Senate May Stiffen MPG Standards
01-31-2002, 09:39 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Thanks for the clarification David. I was doubting final build location, as BMW would have domestic models then (X5 and Z3 are built in NC, I believe).
Regarding the fines, those are fines actually collected by the EPA during the 2000 calender year. BMW, MB, Porsche and others do not have the credits built up like the big 3 and big 4 japanese makers do. Those were also fines from the '99 model year, prior to the DaimlerChrysler merger. The report states that earned credits only last 3 years, and that DaimlerChrysler and GM have already petitioned to use their '97 credits to cover their '00 Import model shortcomings (2.2 mpg for DC and 2.1 mph for GM), which would have resulted in fines during the 2001 calender year.
Regarding the fines, those are fines actually collected by the EPA during the 2000 calender year. BMW, MB, Porsche and others do not have the credits built up like the big 3 and big 4 japanese makers do. Those were also fines from the '99 model year, prior to the DaimlerChrysler merger. The report states that earned credits only last 3 years, and that DaimlerChrysler and GM have already petitioned to use their '97 credits to cover their '00 Import model shortcomings (2.2 mpg for DC and 2.1 mph for GM), which would have resulted in fines during the 2001 calender year.
02-06-2002, 07:50 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Senate Democrats Mull Higher MPG Standards
February 6, 2002
Some Senate Democrats may seek legislation to increase current fuel requirements by up to 56 percent for some vehicles, The Associated Press reported.
Under a plan outlined in a memo for Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee and obtained by The Associated Press, cars and light trucks would have to average 37 miles per gallon by the 2014 model year. Under current standards, cars must average 27.5 mpg and light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans and pickups, must get 20.7 mpg. Automakers don't have to meet the standard for every vehicle, but the entire fleet in each category must average that distance.
A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said the plan is unacceptable for the auto industry. "Light trucks will no longer exist under this," she said. "It's a job killer. You can kiss your SUV, minivan and pickup goodbye."
Environmentalists say an increase in the standards is needed to reduce pollution and cut dependence on foreign oil, the story said.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has suggested standards based on vehicle weight and has not made a commitment to raise standards.
February 6, 2002
Some Senate Democrats may seek legislation to increase current fuel requirements by up to 56 percent for some vehicles, The Associated Press reported.
Under a plan outlined in a memo for Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee and obtained by The Associated Press, cars and light trucks would have to average 37 miles per gallon by the 2014 model year. Under current standards, cars must average 27.5 mpg and light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans and pickups, must get 20.7 mpg. Automakers don't have to meet the standard for every vehicle, but the entire fleet in each category must average that distance.
A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said the plan is unacceptable for the auto industry. "Light trucks will no longer exist under this," she said. "It's a job killer. You can kiss your SUV, minivan and pickup goodbye."
Environmentalists say an increase in the standards is needed to reduce pollution and cut dependence on foreign oil, the story said.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has suggested standards based on vehicle weight and has not made a commitment to raise standards.
02-07-2002, 07:17 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Darnestown
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westsidebilly: Thanks for the update on the fines.
What a bunch of crap. This is the same argument the auto industry made when the CAFE standard was first implemented. Honda's management of fuel efficiency and performance totally refutes their argument. One other factoid: because the standard is calculated as an harmonic average of the total fuel economy, manufacturers have boosted their sales fleet fuel economy by subsidizing the sales of fuel efficient cars. Where does that money come from? The astronomically high profit margins on SUVs. So a higher standard means less $$$.
A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said the plan is unacceptable for the auto industry. "Light trucks will no longer exist under this," she said. "It's a job killer. You can kiss your SUV, minivan and pickup goodbye."
02-12-2002, 11:39 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Parsippany
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can beat this topic with a stick all you want, the truth is this:
The Bush administration will never allow CAFE standards to be upped, because Bush and his cronies were put in office by money from Big Oil. Any increase in CAFE requirements would mean a loss in profit by the oil companies, both here and in the Middle East.
It is a crime that "light trucks" are able to get by with a 20.7 mpg rating. The technology to make more efficient gasoline engines exists now, but the automakers won't put it to use unless forced to.
Gasoline needs to cost more in the USA before Americans will get smart and stop buying wasteful, polluting trucks and SUV's. Countries that have high gas prices have more small, fuel efficient vehicles, it just makes sense.
And the "bigger vehicles are safer vehicles" argument doesn't work, by that logic we would all be driving M1A1 Abrams battle tanks!
The Bush administration will never allow CAFE standards to be upped, because Bush and his cronies were put in office by money from Big Oil. Any increase in CAFE requirements would mean a loss in profit by the oil companies, both here and in the Middle East.
It is a crime that "light trucks" are able to get by with a 20.7 mpg rating. The technology to make more efficient gasoline engines exists now, but the automakers won't put it to use unless forced to.
Gasoline needs to cost more in the USA before Americans will get smart and stop buying wasteful, polluting trucks and SUV's. Countries that have high gas prices have more small, fuel efficient vehicles, it just makes sense.
And the "bigger vehicles are safer vehicles" argument doesn't work, by that logic we would all be driving M1A1 Abrams battle tanks!
02-22-2002, 12:46 PM
#15
Thread Starter
February 22, 2002
Automakers are resigned to the government raising fuel economy standards, but are preparing to fight what the industry feels are too stringent MPG numbers proposed by Democratic Senators, The Associated Press reported.
Senators John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, have included new MPG requirements in the Senate Democratic energy plan which would require cars and light trucks to average 35 mpg by 2013. The current average required is 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks, a category which includes pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles.
The 35 mpg number is "radical and unrealistic," said Rob Liberatore, DaimlerChrysler's vice president for external affairs and public policy. He added that the industry is preparing for a more modest increase developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA is studying an increase for the 2005 through 2010 model years, but a spokesman said the agency has not decided whether the standards should be raised.
Automakers are resigned to the government raising fuel economy standards, but are preparing to fight what the industry feels are too stringent MPG numbers proposed by Democratic Senators, The Associated Press reported.
Senators John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, have included new MPG requirements in the Senate Democratic energy plan which would require cars and light trucks to average 35 mpg by 2013. The current average required is 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks, a category which includes pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles.
The 35 mpg number is "radical and unrealistic," said Rob Liberatore, DaimlerChrysler's vice president for external affairs and public policy. He added that the industry is preparing for a more modest increase developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
NHTSA is studying an increase for the 2005 through 2010 model years, but a spokesman said the agency has not decided whether the standards should be raised.
02-26-2002, 08:07 AM
#16
Thread Starter
Labor and Management Oppose Tougher MPG Standards
February 26, 2002
General Motors and United Auto Workers members held rallies at plants to warn that the U.S. automotive industry would lose more than 100,000 jobs if the Senate passed a proposal to raise fuel economy standards, Reuters reported.
The Senate is currently studying a proposal by Democratic Senators Ernest Hollings and John Kerry to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for new cars and trucks to 35 miles (56 km) per gallon by 2013 from todays standard of 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for trucks.
Richard Shoemaker, a vice president of the UAW, said the union supports CAFE but the higher standards would unfairly force GM to raise average fuel economy of its new cars and trucks by 30 to 40 percent, while Honda would have to increase by only 15 percent.
Other meetings were to be held at GM plants in Toledo, Ohio, and Janesville, Wisconsin.
Ford and Chrysler have also hosted rallies at some of their U.S. plants this month.
February 26, 2002
General Motors and United Auto Workers members held rallies at plants to warn that the U.S. automotive industry would lose more than 100,000 jobs if the Senate passed a proposal to raise fuel economy standards, Reuters reported.
The Senate is currently studying a proposal by Democratic Senators Ernest Hollings and John Kerry to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for new cars and trucks to 35 miles (56 km) per gallon by 2013 from todays standard of 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for trucks.
Richard Shoemaker, a vice president of the UAW, said the union supports CAFE but the higher standards would unfairly force GM to raise average fuel economy of its new cars and trucks by 30 to 40 percent, while Honda would have to increase by only 15 percent.
Other meetings were to be held at GM plants in Toledo, Ohio, and Janesville, Wisconsin.
Ford and Chrysler have also hosted rallies at some of their U.S. plants this month.
03-01-2002, 07:25 AM
#17
Thread Starter
Senate Fight Looms Over MPG Standards
March 1, 2002
The White House opposes more stringent corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards proposed by Senate Democrats and will submit its own plan for consideration in upcoming Senate debates, the Los Angeles Times reported.
While the Democratic plan would mandate specific fuel economy increases over the next decade, the Bush administration will urge that Congress instead authorize the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set the standards later on, the story said.
Current CAFE standards call for manufacturer's passenger car fleets to average 27.5 mpg while light trucks, including SUVs, can meet an average of 20.7 mpg.
The fuel economy standards called for in the Democratic bill would require cars and SUVs to reach an average performance of 35 miles per gallon by 2013.
March 1, 2002
The White House opposes more stringent corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards proposed by Senate Democrats and will submit its own plan for consideration in upcoming Senate debates, the Los Angeles Times reported.
While the Democratic plan would mandate specific fuel economy increases over the next decade, the Bush administration will urge that Congress instead authorize the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set the standards later on, the story said.
Current CAFE standards call for manufacturer's passenger car fleets to average 27.5 mpg while light trucks, including SUVs, can meet an average of 20.7 mpg.
The fuel economy standards called for in the Democratic bill would require cars and SUVs to reach an average performance of 35 miles per gallon by 2013.
03-01-2002, 07:36 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Darnestown
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Motors and United Auto Workers members held rallies at plants to warn that the U.S. automotive industry would lose more than 100,000 jobs if the Senate passed a proposal to raise fuel economy standards, Reuters reported.
Richard Shoemaker, a vice president of the UAW, said the union supports CAFE but the higher standards would unfairly force GM to raise average fuel economy of its new cars and trucks by 30 to 40 percent, while Honda would have to increase by only 15 percent.
These arguments sound identical to the argument that the President of the steelworker union made this morning on NPR. Trying to encourage, Bush to impose a 40 percent tariff on imported steel, he said without the tariff thousands of steelworkers would lose their jobs and that the tariff would have zero impact on the economy. Sure -- GM, Ford and other would happily pay 40% more for steel and not raise the price of their products one iota. He must think that the average American is really stupid.
03-01-2002, 09:15 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't fathom what his guy was thinking... Oh if you hold us all to the same standard, Honda gets off easy! Huh? I guess I don't know what fair means.
03-01-2002, 09:51 AM
#20
Thread Starter
There are a great number of people in the UAW who care about one thing, and one thing alone: high paying American jobs. They don't care what these people are doing for 40 hours a week, what effect those salaries have on the company, or what kind of product those workers are making. So long as there are no lost UAW jobs involved, they're happy - lost jobs means lost union dues, which in turn means the UAW has less power. Being "fair" doesn't come into play much with these individuals.
The UAW saying 100,000 US jobs would be lost if the CAFE was raised is a scare tactic. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. The U.S. auto makers are perfectly capable of meeting those standards, but they've been unwilling to do so because they'd make less money. Yes, Honda would have an easier road to meeting higher standards, but they deserve that easier road because they've already made the investment to cleaner, more efficient cars - an investment the Big 3 have chose not to make time and time again.
The UAW saying 100,000 US jobs would be lost if the CAFE was raised is a scare tactic. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. The U.S. auto makers are perfectly capable of meeting those standards, but they've been unwilling to do so because they'd make less money. Yes, Honda would have an easier road to meeting higher standards, but they deserve that easier road because they've already made the investment to cleaner, more efficient cars - an investment the Big 3 have chose not to make time and time again.