CAFE, revisited

[EricGo]

I think not.

If memory serves me, current vehicle MPG testing removes ethanol use from the equation. And actual use is not required, only the ability.

So E.g., if a vehicle gets 17.5 mpg with gasoline, but can use up to a 60% ethanol mix, its mpg rating is ~ 35 mpg (taking into account the decreased energy density of Ethanol).


I'll have to track down sources to make sure I remember this correctly.
So from my POV, between squandering money on Etoh subsidy, lack of clean alternative fuel credits, and nothing to decrease consumption, this energy bill is useless.

Addendum: The mpg calc above is about right, but the total fleet mpg lift is capped at 0.9 mpg. So not as bad as I thought. As I understand the current bill running through the houses, the new CAFE requirements come into effect in 2020. Anybody know if there is a ramp up, or can the car manufacturers ignore this until 2019. and then start suing ?

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 22 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]466369[/snapback]</div>

Addendum: The mpg calc above is about right, but the total fleet mpg lift is capped at 0.9 mpg. So not as bad as I thought. As I understand the current bill running through the houses, the new CAFE requirements come into effect in 2020. Anybody know if there is a ramp up, or can the car manufacturers ignore this until 2019. and then start suing ?
[/b]

Fleet avg mpg will increase 10 mpg by 2020. There was a provision that it would increase 4%/yr after that, but that language was taken out of the bill as a compromise.

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jun 22 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]466399[/snapback]</div>

Fleet avg mpg will increase 10 mpg by 2020. There was a provision that it would increase 4%/yr after that, but that language was taken out of the bill as a compromise.
[/b]

Indeed it was.

I'm a bit disappointed that language which would have made aftermarket grille guards/brush bars illegal was also dropped from the bill.

[Godiva]

That religious "club" on the Fox channel will be fighting this tooth and nail. Seems it's unchristian to force them to give up their big SUVs because of all of the children with backpacks and sports equipment they need to haul.

Now I look in our school parking lot and it's full of full size SUVs.....all with single occupant drivers. Some have no children at all. And they're all pristine....never spent a day camping of offroading in their automotive lives.

[Pinto Girl]

Funny how the talk of "individual rights" always seems to support the rights of only the people most vocal about "individual rights."

It's appalling that one's right as a car owner to, for example, put a brush guard on one's honkin' SUV, is more supported than one's right as a pedestrian to not be sliced and diced by this vehicle-borne mandolin.

I'm scared about what's going to happen when more and more of our individual "freedoms" infringe on more and more of our "freedoms to not be infringed upon."

It's going to get nastier and nastier, I fear...

[tripp]

Soon there will be a law suit. Someone will get mauled and sue the driver for having the thing. Then they'll sue the mfg of the grill.

[boulder_bum]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 22 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]466369[/snapback]</div>

Anybody know if there is a ramp up, or can the car manufacturers ignore this until 2019. and then start suing ?
[/b]

I believe that the MPG increases start in 2011 and the increments are decided by legislators near that time.

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jun 22 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]466546[/snapback]</div>

I believe that the MPG increases start in 2011 and the increments are decided by legislators near that time.
[/b]

Doesn't the NHTSA have the final say on if a manufacturer even has to adhere to the standards, or not?

What it would take to actually persuade the NHTSA to act in this fashion, I have no idea (although the skeptic in me does have a few thoughts on the subject).

[tnthub]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 22 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]466566[/snapback]</div>

What it would take to actually persuade the NHTSA to act in this fashion, I have no idea (although the skeptic in me does have a few thoughts on the subject).
[/b]

it took me almost seven months to receive permission from the NHTSA to remove my airbags. I can't begin to number the people I had to go though, forms I had to submit, and written explanations I had to provide and I am simply an individual... I can't imagine the amount of effort to get everyone there to work together on something... I bet they take an hour to figure out what to order for lunch...

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 22 2007, 09:23 AM) [snapback]466369[/snapback]</div>

I think not.

If memory serves me, current vehicle MPG testing removes ethanol use from the equation. And actual use is not required, only the ability.

So E.g., if a vehicle gets 17.5 mpg with gasoline, but can use up to a 60% ethanol mix, its mpg rating is ~ 35 mpg (taking into account the decreased energy density of Ethanol).
I'll have to track down sources to make sure I remember this correctly.
So from my POV, between squandering money on Etoh subsidy, lack of clean alternative fuel credits, and nothing to decrease consumption, this energy bill is useless.

Addendum: The mpg calc above is about right, but the total fleet mpg lift is capped at 0.9 mpg. So not as bad as I thought. As I understand the current bill running through the houses, the new CAFE requirements come into effect in 2020. Anybody know if there is a ramp up, or can the car manufacturers ignore this until 2019. and then start suing ?
[/b]

I agree mostly. There will always be loopholes. Personally, I like "feebates" and a gas tax. I am a conservative non-tax and spend kind of guy, but I have to favor a gas tax because I'm also anti-subsidy and believe that all costs for an activity should be borne out by users, to the extent practical / possible. Right now, the cost to obtain and secure oil is something like $5+ per gallon (see www.setamericafree.org). And that does not include costs of externalities such as pollution generated. I'm also of the strong opinion that we are financing the very terrorists we claim to be fighting with each gallon we buy. So let's buy less as a national security imperative. A high enough gas tax will do that. All gas tax proceeds should go toward paying costs of our military to be in the middle east as well as financing alternative fuels R&D.

Finally, tax the crap out of old, inefficient, highly polluting vehicles and penalize the crap out of anyone found to be boosting engine output on street vehicles more than 10% or so above OEM.