them viable AND affordable  alternatives becomes available. Just wishing it so does not make it so.

Aug 28, 2012 1:59PM
avatar

   As a car person, I think this is a bunch of b.s. The truck I drive has an 8.1L V8 engine, and I have no problem reaching 20 mpg on the highway, and I feel safe driving it. I don't see where the economy of  a vehicle matters, it will need fuel at some point.

   We can make vehicles that get great fuel economy, but they will be costly in other areas. For example, a hybrid won't use as much gas as a full gasoline vehicle would, but the batteries are very expensive. Another example is with the diesel vehicles, they will reach 50+ mpg, but they are more expensive to maintain. With these vehicles, we won't be saving any money.

   If it is the environment we want to protect, electric isn't going to help anything. When the batteries go bad, where are we going to put them, we can recycle some of them, but what about the new ones? Where are we going to put them? If we look to use diesel as a main fuel in automobiles, it won't help the environment, because the oil from a diesel engines is very dirty when it is changed.

   This is how I view it, sorry if you don't agree.

Aug 28, 2012 12:50PM
avatar
If this is like most laws, it will have enough loopholes and what-if's to dumb it down when the time comes.  As to "Cereal Bars" below - he apparently doesn't understand supply and demand. There will be plenty of pressure to drive up the cost of gas, but lower usage will be one reason to keep it down. I don't see the drops being significant enough that oil companies will struggle with idle equipment and refining capacity. Mileage taxes are too intrusive, but you could make a case for luxury taxes on the RR's, Bentley's, select Mercedes, and the high performance sports cars that will be able to weasel out of the standards.  Come to think of it. they could do the same for NASCAR and Indy cars as they waste a lot going around in circles - lol
Aug 28, 2012 12:33PM
avatar

WHAT A LOAD OF ****!!!!! Every election year someone comes out with new improved fuel standards

and than after the elections the changes never come whoever in office changes the time limit for the

GD auto makers ( after all that's why they give all the money with the understanding that itt will never come to pass!)

The Pres changes the time limit even tho its the tax payers who bailed out the auto makers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Aug 28, 2012 2:22PM
avatar
This also  happened way back in 1975. It was an idea which only saw price increase, higher fuel consumption, SUV loophole, and was a detriment to the industry of the United States. The EPA rules emplemented at that time also allowed Oil Co.'s to position itself as supplier and distributor.Cost should have went down. Fuel continued to increase cars continued to get less mileage do to emission controls. Now China has been going full bore without pollution standards or anything else at 10 times the amount we ever did prior to 1975. If you want to help the planet, lithium batteries is not the way to go. Alternate infastruture involing transportation is.    
Aug 28, 2012 12:44PM
avatar
Obama truly thinks americans are that stupid. We all know if cars are forced to get that much gas mileage and we use less fuel this will cause the demand to go down and the price will go up!! After adjusting inflation, by the time these new regulations kick in we will be paying $10 a gallon for gas, at least!  This will get repealed when Romney takes over...I Hope. If not then he won't get a second term either.

Romney/Ryan 2012

By the way, Obama said he wants our gas to be as high as Europe's . look up that interview on youtube. Raising the fuel milieage on cars will make this happen. Is this what you want America? How is this helping the middle class that he says he protects? Give Romney a chance. He hasnt done any damage to our nation yet. If he fails his first term, we can vote him out. I do not think he will spend as much as Bush or Obama. Bush spent $655 Billion during his 8 years. I thought that was bad! Obama has spent over a $5 Trillion so far and his first term isn't up. This is scary!!! No president has ever spent this much. Our dollar is going to be worthless pieces of paper soon if we dont do something. Blaming Bush isn't helping anything. Giving Obama a second term wont help anything. Romney is our only hope at this time. I wish we had some more options, but we don't. He is our only chance.

Aug 28, 2012 2:24PM
avatar

I agree with the person who pointed out that less volume means higher prices for fuel per unit.  The lion's share of oil company funds are divided among the type of people who don't lose their jobs (execs) and share holders.  When volume drops and those costs remain the same or increase, they must be offset by higher prices per unit sold to cover the bills that do not drop when volume decreases.

Another thing to consider is that virtually everything you eat or wear or purchase from some store relies on truckers to deliver the merchandise.   It will be some time before large vehicles can operate on batteries alone.  The price of fuel will impact everything you need in life.  When delivery costs rise, the cost of goods increases. It is a fact of life.

Most people ignorantly assume the oil companies would be opposed to these changes.  That is far from the truth.

Oil is a finite commodity.  There is only so much inventory in the ground.  If the oil companies are to sustain their survival then they must find a way to make the oil supply last longer.  Sell less for more per unit and you will make the same or more money and continue to make money longer.  After all, you can't just plant an oil seed and wait for it to grow and produce more oil.

Has anyone looked at the cost of the batteries used to power a vehicle?  Do you really think that paying for less gasoline will reduce the overall cost of operating a vehicle.  Not a chance.  Also, has anyone looked at the cost in terms of energy and pollution that go into the entire lifecycle of these monster batteries used to power vehicles without gasoline?  

I see this as a move to help make individual transportation more of a possession only for the rich and elite. The middle class and poor will suffer.  When the rich use up a new electric car's battery they will dump it on the used market and the middle class and poor who can not afford a new vehicle will then end up having to find ways to replace the costly batteries.  Instead of dealing with a little money per week for higher gasoline prices they will be forced to do without personal transportation or to shell out large and unexpected amounts of money to replace the batteries in the used vehicle.

The ripples from moves like this are far reaching and never ending.  Transportation is an integral part of the lives of each and every person who does not live in the woods whether or not that person owns a personal vehicle. 

This is a move by the wealthy for the wealthy and nothing more.

They sell it with emotional tools like the high cost of gas supposedly becoming less influential in your daily existence so that the average man and woman will not vote against these measures or act out against the government but it is the same old game.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Your life will become ever worse as money gravitates to the top faster. 

Looks like the smart move here would be to find ways to invest in mass transit tools.

Anybody know what time the bus will be here?

Aug 28, 2012 1:08PM
avatar
These changes are already happening. VW is introducing a new line of cars with gas engines achieving over 40 mpg and diesel engines achieving 60+mpg. These will be out in the next few years. In ten years, even more advances are possible. I think 54 mpg will be quite attainable. As evidenced in the past few years, decrease demand leads to decreased prices. However, as the economy recovers, prices will continue to rise. The US should still be prepared for price increases even if it does decrease consumption. China and India will continue to demonstrate growth in consumption taking up the extra production. I believe decreasing consumption is much more patriotic than drilling our shores.

Aug 28, 2012 3:03PM
avatar

CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN HOW (ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE) IF WE WILL SAVE $1.7

BILLION THRU 2025 BUT IT WILL COST $192 BILLION THIS MAKES ANY SENSE. MAYBE

IT IS THE NEW MATH.

Aug 28, 2012 3:06PM
avatar
Looks like many will be moving to the city and riding bikes.  Seems that is what is happening in Europe.
Aug 28, 2012 1:38PM
avatar
Walk or take mass transient is the opposition to buying a new car. They did have electric three wheel golf cart type transportation for seniors in the fifties in Southern California. They got banned along with the electric trains(red cars) for more money in polluted transportation. Tire profits. It would have made a less polluted area for all if wisdom was a priority before greed. If we can go to Mars then we can invent an all electric car and forget about miles per gallon.
Aug 28, 2012 2:17PM
avatar

Did these idiots finally repeal those nasty laws of physics?

Aug 28, 2012 2:31PM
avatar
Let's see...Kennedy states in a speech in 1961 that we will go to the moon, roughly 240,000 miles away through a very inhospitable environment...8 years later Neil steps onto the moon. 50 years later the government announces that they would like to see MPG hit a 54 average and gives a 13 year marker to do so. Weird...
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

ABOUT EXHAUST NOTES

Cars are cool, and we here at MSN Autos love everything about them, but we also know they're more than simply speed and style: a car is an essential tool, a much-needed accessory to help you get through your day-to-day life. What you drive is also one of the most important investments you can make, so we'll help you navigate your way through the car buying and ownership experiences. We strive to be your daily destination for news, notes, tips and tricks from across the automotive world. So whether it's through original content from our world-class journalists or the latest buzz from the far corners of the Web, Exhaust Notes helps you make sense of your automotive world. Contact us at autosblog@live.com.