GM comments on NHTSA proposal for fuel economy rules
Filed under: MPG, GM, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Legislation and Policy
We just spoke to GM's Greg Martin, Director, Policy and Washington Communications, about the fuel economy regulations that are being proposed by NHTSA today. Martin reiterated that although the new CAFE rules are tough, it is the company's position that they will meet them just as they said they would back in December when the Energy bill was passed by Congress. At an Earth Day event today in Washington, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters will announce the actual regulations that carmakers will have to meet in response to the mandate from Congress. The Energy bill called for an overall fleet average of 35mpg by 2020. The NHTSA rules will require a fleet average of 35.7mpg for cars and 26.7mpg for trucks, both by 2015. If this pace continues through 2020, it would exceed the effective 42mpg that would be required by the proposed California CO2 limits. Since the federal rules would exceed California's requirement, that raises the obvious question of whether that means the automakers would stop fighting the California rules. According to Martin, the issue with the state rules is not so much the mileage requirement. The real problem is the "17 or 18 distinct compliance plans that an automaker would have to manage" due to the patchwork of rules. Not all the states are taking the California rules in whole, some are cherry-picking and paperwork has to filed in each state verifying that the manufacturer is in compliance. This can be particularly problematic if the rules are based on sales within a given state and sales of different types of vehicles vary from state to state. A single national rule simplifies things and allows manufacturers to aggregate sales averages over the whole country.
[Source: General Motors]
Chevy Volt's gas tank gets downsized, range drops 300 miles
Rendered Speculation: 2010 Toyota Prius
Production Volt could be the guest of honor at GM Centennial party!
Next-gen Prius to get solar panel to drive accessories
Is Tesla using Dodge Magnum body shells for White Star mules?
Autoblog Green Podcast #24
Popular Mechanics to debunk the "run your car on water" myth
T. Boone Pickens unveils "The Plan" - big on wind power and natural gas
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-22-2008 @ 11:36AM
Dave said...
This is a federal issue and should be regulated by the feds as it touches interstate commerce. It is an undue burden on industry to have to comply with 51 different state rules and then be forced to comply with a federal set of rules. Too complicated and even the treehuggers should appreciate that.
The 9th Circuit out in CA, like it or not, will be overturned by any stupid ruling they make by the Supreme Court. The feds should just preempt this and fast track this thing to the highest court, regardless of everyone's position on what the rules should be.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 11:51AM
tankd0g said...
California has won in the past, they are by far the largest market in the US, the feds should just adopt California's standards and be done with it.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:08PM
mrbell321 said...
Agreed, the manufacturers can meet the strictest standards and pass all states by default. Tho I do understand a bit of the manufacturers concern as best fuel economy does not equal lowest emissions in the backwards system of testing we use...
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:14PM
Mike Z said...
Forget GM. The REAL issue is how companies short on R&D Cash like Ford and Chrysler can meet this.
With the spread in diesel prices over gasoline opening up, companies like Ford and Chrysler cannot rely on diesel to make up a larger fraction of sales, and therefore it will be hard for them to meet the standard.
I bet this will put Chrysler under, and might well kill off Ford, because their ECOBoost proposal will not get them enough of an MPG boost alone and they lack the cash to really do much else.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 7:12PM
Rick said...
Every car company can meet the standards if they stop playing who has the bigger engine and make it an effiecency war, not a horsepower war. 4 cyl turbos should be enough for most sedans, seriously, who needs a 300hp car?
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 10:41PM
texmln said...
I need a 300hp car and then some. I couldn't give a crap about efficiency. If you like driving some silly little car, then buy one for yourself. I'll take the huge, gas sucking engine.
Reply
4-23-2008 @ 6:34AM
Sam Abuelsamid said...
texmln, would you care to enlighten us as to why you NEED a 300hp car? I can certainly understand wanting one. I have no aversion to power, but I certainly don't need it.
Reply
4-23-2008 @ 9:01AM
motorman said...
no one needs a 300 HP car any more than they need a 8 inch penis but sometimes it is nice to have.
Reply