News-Record.com

Congress passed this back in 2007, Doug.

I'm looking for the text of the thing right now, but I'm pretty sure that was to go into effect "no later than 2020", and Obama is pushing for an earlier date.

I understand that Congress passed it in 2007.

But if Obama is moving up the compliance schedule, then he is in effect ordering stricter standards sooner than Congress ordered.

If the bill gave the president that discretion, no problem. If the president is taking authority that was not granted, problem.

Actually, since the EPA has ruled that carbon emissions fall under the Clean Air Act, it seems that would be legal. That ruling may be challenged in court. The EPA began the process of including carbon emissions during the last few months of the Bush administration.

The EPA part of this I would agree is clearly authorized. Accelerating the mileage standards, however, effectively sets new standards for 2012, 2013, etc. I am curious about the authorization for that executive action.

The standards are to be implemented by 2016. It's plenty of time for car companies to challenge it in court. And it sounds like they're regulating CO2 emissions from the car. A certain amount of gas will emit a given amount of C02, so regulating the carbon, as the EPA can do, regulates the mileage.

I don't question the authority of CO2 regulation, but it raises fairness and effectiveness questions in regard to their application to car owners.

Your car can get 40 mpg, but if you drive it 20,000 miles per year, aren't you going to emit more CO2 than the guy whose car gets only 20 mpg but drives only 5,000 miles per year?

Here we go:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6

"(b) Standards for Automobiles and Certain Other Vehicles-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall prescribe separate average fuel economy standards for--

‘(A) passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers in each model year beginning with model year 2011 in accordance with this subsection;

‘(B) non-passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers in each model year beginning with model year 2011 in accordance with this subsection; and

‘(C) work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles in accordance with subsection (k).

‘(2) FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES-

‘(A) AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY AVERAGE FOR MODEL YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020- The Secretary shall prescribe a separate average fuel economy standard for passenger automobiles and a separate average fuel economy standard for non-passenger automobiles for each model year beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year.

‘(B) AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY AVERAGE FOR MODEL YEARS 2021 THROUGH 2030- For model years 2021 through 2030, the average fuel economy required to be attained by each fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States shall be the maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for each fleet for that model year.

‘(C) PROGRESS TOWARD STANDARD REQUIRED- In prescribing average fuel economy standards under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall prescribe annual fuel economy standard increases that increase the applicable average fuel economy standard ratably beginning with model year 2011 and ending with model year 2020."

The use of the term "ratably" is pretty firm evidence that Congress intended for the standard to increase incrementally (which is the word they should have used) up to 2020. And that probably played at least a minor role in President Bush's decision to sign the bill.

I'm not sure if Obama's plan rises to the level of defying Congress or rewriting statute, but it's hovering on the border of such.

Interesting. Thanks, Steve.

I think Steve answered the question, but as to your fairness and effectiveness question, I agree, but the fairness of the implementation of the regulation is a completely separate issue from the authority to regulate. Car regulations are what they are, and everything from insurance requirements to free use of roads to large parking lots to safety and emissions standards cause those who drive only a little to subsidize those who drive a lot. Options to charge people for how much they drive would either require tracking mileage, which would raise serious privacy concerns and likely be expensive, or in some cases gasoline taxes (which is used, to a point, for the roads). Raising gas taxes is likely a political impossibility, though I'm all for it. I am biased however, since I don't own a car.

"Your car can get 40 mpg, but if you drive it 20,000 miles per year, aren't you going to emit more CO2 than the guy whose car gets only 20 mpg but drives only 5,000 miles per year?"

Maybe so, but this scenario is kind of unrealistic. Discounting the recent drop in miles driven due to $4.00/gallon gas, the average annual miles driven is somewhere just shy of 12,000. Just speculating here, but the bulk of drivers probably fall into the range of 9,000 to 15,000. In that scenario, your 20 mpg/9000 mile guy would use 450 gallons of gas per year, and your 40 mpg/15,000 mile guy would use 375 gallons per year.

I've looked at various studies and estimates on the effects of this new CAFE standard in the past, so I'm just going to paraphrase here: once we hit the 35 mpg goal, the U.S. will use 2.5 million barrels (of oil) per day less than we do now. That is over three times the amount of oil that drilling in ANWR could yield. It's also a huge decrease in annual emissions of CO2 and other genuinely toxic or noxious elements.

Apparently none of you understand the point here. First, it was FIVE renowned climate scientists on the joke that is the U.S. Supreme Court that in 2007 in Mass. v EPA ruled that CO2 a pollutant, which it is NOT!

Next, this idiotic move by the inept president will have us follow Crazyfornia down the path that has it on the verge of bankruptcy because in large part due to their obsession with "saving the planet." In fact Crazyfornia will likely move closer today after thier tax increase propositons lose today.

Of course, then the inept president will blatantly violate the Constitution, again, and have you and I pay for all of Crazyfornia's never ending economic blunders, particularly continuing to elect liberals to runs the state. The have a massive deficit while sitting on massive oil deposits, refusing to expand nulear energy,and telling us we must reduce our dependance on foreign oil! This once again shows the abject insanity of liberalism!

Hey, Tony, just as we were having a polite discussion!

A couple of points, Steve.

First, just my observation, but I think older drivers prefer bigger cars, and they typically don't put a lot of miles on them.

Beyond that, I wonder how much the projections of fuel savings assume everyone will buy these more expensive, efficient but likely less-safe little cars. I'd expect people will try to keep their current cars, or those they buy before the government-imposed price increases, much, much longer.

My wife and I drive efficient little cars, but low price was an important motivator.

I'm still intrigued by any possible connection between Obama's announcement today and the government's stake in GM and Chrysler. On the one hand, I think it really could spur better sales of the 2010 and 2011 models. On the other, in the long run this could hurt sales of GM and Chrysler products that have been popular, i.e., their SUVs, and possibly contribute to their eventual demise.

Little cars are less safe only because of their relative size compared to big cars. If fleets were brought down in size it would make smaller cars safer. Also material advances have made the small cars of today much safer than the big cars that are a bit older. Small efficient cars should become even cheaper relative to others. As for price increases, I don't really think so. This is actually a fairly simple economic and technical adjustment. Companies could easily exceed these standards with current technology. What has happened is that advancements have gone into adding power to engines rather than worrying about fuel economy. For example, take the Toyota Camry. Over the last 20 years its fuel economy hasn't really changed but it's power has increased by 50%. Those engine advances could just have easily kept similar power and increased the fuel economy. All it takes is changing the incentives from power to efficiency.

If the problem is fuel scarcity, I'd prefer that nothing be done. Increasing scarcity will drive up fuel prices, which will induce drivers to move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles without any government "help."

However, the issue being targeted by the Obama administration is carbon emissions, and while that justifies a government intervention (to all but the trolls), I'd still prefer something other than a mandate on car makers. In particular, a higher gasoline tax would be a better approach. With a higher tax, drivers could decide for themselves whether to buy a gas-guzzler or a gas-sipper. A higher tax would address Doug's concern for drivers of big cars who don't drive much. And it would help Detroit (whatever that means any more) avoid the problem of watching sales tilt toward gas-guzzlers, which makes it tough to meet a fleet-average standard.

Also, in case no one's noticed, oil prices have nearly doubled since December and are now hovering in the upper $50s. That's probably not sustainable as we move through this recession, and it appears that some temporary supply problems are driving prices up. But eventually we'll see post-recession oil prices (and hence gasoline prices) move up toward the levels of last year. Last year wasn't a fluke, but the result of simple supply and demand, albeit on a global scale. If (and in my opinion, when) prices rise that high again, whatever the government does with CAFE standards or gasoline taxes will be minor in comparison to the behavior-changing power of high prices.

Hmm. I remember a particular Senate candidate campaigning very stridently against last summer's high gas prices and blaming her opponent. Surely she won't let them go back up to those levels again.

It makes sense to me that $4/gallon gas will force motorists to reduce driving, thus reducing their carbon emissions. A big clunker sitting in the driveway is more environmentally friendly than a little hybrid on the highway. Consumers are price-sensitive, especially when they have less money to begin with.

It did force drivers to drive less, and it temporarily boosted public transport ridership. Which are good things. But hoping/pushing for higher gas prices as a catalyst for reduced consumption here in the U.S. is (by far) not a humanitarian position.

That mostly speculator-driven spike in crude oil prices created an extraordinary food security crisis in the Third World, especially in African nations. While starvation and malnutrition were/are issues in certain areas of the continent, when fuel prices shot through the roof, food prices doubled in dozens of African countries.

In other words, families that had been surviving on 75 cents a day all of a sudden needed $1.50 a day to eat the same amount. Or eat half as much, if the food could be found, which is what most of them did. Those who were slightly better off couldn't afford to feed their livestock, so milk cows were slaughtered. Bye bye calcium and vitamin d.

The bottom line is, what we found to be a "nuisance" here killed thousands elsewhere. The next time someone in a restaurant mentions the advantages of $140 per barrel oil, do me a favor: take away their plate of food and give them a cracker.

Why do you folks continue to ignore the Crazyfornia problem here? Ahnold, a huge "contributor" to his failing state's monumental budget problems, was in DC with the president, announcing the same environmental lunacy that has destroyed the Crazyfornia economy.

It is the Crazyfornia CAFE standards that the president wants to saddle the companies with. Once again, the best way to lower our dependence on foreign oil is to use our own. It won't take any longer to get that oil on line than it will to move to ANY renewable source, and a lot cheaper, and it really will create good jobs, and it will not not "destroy the environment" just as it hasn't in Alaska, or the Gulf! Exactly ONE percent of oil in our waters is from drilling, and more than SIXTY percent is NATURAL! Oil comes from nature.

I do not want to pay for California's, or Michigan's, or New York's incredible malfeasance!

I'd like to see greater exploitation of U.S. resources. Sounds logical if we want to decrease dependency on Middle East oil (I'm not so opposed to using Canadian, Mexican or Nigerian oil, although corruption in the latter two countries is a concern). I'm not a fan of ethanol, which drives up grain prices.

It doesn't require much wishing or hoping for world oil prices to increase. Global demand will surge again. Raising mileage standards here won't have much of a dampening effect.

I just saw a clip of Ahnold praising the Community Organizer for praising Crazyfornia for being the leader of demanding cars that have drivern the American auto industry to the brink of oblivion.

He was thrilled because O said that "we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for Crazyfornia!" Well Ahnold is there because he really doesn't want to around when the results of the iniatives are announced and he has to beg for an unconstutional bailout by the federal government. These are either the most dishonest, or the dumbest people on earth.

Tonymo if you think you are going to get Al Gore global warming peolpe to think otherwise, you are wasting your time.
I have asked the question, many times if NO is going to be underwater, why are we spending money to rebuild it?
Doug Clark, will it cause car sells to rise? I do not know! However I can tell you for a fact, a new pick up truck was not purchased yesterday, because of what Obama said.
I not foolish enough to pay the major money for one, that Obama may take off the road next year. It made the statement, I will remove 187,000 cars from the highway. Could that be the one, I would have purchase yesterday?
Who knows?
Doug Cark is right on one thing, we older folks, do not drive as much, I have a car, that the time limit expires in August, I just passed 19,000 miles yesterday.
Since the price of gas has went up,42% since Obama, took over, were is the outrage, Obama is in bed with big oil? Seems that was the battle cry, when Bush was in office!
Yes Allen Brod, I am still, Doug Johnson.

Obama's not going to take anyone's pickup truck away.

New car sales will go up BEFORE Obama's higher mileage standards raise prices. After, sales will go down. Just my opinion.

Good point about gas prices. No, I don't think this president will be accused of colluding with Big Oil or that the Democrats who blamed Republicans for rising gas prices in the past will accept responsibility for rising gas prices now.

Guys, the rise you're seeing in gas prices is mostly due to two things: anticipation of economic recovery and several Saudi/OPEC production cuts that began towards the end of 2008.

On the first item, the DOW is trading at just over 8,500, up from the low 6,000's of just a few months ago. Oil futures follow this (to a certain degree).

On the second issue, OPEC makes a lot of decisions based on U.S. consumption, which has been steadily down for 9 straight months. But even with the cuts, our stockpiles are larger than they've been since the early 1990's—something like 380 million barrels.

What does that mean? As always, oil speculators seize on any piece of information to boost the value of the futures they're holding. So you don't hear about the stockpiles or production cuts, you hear about refinery woes. You don't hear about the continued shrinking U.S. demand (in spite of the DOW), you hear about Nigerian terrorism.