| Page 2 of 2 < |
New Fuel Economy Standards Proposed
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
"The higher we go [in fuel economy standards], the more difficult the challenge becomes because there is a lot of safety content that is adding weight to cars, as well as convenience features people want -- so there are a lot of trade-offs that pose challenges for us," said Christopher Preuss, a spokesman for General Motors Corp.
The industry has argued that achieving better fuel efficiency often means producing smaller, lighter cars that are less safe to drive. Yesterday's proposed rule change is aimed at discouraging automakers from building smaller vehicles unless the market demands it. The approach "lessens the incentive to design smaller vehicles to achieve a 'light truck' classification," the rule says, because smaller trucks will be regulated almost as stiffly as passenger cars.
Critics say the rule actually encourages companies to make bigger vehicles that are less fuel efficient.
For example, the Subaru Outback, which is in the smallest class of vehicles, could be made less than an inch wider and longer and move up into the next size grouping, thereby lowering its fuel economy requirement, said David J. Friedman, research director for the clean vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"One of the fundamental problems with the system is automakers can add size, in some cases only a tiny amount, and meet a dramatically lower standard," he said.
Other activists complain that the fuel efficiency increase being sought averages out to less than half a mile per gallon per year, with an average of about 24 mpg slated for 2011 -- a total improvement of 1.8 mpg over four years.
But administration officials defend the new CAFE standards as far-reaching. John D. Graham, administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, said the new rules would result in a 15.9 percent improvement in light-truck fuel economy from 2004 to 2011. "There is no administration with a better record" on the issue, he said.
Graham pointed out that the smallest SUVs would end up with a fuel requirement of 28.4 mpg, "which is more demanding than the [current] 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars."
