backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by RaggedClaws.. on Sep 8 at 1:40 AM


The EPA's 2008 sticker design (click to enlarge).  (Source: EPA/DOT)

One of the new sticker designs.  (Source: EPA/DOT)

The other proposed new sticker design.  (Source: EPA/DOT)
Sticker is one of two proposed designs, each with new information to help consumers choose their next vehicle

Spiking oil prices in the 1970s inspired the U.S. Congress to pass the Energy Tax Act of 1978, a phased in tax that hits people who buy inefficient vehicles.  Around the same time Congress also mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation put fuel efficiency labels on all new cars sold at dealerships in the U.S.  Those stickers became a familiar, relatively unchanging sight over the next 30 years.

Starting in 2008, the stickers underwent their first big overhaul.  Today, with new types of automobiles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles preparing to hit the market, the DOT and EPA are looking to roll out yet another shakeup to the dealership sticker design. 

The government organizations aired two alternative designs for labels today.  The first design more closely resembles the 2008 label and its contents.  It adds several additional statistics, as well -- offering metrics on CO2 emissions (in g/mile from the tailpipe), "other emissions" (on a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the best possible), how many gallons are used every 100 miles, how the vehicle compares fuel economy-wise with other vehicles in its class, and how the vehicle compares to all other vehicles (including those outside its class) in fuel economy.

The second design is a more radical redesign offering a letter grade to the vehicle in terms of fuel economy.  According to the EPA/DOT proposal page shows a battery electric vehicles getting an "A+", a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle receiving an "A", a compressed natural gas vehicle getting an "A-", and a "flexible fuel" (ethanol-ready) vehicle receiving a "B".  The page insists, though:

Please note that these labels are examples and do not represent real automobiles. 

Thus, it is unclear whether these labels are indicative to what kind of letter grades the actual vehicles in these classes would succeed.  Interestingly, there's no room for failure under the new system.  The worst rating one can get is a "D".

The design bumps the average yearly cost of fuel to a text subnote and instead emphasizes the amount the vehicle "saves" per year, "compared to the average vehicle".  It also bumps the note on how the vehicle stacks up within its class to a text subnote.

Both labels feature special QR Codes that allow smartphones to pull up additional info on fuel efficiency and the model.  Both labels also include special "effective MPG" ratings, to encompass electric vehicle performance.  Electric vehicles have their costs tallied as an "Annual Electric Cost".

The first sticker also includes, for the first time, a short disclaimer on how the fuel costs are calculated (a gas price of $2.80 USD is assumed in the sticker shown).  The letter-grade sticker doesn't include the disclaimer, though both stickers remind customers to go to www.fueleconomy.gov to learn more on the topic.

The EPA is seeking public comment on both designs, in order to decide which to adopt.  You can leave your thoughts, comments, criticism, and suggestions here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By MrBlastman on 8/30/2010 10:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Source: C-SPAN, Newspapers, Magazines, Television, Online News Websites...

Want me to go on? You have to be pretty naive to not realize the reality of all this by now.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Nfarce on 8/30/2010 11:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who even questions the validity of the current administration and ties to the current EPA and "green" initiatives is, well, a toady.

To help our little toady friend out, I submit the New York Slimes, that vast, right wing conspiracy rag's words back in May on this very topic:

" The Obama administration proposed on Monday two alternatives to the window stickers in new vehicles, including one that would assign letter grades for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. This sticker would give letter grades for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. The letter grades — from A+ to D — were immediately denounced by some industry groups, which said the government should not be making value judgments for consumers about vehicles."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31auto....


By Nfarce on 8/30/2010 11:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, my bad, I posted the same article for August. Well here's the predecessor to this latest brilliance in government...and again from the New York Slimes:

" The plan announced by Mr. Obama in May 2010 orders further improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks made in 2017 and beyond, and in medium and heavy trucks made in 2014 through 2018. In addition to the fuel efficiency and pollution standards, Mr. Obama's directive will order more federal support for the development of new-generation cars like advanced electric vehicles and will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce pollutants from motor vehicles other than greenhouse gases."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopic...


By cruisin3style on 8/31/2010 1:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
You knew the administration submitted the letters as one approach.

I didn't.

You called me a toady.

Wow.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By cruisin3style on 8/31/2010 1:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between naivete and not knowing of a specific occurrence i.e. Obama administration pushing letter grades on fuel economy stickers, which I agree is ridiculous hence the asking for sources.

No one said I didn't know Obama is pushing green and all that, I just asked about the letters specifically. Just because I don't know the names of the specific guns used in the civil war doesn't mean I didn't know the war was fought.

But I appreciate your implication that I was naive and hadn't caught on to the trend, kind of a condescending tone you take on there...mirroring the government you are criticizing, it would seem.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Nfarce on 8/31/2010 12:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just as a memory refresher, your original comment:

quote:
Please cite the source for this being the administration's agenda, and not just some trying-to-be-helpful EPA employee's brainchild. Or is this just your opinion?


It took me all of twelve seconds to research (and back up) the other poster's comments. Maybe you were just too afraid he was right and you didn't want the truth revealed - vs. his opinion as you attempted to protrude.

And your correlation (attempted one anyway) at Civil War guns and a battle being fought = " F ".


By cruisin3style on 8/31/2010 2:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And your correlation (attempted one anyway) at Civil War guns and a battle being fought = " F ".


That's funny because just as a battle is fought with guns even if i don't know which specific ones, an environmental agenda is pushed with laws and initiatives even if i don't know which specific ones come from Obama admin. for that agenda, and which are just random proposed ideas from some employee at the EPA (just as I am sure there were guns that existed in the 1860s that weren't used in the civil war).

As for being afraid, I think you are right. That is why I asked for sources...


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Gungel on 8/31/2010 8:21:44 AM , Rating: 1
What exactly is so wrong to get off our oil addiction? We have to start tapping other resources to power our cars and trucks. The best investment for our future is into our own energy production and the worst is to send billions upon billions into countries that hate us.
Instead of wasting your time to bitch about our government use it to find new ways to create energy.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Nfarce on 8/31/2010 12:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
What is wrong with us trying to drill for our OWN resources? And don't give me that Gulf spill nonsense. Had new shallow water drilling rigs been approved, it would never have been a problem - irreletave that Cuba and Russia both are in the works to drill "sideways" into US rock below the sea in the Gulf and arctic respectively.


By cruisin3style on 8/31/2010 2:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about drilling vs not drilling in terms of what you are responding to? Why are you picking battles that don't exist?

As far as I know, and maybe things have changed recently, there aren't many people in Congress or the administration that don't want to drill. I'm fairly certain I've heard speeches on C-Span from members in both parties, and the president, stating that the gulf spill is a catastrophe but we need to keep in mind that drilling for oil is important to the future of our country.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki