backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by chick0n.. on Mar 19 at 11:56 PM

He's learned his lesson about risky loans, but Obama wants to increase research grants

The auto industry isn't very happy with the federal government.  After two decades of inaction on the fuel economy, President George W. Bush (R) and his successor, current President Barack H. Obama (D) have pushed legislation through Congress to stiffen fuel economy rules.  Those rules have cost the industry billions.  But both Presidents tried to make up with automakers by pushing federal funding initiatives that help automakers with the cost of fuel economy research, on the taxpayer dollar.

I. After a Decade and a Half Stall, Bush Kick-Started MPG Progress

A debate of economics aside, the approach seems to be working.  In a report to be released today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce that between 2007 and 2012 fuel economy rose 16 percent, while carbon dioxide emission decreased by 13 percent.

In a report last year called "One Decade of Innovation, Two Decades of Inaction", the Pew Institute points out that there was essentially no gain in fuel economy between 1985 and 2000, despite rising oil prices in the late 1990s.  The agency says that this was the result of so-called "Reagonomics", writing:

In the mid-1980s, however, Ford and General Motors lobbied the Reagan administration to lower the standard. NHTSA complied, setting a 26-mpg standard for 1986, prompting Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca to declare, “We are about to put up a tombstone: ‘Here lies America’s energy policy.’ ”

(Note: 26 mpg was actually a drop from the 1985 standard of 27.5 mpg for cars.)

Reagan v. Bush
This chart speaks for itself. [Image Source: Pew Institute; AP, White House]

But it was another Republican President -- George W. Bush -- who reversed that stall.  In his 2006 State of the Union speech he turned heads, commenting:
This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure.... so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

He would go on to sign into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).  The EISA would bump fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

EISA prompted automakers to invest in new fuel efficiency technology, such as direct injection/turbo-boosting engine technology.  At the same time, automakers were forced to discontinue some "gas guzzling" models to boost their average fuel economy.

II. Obama Follows up With Stricter Standards, but New Incentives

But for all the moaning and groaning among automakers with EISA, it was about to even stricter with President Obama.  President Obama struck down a Bush-era mandate that forbid states from enacting their own stricter standards, paving the way for some states like California to set much loftier targets.

The new President also rolled back the deadline for reaching 34.1 mpg to 2016 in a 2010 CAFE update.  Those updates are expected to cost the auto industry $52B USD to implement, while potentially raising vehicle prices slightly and limiting selection to an extent.


President Obama's "test drive" of a Chevrolet Volt back in 2010. [Image Source: AP]

President Obama has also proposed rules that would set a CAFE target of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  Automakers are upset about the proposal, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates will cost them $144-152B USD.

The EPA and NHTSA claim that the 2017-2025 push to 54.5 mpg will save $1.7T USD in fuel costs (although the price impact on vehicles is not mentioned; one report suggest vehicle prices may rise $10K USD by 2025).  They say that by 2025, America will have reduced its oil consumption by 2 million barrels per day.  They add that by cutting 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the same period society will have "saved" $326-451B USD (operating on the controversial "carbon credits" model).

Some fear the new fuel economy standards may cost lives, as automakers often reduce frame integrity during weight cutting, and also tend to cut out features like extra airbags.  Automakers are at least relieved that the President backed of an earlier stricter target of 62 mpg, which they argued could "kill the auto industry".

III. Speech to Call for $2B USD in Research Grants

At a speech at Argonne National Laboratory, a top federally funded research institution in the President's home state, President Obama is today set to unveil a proposal to toss a carrot to the auto-industry, which has at times been less than happy with him.

The video below will go live at 2:30 p.m., along with a corresponding live chat on Facebook.



Located approximately 30 minutes west of Chicago, ANL conducts a great deal of battery, fuel cell, and biofuel research -- a seemingly appropriate setting for the President to unveil a new fuel efficiency proposal at.  Under the President's requested proposal for Congress "[$2B USD in] funds would be set aside from royalty revenues generated by oil and gas development in federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf."

The proposed $2B USD trust may in reality see a far smaller funding total, particularly amid the rancorous federal budget debates.  In 2012 President Obama asked Congress for $650M USD for advanced vehicle research, but Congress only offfered up $330M USD.

Argonne National Lab
President Obama's call for vehicle research funding will be held at
Argonne National Lab. in Illinois. [Image Source: ANL]

While hybrids have sold well in recent years, EV sales have disappointed, even as automakers put their marketing might behind the green, yet expensive cars.  Critics say that it's good Congress isn't giving more funding, in that the technology appears to be failing.  Proponents, conversely argue that the lack of funding is slowing development, which in turns increases EV costs and reduces their performance.

But critics are at least relieved that the President has turned away from providing loans to individual automakers or alternative energy startups.  After the boondoggle of Solyndra LLC going under and taking $553M USD in federal loans with it, President Obama has carefully shifted funding requests towards research.  No loans have been granted in the last two years from a $25B USD fund Congress set aside for vehicle research.

The Obama Administration's energy policy is in the midst of an overhaul amid the departure of U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner.

IV. CNG Tax Credit Proposal Revived

Also on the President agenda Friday will be plugging natural gas for vehicles.  Compressed natural gas (CNG).  The U.S. produced 25.3 trillion cubic feet (25.3e12) of natural gas last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Low costs and domestic production make this fossil fuel an attractive alternative to petroleum; the President thinks it could play a small, yet important role in the automotive market.

The President wants a tax credit for CNG and EV truck buyers equal to half the incremental costs (50% of the premium over a similar model gas vehicle).

CNG Ford Truck
President Obama wants tax credits for CNG truck buyers. [Image Source: Truck Trend]

It appears the President has dropped a separate proposal dubbed "National Community Deployment Challenge", which called for $1B USD to fund 10-15 "green" EV-friendly communities (paying for public chargers, etc.).

To contrast these funding initiatives with past government transportation funding, recent reports estimated that the government has spent around $1T USD to date to develop the commercial airport system.

And not all EV firms have proven disappointments.  Tesla Motors Comp. (TSLA) recently announced a plan to repay its government loans early, amid strong sales.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 6:53:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I also wonder if an Aygo or Think City EV can get me 20 miles to work when there is 8 inches of snow on the road.

I worked in the town of Hammerfest, close to the border of the arctic circle.

And yeah properly a EV is not your first pick, but there are plenty of Aygo's and Yaris's driving there, and if you live a bit out, a 4x4 Suzuki Vitara would be a better pick.

But that is still a car everyone can afford.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/used-cars/suzuki/vitar...

At last a hell of a lot more affordable then a RAM what witch you ever look at it.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/used-cars/dodge/ram

And yeah EV's are not a all round solution, but smaller and more efficient cars are, and if you cant get them in the US, you can always import them from Europe, friend of mine got a big classic Cadillac from the US transported in a container for $800, think you can do the same the other way around with any smaller car.


RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/17/2013 10:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Those prices on the Ram are another reason I am not purchasing a new truck anytime soon.

It doesn't look very easy to import a car into the US that isn't already a model sold here.

http://www.bordercenter.org/chem/vehicles.htm

That Suzuki was sold here as the GEO Tracker and I have been looking at those also, but seems here many value them as something to purchase cheap and modify heavily for offroad use and the prices have been going up. Reported fuel mileage for that model is between 23 and 30mpg. I have a friend wanting to sell me his 85 Jeep Cherokee for $500 and it only needs a new fuel line and his records show it was getting 25mpg and that will probably be my next vehicle purchase.

It goes back to the same problem here though, until the high fuel efficient vehicles are available very cheap on the used market, and cheap is in the less than $10,000 range, then the masses will not be moving to them. 50% of people in the US make less than $45,000 per year and 28% make less than $25,000 per year. These numbers are for households and it covers about 54 million households so that is about 100 million people. Paying more for a vehicle than a person makes per year in income is not easily done with all the other expenses that need to be paid. Now those are wages before taxes. For an example this year I made $43,000 and paid $10,151 in taxes(Federal, State, Social Security ect) so I had about $33,000 to live on this year. It returns us to the fact, that for 50% of people in the US, taxing fuel and less fuel efficient vehicles to make them purchase the higher fuel efficient vehicles is not something that is financially viable for most people.

As much as anyone I would like to see us reduce our fuel consumption, but until cheap fuel efficient vehicles are common I doubt it is going to happen. Another question nobody is addressing is how well are the current efficient vehicles going to hold up over the long haul(250K+ miles and 12+ years). Will the tiny turbo engines hold up as long as the larger non turbo ones? Will the electronics necessary for them hold up as long? Will EV and Hybrid batteries hold up that long, and if not what will be the cost to replace them? People who can afford to move to more fuel efficient technology can, but for the masses it isn't yet feasible.


RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/17/2013 12:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
The reason i say 10% increase a year is because, if a buyer of a new car buys now a car, he knows that when he sells it, a efficient car will be worth more then a guzzler.

So over time, lets say 10 you can buy eider really cheap guzzler, or pay a little more for a efficient model.

If people know that, they can plan there purchase better, and more will opt to buy the smaller but more efficient car.

I personally also think its a good plan to let people that use up more resources, pay more tax, higher tax on oil products is a good way to do that.

as for how long the car will work, small cars here in the EU lest about as long as a big one, maybe a little less but depending how cheap the model is.

But a Audi A3 will lest about as long as a A6, 0% to max 10% less, but the TCO over its life time will be a lot lower then the A6.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














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