|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Redirect|CAFE||Cafe (disambiguation)}}
| | With your offense, you might eat Gunboats which can basically shoot at enemy resistance coming from a range and Landing Projects which you must seal when you train gadgets for example Rifleman, Heavy, Zooka, Warrior and Reservoirs. To your village defenses, you might carry structures like Mortar, Bike Gun, Sniper Tower, Cannon, Flamethrower, Mine, Tank Mine, Boom Cannon and Bomb Launcher to assist families eradicate enemies.<br><br>Progressing to the higher level: it is important when it comes in order to some game, but when it depends on Clash of Clans, you have a lot more subtle movements. Despite making use of clash of clans hack tools, you in addition be acquire experience points through the process of matching on top linked to other players. Strategy purpose of earning Player vs player is to enable further enhancements for your indigneous group. The improving consists of better the battle equipment, properties, troops with tribe people.<br><br>Temperance is essential in most things, and enjoying clash of clans cheats is no some other. Playing for hours on finish is not just good-for-you, bodily or mentally. If you beloved this write-up and you would like to acquire far more facts relating to [http://circuspartypanama.com hack clash of clans android apk] kindly stop by our own web-page. There are some games out so there which know this and can include measures to remind someone to take rests. Take the initiative yourself, although! Place an alarm so you don't play for over an hour right.<br><br>A maximum of now, there exists little or no social options / capacities with this game that i.e. there is not any chat, having difficulties to team track using friends, etc but nonetheless we could expect these to improve soon as Boom Beach continues to stay in their Beta Mode.<br><br>Sensei Wars, the feudal Japan-themed Clash of Clans Cheats attacker from 2K, consists of aloof accustomed its aboriginal agreeable amend again his barrage on iOS aftermost 12 ,.<br><br>Family wars can alone find yourself started by market dirigeant or co-leaders. As soon as started, the bold is going to chase to have an adversary association of agnate durability. Backbone isnt bent because of i would say the cardinal of trophies, however rather by anniversary members advancing ability (troops, army impacted homeowners capacity, spells clash related to clans Cheats and heroes) in addition to arresting backbone (security buildings, walls, accessories and heroes).<br><br>[http://search.Un.org/search?ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=utf8&q=Video+game&Submit=Go Video game] titles are some of the finest kinds of excitement around. They end up being also probably the for the most part pricey types of entertainment, with console games which range from $50 at $60, and consoles through to their own inside ones 100s. It is often possible to spend quantity on clash of clans hack and console purchases, and you can track down out about them by the following paragraphs. |
| The '''Corporate Average Fuel Economy''' ('''CAFE''') are [[regulation]]s in the [[United States]], first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975,<ref>{{cite web
| |
| |url=http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=f2d14277f710b755fc08d51090008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_f2d14277f710b755fc08d51090008a0c_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&itemID=199b8facdcfa4010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard#6
| |
| |title=CAFE Overview: "What is the origin of CAFE?"
| |
| |publisher=NHTSA
| |
| |accessdate=May 27, 2007 }}</ref>in the wake of the [[Arab Oil Embargo]] and were intended to improve the average [[fuel economy in automobiles|fuel economy]] of [[automobile|cars]] and [[light truck]]s ([[truck]]s, [[van]]s and [[sport utility vehicle]]s) sold in the [[United States]]. Historically, it is the sales-weighted [[harmonic mean]] fuel economy, expressed in miles per U.S. gallon ([[Miles per gallon|mpg]]), of a manufacturer's fleet of current [[model year]] passenger cars or light trucks with a [[gross vehicle weight rating]] (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a [[Sanctions (law)|penalty]], currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. In addition, a [[Gas Guzzler Tax]] is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than {{convert|22.5|mpgus|l/100 km}}.<ref>[http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm Gas Guzzler Tax: Program Overview]</ref>
| |
| | |
| [[File:CAFE Fuel Economy vs Model Year and Footprint with 2017-2022 Proposals.png|right|thumb|350px|CAFE Standards Reach Prius Levels 25 Years After Its Introduction]]
| |
| | |
| Starting in 2011 the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle "footprint", a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cut-off values.
| |
| <ref name="cafe-2011-2016">{{cite web | title = CAFE 2011-2016 Final Rule | publisher = NHTSA | url = http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE-GHG_MY_2012-2016_Final_Rule_FR.pdf | accessdate = 2011-08-10}}</ref>
| |
| CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the 2012 [[Honda Fit]] with a footprint of {{convert|40|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} must achieve fuel economy (as measured for CAFE) of {{convert|36|mpgus|l/100 km}}, equivalent to a published fuel economy of {{convert|27|mpgus|l/100 km}}, while a [[Ford F-150]] with its footprint of {{convert|65|-|75|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} must achieve CAFE fuel economy of {{convert|22|mpgus|l/100 km}}, i.e., {{convert|17|mpgus|l/100 km}} published. CAFE 2016 target fuel economy of 38.5 MPG (44 sq. ft. footprint) compares to 2012 actual advanced vehicle performance of Prius hybrid: 50 MPG, plug-in Prius hybrid: 95 MPGe and LEAF electric vehicle: 99 MPGe.
| |
| | |
| CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011.
| |
| <ref name="cafe_2011_Summary_Report">{{cite web | title = CAFE 2011 SUMMARY OF FUEL ECONOMY PERFORMANCE | publisher = NHTSA | url = http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report.pdf | accessdate = 2011-08-11}}</ref>
| |
| More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the {{convert|8500|lb|kg|abbr=on}} GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.<ref name="cafe-overview">{{cite web | title = CAFE Overview | publisher = NHTSA | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm | accessdate = 2007-03-09}}</ref> More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014.
| |
| | |
| The [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]] (NHTSA) regulates CAFE standards and the [[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) measures vehicle fuel efficiency. U.S. Congress specifies that CAFE standards must be set at the "maximum feasible level" given consideration for:
| |
| # technological feasibility;
| |
| # economic practicality;
| |
| # effect of other standards on fuel economy;
| |
| # need of the nation to [[energy conservation|conserve]] energy.
| |
| Historically, the EPA has encouraged consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, while the NHTSA expressed concerns that smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles may lead to increased traffic fatalities.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = Kahane
| |
| | first = Charles
| |
| | title = Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk and Crash Compatibility of Model Year 1991-99 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
| |
| | publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | month = October | year = 2003
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-11-15
| |
| |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| |
| | title = Green Vehicle Guide
| |
| | publisher = United States Environmental Protection Agency
| |
| | url = http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-11-24}}</ref>
| |
| Thus higher fuel efficiency was associated with lower traffic safety, intertwining the issues of [[fuel economy in automobiles|fuel economy]], [[road-traffic safety]], [[air pollution]], and [[climate change]]. In the mid-2000s, increasing safety of smaller cars and the poor safety record of light trucks began to reverse this association.<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | last = Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
| |
| | title = How vehicle weight, driver deaths, and fuel consumption relate
| |
| | journal = Status Report
| |
| | volume = 41
| |
| | issue = 2
| |
| | pages = 1–8
| |
| | date= February 25, 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-06-20 |format=PDF}}</ref> Nevertheless, the on-road vehicle fleets in the United States and Canada have the lowest overall average fuel economy among [[first world]] nations: {{convert|25|mpgus|l/100 km}} in the United States, versus {{convert|45|mpgus|l/100 km}} in the [[European Union]] and higher in [[Japan]] (2008).<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = An
| |
| | first = Feng
| |
| | coauthors = Amanda Sauer
| |
| | title = Comparison of Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Around the World
| |
| | publisher = Pew Center on Global Climate Change
| |
| | date= 2004-12-01
| |
| | url = http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/fuel_economy
| |
| | format = PDF
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-08-30 }}</ref> Furthermore, despite general opinion that larger and heavier (and therefore relatively fuel-uneconomical) vehicles are safer,<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = Wenzel, T.; Ross, M.
| |
| | title = Are SUVs Safer than Cars? An Analysis of Risk by Vehicle Type and Model
| |
| | version =
| |
| | publisher = [[Transportation Research Board]]
| |
| |year= 2003
| |
| |url = http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
| |
| |format = [[PDF]]
| |
| |accessdate = 2008-03-09}}</ref> the U.S. traffic fatality rate—and [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration#Regulatory comparison|its trend over time]]—is [[List of countries by traffic-related death rate|worse than]] that of other [[first world]] nations.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Evans
| |
| | first = Leonard
| |
| | authorlink = Leanard Evans
| |
| | title = Traffic Safety
| |
| | publisher = Science Serving Society
| |
| | year= 2004
| |
| | isbn = 0-9754871-0-8 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Effect on automotive fuel economy ==
| |
| [[File:CAFEStandard2.png|right|thumb|350px|Prices inflation adjusted to 2008 dollars.]]
| |
| | |
| In 2002, a committee of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] wrote a report on the effects of the CAFE standard.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/> The report's conclusions include a finding that in the absence of CAFE, and with no other fuel economy regulation substituted, motor vehicle fuel consumption would have been approximately 14 percent higher than it actually was in 2002. One cost of this increase in fuel economy is a possible increase in fatalities, estimated to be 1,300 to 2,600 increased fatalities in 1993,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076013&page=111 |title=Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards |publisher=Books.nap.edu |date=2001-07-01 |accessdate=2009-11-09}}</ref> albeit with certain of the committee members dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076013&page=117 |title=Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards |publisher=Books.nap.edu |date= |accessdate=2009-11-09}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| A plot of average overall vehicle fuel economy (CAFE) for new model year passenger cars, the required by law CAFE standard target fuel economy value (CAFE standard) for new model year passenger cars, and fuel prices, adjusted for inflation, shows that there has been little variation over the past 20 years. Within this period, there are three distinct periods of fuel economy change:
| |
| #from 1979-1982 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose dramatically and the price of fuel increased;
| |
| #from 1984-1986 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose and the price of fuel decreased rapidly;
| |
| #from 1986-1988 the fuel economy rose at a significantly subdued rate and eventually leveled off as the price of fuel fell and the CAFE standard was relaxed<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = Kara Kockelman
| |
| | title = To LDT or Not to LDT: An Assessment of the Principal Impacts of Light-Duty Trucks Light Truck Rule
| |
| | publisher = Transportation Research Board
| |
| | date= January 2000
| |
| | url = http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/LDTpaper_to_Transp.pdf
| |
| |format=PDF}}</ref>
| |
| before returning to 1986 levels in 1990. These are following by an extended period during which the passenger car CAFE standard, the observed average passenger car fuel economy, and the price of gasoline remained stable, and finally a period starting about 2003 when prices rose dramatically and fuel economy has slowly responded.
| |
| | |
| The law of supply and demand would predict that an increase in gasoline prices would lead in the long run to an increase in the average fuel economy of the U.S. passenger car fleet, and that a drop in gasoline prices would be associated with a reduction in the average fuel economy of the entire U.S. fleet.<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = Paul R. Portney, Ian W.H. Parry, Howard K. Gruenspecht, and Winston Harrington
| |
| | title = The Economics of Fuel Economy Standards
| |
| | publisher = Resources For The Future
| |
| | date= November 2003
| |
| | url = http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-44.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-03-12|format=PDF}}</ref> There is some evidence that this happened with an increase in market share of lower fuel economy light trucks and SUVs and decline in passenger car sales, as a percentage of total fleet sales, as car buying trends changed during the 1990s,<ref>{{cite web | title = CAFE (Fuel Efficiency) Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks | url = http://uspolitics.about.com/od/energy/i/cafe_standards.htm | accessdate = March 9, 2007 }}</ref> the impact of which is not reflected in this chart.
| |
| In the case of passenger cars, U.S. average fuel economy did not fall as economic theory would predict, suggesting that CAFE standards maintained the higher fuel economy of the passenger car fleet during the long period from the end of the [[1979 energy crisis]] to the rise of gasoline prices in the early 2000s. Most recently, fuel economy has increased about one mpg from 2006 to 2007. This increase is due primarily to increased fuel efficiency of imported cars.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | title = Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, March 2007
| |
| | month= March | year= 2007
| |
| | url = http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf102/480389_web.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-09-23
| |
| |format=PDF}}
| |
| </ref> Similarly, the law of supply and demand predicts that due to the United States' large percentage consumption of the world's oil supply, that increasing fuel economy would drive down the gasoline prices that U.S. consumers would otherwise have to pay. Reductions in petroleum demand in the United States helped create the collapse of OPEC market power in 1986.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/>
| |
| | |
| The "CAFE" and "CAFE standard" shown here only regards new model passenger car fuel economy and target fuel economy (respectively) rather than the overall U.S. fuel economy average which tends to be dominated by used vehicles manufactured in previous years, new model light truck CAFE standards, light truck CAFE averages, or aggregate data.<ref name="lighttruckrule">{{cite web | url=http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0 | title=Vehicles and Equipment | author = NHTSA | accessdate = June 6, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = NHTSA
| |
| | title = Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model Years 2008-2011
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/2006FinalRule.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-06-06|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070925233859/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated+Files/2006FinalRule.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-09-25}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Calculation ==
| |
| Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a [[harmonic mean]], not a simple [[arithmetic mean]] (average) <ref name="cafe-overview" /> – namely, the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocal values. For a fleet composed of four different kinds of vehicle A, B, C and D, produced in numbers n<sub>A</sub>, n<sub>B</sub>, n<sub>C</sub> and n<sub>D</sub>, with fuel economies f<sub>A</sub>, f<sub>B</sub>, f<sub>C</sub> and f<sub>D</sub>, the CAFE would be:
| |
| | |
| <div class="center"><math>\frac{n_A+n_B+n_C+n_D}{\frac{n_A}{f_A}+\frac{n_B}{f_B}+\frac{n_C}{f_C}+\frac{n_D}{f_D}}</math></div>
| |
| | |
| For example, a fleet of 4 vehicles getting 15, 13, 17, and 100 mpg has a CAFE of slightly less than 19 mpg:
| |
| | |
| <div class="center"><math>\frac{4}{\frac{1}{15}+\frac{1}{13}+\frac{1}{17}+\frac{1}{100}}=18.83</math></div>
| |
| | |
| While the arithmetic mean fuel economy of the fleet is just over 36 mpg:
| |
| | |
| <div class="center"><math>\frac{15+13+17+100}{4}=36.25</math></div>
| |
| | |
| The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car in the fleet for the same number of miles, while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car using the same amount of gas (i.e., the 13 mpg vehicle would travel {{convert|13|mi|km}} with one gallon while the 100 mpg vehicle would travel 100 miles).
| |
| | |
| For the purposes of CAFE, a manufacturer's car output is divided into a domestic fleet (vehicles with more than 75 percent U.S., [[Canada|Canadian]] or post-[[North American Free Trade Agreement|NAFTA]] [[Mexico|Mexican]] content) and a foreign fleet (everything else). Each of these fleets must separately meet the requirements. The two-fleet requirement was developed by the [[United Automobile Workers]] (UAW) as a means to ensure job creation in the United States. The UAW successfully [[lobbying|lobbied]] Congress to write this provision into the enabling legislation – and continues to advocate this position.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Alan Reuther | title= Testimony Before The U.S. House Of Representatives Committee On Energy And Commerce | date= May 3, 2006 | url= http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/05032006hearing1854/Reuther.pdf | accessdate = 2007-03-09|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070301090704/http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/05032006hearing1854/Reuther.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-03-01}}</ref> The two fleet rule for light trucks was removed in 1996.
| |
| | |
| For the fuel economy calculation for [[alternative fuel]] vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) <ref name="petroleum-equivalency">
| |
| {{cite journal
| |
| | author = U.S. Congress
| |
| | title = 49 USC 32905(a), (b), (c), (d)
| |
| | publisher = U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel
| |
| | date= June 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html#32905
| |
| }}</ref>
| |
| as an incentive to develop [[alternative fuel vehicle]]s.<ref name="conservation and scarcity">
| |
| {{cite journal
| |
| | author = U.S. Congress
| |
| | title = 49 USC 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii)
| |
| | date= June 2006
| |
| | publisher = U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html#32904
| |
| }}</ref> The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport">{{cite journal | author= Board On Energy and Environmental Systems | title = Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards (2002)| year= 2002 | publisher = The National Academies | url =
| |
| http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=9 | accessdate = 2007-03-09}}</ref> However, the total increase in a manufacturer's average fuel economy rating due to dual-fueled vehicles cannot exceed 1.2mpg.<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = U.S. Congress
| |
| | title = 49 USC 32906(a)(1)(A)
| |
| | date= June 2006
| |
| | publisher = U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html#32906
| |
| }}</ref> Section 32906 reduces the increase due to dual-fueled vehicles to 0 through 2020. Electric vehicles are also incentivized by the 0.15 fuel divisor, but are not subject to the 1.2 mpg cap like dual-fuel vehicles.
| |
| | |
| Manufacturers are also allowed to earn CAFE "credits" in any year they exceed CAFE requirements, which they may use to offset deficiencies in other years. CAFE credits can be applied to the three years before or the five years after the year in which they are earned <ref name="FederalRegister77-199">{{cite journal | author= EPA and NHTSA | title = 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards - Final Rule | year= 2012 | publisher = Federal Register | url =
| |
| http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf | accessdate = 2014-01-30}}</ref>. The reason for this flexibility is so manufacturers are penalized only for persistent failure to meet the requirements, not for transient non-compliance due to market conditions.
| |
| | |
| == History ==
| |
| Fuel economy regulations were first introduced in 1978, only for passenger vehicles. The next year, a second category was defined for light trucks. These were distinguished from heavy duty vehicles by a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6000 pounds or less. The GVWR threshold was raised to 8500 pounds in 1980 and has remained at that level through 2010. Thus certain large trucks and SUV's were exempt, such as the [[Hummer]] and the [[Ford Excursion]]. From 1979-1991, separate standards were established for [[two-wheel drive]] (2WD) and [[four-wheel drive]] (4WD) light trucks, but for most of this period, car makers were allowed to choose between these separate standards or a combined standard to be applied to the entire fleet of light trucks they sold that model year. In 1980 and 1981, respectively, a manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in passenger cars could meet standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg. After 2010, new rules set varying targets based on truck size "footprint".{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}
| |
| | |
| ===Standards by model year, 1978-2011===
| |
| {| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
| |
| |+'''CAFE standards for each model year in miles per gallon.'''<ref name="nhtsa_afep">{{cite web|title = Summary of Fuel Economy Performance| author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration| url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report.pdf}}</ref>
| |
| | style="width:50px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" rowspan="2"|'''Model Year'''
| |
| | style="width:50px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" rowspan="2"|'''Passenger Cars'''
| |
| | style="width:150px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" colspan="3"|'''Light Trucks'''
| |
| |- style="background:#f0f0f0;"
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|2WD
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|4WD
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|Combined
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1978||18.0||||||
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1979||19.0||17.2||15.8||
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1980||20.0||16.0||14.0||
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1981||22.0||16.7||15.0||
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1982||24.0||18.0||16.0||17.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1983||26.0||19.5||17.5||19.0
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1984||27.0||20.3||18.5||20.0
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1985||27.5||19.7||18.9||19.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1986||26.0||20.5||19.5||20.0
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1987||26.0||21.0||19.5||20.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1988||26.0||21.0||19.5||20.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1989||26.5||21.5||19.0||20.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1990||27.5||20.5||19.0||20.0
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1991||27.5||20.7||19.1||20.2
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1992||27.5||||||20.2
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1993||27.5||||||20.4
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1994||27.5||||||20.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1995||27.5||||||20.6
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1996||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1997||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1998||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1999||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2000||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2001||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2002||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2003||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2004||27.5||||||20.7
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2005||27.5||||||21.0
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2006||27.5||||||21.6
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2007||27.5||||||22.2
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2008||27.5||||||22.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2009||27.5||||||23.1
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2010||27.5||||||23.5
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2011||30.2||||||24.1
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| ===Performance in practice===
| |
| [[Image:TargetMPG.jpg|right|thumb|450px|NHTSA data as from 20 June 2007]]
| |
| Since 1980, the traditional Japanese manufacturers have increased their combined fleet average fuel economy by 1.6 miles per gallon according to the March 30, 2009 Summary of Fuel Economy Performance published annually by NHTSA. During this time, they also increased their sales in the United States by 221%. The traditional European manufacturers actually decreased their fleet average fuel economy by 2 miles per gallon while increasing their sales volume by 91%. The traditional U.S. manufacturers, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors, increased their fleet average fuel economy by 4.1 miles per gallon since 1980 according to the latest government figures. During this time the sales of U.S. manufacturers decreased by 29%.
| |
| | |
| A number of manufacturers choose to pay CAFE penalties rather than attempt to comply with the regulations. As of [[model year]] 2010, [[Jaguar]] ([[Land Rover]]), [[Porsche]], [[Mercedes-Benz|Mercedes]], [[Fiat]] and [[Volvo]] failed to meet CAFE requirements. These fines totaled 24 million dollars for the year.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | title = Summary of CAFE Fines Collected
| |
| | work =
| |
| | publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | date = January 11, 2012
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_Fines-Jan2012.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2012-06-30|format=PDF}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| For the 2011 model year, Spyker followed by GM light trucks had the lowest fleet average while Tesla followed by Honda had the highest.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/March_2012_Performance_Summary.pdf |title=Summary of Fuel Economy Performance; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) | U.S. Department of Transportation |publisher=Nhtsa.dot.gov |date= |accessdate=2012-06-30}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Before the oil price increases of the 2000s, overall fuel economy for both cars and light trucks in the U.S. market reached its highest level in 1987, when manufacturers managed 26.2 mpg (8.98 L/100 km). The average in 2004 was 24.6 mpg.<ref name="nhtsa_afep"/> In that time, vehicles increased in size from an average of 3,220 pounds to 4,066 pounds (1,461 kg to 1,844 kg), in part due to an increase in truck ownership from 28% to 53%.
| |
| | |
| ===2006 reform attempt and lawsuit===
| |
| The CAFE rules for trucks were officially amended at the end of March 2006. However, the 9th [[Circuit Court of Appeals]] has [[wikt:overturned|overturned]] the rules, returning them to NHTSA, stating that the rules must be made stricter. These changes would have segmented truck fleets by vehicle size and class as of 2011. All SUVs and passenger vans up to 10,000 pounds [[GVWR]]<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | title = Average Fuel Economy Standards For Light Trucks, Model Year 2008-2011, Final Rule (Light Truck Rule).
| |
| | publisher = U.S. Department of Transportation
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/2006FinalRule.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-03-09
| |
| |format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060923215825/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated+Files/2006FinalRule.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-09-23}}</ref> would have had to comply with CAFE standards regardless of size, but [[pickup truck]]s and [[cargo]] [[van]]s over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) would have remained exempt.
| |
| | |
| Under the new final light truck CAFE standard 2008-2011, fuel economy standards would have been restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint", the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy would have been established for each increment in footprint using a continuous mathematical formula. Smaller footprint light trucks had higher fuel economy targets and larger trucks lower targets. Manufacturers who made more large trucks would have been allowed to meet a lower overall CAFE target, manufacturers who make more small trucks would have needed to meet a higher standard. Unlike previous CAFE standards there was no requirement for a manufacturer or the industry as a whole to meet any particular overall actual MPG target, since that will depend on the mix of sizes of trucks manufactured and ultimately purchased by consumers. Some critics pointed out that this might have had the [[unintended consequence]] of pushing manufacturers to make ever-larger vehicles to avoid strict economy standards.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/FREE/60403023/1024/LATESTNEWS|title=Compliance Question: Will automakers build bigger trucks to get around new CAFE regulations?|work=[[AutoWeek]]|accessdate=April 7, 2006 }}</ref> However, the equation used to calculate the fuel economy target had a built in mechanism that provides an incentive to reduce vehicle size to about 52 square feet (the approximate midpoint of the current light truck fleet.)
| |
| | |
| The [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] found these new Light Truck rules to be arbitrary and capricious; contrary to the [[Energy Policy and Conservation Act]]; incorrectly set a value of zero dollars to the global warming damage caused by truck emissions; failed to set a "backstop" to prevent trucks from emitting more CO<sub>2</sub> than in previous years; failed to set standards for vehicles in the 8,500 to {{convert|10000|lb|abbr=on}} range; that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate, and that the rules may have had significant negative impact on the environment. The court directed NHTSA to prepare a new standard as quickly as possible and to fully evaluate that new standard's impact on the environment.<ref name="ninthcourt">{{cite court
| |
| |litigants=Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| |court=United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
| |
| |date=November 15, 2007
| |
| |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/11/14/0671891.pdf }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007===
| |
| On December 19, 2007, President [[George W. Bush]] rendered the court judgment obsolete by signing the [[Energy Independence and Security Act]], which set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel.<ref name="EISA">{{cite web| title = Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act| url= http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html}}</ref> This is the first legislative change to the CAFE standard since it was created in 1975.{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}} The requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." President Bush faced serious pressure to reduce the Nation's dependency on oil and this was part of his initiative to do so.
| |
| | |
| ==== Increases and light truck standard reform ====
| |
| In 2006 the rule making for light trucks for model years 2008–2011 included a reform to the structure for CAFE standards for light trucks and gave manufacturers the option for model years 2008-2010 to comply with the reformed standard or to comply with the unreformed standard. The reformed standard was based on the vehicle footprint.<ref name="CAFE-overview">{{cite web|title= CAFE overview| publisher= NHTSA| url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/}}</ref> The unreformed standard for 2008 was set to be 22.5mpg.
| |
| | |
| To achieve the target of 35mpg authorized under EISA for the combined fleet of passenger cars and light truck for MY2020, NHTSA is required to continue raising the CAFE standards. In determining a new CAFE standard, NHTSA must assess the environmental impacts of each new standard and the effect of this standard on employment. With the EISA, NHTSA needed to take new analysis including taking a fresh look at the potential impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and assessing whether or not the impacts are significant within the meaning of NEPA.
| |
| | |
| NHTSA has to issue its new standards eighteen months before the model year for fleet. According to NHTSA report, in order to achieve this industry wide combined fleet of at least 35mpg, NHTSA must set new standards well in advance of the model year so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with lead time enough to make extensive necessary changes in their automobiles. The EISA also called for a reform where the standards set by the Transportation Department would be are “attribute based” so as to ensure that the safety of vehicles is not compromised for higher standards.
| |
| | |
| ==== CAFE credit trading provisions ====
| |
| The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act also instructed NHTSA to establish a credit trading and transferring scheme to allow manufacturers to transfer credits between categories, as well as sell them to other manufacturers or non-manufacturers. In addition, the period over which credits could be carried forward was extended from three years to five. Traded or transferred credits may not be used to meet the minimum standard in the domestic passenger car fleet, however they may be used to meet the "attribute standard".<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | title = Summary of Fuel Economy Performance
| |
| | work =
| |
| | publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | date = March 30, 2009
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011. | accessdate = 2009-010-23|format=PDF}}</ref> This latter allowance has drawn criticism from the UAW which fears it will lead manufacturers to increase the importation of small cars to offset shortfalls in the domestic market.
| |
| | |
| These new flexibilities were implemented by regulation on March 23, 2009 in the Final Rule for 2011 Model Year Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.
| |
| | |
| Calculations using official CAFE data, and the newly proposed credit trading flexibility contained in the September 28, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking<ref>{{cite web | title = Proposed Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards | work = | publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | date = September 28, 2009 | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated Files/nprm2012-16.pdf | accessdate = 2009-010-08|format=PDF}}</ref> show that ninety-eight percent of the benefit derived from just the cross fleet credit trading provision flows to Toyota. According to these calculations 75% of the benefit from the two new CAFE credit trading provisions, cross fleet trading and 5-year carry-forward, falls to foreign manufacturers. Toyota can use the provision to avoid or reduce compliance on average by 0.69 mpg per year through 2020,
| |
| * Hyundai (1.01 mpg),
| |
| * Nissan (0.65),
| |
| * Honda (0.83 mpg),
| |
| * Mitsubishi (0.13 mpg),
| |
| * Subaru (0.08),
| |
| * Chrysler (0.14 mpg),
| |
| * GM (0.09 mpg), and
| |
| * Ford (0.18 mpg) also benefit.
| |
| | |
| The estimated value of the CAFE exemption gained by Toyota is $2.5 billion; Honda’s benefit is worth $0.8 billion, and Nissan’s benefit is valued at $0.9 billion in reduced CAFE compliance costs. Foreign companies gained $5.5 billion in benefits compared with the $1.8 billion that went to the Detroit Three.
| |
| | |
| ====Out-year and alternative fuel standard changes====
| |
| | |
| In the years 2021 to 2030 the standards requires MPG to be the "maximum feasible" fuel economy. The law allows NHTSA to issue additional requirements for cars and trucks based on the "footprint" model or other mathematical standard. Additionally each manufacturer must meet a minimum standard of the higher of either 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles or 92% of the projected average for all manufacturers. [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]] (NHTSA) is directed based on [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] studies to set medium and heavy-duty truck MPG standards to the "maximum feasible". Additionally the law phases out the mpg credit previously granted to [[E85]] [[flexible-fuel vehicle]] manufacturers and adds in one for [[biodiesel]], and it adds a requirement that NHTSA publish replacement tire fuel efficiency ratings. The bill also adds support for initial state and local infrastructure for [[plug-in electric vehicle]]s.
| |
| | |
| ==== Implementating regulations ====
| |
| | |
| On April 22, 2008 NHTSA responded to the [[Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007]] with proposed new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks effective model year 2011.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | title = Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, MY 2011-2015
| |
| | date = 2008-04-22
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-05-26}}
| |
| </ref> The new rules also introduce the "footprint" model for cars as well as trucks, where if a manufacturer makes more large cars and trucks they will be allowed to meet a lower standard for fuel economy. This means that an overall fuel efficiency for a particular manufacturer nor the fleet as a whole cannot be predicted with certainty since it will depend on the actual product mix manufactured. However, if the product mix is as NHTSA predicts, car fuel economy would increase from a current standard of {{convert|27.5|mpgus|abbr=on}} to {{convert|31.0|mpgus|abbr=on}} in 2011. The new regulations are designed to be "optimized" with respect to a certain set of assumptions which include: gas prices in 2016 will be $2.25 a U.S. gallon (59.4¢/L), all new car purchasers will pay 7% interest rates on their vehicles purchases, and only care about fuel costs for the first 5 years of a vehicle's life, and that the value of global warming is $7 per ton{{vague|which tons?|date=February 2010}} CO<sub>2</sub>. This corresponds to a [[global warming]] value of $4.31 savings a year per car under the new regulations. Further, the new regulations assume that no advanced [[hybrid electric vehicle|hybrids]] ([[Toyota Prius]]), [[plug-in hybrid]]s and [[Range-extended vehicle|extended range electric vehicles]] ([[Chevrolet Volt]]), [[electric car]]s ([[Th!nk City]]), nor alternative fuel vehicles ([[Honda Civic GX]]) will be used to achieve these fuel economies. The new rules also propose again that [[California]] (and the other states following California's lead) be stripped of their historic right to set their own more stringent automotive air pollution standards.
| |
| | |
| === 2009 Obama Administration directive ===
| |
| On January 27, 2009, President Barack Obama directed the Department of Transportation to review relevant legal, technological, and scientific considerations associated with establishing more stringent fuel economy standards, and to finalize the 2011 model year standard by the end of March. This single-model year standard was issued March 27, 2009, and is about one mpg lower than the fuel economy standards previously recommended under the Bush Administration. "These standards are important steps in the nation's quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families", said Secretary LaHood. The new standards will raise the industry-wide combined average to {{convert|27.3|mpgus}} (a {{convert|2.0|mpgus|mpgimp|abbr=on|adj=on}} increase over the 2010 model year average), as estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It will save about {{convert|887000000|U.S.gal|L}} of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons. This 2011 single-year standard will use an attribute-based system, which sets fuel economy standards for individual vehicle models, based on the "footprint" model. Secretary LaHood also noted that work on the multi-year fuel economy plan for model years after 2011 is already well underway. The review will include an evaluation of fuel-saving technologies, market conditions and future product plans from the manufacturers. The effort will be coordinated with interested stakeholders and other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | title = Fuel Economy
| |
| | publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
| |
| | date = March 27, 2009
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0
| |
| | accessdate = April 14, 2009}}
| |
| </ref> The new rules were immediately challenged in court again by the Center for Biological Diversity as not addressing the inadequacies found by the previous court rulings.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | title = Lawsuit Challenges Obama Fuel Economy Standards
| |
| | publisher = Center for Biological Diversity
| |
| | date = April 2, 2009
| |
| | url = http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/cafe-standards-04-02-2009.html
| |
| | accessdate = April 14, 2009}}
| |
| </ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Future standards==
| |
| {{update|section=Future standars|date=July 2012}}
| |
| | |
| ===MY 2012-2016 Obama Administration proposal===
| |
| On May 19, 2009, President [[Barack Obama]] proposed a new national fuel economy program which adopts uniform federal standards to regulate both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while preserving the legal authorities of DOT, EPA and California. The program covers model year 2012 to model year 2016 and ultimately requires an average fuel economy standard of {{convert|35.5|mpgus }} in 2016 (of 39 miles per gallon for cars and 30 mpg for trucks), a jump from the current average for all vehicles of 25 miles per gallon. Obama said, "The [[status quo]] is no longer acceptable."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22650.html |title=Obama announces new fuel standards - Mike Allen and Eamon Javers |publisher=Politico.Com |date= |accessdate=2009-11-09}}</ref> The result is a projected reduction in oil consumption of approximately {{convert|1.8|Goilbbl|m3}} over the life of the program and a projected total reduction in [[greenhouse gas]] emissions of approximately 900 million [[metric ton]]s; the expected consumer costs in terms of higher car prices is unknown. Ten car companies and the [[UAW]] embraced the national program because it provides certainty and predictability to 2016 and includes flexibilities that will significantly reduce the cost of compliance. Stated goals for the program included: saving consumers money over the long term in increased fuel efficiency, preserving consumer choice—the new rules do not dictate the size of cars, trucks and SUVs that manufacturers can produce; rather it requires that all sizes of vehicles become more energy efficient, reduced air pollution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other conventional pollutants, one national policy for all automakers, instead of three standards (a DOT standard, an EPA standard and a California standard that would apply to 13 other states), and industry desires: clarity, predictability and certainty concerning the rules while giving them flexibility on how to meet the expected outcomes and the lead time they need to innovate. The new policy will result in yearly 5% increases in efficiency from 2012 through 2016, {{convert|1.8|Goilbbl|m3}} of oil saved cumulatively over the lifetime of the program and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 177 million of today's cars off the road.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = Office of the Press Secretary
| |
| | title = Obama Administration National Fuel Efficiency Policy: Good For Consumers, Good For The Economy And Good For The Country
| |
| | publisher = The White House
| |
| | date = May 19, 2009
| |
| | url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-and-Particpants-at-Todays-Rose-Garden-Event
| |
| | accessdate = May 19, 2009}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===2011 agreement===
| |
| | |
| On July 29, 2011, President Obama announced an agreement with thirteen large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by [[model year]] 2025. He was joined by Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo—which together account for over 90% of all vehicles sold in the United States—as well as the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the State of California, who were all participants in the deal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/President+Obama+Announces+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standard |title=President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard |publisher=nhtsa.gov |date= |accessdate=2011-08-09}}</ref> The agreement will result in new CAFE regulations for model year 2017-2025 vehicles which were finalized on August 28, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|title=20117-2025 CAFE GHG Supplemental rules|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Obama+Administration+Finalizes+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standards|publisher=NHTSA|accessdate=28 August 2012}}</ref> The major increases in stringency and the changes in the structure of CAFE create a need for research that incorporates the demand and supply sides of the new vehicle market in a more detailed manner than was needed with static fuel economy standards.<ref>[http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2011/wp2011_01.pdf Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, ''Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and the Market for New Vehicles'', 2011]</ref>
| |
| | |
| Volkswagen responded to the July 29, 2011 agreement with the following statement:
| |
| "Volkswagen does not endorse the proposal under discussion. It places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks. Passenger cars would be required to achieve 5% annual improvements, and light trucks 3.5% annual improvements. The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains.
| |
| The proposal encourages manufacturers and customers to shift toward larger, less efficient vehicles, defeating the goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/newsroom/2011/07/29_vwag_proposed_cafe_standards.htm |title=STATEMENT BY TONY CERVONE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA REGARDING PROPOSED CAFE STANDARDS |publisher=volkswagengroupamerica.com |date= |accessdate=2011-08-10}}</ref>
| |
| Additionally, Volkswagen has since approached U.S. law makers about lowering their proposal to double fuel efficiency for passenger cars by 2025. Volkswagen has cited that the new plan is unfair to makers of clean diesel engines. As a result, Volkswagen is one of the only major auto manufacturers to not sign the agreement that has led to the current proposal from the Obama administration.<ref>{{cite web|last=Mihalascu|first=Dan|title=VW attacks proposed CAFE standards, goes to White House|url=http://www.inautonews.com/vw-attacks-proposed-cafe-standards-goes-to-white-house#.ULQP8aO1w1I|publisher=www.inautonews.com|accessdate=2012-11-26}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ====Agreed standards by model year, 2011-2025====
| |
| {| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"
| |
| |+'''2011-2025 CAFE standards for each model year in miles per gallon.'''<ref>{{cite web|title = 2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards: Supplemental| author=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration|
| |
| url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2025_CAFE-GHG_Supplemental_NOI07292011.pdf}}</ref>
| |
| | style="width:50px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" rowspan="3"|'''Model Year'''
| |
| | style="width:50px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" colspan="4"|'''Passenger Cars'''
| |
| | style="width:150px; text-align:center; background:#f0f0f0;" colspan="4"|'''Light Trucks'''
| |
| |- style="background:#f0f0f0;"
| |
| | style="width:100px; colspan="2"|"footprint": {{convert|41|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} or smaller (e.g. 2011 Honda Fit)
| |
| | style="width:100px; colspan="2"|"footprint": {{convert|55|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} or bigger (e.g. Mercedes-Benz S-Class)
| |
| | style="width:100px; colspan="2"|"footprint": {{convert|41|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} or smaller (e.g. Chevy s10)
| |
| | style="width:100px; colspan="2"|"footprint": {{convert|75|sqft|m2|abbr=on}} or bigger (e.g. Ford F-150)
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|CAFE
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|EPA Window Sticker
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|CAFE
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|EPA Window Sticker
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|CAFE
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|EPA Window Sticker
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|CAFE
| |
| | style="width:50px; "|EPA Window Sticker
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2012||36||27 ||28||21 ||30||23 ||22||17
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2013||37||28 ||28.5||22 ||31||24 ||22.5||17
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2014||38||28 ||29||22 ||32||24 ||23||18
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2015||39||29 ||30||23 ||33||25 ||23.5||18
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2016||41||31 ||31||24 ||34||26 ||24.5||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2017||44||33 ||33||25 ||36||27 ||25||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2018||45||34 ||34||26 ||37||28 ||25||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2019||47||35 ||35||26 ||38||28 ||25||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2020||49||36 ||36||27 ||39||29 ||25||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2021||51||37 ||38||28 ||42||31 ||25||19
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2022||53||38 ||40||30 ||44||33 ||26||20
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2023||56||40 ||42||31 ||46||34 ||27||21
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2024||58||41 ||44||33 ||48||36 ||28.5||22
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2025||61||43 ||46||34 ||50||37 ||30||23
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| == Active debate ==
| |
| CAFE does not directly offer incentives for customers to choose fuel efficient vehicles, nor does it directly affect fuel prices. Rather, it attempts to accomplish these goals indirectly by making it more expensive for automakers to build inefficient vehicles by introducing penalties.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/>
| |
| The conservative [[Heartland Institute]] contends that CAFE standards do not work economically to consumers' benefit, that smaller cars are more likely to be damaged in a collision, and that [[insurance]] premiums for them are higher than for many larger cars.<ref name="environews"/> However, the Insurance Companies' Highway Loss Data Institute publishes data showing that larger vehicles are more expensive to insure.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | author = Highway Loss Data Institute
| |
| | title = Auto Insurance Loss Facts
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi_facts/comprehensive_coverage.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = June 26, 2007 |format=PDF}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| CAFE advocates assert most of the gains in fuel economy over the past 30 years can be attributed to the standard itself,<ref>{{cite web | title = Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy | url = http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/questions-and-answers-on-fuel-economy.html| accessdate = March 12, 2007 }}</ref> while opponents assert economic forces are responsible for fuel economy gains, where higher fuel prices drove customers to seek more fuel efficient vehicles.<ref>{{cite web | title = One Third of Consumers Looking at More Fuel-Efficient Cars | url = http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/cr_gas_prices.html | accessdate = 2007-03-12}}</ref> CAFE standards have come under attack by some [[conservatism|conservative]] [[think tanks]], along with safety experts, car and truck manufacturers, some consumer and environment groups, and [[organized labor]].<ref name="environews">{{cite web|url=http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9732|title=Congress debates CAFE moratorium again|work=Environment News|accessdate=June 22, 2007 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Effect on traffic safety ===
| |
| Historically, NHTSA has expressed concerns that automotive manufacturers will increase mileage by reducing vehicle weight, which might lead to weight disparities in the vehicle population and increased danger for occupants of lighter vehicles. However, vehicle safety ratings are now made available to consumers by NHTSA<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = NHTSA
| |
| | title = Five-Star Crash Test and Rollover Ratings
| |
| | url = http://www.safercar.gov
| |
| | accessdate = September 2007 }}</ref> and by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
| |
| | title = Vehicle Ratings
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
| |
| | accessdate = September 2007 }}</ref> A [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/> A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to "2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year.<ref name="natlreview">{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-adelman011702.shtml|title= Road Regs|work=[[National Review]]|accessdate=June 22, 2007 }}</ref> The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG.<ref name="IIHS"/> Proponents of higher CAFE standards argue that it is the "Footprint" model of CAFE for trucks that encourages production of larger trucks with concomitant increases in vehicle weight disparities, and point out that some small cars such as the [[Mini Cooper]] and [[Toyota Matrix]] are four times safer than SUVs like the [[Chevrolet S-10 Blazer]].<ref name="IIHS">{{Cite journal
| |
| | last = Insurance Institute of Highway Safety
| |
| | title = Driver Deaths By Make and Model
| |
| | journal = Status Report
| |
| | volume = 42
| |
| | issue = 4
| |
| | pages = 1–8
| |
| | date= April 19, 2007
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> They argue that the quality of the engineering design is the prime determinant of vehicular safety, not the vehicle's mass. In 2006, IIHS found that some of the smallest cars have good crash safety, while others do not, depending upon the engineering design.<ref>{{Cite journal
| |
| | author = Insurance Institute of Highway Safety
| |
| | title = Minicars First Test Results
| |
| | journal = Status Report
| |
| | volume = 41
| |
| | issue = 10
| |
| | pages = 1–8
| |
| | date= December 19, 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4110.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref> In a 2007 analysis, IIHS found that 50 percent of fatalities in small four-door vehicles were single vehicle crashes, compared to 83 percent in very large SUVs. The Mini Cooper had a fatality rate of 68 per million vehicle-years compared to 115 for the Ford Excursion. The analysis' conclusions include findings that death rates generally are higher in lighter vehicles, but cars almost always have lower death rates than SUVs or pickup trucks of comparable weight.<ref name="IIHS"/> A 2005 IIHS plot shows that in collisions between SUVs weighing {{convert|3500|lb|abbr=on}} and cars, the car driver is more than 4X more likely to be killed, and if the SUV weighs over {{convert|5000|lb|abbr=on}} the car driver is 9 times more likely to be killed, with 16 percent of deaths occurring in car-to-car crashes and 18 percent in car-to-truck crashes.<ref>{{Cite journal
| |
| | author = Insurance Institute of Highway Safety
| |
| | title = In Collisions with Cars, SUVs are Incompatible
| |
| | journal = Status Report
| |
| | volume = 42
| |
| | issue = 4
| |
| | pages = 1–8
| |
| | date= April 28, 2005
| |
| | url = http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4005.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref> Recent studies find about 75 percent of two-vehicle fatalities involve a truck, and about half these fatalities involve a side-impact crash. Risk to the driver of the other vehicle is almost 10 times higher when the vehicle is a one [[ton]] pickup compared to an imported car. And a 2003 [[Transportation Research Board]] study show greater safety disparities among vehicles of differing price, country of origin, and quality than among vehicles of different size and weight.<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | author = Wenzel, Tom & Ross, Marc
| |
| | title = Are SUVs Safer than Cars? An Analysis of Risk by Vehicle Type and Model
| |
| | publisher = pp. 17-21. Transportation Research Board
| |
| | date= 2003-01-15
| |
| | url = http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
| |
| | format = PDF
| |
| | accessdate = 2007-10-04}}</ref> These more recent studies tend to discount the importance of vehicle mass to traffic safety, pointing instead to the quality of engineering design as the primary factor.<ref name="LBNL">{{cite web
| |
| | last = Wenzel
| |
| | first = Tom
| |
| | last2 = Ross
| |
| | first2 = Marc
| |
| | title = Increasing the Fuel Economy and Safety of New Light-Duty Vehicles
| |
| | publisher = Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
| |
| | date= September 18, 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.theicct.org/documents/LBNL_FE&Safety_2006.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = June 20, 2007 |format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070925233856/http://www.theicct.org/documents/LBNL_FE&Safety_2006.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = September 25, 2007}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Increased oil and automobile usage ===
| |
| {{main|Jevons paradox}}
| |
| As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more, which can mitigate some of the gains in carbon dioxide emissions from the higher standards. According to the National Academies Report (Page 19)<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/> a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency leads to an average increase in travel distance of 1-2%. This phenomenon is referred to as the "rebound effect". The report stated (page 20) that the fuel efficiency improvements of light-duty vehicles have reduced the overall U.S. emissions of CO2 by 7%.
| |
| | |
| It is also possible that because higher-efficiency vehicles are more expensive, auto buyers may choose to keep their older cars (some of which are less efficient) for longer before making a new purchase.<ref name="environews"/>
| |
| | |
| However, associated costs, such as increased deaths, may be more than offset by savings on a global scale, because increased CAFE standards reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable sources of imported petroleum<ref>{{cite web | author = Ronald R. Cooke | title = Oil Shortages? It's Happened Before and It Will Happen Again | publisher = EnergyPulse |date=September 28, 2006 | url = http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1341 | accessdate = 2007-03-09}}</ref> and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of [[carbon dioxide]].
| |
| | |
| === Economic arguments ===
| |
| In the May 6, 2007 edition of ''Autoline Detroit'', [[Bob Lutz (businessman)|Bob Lutz]], an automobile designer/executive of [[BMW]] and [[Big Three (automobile manufacturers)|Big Three]] fame, asserted that the CAFE standard was a failure and said it was like trying to fight [[obesity]] by requiring tailors to make only small-sized clothes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/media/autoline/1118.wmv|title=Autoline Detroit|accessdate=May 6, 2007 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Proponents state that automobile-purchasing decisions that may have global effects should not be left entirely up to individuals operating in a free market.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/>
| |
| | |
| Automakers have said that small, fuel-efficient vehicles cost the auto industry billions of dollars. They cost almost as much to design and market but cannot be sold for as much as larger vehicles such as SUVs, because consumers expect small cars to be inexpensive.<ref name="usatoday">{{Cite book
| |
| | author = James R. Healey
| |
| | title = Death By the Gallon
| |
| | publisher = USA Today
| |
| | date= July 2, 1999
| |
| | url = http://www.stretching-it.com/bromleyisms/2006/entries_autos/Deathbythegallon_USAToday.htm}}</ref> In 1999 ''USA Today'' reported small cars tend to [[depreciation|depreciate]] faster than larger cars, so they are worth less in value to the consumer over time.<ref name="usatoday"/> However, 2007 Edmunds depreciation data show that some small cars, primarily premium models, are among the best in holding their value.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | author = Edmunds
| |
| | title = Depreciation Ratings
| |
| | url = http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/alg/index.html
| |
| | accessdate = June 26, 2007 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Technological considerations===
| |
| {{update|date=December 2011}}
| |
| There are a large number of technologies that manufacturers can apply to improve fuel efficiency short of implementing [[hybrid electric vehicle|hybrid]] or [[plug-in hybrid]] technologies. Applied aggressively, at a cost of several thousand dollars per vehicle, the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] estimates that these technologies can almost double MPG.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = Union of Concerned Scientists
| |
| | title = Protecting families from global warming using today's technologies and fuels
| |
| | url = http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/gasoline_and_diesel/ucs-vanguard-2009.html
| |
| | accessdate = June 20, 2007 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Some technologies, such as four valves per cylinder, are already widely applied in cars, but not trucks. Manufacturers dispute how effective these technologies are, their [[retail price]], and how willing customers are to pay for these improvements. [[Payback period|Payback]] on these improvements is highly dependent on [[fuel price]]s.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = Greene
| |
| | first = David
| |
| | title = The President’s State of the Union Fuel Economy Plan: How I know it will work
| |
| | publisher = Oak Ridge National Laboratory
| |
| | date= April 19, 2007
| |
| | url = http://www.sais-jhu.edu/centers/fpi/ieep/pdf/Greene.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = August 4, 2008 |format=PDF}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Automaker viewpoints and consumer preferences ===
| |
| Historically, automakers and some conservative groups have believed consumers do not prioritize fuel economy. In 2003, [[Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers]] spokesman Eron Shosteck asserted automakers produce more than 30 models rated at 30 mpg or more for the U.S. market, and they are poor sellers.<ref>{{cite news
| |
| | last = Lowy
| |
| | first = Joan
| |
| | title = Stations reject TV ads that connect SUVs to terrorism
| |
| | publisher = Seattle Post-Intelligencer
| |
| | date = 2003-01-08
| |
| | url = http://www.seattlepi.com/national/103150_suv08.shtml
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03 }}
| |
| </ref> In 2004, GM retiree Charles Amann said statistically, consumers do not pick the weak-performing vehicle when given a choice of engines.<ref>{{cite web | author = John DeGaspari | title= Retooling Cafe | publisher = Mechanical Engineering Magazine |date=April 4, 2004 | url=http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/april04/features/recafe/recafe.html | accessdate = March 9, 2007 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> However, after a spike in gas prices, a 2006 [[Consumer Reports]] survey concluded fuel economy is the most important consideration in consumers' choice of vehicle<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | title = Fuel Economy is the Best Incentive
| |
| | journal = Consumer Reports
| |
| | month = August | year = 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/fuel-economy-is-the-best-car-incentive-8-06/overview/0608_fuel-economy-is-the-best-car-incentive_ov.htm
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080226032754/http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/fuel-economy-is-the-best-car-incentive-8-06/overview/0608_fuel-economy-is-the-best-car-incentive_ov.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2008-02-26}}
| |
| </ref> and a 2007 [[Pew Charitable Trusts]] survey found that nine out of ten Americans favor tougher CAFE standards, including 91% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = The Mellman Group, Inc.
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | coauthors =
| |
| | title = Voters Believe Passing Increased Fuel Efficiency Standards Is The Most Important Accomplishment This Congress Could Enact
| |
| | work =
| |
| | publisher = The Pew Charitable Trusts
| |
| | date = October 26, 2007
| |
| | url = http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/pdf/mellman-survey.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03|format=PDF}}
| |
| </ref> In 2007, the 55 mpg Toyota Prius outsold the top-selling SUV, the 17 mpg Ford Explorer.<ref>{{cite news
| |
| | last = Simon
| |
| | first = Bernard
| |
| | title = Toyota Prius Sales Pass Ford Explorer in U.S.
| |
| | publisher = Financial Times
| |
| | date = 2003-01-08
| |
| | url = http://www.ft.com/cms/s/92d94ba6-24e4-11d8-81c6-08209b00dd01,id=080110000705,print=yes.html
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03 }}</ref><ref>
| |
| {{cite web
| |
| | last = Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
| |
| | title = Fuel Economy Guide Model Year 2007
| |
| | publisher = U.S. Department of Energy
| |
| | url = http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03|format=PDF}}
| |
| </ref> In late 2007, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz called hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles the "ideal solution".<ref>{{cite news
| |
| | last = Berman
| |
| | first = Bradley
| |
| | title = Bob Lutz, the Chevy Volt and the Easter Bunny
| |
| | work = BusinessWeek
| |
| | date = November 19, 2007
| |
| | url = http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071116_842776.htm
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03}}</ref> In 2008, GM advertised fuel economy improvements and their upcoming [[Chevrolet Volt]] Extended Range Electric Vehicle,<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last =
| |
| | first =
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | coauthors =
| |
| | title = Gas-friendly to Gas-Free
| |
| | publisher = General Motors
| |
| | date =
| |
| | url = http://www.gm.com/explore/fuel_economy/
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | accessdate = }}</ref><ref>{{cite video
| |
| | title = The Chevy Volt
| |
| | medium = Web Video
| |
| | publisher = YouTube
| |
| | url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_J2Jx51XZs
| |
| | date = September 12, 2007 }}</ref> and developed corporate branding for their fuel economy technologies, and though GM Chairman Rick Wagoner admitted not knowing which fuel efficiency technologies consumers really want, he said "we are moving fast with technologies like E‑85 (ethanol), all-electric, fuel cells, and a wide range of hybrid offers".<ref>{{cite video
| |
| | last = Kelly
| |
| | first = Matt
| |
| | people = Rick Wagoner
| |
| | title = GM’s Chairman Rick Wagoner Meets with Bloggers at NAIAS
| |
| | medium = Web Video
| |
| | publisher = NextGear
| |
| | location = North American International Auto Show Detroit
| |
| | url = http://www.nextgearshow.com/1854/gms-chairman-rick-wagner-meets-with-bloggers-at-naias
| |
| | date = 2008-01-18 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| |
| | last = Terlep
| |
| | first = Sharon
| |
| | title = GM says 2010 no sure thing for Volt
| |
| | work = The Detroit News
| |
| | date = 2008-01-04
| |
| | url = http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/AUTO01/801040361/1148
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
| |
| </ref>
| |
| | |
| In 1999 automakers{{Who|date=November 2008}} asserted they couldn't lobby for the repeal of CAFE standards, because consumers would learn small cars are unsafe and not buy them, or would try to sue the manufacturers.<ref name="usatoday"/> However, NHTSA's public record shows the automakers publicly express opposition to CAFE increases.<ref name="lighttruckrule"/>
| |
| | |
| === SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate ===
| |
| The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler [[PT Cruiser]] is defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.<ref name="NationalAcademiesReport"/> Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.<ref name="PTCruiserFootprint">{{cite web
| |
| | url=http://www.chrysler.com/en/pt_cruiser/index.html
| |
| | title=Chrysler PT Cruiser - Official Site [wheelbase * avg track = 41.73 Footprint]
| |
| | accessdate=June 23, 2007 }}</ref> CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long [[station wagon]], but legendary former [[Chrysler]] CEO [[Lee Iacocca]] developed the idea of marketing the [[minivan]] as a station wagon alternative, while certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance with less-strict emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the promotion of the SUV.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/06/DI2007040601383.html|title=Greenhouse Real Wheels|work=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=June 22, 2007 | first=Warren | last=Brown | date=April 13, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/08/29/AR2005032405083.html|title=The Station Wagon Stealthily Returns|work=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=June 22, 2007 | first=Warren | last=Brown | date=August 29, 2004}}</ref> This trend has reversed itself since the [[crossover (automobile)|crossover]] has eroded SUV sales - during the mid-2000s, SUVs must conform with emission standards and a crossover is defined as a car for fuel economy purposes.
| |
| | |
| [[New York]], [[New Jersey]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Connecticut]], and [[California]] disagreed with the NHTSA statement in the 2008-2011 Light Truck standard which claimed preemption of the state [[greenhouse gas]] regulations, on the basis that fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions are one and the same. The EPA<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f07035.pdf|title=Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use|work=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]|accessdate=June 3, 2007 |format=PDF}}</ref> claims, contrary to NHTSA, that the use of alternative fuels allows [[Greenhouse Gas|greenhouse gas]] emissions to be controlled somewhat independently of fuel efficiency.
| |
| | |
| === Calculations of MPG overestimated ===
| |
| The [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy of gasoline vehicles and underestimated diesel vehicles.<ref>{{cite news
| |
| | url = http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/01/10/detroit_epa/index.html
| |
| | title =Fuel efficiency vs. reality
| |
| | accessdate = February 4, 2008 | work=CNN
| |
| | date=January 11, 2006}}</ref> John DeCicco, the automotive expert for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), estimated that this results in about 20% higher actual consumption than measured CAFE goals.<ref>{{cite news
| |
| | url = http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1857620,00.html
| |
| | title =CAFE Standards: Fuzzy Math on Fuel Economy
| |
| | accessdate = November 7, 2008 | work=Time
| |
| | date=November 7, 2008
| |
| | first=Bryan
| |
| | last=Walsh}}</ref> Starting with 2008-model vehicles, the EPA has adopted a new protocol for estimating the MPG figures presented to consumers. The new protocol includes driving cycles more closely representative of today's traffic and road conditions, as well as increased air conditioner usage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml|title=New MPG Ratings|work=[[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]]|accessdate=June 3, 2007 }}</ref> This change does not affect how the EPA calculates CAFE ratings; the new protocol changes only the mileage estimates provided for consumer information.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/gasmgdc.pdf|title=New MPG Ratings|work=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]|accessdate=June 3, 2007 |format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070925233856/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/gasmgdc.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = September 25, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | last = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
| |
| | title = Fuel Economy Guide
| |
| | url = http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm
| |
| | accessdate = 2008-03-23}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| NHTSA spends one-third of one percent of its budget on CAFE, or $0.014 per U.S. citizen.<ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = NHTSA
| |
| | title = NHTSA Budget Overview FY 2006
| |
| | url = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/BB/2006/images/BudgetinBrief2006.pdf
| |
| | page = 4
| |
| | accessdate = June 19, 2007 |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| |
| | last = President of the United States
| |
| | title = Economic Report of the President
| |
| | url = http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/2007_erp.pdf
| |
| | page = page 124
| |
| | accessdate = June 20, 2007 |format=PDF}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Low penalty ===
| |
| Some critics argue that CAFE fines do not seem to be having much impact in the fuel economy drive.
| |
| <ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2007/09/cafe-fines-no-deterent-to-some-luxury-brands.html|title=CAFE Fines No Deterent To Some Luxury Brands}}</ref>
| |
| As noted in the 2007 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman of the [[U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation]] (page 23) "Several experts stated that this is (''penalties'') not enough of a monetary incentive for manufacturers to comply with CAFE."
| |
| <ref name="gao-report-2007">{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07921.pdf|title=Reforming Fuel Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and Other Options Could Complement These Standards}}</ref> For example, in 25 years, from 1983 to 2008, Mercedes-Benz paid penalties 21 times and BMW paid penalties 20 times.
| |
| <ref name="CAFE-Fines-Collected">{{cite web|url=http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Fines_Collected_062010.pdf|title=Summary of CAFE Fines Collected}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Currently, the CAFE penalty is $55 USD per vehicle for every 1 mpg under the standard. For the year 2006 Mercedes-Benz drew a $30.3 million penalty for violating fuel economy standards by 2.2 MPG,<ref name="CAFE-Fines-Collected"/> or $122 per vehicle.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Jan08/07_Mercedes_Benz_USA_Notes_Record_Sales_In_2007.html|title=Mercedes-Benz USA Notes Record Sales In 2007}}</ref> According to the government "fueleconomy.gov" website violating CAFE by 2.42 MPG means consuming extra {{convert|27|oilbbl|m3}} ({{convert|1134|USgal|L}}) of mostly imported fuel in 10 years which is worth $3,490 (Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15,000 annual miles and a fuel price of $2.95 per gallon) that is 13.4% more and also it means emitting extra 14 Tons of CO<sub>2</sub> in 10 years that is 12.7% more. These numbers are based on comparison of 2010 Mercedes ML 350 4MATIC with CAFE Unadjusted Average Fuel Economy of 21.64 MPG (this model meets 2006 CAFE requirements of 21.6 MPG) and 2010 Mercedes ML 550 4MATIC with CAFE Unadjusted Average Fuel Economy of 19.22 MPG.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/10data.zip|title=2010 Fuel Economy Guide}}</ref> So consuming extra $3,490 worth of mostly imported fuel and emitting extra 14 Tons of CO<sub>2</sub> draws a penalty of only $122 for a single luxury car buyer. $122 is only 0.3% of the price of $40,000 car (average 2010 price of a luxury car). Several experts stated that this is not enough of a monetary incentive to comply with CAFE.<ref name="gao-report-2007"/>
| |
| | |
| CAFE penalty have increased only 10% since 1983, while cumulative inflation was 119%.<ref name="gao-report-2007"/> Thus, the CAFE penalty in 2010 is actually less than half of what it was in 1983. NHTSA officials stated that in addition to the authority the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 under the EPCA, the NHTSA has the authority to raise CAFE penalties to $100 per mpg shortfall.<ref name="gao-report-2007"/> However, the NHTSA currently does not to exercise this authority.
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{div col|cols=3}}
| |
| *[[Air pollution]]
| |
| *[[Battery electric vehicle]]
| |
| *[[California Air Resources Board]]
| |
| *[[Carbon tax]]
| |
| *[[Emission standard]]
| |
| *[[Energy Independence and Security Act]]
| |
| *[[Range-extended vehicle]]
| |
| *[[Fuel efficiency]]
| |
| *[[Fuel economy in automobiles]]
| |
| *[[Hybrid electric vehicle]]
| |
| *[[Light truck]]
| |
| *[[Miles per gallon]]
| |
| *[[Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent]]
| |
| *[[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]]
| |
| *[[Plug-in hybrid]]
| |
| *[[Road-traffic safety]]
| |
| *[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]
| |
| {{div col end}}
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| {{Reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| * {{cite book
| |
| | last = Evans
| |
| | first = Leonard
| |
| | title = Traffic Safety
| |
| | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=pOKzRLqIj1oC
| |
| | accessdate = 2010-10-11
| |
| | publisher = Science Serving Society
| |
| | location = Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States of America
| |
| | year = 2004
| |
| | month = 08
| |
| | isbn = 978-0-9754871-0-5
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| == External links ==
| |
| * [http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C329.txt 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329 - Automobile Fuel Economy (2009)] CAFE legislation on U.S. House of Representatives Downloadable U.S. Code (.txt)
| |
| <!--* [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm NHTSA: CAFE Overview] Dead as of 10-15-2012 ~~~~ -->
| |
| * [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/ NHTSA: Corporate Average Fuel Economy]
| |
| * [http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/policy/energy/Light_Truck_Fuel_Economy_11_22_2005_Comments.pdf Light Truck Rule criticism].
| |
| * [http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So]
| |
| * [http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf Federal Proposal Would Unlink Fuel Economy Requirements From Their Safety Consequences]
| |
| * [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/docs/162944_web.pdf Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, National Academy of Sciences]
| |
| * [http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/09q2/obama_s_cafe_fuel_economy_standards_to_create_fleet_of_tiny_expensive_vehicles-car_news Obama's CAFE Fuel Economy Standards to Create Fleet of Tiny, Expensive Vehicles]
| |
| * [http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_Final_Rule.pdf August 2012 CAFE Final Rule (pdf)]
| |
| * [http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/Obama+Administration+Finalizes+Historic+54.5+mpg+Fuel+Efficiency+Standards Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards finalized August 2012] by [[NTSA]]
| |
| | |
| {{Energy in the USA}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Automotive industry]]
| |
| [[Category:Energy in the United States]]
| |
| [[Category:1975 in the United States]]
| |