The Chevrolet Volt raises a lot of questions. From its public unveiling in January 2007 people wondered, is it a hybrid or an electric car? Right from day 1 in December 2006 before the auto show, GM officials have called it a range extended electric car. They use the electric car terminology because, unlike what we think of as hybrids today, only an electric motor drives the Volt. The engine, a normally aspirated 1.4L (not turbocharged as Motor Trend indicates) just drives a generator (not a two mode hybrid unit as MT says) instead of the wheels. However, the presence of the range extender causes the EPA to consider it a hybrid and they expect it to have almost a full charge at the end of the test cycle. The design intent is that the battery would be run down after having run more than its 40 mile electric range during the test. As designed, the engine would only run 15 percent of the time during the current EPA cycle and would yield over 100 mpg. But, using the EPA's methodology and having the engine keep the battery near full charge - which completely defeats the purpose of a plug-in vehicle with a 40 mile electric range - the Volt would only get about 48 mpg. While not a bad number, it's no where near reflective of what the Volt could achieve in the real world for most drivers. Clearly the EPA needs to work with manufacturers to change the testing methodology and come up with something that more closely approximates real world conditions for plug-in vehicles. Insisting on something else would force automakers to calibrate plug-ins to meet those requirements at the expense of real world efficiency, helping no one.


[Source: Motor Trend]

After the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced its proposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules last spring there was a public comment period to be followed by revisions before finalizing the regulations. There were certainly some negative comments related to the footprint-based standards but the other aspect that came in for criticism was the cost benefit analysis. In a seemingly surprising move, even the Environmental Protection Agency filed a comment opposing the draft regulation. The energy bill that was enacted last December required NHTSA to set the standards based in part on what was technically and financially feasible. NHTSA set the mileage requirements based on the assumption that gasoline would cost an average of $2.42 in 2016. Given where gas prices are today that seems like a serious under-estimation. Even the EPA that declined to approve a waiver for California's CO₂ regulations felt that NHTSA used too low a price estimate in its analysis. If a higher price was assumed it would make a higher standard more feasible.

[Source: Detroit News]

Be skeptical! Out of 93 fuel saving devices or additives were recently tested in Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the EPA, and out of those, just 10 were found to increase fuel mileage, and then only slightly. Unfortunately, 4 of those 10 also increased emissions. The results of the report are that none of the tested products met with approval from the EPA. The moral of the story is that these days, manufacturers have probably done what they can to make your mileage as high as it can be while delivering the performance that you demand. Outside engineers likely can't improve one aspect of the vehicle's performance without hindering another. The moral of the story: don't buy the hype, and don't buy their products.

So, what should you do? The source article, from the Detroit News, suggests a few tips that are likely well known to our readership. Namely, keep up with your manufacturer's maintenance schedule and slow down. It goes without saying that controlling your right foot is free.

[Source: The Detroit News]

We've all know for some time that the EPA was revising the way they calculate the fuel economy ratings for new vehicles to hopefully make them more representative of real world driving. Well the new updated numbers are finally available at FuelEconomy.gov. As expected most numbers are down by 2-3mpg although some take a bigger hit, particularly some of the higher-rated hybrids.

For example the Prius drops from 60/51/55mpg city/hwy/combined down to 48/45/46mpg. Similarly the Honda Civic hybrid goes from 49/51/50 mpg to 40/45/42 mpg. Not all hybrids dropped as severely with the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid went from 36/31/34 to 31/29/30 mpg. Since all hybrids are highly dependent on control strategies that are defined by software, they can be tuned to perform their best on specific circumstances.

What this seems to indicate is that Toyota and Honda tuned their strategies to work best on the EPA test cycles to the detriment of real world performance. On the other hand, Ford seems to have tuned their system to provide the best efficiency to the driver. That's not to say that the Toyota and Honda don't still provide outstanding efficiency, because they do. It's just that the previously published numbers are artificially inflated, perhaps in an attempt to get bragging rights. I'll have more to say on this subject in a piece following my upcoming review of the 2008 Escape Hybrid in a few days.

[Source: Environmental Protection Agency]

As consumers, most of us have formed an opinion of the domestic automakers as well as the foreign automakers and their stance on fuel economy. Some of us see a difference between the domestics and Japanese companies when it comes to their commitment to the environment through fuel economy, and some of us don't. Feel free to vent in the comments if you'd like to. In my opinion, the more people speak out and let the automakers know what they think and what they would like to buy, the better chance we have of actually making a difference. And, be sure to check out this article, which describes how one dealer, Adam Lee, president of Lee Automalls in Maine, attempted to vent while making a real impact of his own on the topic. He did so at the EPA's meeting that considered the State of California's desire to raise fuel economy requirements for new cars. Of course, he also notes that he might have no impact at all, "I'm just a car dealer from Maine and I doubt anyone will listen to me."

I would like to see his statements have some impact, how about you? After all, Lee's business is dependent on the business of the auto industry. And, you should know that Lee has dealerships which sell both foreign and domestic cars, so he should both know what he is talking about, and should seemingly have no motive to bash one but praise another.

Here is the website for Lee Automalls. Do you want to back him up in sending "a not-so-gentle nudge in the right direction", as he put it?

[Source: Detroit News]

The Bush administration was dealt a major defeat to its environmental ignorance policies today when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the current Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 decision (with Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia dissenting) the majority ruled that the EPA "has offered no reasoned explanation" for not doing something about greenhouse gases.

Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the majority opinion and said that the EPA's previous decision not do anything about greenhouse gases "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law." The court has not dictated what the regulations should be, only that the EPA has the power do something and must justify any action or inaction on the subject. Given the Bush administration's disdain for environmental enforcement, it remains unlikely that anything will be done until at least after January 2009.

[Source: Reuters]

General Motors yesterday pledged to cut the carbon dioxide emissions from its manufacturing plants in North America by forty percent over the next three years. The reduction amounts to 4.5 million metric tonnes of CO2. This is part of GM's participation in the EPA Climate Leaders program which brings together business and government to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

GM has been part of the program since 2002 and had a goal at that time to reduce emissions by ten percent by 2005 and surpassed that in the first year, eventually cutting emissions by twenty-five percent over the first five years. Most of the reductions have come about through improvements in energy efficiency, reduced waste and more use of renewable resources.

One of the leading plants in these efforts is the Delta Township Plant in Michigan. Savings there are estimated to save 30 million kWh of electricity in the first ten years of the plants operations. The GM press release is after the jump.

[Source: General Motors]

Port representatives from around the U.S. are currently attending the third Faster Freight - Cleaner Air (FFCA) conference which examines technologies and processes designed to reduce the environmental impact of all sectors of the goods movement industry (rail, trucking, marine, off-road equipment and air freight). Last November the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted the "San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan" which has inspired many other ports worldwide to undertake similar activities in a bid to reduce their environmental impact. The pollution levels created by the goods movement industry are of particular concern and have come under increased scrutiny over the last few years.

The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan is a comprehensive blueprint to reduce the health risks associated with air pollution from port-related ships, trucks, trains, terminal equipment and harbor craft. Key elements of the hundreds of millions of dollars plan are to cut particulate matter (PM) pollution by more than 50 percent within five years, reduce NOx emissions by more than 45 percent and reduce sulphur oxides (SOx) emissions as well. Within five years, "dirty" diesel trucks will be banned from the San Pedro Bay cargo terminals where only new "clean" diesel trucks and retrofitted vehicles will be allowed to operate. Another initiative is to equip all major container cargo and cruise ship terminals at the ports with shore-side electricity which will allow vessels at berth to shut down their diesel-powered auxiliary engines.

A highlight of the FFCA conference is a panel discussion covering green leases - leases which implement low-emission and environmentally-friendly processes and technologies into port operations. Among the speakers to attend are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. The EPA is a sponsor of the event.

Analysis: If you think an old diesel truck is an air polluter, imagine what the same vintage diesel technology on a container carrier is doing! It's great to see this kind of proactive approach being taken by the goods movement industry. I'd like to see similar plans to reduce PM, NOx and SOx across every port - all totaled it would really add up.

Related:

• 1,000 tonnes (1.3 million liters) of heavy fuel oil on burning ship near the South Pole
• Heard of regenerative braking? How about regenerative sailing?
• Truckers see the SmartWay to ship freight, are rewarded by the EPA

[Source: Faster Freight - Cleaner Air 2007 press release]

The Wisconsin Department of Commerce got $50,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency for a project to retrofit diesel trucks with new emissions equipment. Twenty five trucks will be equipped with new oxidation catalysts and particulate filters. The catalysts will run $2,000 and the filters will be $12,000 per truck. The equipment installations combined with a program to reduce the amount of time that the vehicles spend idling to reduce emissions and fuel consumption. The idle reduction program includes installing alternative heating and cooling equipment in the trucks so that the drivers don't need to keep the engine running. The American Lung Association also got $95,000 from the EPA to help Chicago school buses reduce their emissions by fitting equipment to 43 buses in Chicago area school districts.

[Source: Environmental Protection Agency via GreenCarCongress]

The US Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments this week in the Massachusetts v. EPA global warming case. The case revolves around whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration has said that the EPA doesn't have any authority over carbon dioxide emissions.

A coalition of thirty states, cities and other environmental organizations are challenging this ruling. The court's decision will determine if the EPA has authority over green-house gas emissions and also impacts the states that have adopted the California emissions rules. More information including the arguments and additional documentation are available at www.cleancarscampaign.org and clicking on "Court Action."

[Source: TheAutoChannel]

In the latest edition of AmandaAcrossAmerica, Amanda Congdon meets up with Nate, a Minneapolis man who lives in his motor home, and pays very little to operate it. The RV has been modified to run on recycled vegetable oil from restaurants. It features a 100 gallon tank to hold the fry oil in addition to the standard 40 gallon diesel tank. The vehicle uses straight unprocessed oil with nothing but a a filtration system to clean out any residues. Nate starts up on regular diesel until the veggie oil warms up and then switches over. Before shutting down the fuel is switched back to diesel to make sure that no veggie oil is left in the fuel system to plug it up.

When he goes on a road trip he periodically stops at Chinese restaurants to fill up on veggie oil. Last summer Nate took a 2,800 mile round trip to Colorado on 50 gallons of diesel. The trip would have cost about $1,000 on straight diesel but only cost $150. One point that jumped out from the interview was that the EPA has declared it illegal to run a vehicle on vegetable oil. From their perspective the veggie oil has not been submitted for safety certification and is therefore illegal. Anyone using an uncertified fuel is subject to a fine of $2,750. So if you decide to run your vehicle on used Chinese restaurant oil, you should probably not put a big sign on your vehicle. Check out Amanda at AmandaAcrossAmerica.

[Source: AmandaAcrossAmerica]

For the last three years, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transporation have ranked 20 companies that they feel offer the best benefits for commuters and for three years Intel has come out on top. Why shouldn't they? They offer their employees vanpools, subsidies for public transportation, showers and storage for those who bike or run and even a dry-cleaner to lessen the demand for driving. And what if you could measure your commute times in milliseconds? In 2005, a whopping 40 percent of their employees got to work via the Internet.

According to Reuters, the ranking is part of a federal government effort to reduce traffic congestion and auto emissions by eliminating the American habit of driving to work alone.

You can view the full list after the jump. See if you can find the patterns. Reuters was kind enough to point out that almost all are technology companies and only eight are in states that do not touch the Pacific Ocean. Oh, and don't immediately fret if your company didn't make the cut. The ranking was only open to 133 firms with at least 700,000 employees.

[Source: Reuters via MSNBC]

Reuters reports that yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a "renewable fuels standard" in order to comply with a 2005 law mandating refiners and marketers to raise biofuel production to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. As reference, production for 2006 is projected at 4 billion gallons. Renewable fuels currently make up 2.78 percent of the nation's gas sales. The EPA's proposed standard would raise that to 3.71 percent next year.

The plan does, however, outline a market-style credit system which would allow a more flexible way for fuel suppliers to comply with the rules by selling biofuels mainly where it's most economical to do so.

The EPA projects that the renewable fuels standard would reduce U.S. petroleum consumption by 3.9 billion gallons per year equating to about 14 million tons in greenhouse gas emissions saved.

As an opponent of the pending rules, Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said, "Consumers will be better served if the market, rather than politics, determines future use of fuel-blending components, including renewables."

Related:

• Massachusetts v. EPA: The Monkey Trial of the century

[Source: Reuters]

In a recent press release, Honda announced that they were able to extend the driving range of their 2nd generation FCX fuel cell vehicle from 190 miles to 210. To achieve this, they didn't replace the catalysts, rework the exchange membranes or rebuild the fuel cell stack. They found the additional 20 miles in a software upgrade. Welcome to the future.

After recoding their refueling software, Honda engineers were able to improve to the refueling process making better use of the FCX's existing storage capacity.

The FCX is currently in use by 15 customers in 3 states in the U.S. It is the only fuel cell vehicle to be certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for everyday commercial use. For 2006, the carmaker added the Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation System which contains all existing hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. in its database.

Honda is also continuing their research and development on an experimental home-based refueling unit dubbed the Home Energy Station (HES). The aim of the station is to provide an environment capable of refueling a fuel cell vehicle (as its name suggests) while being able to provide enough electricity for an average size home.

Related:

• Honda's next big moves: new hybrid and third-gen fuel cell
• Honda says no to ethanol, says it's not efficient
• Honda and Spallino family celebrate FCX's first birthday

[Source: Honda Motor Company]