Gasoline Standards Cuts For Gas Guzzlers Start in 2027
Typically, what happens with these types of regulations is delay for another 2 to five years before becoming active. This may occur. The other likelihood being the automakers going to court suing for a delay or a ruling on constitutionality. SCOTUS could again decide Congress can only make regulations and this capability was not delegated properly or can not be delegated to the NHTSA. One example:
“Tip Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act: Delay of Effective Date.”
The amendments to 29 CFR 10.28(b)(2), 531.56(e), 578.1, 578.3, 578.4, 579.1, 579.2, 580.2, 580.3, 580.12, and 580.18, published at 85 FR 86756 (December 30, 2020), and delayed at 86 FR 11632 (February 26, 2021) until April 30, 2021, are proposed to be further delayed until December 31, 2021. Submit written comments on or before April 14, 2021.
This was a minor delay in terms of length. Another example of delay using a planned delay. Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released revised guidance detailing the requirements and parameters of the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for the first round of negotiations, which will occur during 2023 and 2024 and result in prices that will be effective beginning in 2026.
The new regulation is something sorely needed. It may result in a mixed bag of outcomes. Then too, I believe the government is late to the game on regulating gasoline and other fuel standards for vehicles. For example, electric vehicle manufacturing is the wild west of introduction. There is a lot to be learned from this product and people are scrambling to buy them.
~~~~~~~~
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027-2032 and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030-2035, NHTSA.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT), is proposing new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks and fuel efficiency standards for model years (MYs) 2027-31 that increase at a rate of 2 percent per year for passenger cars and 4 percent per year for light trucks, and new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (HDPUVs) for MYs 2030-2035 that increase at a rate of 10 percent per year.
NHTSA is also setting forth proposed augural standards for MY 2032 passenger cars and light trucks, that would increase at 2 percent and 4 percent year over year, respectively, as compared to the prior year’s standards.
NHTSA currently projects that the proposed standards would require an industry fleet-wide average for passenger cars and light trucks of roughly 58 miles per gallon (mpg) in MY 2032 and an industry fleet-wide average for HDPUVs of roughly 2.6 gallons per 100 miles in MY 2038.
NHTSA further projects that the proposed standards would reduce average fuel outlays over the lifetimes of passenger cars and light trucks by $1,043 and of HDPUVs by $439. These proposed standards are directly responsive to the agency’s statutory mandate to improve energy conservation and reduce the nation’s energy dependence on foreign sources.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: CAFE 2027-2032, HDPUV 2030-2035 (nhtsa.gov)
Better Idea Than Releasing Reserves, Angry Bear, Elizabeth Kilbert.
Are these categories that blend all energy sources or only for gasoline-powered vehicles? If specifically gas-only, my reaction is this is strange. I’d hold standards unchanged so that manufacturers don’t need to invest another penny into these segments while they concentrate resources on EV. I include in those “investments” lobbying and litigation costs. On the other hand if the strategy were explicitly to defer an energy transformation in terrestrial transportation until non-carbon electricity and its distribution is ready to handle it, then improving standards makes more sense. If the strategy for terrestrial transportation really is max possible EV, then having enough reliable “E” where and when it’s needed is paramount.
Eric
sounds reasonable, but like all “reasonable” may fail the reality test.
for what it’s worth. i owned an Austin Healey Sprite in 1964, got 50 mpg, so it’s possible. also a more practical Austin America in 1978 got about 50mpg.
but, the standards referred to here are too little much too late.
EV’s have environmental problems that could be avoided by accepting smaller slower shorter range “town” cars. and rapidly moving to far less driving, flying, and criminal congresses/state legislatures.
“Too little, too late” sounds strange to my ears. If you are setting standards for vehicle types (non-EV) that are intended to be pretty rapidly driven from the market, it’s kind of secondary what the standards are. Standards for mule wagons – if there were any – were not so important in 1950. But I frequently wonder if transitioning to EV rapidly is more of a energy reduction program than a transition to new sources. Convert a healthy percentage of liquid hydrocarbon demand to electricity relatively quickly, then later come to grips with insufficient non-carbon electricity production. ‘Well we all just need to drive a lot less until we hit our target electricity production 40 years from now (or never).’ It can’t be that tricky, right?
Eric
i would expect “driven from the market” might take a while. in the meanwhile, sitting on your hands while the enemy gathers his forces, because you don’t have a perfect answer has never been the best strategy.
what makes “too little” “too late” is we have sat on our hands for fifty years since we had reasonable knowledge of what was coming. and we are still trying to make electric cars as big, powerful, and “convenient” as gas cars. instead of small, slow, short range, and cheap for most driving in cities, which they are better adapted to. and everyone has an excuse for not doing this. the kind of excuses that only emerge from “stongly motivated” minds. in this case motivated to “change nothing that affects my status quo which I am very happy with thank you.” which is a very common human motivation. instead of getting up to change the channel or turn the TV off and go do something “better” you sit there on the couch and watch something you don’t even like.
I would not expect car manufacturers to invest in technology. The more likely result of the regulation (it seems to me) would be to slow the shift to larger vehicles.
Since shifting to smaller vehicles is the smart engineering solution even as we move to EVs, we should actually be clamoring for Congress to incentivize the use of smaller vehicles. The car companies certainly won’t help since they make more on bigger ones.
@Arne,
“I would not expect car manufacturers to invest in technology. “
Oops! Wrong.
“Electric vehicles make up a small percentage of the total automotive market today, but their appeal continues to grow as the automakers expand their range, performance, and style—and as recharging becomes quicker and easier. Shoppers looking for zero-emissions driving now have an expansive list of vehicles to choose from, with a wide variety of body styles and several different price points.”
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/
Oops is right. I should have been clearer. I was agreeing with Eric that improving gasoline burning efficiency would not be a high priority for where car companies put their technology investment.
arne, you were clear enough from context.
Range is the major issue for people, like me, who prefer over the road trips to flying. Not good for Illinois to Florida in the winter, for example.
For me it isn’t precisely range, but range plus recharge availability and cycle. Went to Brandon MO from Green Bay WI with 4 kids a month ago. One extra refuel is not a big deal, but uncertainty and advance planning plus the prospect of 12 minute stops becoming 1 hour 08 minutes is concerning.
Agreed.
Well, i failed to make my point too.
Save the freeway cruiser for long trips. Use your smaller, slower, short range EV in town.
Do I need to add “cheaper EV”?
and i did mention fewer trips.
but not us. we will not give up a thing to stop the planet from burning. because this is now. that is then.
i don’t know that the planet has passed the point of no return. but the people have.
Kind of pessimistic. IRA passed and although lots of it is going to be a major crony enrichment opportunity, still it moves things towards a newer and hopefully sustainable energy future. I think the move to EV is out of sequence, but the interest reflects a willingness to take actions. Population trends – even prior COVID – seem favorable to managing climate change. The work never really ends (collectively) but we maybe shouldn’t get too down that 70 years of it won’t get done by 2035 or whatever.
Not everyone can afford two cars especially when one is electric.
JackD
note “smaller, slower, short range, cheaper”.
coberly
note: two cars are unlikely to be cheaper. This may eventually get solved through battery development and available high speed charging stations but we’re a long way from that presently.
JackD
do look around. you could buy a perfectly good electric car like i describe today for about a tenth the cost of a new “big” EV or gas car. what stands in the way is the failure of our leaders to change the rules to favor smaller etc cars. there is no hope individuals can or will make the decision themselves.
and the resistance (individual) is powerful. makes us blind to even what we could do easily today.
you’d save enough in gas by not driving that big car in town–to which it is not well adapted– to pay for the small ev. you might even save the planet. i have no idea what a new planet will cost.