The average cost for Detroit's Big Three automakers to meet the proposed fuel efficiency targets of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 has been pegged at $30.6 billion. In contrast, the average cost for the Japanese automakers sits at less than half that amount at "only" $14.85 billion. These numbers come courtesy of a recent study by Global Insight. In a real shocker, General Motors alone is expected to pay out $15 billion alone. Why the disparity? Simple: the Japanese brands already offer more fuel efficient models. With that reasoning, it seems unlikely that the U.S. companies will get much sympathy from the buying public.

Global Insight also predicts that many new technologies which are just beginning to make a dent in sales today will make up a huger percentage of sales by 2015. These new developments include direct injection, turbocharging and diesel engines. Hybrids, the current darling of the fuel efficient crowd, will continue to gain market share, especially as more new models are rolled out which feature the hybrid drivetrain as an option or as standard equipment.

There is a glimmer of hope out there for automakers which are finding it tough to move vehicles in today's troubled climate. Global Insight predicts that there will be a pent-up demand for the replacement of aging models which owners have clung to in the face of high gas prices and a poor U.S. economy sometime around the year 2015.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been involved with the ins and outs of the CAFE standards for a long while. This week, following the NHTSA's call for a 31.6 mpg average (35.7 for cars and 28.6 for light trucks) by 2015, Pelosi had some kind word for the President and the NHTSA. So, first the automakers say they're OK with these stricter numbers and now Pelosi lauds Bush? What's going on here? You can try to figure it out for yourself by reading Pelosi's statement in full after the jump, but for a flavor of what she said, check out the opening bit that says, "The Bush Administration should be commended..."

Of course, Pelosi later says that the Administration continues to block progress on climate change legislation by fighting California's efforts to install its own rules. Whew, that's more like it. Thought for a moment there we weren't going to have a bumpy ride to 35 by 2020.

Remember how the automakers fought against the 35 mpg by 2020 CAFE increase late last year? They are also fighting against possible state-by-state emissions and fuel economy regulations issues that are going through the courts. Following the news today of the NHTSA's call for cars to reach a 35.7 mpg average (and light trucks reach a 28.6 mpg average) by 2015, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers seems to be OK with it. The Auto Alliance issued a statement today (pasted after the jump) wherein Dave McCurdy, the Alliance's president and CEO says "This proposal represents an important mile marker on the road to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020." The Alliance - which speaks for BMW Group, Chrysler LLLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes Benz Usa, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota And Volkswagen - said the automakers "believe this tough, nationwide, proposed fuel economy increase will be good for both consumers and energy security. While these increases will present a challenge, it is critical that automakers and consumers have the certainty that this nationwide, 50-state fuel economy rule provides." Looks like the potential patchwork policies were more of a stick in the jaw than higher MPG rules.

We all know that the Democratic Representative from the Automakers Michigan, John Dingell, is a foe of state-based regulations over the auto industry. Back in February, he tried to revive an excised portion of the energy bill that would have made federal CO₂ limits take precedence over state rules. In an editorial in Automotive News (subs req'd), Edward Lapham writes that it's Dingell who will be of very few lawmakers who "get" why America needs a national fuel economy law instead of allowing states to set their own rules. The three major presidential candidates, Lapham writes, don't get it and neither do many other in Congress. Lapham even equates states setting their own fuel economy rules "would be akin to letting them print their own money." For Lapham and Dingell, the protracted wait between federal increases in the CAFE standard must have looked pretty good. If all the power sits in Washington, then you can slow laws down there and be all set. I mean, if the feds retain control, then Dave McCurdy might be able to stay home more.

[Source: Edward Lapham / Automotive News (subs req'd)]

At the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) meeting last weekend, GM CEO Rick Wagoner asked car dealers to lobby their state and local governments to not regulate tailpipe emissions. The NADA is going to take the legislative battle over CAFE fuel requirements seriously, something that NADA chairwoman Annette Sykora said at the same conference.

Sykora said that flexibility in the CAFE regulations are going to be a priority for her organization and that - stop us if you've heard this before - CAFE can't restrict the consumer's freedom of choice. According to Automotive News, Sykora said, "The consumer will decide what works and what doesn't. It's that simple. You can't wave a government wand and make consumers buy a particular type of vehicle. This is not Europe."

Yawn.

While Sykora's statement that "We don't want the jalopy effect, where car owners keep their older, less fuel-efficient vehicles much longer" is a valid one, using the Europe boogeyman is tired and not very helpful. That sort of talk might work in Texas, where Sykora is a Ford dealer, but it doesn't have a place in an educated debate about making cars cleaner. You know, I could swear it was just last year that the previous NADA chair said that fuel-efficient vehicles are the way to built market share. Anyway, you can read Sykora's speech here (PDF).

[Source: David Sedgwick / Automotive News]

Automotive News (subs req'd) has published a very interesting article on how the new CAFE rules might bring some surprises for American car buyers.

First and foremost, there's the "work truck" classification, which exempts those types of vehicles from these tougher standards. According to John DeCicco, from Environmental Defense, the first CAFE standards from 20 years ago allowed vehicles outside the car category - such as SUVs, light trucks and minivans - to survive with terrible fuel economy. Now the story could be repeated with larger vehicles that technically fit the definition of "work truck" but probably aren't used for work (the article uses the 2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty with King Ranch trim as an example) to again skate by legislation.

Then there's the issue of weight reduction, which has actually been a way to go for several car manufacturers (we even have a full category for it) to increase mileage ratings. But could this lead to cars that are less safe? The truth is that fuel economy targets will vary according to a vehicle's attributes - most likely size, measured by "footprint" or the area bounded by the four wheels, which is a system that ensures that automakers won't sell a bunch of smaller cars together with larger less efficient vehicles. However, this could also lead to cars that would weigh less than similar counterparts from the late '90s or early 2000s, which are, according to DeCicco, simply overweight.

The "footprint" of the car could also lead automakers to push wheels against the corners of the cars, something that might affect Honda or Nissan, marques that already sell smaller vehicles, says Ed Cohen, chief Washington lobbyist for Honda North America Inc. He also believes that some automakers will simply cope with the cost of fines (or add it to the price of the car), something premium marques have been doing in the past. Jim Kliesch, an engineer in the clean-vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, says: "It's going to be a fairly simple process," and he forecasts that this will only cost about $1,500 per car.

Related:

• Washington Auto Show videos: Car makers on senators, state regulators and CAFE
• The Chrysler HEMI may soon fade into history, another victim of CAFE and modern realities
• Lutz says new CAFE standards will increase car price by $6k

[Source: Automotive News (sub's required)]

Forget MPG, just pull into a gas station with your Tesla Roadster and smile....
(Photo by Jurvetson. CC 2.)

Hm. While Toyota has been pushing for less stringent CAFE standards (and taking a beating for it), a group that Toyota is part of, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, has told Congress that the stronger 35 mpg is acceptable. The twist is that they want "more time" than is being talked about to meet that goal (so, no 2020 implementation). As AIAM president Mike Stanton told Automotive News, 35 mpg CAFE is coming, so "Why beat your head up against the wall?"

AIAM is for asking the deadline, should it be 35 mpg, to be pushed back by "several years." Automotive News says that the AIAM's call "adds to the likelihood that Congress will pass a tough fuel economy measure this year." The Auto Alliance, which also represents Toyota, is calling for implementation of weaker CAFE standard that would put cars and trucks into two categories and calls for a 32 mpg average by 2022. Talk about covering your bases.

[Source: Harry Stoffer, Automotive News]

Even if you don't like cars, you can enjoy the NPR show Car Talk. And, even if you're not too familiar with the ins and outs of the upcoming CAFE legislation, you can listen to Car Talk's Click and Clack (Tom and Ray Magliozzi) and understand that they're in favor of more fuel-efficient cars.

But who am I kidding? If you're reading AutoblogGreen, you probably know all about CAFE and cars and Click and Clack. Today, the Tappet Brothers sent a letter to Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the Chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, that is in strong support of the 35 mpg CAFE standards, instead of the 32 mpg level (which would take longer). They also make a lot of fun of people in the auto industry who seem to play Henny Penny whenever legislators talk about forcing them to make cleaner cars. Key line: "Every single time they've resisted safety, environmental, of fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers." You can read the full letter here (in PDF).

Markey is receptive to the call. He said that, "As any listener knows, Tom and Ray are where common sense begins when it comes to cars, and when they say reaching 35 miles per gallon is feasible and the smart play for the American auto industry, people should listen. Automakers should stop acting like they're playing the Tappet Brothers' game, 'Stump the Chumps,' and start supporting higher fuel economy standards in Congress' energy bill."

[Source: House.gov, thanks to reader JS]