Carmakers may get fuel credit concession

[Infiniti Z350]

Carmakers may get fuel credit concession
Measure would let industry get boost from cars that run on ethanol, even if owners use gas.

By Juliet Eilperin / Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A little-noticed provision in the House energy bill provides a key concession to major automakers, allowing them to take credit for producing vehicles that run on ethanol even if owners are using regular gas.

The measure makes it easier for manufacturers to meet federal fuel economy requirements.

The flexible-fuel credit, which is set to expire in 2008, would be extended for six years under language adopted by the House on April 21.

The Natural Resources News Service, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on environmental issues, provided the bill language to the Washington Post.

Senators are weighing whether to include the measure in the energy bill that will reach the floor this month.

Environmentalists such as David Friedman, research director for the clean vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that, since its inception in 1993, the flexible-fuel credit has allowed manufacturers to avoid $1.6 billion in federal fines and U.S. gasoline consumption to increase by 4 billion gallons.

"We have no problem with the automakers getting credit for the alternative fuels actually used in vehicles, because that's a good thing," Friedman said. "This pretends that they're selling hybrids when they're selling gas guzzlers."

In 2004, Ford sold more than 240,000 six-cylinder Ford Explorers, 87 percent of which were dual-fuel vehicles. That meant the company got credit for the sport-utility fleet averaging nearly 31 miles per gallon, while it actually averaged closer to 20 miles per gallon.

VeraSun Energy found that 68 percent of flexible-fuel vehicle owners in South Dakota didn't know they could use ethanol. Federal officials say drivers use an 85 percent ethanol fuel blend less than 1 percent of the time.

Link: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A04-205211.htm

[JVal14]

VeraSun Energy found that 68 percent of flexible-fuel vehicle owners in South Dakota didn't know they could use ethanol. Federal officials say drivers use an 85 percent ethanol fuel blend less than 1 percent of the time.

This is the problem right here. If they just advertised the fact a bit, everyone would be happy.

[jckjds]

The real problem is that there aren't enough E85 stations (where I live, there are a few E10's) If we could crank out more ethanol fuel, it would significantly reduce the price of fuel for our cars. If E85 were available and cheaper than regular gas, people would quickly figure out whether or not their cars were dual fuel vehicles.

[Parkwood60]

They really don't advertise these cars/trucks. I knew about the Honda NG Civic. I've seen flexifuel fleet Rangers, but I didn't know regular people could buy them.

I'm all for closing the manufacture loop holes. How about meeting CAFE by actually meeting CAFE, not by making trucks out of the Pontiac Vibe, the Chevy HHR, and the PT cruiser.

Closing the loopholes means more people driving actual cars, less driving trucks. That means more room on the road and more gasoline for all of us.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by Parkwood60

I'm all for closing the manufacture loop holes. How about meeting CAFE by actually meeting CAFE, not by making trucks out of the Pontiac Vibe, the Chevy HHR, and the PT cruiser.

Are you sure the Vibe is legally a truck? It's a well known fact that the HHR, PT Cruiser, or for that matter, Dodge Magnum, are trucks, but the Vibe?

The loopholes are exploited for one reason. Fundamentally, CAFE aimed to force manufacturers to produce vehicles that consumers don't want so that consumers would have no choice but to buy those vehicles. Not a bad idea, except that manufacturers would rather sell what consumers want to buy, and therefore there is a HUGE incentive to exploit the loopholes. At the risk of sounding like Lee "Safety doesn't sell" Iacocca, there is a second rule in auto sales: People want gas guzzlers (at least in market segments other than econoboxes).

And who exploits the loopholes? The loopholes are exploited by two sets of automakers:
a) (Foreign) Luxury automakers who happily design products that don't add up to the requisite averages and happily hand over the fine to the US government every year, in the process making it more difficult for others to compete with them (See: BMW)
b) The Big Two and a Half in an attempt to sell the gas guzzlers that people want to buy. F*rd makes lots of E85-capable Explorers for that reason; GM has made E85-capable Tahoes here and there; DCX sells lots of PT Cruisers to cover up for the thirsty (though probably E85-capable, but I haven't looked it up) Hemi trucks, etc. Same thing with the Magnum: DCX obviously didn't have the balls (unlike Subaru, which apparently did this) to make a traditional sedan qualify to be legally a truck, so instead they try to push customers away from a sedan into a wagon.

The problem with tightening up the loopholes is that, as usual, the only automakers who would benefit are our ol' friends Toyohondassan...

That being said, the People want gas guzzlers principle is broader than that, naturally, and is something that is eventually going to be addressed. CAFE was an absolutely pitiful attempt at fixing it by essentially putting the burden away from consumers and on automakers. Consumers ARE the problem, though.

[Parkwood60]

I only know what I read in the papers. Gm Buy Power lists it as an SUV, GMI lists it as a truck under it's Platform Guide. Officially? I don't know. Our goverment has some of the clunkiest websites around...

www.fueleconomy.gov has it listed as a small station wagon, so for CAFE its a car, but I wonder if it is a car according to the DOT? or maybe the EPA? Who knows?

I believe it was Pogo who said "We have met out enemy, and he is us!"

Like I said, we don't really think about the fuel economy. That is why we created CAFE in the first place. So the government could worry about it for us, just like the polution. It took the equivelent of a Pearl Harbor (the Opec Crisis) to get us to all think about MPG in the first place.

[Parkwood60]

Look over here.

<-------------

My new Colorado triples the MPG I get in this beast in town. On the freeway it doubles it.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by Parkwood60

Like I said, we don't really think about the fuel economy. That is why we created CAFE in the first place. So the government could worry about it for us, just like the polution. It took the equivelent of a Pearl Harbor (the Opec Crisis) to get us to all think about MPG in the first place.

But, at the risk of sounding downright American here, the (US) government has done a sloppy job worrying about fuel economy. For starters, the original intent was for the 27.5 MPG car standard and the 20.7 MPG truck standard to continue to increase after 1987, but of course the 1980 presidential election happened...

That 27.5MPG standard should be at least 30-32MPG now, I think, if the government was doing a proper job.

[Parkwood60]

and here's my inspired new solution...

Make all vehicles counted as trucks standard with those "beep-beep-beep" back up alarms. Suddenly everybody would be a bunch less interested in trucks, and more interested in fuel efficient cars.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by Parkwood60

and here's my inspired new solution...

Make all vehicles counted as trucks standard with those "beep-beep-beep" back up alarms. Suddenly everybody would be a bunch less interested in trucks, and more interested in fuel efficient cars.

And how would you prevent people from disabling that in the same way that people disable CAGS on the T56 GM cars?

[Elk]

Originally Posted by VivienM

at the risk of sounding downright American here, the (US) government has done a sloppy job worrying about fuel economy. For starters, the original intent was for the 27.5 MPG car standard and the 20.7 MPG truck standard to continue to increase after 1987, but of course the 1980 presidential election happened...

That 27.5MPG standard should be at least 30-32MPG now, I think, if the government was doing a proper job.

So you actually like the government telling you what kind of car you can buy. I don’t think you need to worry sounding like an American.

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by Elk

So you actually like the government telling you what kind of car you can buy. I don’t think you need to worry sounding like an American.

No, I don't like the idea of a government telling me what to buy: they'd be dumb enough to require Honda Accords or something hideous like that.

The problem that you "freedom to choose" people forget is that there are social consequences to vehicle choice. There are things like pollution and global warming, or the geopolitical consequences of the need to import oil (funny how American money ends up in all kinds of anti-American regimes' bank accounts as a result of this). Those are all things that the individual driving the Hummer H2 or whatever gas guzzler of the day doesn't face on their own, but instead they basically inflict on everybody else. The American thirst for oil is something that WILL need to be addressed at some point in the near future.

Now, how do you propose addressing this, given that people, when choosing a vehicle, will choose the most gas guzzling thing possible? Either
a) government jacks up the price of gas in hope that if it's high enough, people will move to smaller vehicles on their own, (and automakers, to keep selling big ones, will improve the big ones' fuel economy tremendously) or
b) government continues to pressure automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles than what people want to buy, in which case the current pressure (the 27.5MPG car standard, with its loopholes) is clearly inadequate,
I simply can't see a way to account for the social consequences of gas guzzlers that doesn't involve [well thought-out, which may be impossible for the US govt given the political pressures and everything else] government action. Or do you somehow magically think people will chose Aveos instead of Escalades tomorrow? That strikes me as even more naive than expecting the US government to do the right thing...

Oh, and for the record, what idiot came up with that "fuel economy" phrase? It's not like we're talking about any fuel being SAVED, we're talking about how much fuel gets burned...

[jokuvaan]

Where I live, around 75% of the fuel price is tax.

[Parkwood60]

Originally Posted by jokuvaan

Where I live, around 75% of the fuel price is tax.

Where do you live, France?

[Parkwood60]

Originally Posted by VivienM

And how would you prevent people from disabling that in the same way that people disable CAGS on the T56 GM cars?

Hey, go ahead and disable it. But it's gonna turn people off on the test drive and maybe they'll buy a Malibu Maxx instead of a Suburban.