White House May Seek to set 2025 CAFE Standards up to 62 mpg

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JPVLeaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
767
Location
Orange County, CA
Being bold, and shooting for the moon ....

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/white-house-may-seek-set-2025-cafe-standard-high-62-mpg-28660.html

This is the kind of push that would be needed to make EVs ubiquitous.

The Obama administration is reportedly considering taking the Natural Resources Defense Council up on its push to hike CAFE standards to 60 mpg by 2025. In fact, according to White House officials in a briefing conducted this morning, the EPA and Department of Transportation have set the range of numbers that they might recommend for the next adjustment in fuel economy standards at between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. Next year, the government will issue a draft of the proposed rule, specifying for the first time the number that it will seek.

These poll results were surprising to me. But, if this is true and the CAFE standards can be raised, me thinks we may be at the beginning of the S-curve. Let's see what happens.

" .... according to a poll released several weeks ago by the Mellman Group, a new 60 mpg standard also has the support of the American public. Seventy-four percent of respondents said they were in favor, with 83 percent saying that they'd be willing to pay and extra $3,000 per vehicle to meet the standard if it meant that they could expect to save at least as much money on fuel costs within four years of purchasing that vehicle."
 
hodad66 said:
No matter what the Dems do the Pugs will un-do just
like Ronny did in days gone by........
Yes, but thankfully things have changed some in 30 yrs. If the solar pv panels go back up on the WH, I think they'll have a better chance of staying this time ... even IF Ronny rolls over in his grave. ;)
 
JPVLeaf said:
Yeah, but thankfully things have changed some in 30 yrs.

Yes, they certainly have. Now when you want to buy a new car you get to go up and down the street and demand that your neighbors contribute to help you pay for it.
 
I would be more in favor of bringing back the guzzler tax. Only this time make it tiered based on mileage. This would pay for the ongoing subsidy of electric vehicle purchasing and adding infrastructure. Another possibility would be to make the ongoing cost higher for those that get poor mileage by raising the fuel tax to as much as $1+ incrementally from now to 2025. Same purpose... use the tax for developing non oil energy sources. JMHO.
 
If you seriously want to see CAFE standards raised to 58-62 MPG in 2025, get involved here:

http://www.go60mpg.org/take-action

This site will send an email to the White House supporting a CAFE of 60 MPG by 2025.
 
Too little too late. Peak oil will take care of this by 2025.

If they were serious - they would consider taxing gasoline. May be increasing the tax 10 cents a month for the next 5 years. But noone who tries this will survive the next election, so it won't happen.
 
evnow said:
Too little too late. Peak oil will take care of this by 2025.

If they were serious - they would consider taxing gasoline. May be increasing the tax 10 cents a month for the next 5 years. But noone who tries this will survive the next election, so it won't happen.
Maybe that's the problem, then (fear of not getting reelected). This 60-mpg-by-2025 trick is more 'serious' than they have been in the past. Though it might be considered too little too late, sadly, it would still be regarded as a milestone if it actually passes. And, it wouldn't be like a new CAFE standard would be expected to be the only thing in the bag of tricks. They are, after all, investing a lot of money into 'subsidizing' EV and hybrid purchases, and building out EV infrastructure. I mean, considering were we've come from ... it does feel like they're shooting for the moon. But, that's more a commentary on how little has been done in the past three decades. It's great that it's even being discussed and being taken more than half seriously.

And, this is only a discussion of government's role to kick-start an industry and/or technology and reach a goal, but it's still up to the citizen consumer to make their own commitments. If we solely look to the govt to fix this (i.e., dependence on foreign oil, AGW, etc., ....), then that starts a whole other debate about 'argh-why-do-I-have-to-spend-my-taxes-for-someone-else-to-buy-a-green-car' when I just wanna drive what I want, when I want, where I want.

Okay, off my soap box.
 
JPVLeaf said:
Though it might be considered too little too late, sadly, it would still be regarded as a milestone if it actually passes.

I think it is just an administrative ruling by EPA. Doesn't need to pass any bills.

Ofcourse that means, the next administration can easily dilute it ....
 
evnow said:
JPVLeaf said:
Though it might be considered too little too late, sadly, it would still be regarded as a milestone if it actually passes.
I think it is just an administrative ruling by EPA. Doesn't need to pass any bills.
I don't believe I said anything about it being a bill. EPA draft proposed rules still need to complete the comment (public and otherwise) process to 'pass' (I.e., become promulgated as a final rule and/or regulation). Not all proposed rules go final (as proposed). That's what I meant.

evnow said:
Of course, that means, the next administration can easily dilute it ....
Sure, that's always the case. Then, at a minimum, hope the current administration remains in place longer than not if the proposed CAFE std actually 'passes'.
 
JPVLeaf said:
Sure, that's always the case. Then, at a minimum, hope the current administration remains in place longer than not if the proposed CAFE std actually 'passes'.

But the current administration won't be around after 2016.
 
evnow said:
JPVLeaf said:
Sure, that's always the case. Then, at a minimum, hope the current administration remains in place longer than not if the proposed CAFE std actually 'passes'.
But the current administration won't be around after 2016.
Yeah, so now what? The rest is, as you mentioned, largely about the game of politics. 'They' won't pass the kind of 'things' that are needed to 'solve the problem' by ... pick a date ... 2025 ... for fear of the next election. So, what do you do? I believe you gotta do something, even if that means not getting all that you want or all that is necessary.

For the sake of PO, and dependence on FO, and AGW of course one might wish someone could wave a wand and it just happens. But, I don't see that happening in these times, in the US. And, until it does, I'll consider incremental progress (especially those that are greater than past increments, if any at all) as good news.
 
62 MPG doesn't strike me as all that extreme, looking 15 years into the future. After all, if I owned a Versa and a LEAF and drove them equal distances, wouldn't I get an average of about 60 MPG? So it sounds like all Nissan has to do is trim back its sales of SUVs and build up its LEAF to a bit over half its total sales. Go LEAF!
 
planet4ever said:
62 MPG doesn't strike me as all that extreme, looking 15 years into the future. After all, if I owned a Versa and a LEAF and drove them equal distances, wouldn't I get an average of about 60 MPG? So it sounds like all Nissan has to do is trim back its sales of SUVs and build up its LEAF to a bit over half its total sales. Go LEAF!
I suspect that's because you are already a convinced green-car consumer. However, your average Joe-six-pack (no offense to Joe-six-pack) car buyer is no where near as green as those on this forum. Quite the opposite. Spend some time in the comment section your standard online 'news' sites and you discover that quite quickly. Then, there are those that like the idea of getting beyond oil, but don't want to pay a cent more than the ICE-equivalent, and they don't get or care much about the long term cost savings of EVs or PHEVs. Major auto manufacturers will have to capture a share of these consumer groups too to get to a CAFE of 62 mpg. They won't be able to sell cars to just us EV enthusiasts that happen to be chomping at the bit to get off oil (i.e., gasoline). It's certainly not a shoo-in.
 
garygid said:
If they sell 100 ICEs at 25 mpg, and 100 EVs at 1,000,000,000 mpg (no gas), how does that average out?
I'm not sure. I think they're still fine tuning that one.
Should one consider the mpg-e, or not?
 
garygid said:
If they sell 100 ICEs at 25 mpg, and 100 EVs at 1,000,000,000 mpg (no gas), how does that average out?
A little math exercise .... After you determine the mpg-e, if in fact that is what will be used for the EV, please extend the following method to include such EV's. The solution is not initially obvious.

excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... el_Economy, Calculation ....

Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a harmonic mean, not a simple arithmetic mean (average) – namely, the reciprocal of the average of the reciprocal values. For a fleet composed of four different kinds of vehicle A, B, C and D, produced in numbers nA, nB, nC and nD, with fuel economies fA, fB, fC and fD, the CAFE would be:
{nA+nB+nC+nD}/{nA/fA+nB/fB+nC/fC+nD/fD}

For example, a fleet of 4 vehicles getting 15, 13, 17, and 100 mpg has a CAFE of slightly less than 19 mpg:
4/{1/15+1/13+1/17+1/100}=18.83

While the arithmetic mean fuel economy of the fleet is just over 36 mpg:
{15+13+17+100}/{4}=36.25

The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car in the fleet for the same number of miles, while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car using the same amount of gas (i.e. the 13 mpg vehicle would travel 13 miles with one gallon while the 100 mpg vehicle would travel 100 miles).

For the fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles. The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg. However, the total increase in a manufacturer's average fuel economy rating due to dual-fueled vehicles cannot exceed 1.2mpg.
 
garygid said:
If they sell 100 ICEs at 25 mpg, and 100 EVs at 1,000,000,000 mpg (no gas), how does that average out?
50 mpg. As JPVLeaf pointed out, you "average" by using the harmonic mean. It's really not all that complicated.
2/(1/25 + 0) = 50

You may find it easier to understand if you convert to gallons/100 miles:
ICE=100/25 = 4 g/100mi; EV=100/infinity = 0g/100mi
Average g/100mi = (4 + 0)/2 = 2
Average mpg = 100/2 = 50
 
JPVLeaf said:
I suspect that's because you are already a convinced green-car consumer. However, your average Joe-six-pack (no offense to Joe-six-pack) car buyer is no where near as green as those on this forum.
Quite true. My moniker here gives you my position loud and clear. My only quibble with the 2nd part of your statement would be the word "is". Being as green as I am I truly believe that 15 years from now global warming will have become an unavoidable fact for almost all Americans, and they will be running scared of where the earth is headed.

JPVLeaf said:
Then, there are those that like the idea of getting beyond oil, but don't want to pay a cent more than the ICE-equivalent, and they don't get or care much about the long term cost savings of EVs or PHEVs.
That, my friend, will be easy. With gasoline at $15/gallon and heading up fast, and the government spending trillions trying frantically to stop the greenhouse effect they should have stopped twenty years earlier, the economic choice will be simple.

The hard part will be the rednecks who refuse to give up their monster trucks, the sports fans who gather to watch petroleum-powered cars roar around a track at 240 MPH, and the rich who can't imagine life without their private planes.

/Steps down off the soap box, picks it up, and walks away crying.
 
Here, gas and diesel is about $8 per gallon! And we produce it! And I haven't heard a politician from any party say anything about it for years. Some years ago one of the populist parties wanted to reduce tax, so that the price was $7.50 per gallon!
 
Back
Top