Is California a fuel-economy bully?

That’s the viewpoint of some automakers looking at California’s pending carbon-dioxide emissions laws. Scheduled to take effect in 2009, the law, known as AB 1493, would effectively require automakers to build cars that average 40 mpg in the state. Burning gasoline produces CO2 in direct proportion to a vehicle’s fuel economy.

Under federal law, California is allowed to set its own emissions standards, because it had such standards before the federal Clean Air Act was passed. Other states have decided to follow federal standards, or California’s, but not set their own. That’s where the argument comes in.

Each time California enacts a new emissions standard, it must get a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency, which sets federal standards. Under intense lobbying from the auto industry, the EPA has denied the waiver for law AB 1493, and California has sued. (This is only one of many lawsuits over the law.)

The automakers argue that the California law would result in a patchwork of state-by-state fuel economy regulations that they could not meet. However, car makers do build different models for California emissions states now. Fuel economy would be more related to vehicle size than the emission standards.

That isn’t what the bill requires. Further, it wouldn’t be legal under federal law. But it also may not be that simple. Both California and federal fuel-economy requirements are averages, based on the average rating of all cars a manufacturer sells. Under federal law, that means all cars sold nationwide have to average out to the federal 35 mpg standard. If the California law went into effect, it would mean all cars sold in the state would have to average out to the state’s approximately 40 mpg standards. Simple enough so far.

But if Vermont, for example, or Texas were to sign on to the California standard, automakers would have to sell a similar proportion of pickups, small cars, and large and small SUVs there that they do in California.

And automakers say that is a problem. They call it "individual compliance," as distinct from individual standards. Automakers now sell, and consumers demand, a higher proportion of large pickups in Texas. On a national level, the relatively low fuel economy from those trucks can be balanced by selling more small cars in Vermont. That wouldn’t work under the California law.

It might be easy if automakers could just sell the same amount of pickups, for example, in every state. But this ignores the fact that consumers’ needs and wants vary by region. Fuel-economy laws have gotten enormously complex. And, as you can see, they are difficult to administer and difficult to with which to comply.

We think that the right direction is for automakers to make all of their cars—including pickups and SUVs – more fuel efficient. Over the years, government standards have been fairly weak and did little to push the development of increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles. As it has happened every time we’ve seen a spike in fuel prices, though, recent market forces have hastened fuel saving technology progress and impacted the new-car model mix.

Feedback time
We’re interested in your thoughts. Are fuel economy standards worthwhile? And should California be allowed to enact its CO2 emissions limit law? What do you think of CAFE, which has tried to do the same thing on a national level?

Some ground rules for the comments: No fair claiming that CO2 is not pollution; that California shouldn’t be able to dictate to the rest of the nation; or (as the automakers have) that AB 1493 is not an emissions law. These issues have already been decided by federal courts in favor of California. (On the other hand, California lost a lawsuit claiming automakers should pay the state billions of dollars in damages for CO2 emissions.)

—Eric Evarts

Comments

[david]

CA is a hypocrite. If it really wants to increase gas mileage, it should look at his traffic pattern first especially in LA. Less traffic, better mph. People here should start living closer to where they work.

[melville248]

I don't think living closer to where you work is realistic. Maybe CA should not dictate, but why not? I like their standards, I say go CA , be the bullies, demand these standards and let it trickle down.

[SunnyvaleCA]

CAFE should be abolished entirely. It doesn't address fuel economy of boats, planes, houses, office buildings, or manufacturing. It also doesn't address the quantity of use (i.e.: promote driving less). CAFE has done very little to decrease energy use and is a considerable burden with respect to compromised vehicle design, higher vehicle prices, and excessive litigation.

Raise taxes on carbon-based fuel, reduce taxes elsewhere, and let people decide for themselves how to optimize.

[Barb]

Congress just adopted more stringent Federal fuel economy standards and the U.S. Department of Transportation is currently finalizing the regulations to require hefty annual increases in vehicle fuel economy between 2011 and 2015. Given the current economic downturn, auto sales have plummeted and dealers and suppliers and their employees are being hurt. Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that the auto industry is in misearble shape right now and simply cannot afford the huge costs of piling on state standards that differ from the federal rules. The jobs of Average Joes who work in car dealerships or the thousands of suppliers to the industry are in jeopardy.

[Jeff]

Eric,

I don't know why you say it is not fair saying that CO2 is not a pollutant when there are many out there who think it is. Without CO2 we would not be having this conversation. Anyway, the whole CO2 emissions limits are tied to Antropogenic Global Warming. There are many that believe that humans through the burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels to the point that the Earth is warming at a rate that will be harmful to life on Earth.

The fact is that within the past 2000 years there have been two other periods that have been warmer than the period we are in now, the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period. The climate models showing AGW have been woefully inaccurate.

Indeed, the models have showed that there should have been increased warming over the past ten years, when in fact temperatures have not increased and within the past year there has been a cooling trend (imagine science based on observation intead of models. Now there is a unique concept). Even those scientist who believe in AGW concede they have had difficulties in modeling clouds, precipitation and that certain factors such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation were not figured into the climate models (By the way the PDO and Multidecadal oscillation have now entered a cooler phase).

Many scientists (so much for the consensus) believe the earth is in for a cooling trend. A number of peer reviewed studies have found the sun, which was quite active over the past 25 years had more to do with the warming trend throughout the 80s and 90s than anything man has done (imagine the sun as the primary factor in the earth's climate, who would have thought that).

Personally, the whole cap and trade and the regulating of CO2 is a very dubious venture. Firstly, if you buy into the AGW, it will be quite expensive to do this and will result in all of us, businesses and tax payers alike to pick up a pretty hefty tab. And it most likely will not work. China and India (2 of the top 3 producers of C02 emissions) have already stated that were not going to sign on to any treaty that will slow their economic development.

Secondly, businesses here in the United States will look to produce their products elsewhere if it becomes to burdensome to produce their products in the States. In fact we have already seen much of the manufacturing sector move elsewhere. In this period where we have entered an economic downturn, I think this whole regulation of CO2 will have economically devastating consequences. As far as the CAFE standards, it was shown to be a joke the first time around.

Jeff

[shopa]

We need much higher fuel economy. Our planet will be fried if we don't burn less carbon based fuel.

Many Americans want low cost, fuel efficient cars.
Kei cars are a special class of cars in Japan. They
are limited to an engine size of 660cc and have
vehicle size, but not weight, restrictions. They are
made by many different Japanese car companies and
they are mature designs that are reliable, and get up
to 60 mpg. They can cost less than $10,000.
However, they cannot be driven in the U.S. because
they don't meet collision safety requirements.

I believe that adding my crumple box invention to a
Kei car will allow it to pass U.S. collision safety
requirements. Then they could be driven in the U.S.

Some American auto companies have ties to Kei car
manufacture. They could make these cars.

Please help me promote this idea.

See my website www.safersmallcars.com

[Joe]

"Myth: California ranks high among the 50 states in energy use per person
What the data show: California’s energy use per capita is the fourth lowest of all the states. And, among the 19 most populous states -- those with more than five million people -- California ranks second, trailing only New York."

Awesome!

For transportation, CA uses 87 M BTU / Capita compared to 123 for TX. IN is 105, TN is 102.

Whoooaaa!

(Source The DOE's Lawrence Berkeley Labs. )

BTW, San Jose Mercury News says BMW's Mini sells as many cars in NorCal as the Chrysler Corp. The Big Three Automakers need to wake up.

Dude!

[Andy]

I think that CAFE and other fuel economy/CO2 regulations are a bit beside the point. If you want people to use less carbon-based fuels, TAX THEM. In Europe, taxes of over €2.50/gallon have made fuel efficiency a great priority for vehicle buyers for years. Furthermore, some countries, like Austria and France, tax new vehicles based on fuel efficiency or base road taxes on fuel efficiency. We don't need to regulate large SUVs out of existence - just make their operation expensive enough that people really think about their transportation needs.

[CharlesP]

Our auto makers need to stop paying lawyers and lobbyists to screw around and stall and spend the $$ on car design. After all, they sell CARS, right? Too long have they whined that they build what "Americans want". Well grow some 'nads and build decent, reliable cars and maybe ya won't lose market share to the Japanese. DUH, didn't we go through this in the early 80's?
I know it can be done- our 2006 Malibu Maxx is getting 30mpg on the highway- that's based on mileage and gas refill quantity, not the goofy trip computer. VE HAFF DER TEKNOLOGY!

[Ron]

Very simple,
If we want to raise fuel standards in California, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

Because a few (big) companies say no...Who's in control now :p

These companies have been going down anyways as they can't keep up with the trend of having smaller, cleaner cars on the streets.

So California and all the other states should definitely be able to set their standards. It's up to the car manufacturers to adapt, not us adapt to them (who are failing anyways...)

[de_runner]

It's not just the car standards that will be enacted. California will require all companies to establish "carbon accounts". This is a recipe for economic disaster for the state of California. Companies and jobs will go bye bye. So if Californians want to have no jobs but feel good about how they are environmentally correct then this certainly puts them on that path. We'll all walk (no driving) down to the beach and enjoy the quiet and solitude....Or maybe you're already there with your head stuck in the sand.

[California REal Esate Watcher]

These standards aren't "island enactments". They are in conjunction with a set of rules, standards, and law meant to keep California on the right path. The states status as a leader in the fight against the destruction of our environment is due in part to this legislation

[Dave]

Where to start, where to start.

Lets see:

Someone bragging about their Malibu getting 30 MPH (we have the technology). What a joke. Park that puppy, sorry, it needs to get 33% better fuel economoy .... 40 is the minimum. You lose.

CA residents use less engergy. Hmmm, again, go figure. Climate may be part of that. Not too hot in the summer, not too cold in the winter. What do you expect???

Auto companies should conform to my standards, or go home. I agree with that one. I would hope that CA only has a couple of car companies to chose from. But wait, why limit it to CA? Shouldn't ever city or municipality be able to pass their own laws??? Why have only 50 standards for the auto makers to try to hit, why not literally thousands???? What a joke.

And finally, as several people pointed out, providing more fuel effecient vehicles to people who drive over an hour to work, and then get stuck in traffic jambs on a regular basis, isn't the really going to help that much. Watch out ... the next laws will be limiting the number of miles an individual can travel a month ... in the name of conservation. Actually, would be much more effective.

Good luck to us all.