UAW holding talks with Detroit 3 on new fuel-economy rules

WASHINGTON (Bloomberg) – The auto industry is pressing the Obama administration for a promise to reevaluate rules that may more than double U.S. fuel economy standards by 2025 before they become final.

The White House agrees that a review during the transition period is needed, said Ellen Gleberman, a vice president of trade group Global Automakers who has participated in talks between the government and industry on the proposed rule, which will set new mileage standards starting in 2017.

The administration in June floated a fuel-economy target of 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 27.3 mpg now.

Automakers are seeking to slow mileage-standard increases, saying the necessary technology isn’t yet in place and may slow sales by making vehicles more expensive. A review midway through the 2017-2025 program would give regulators a chance to reassess assumptions that the needed engine technology will exist, Gleberman said.

“It’s very difficult if not impossible to know where the industry will be in terms of technology or what the market conditions will be this far in the future,” said Gleberman, whose group represents Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and 11 other Asian and European automakers.

Still under negotiation are details of the midpoint review, including the timing, whether there will be a judicial review and whether the Environmental Protection Agency, the Transportation Department and California’s Air Resources Board will coordinate efforts, Gleberman said.

Review facing opposition

Environmental groups oppose the midterm review, saying it’s a gambit by automakers seeking to kill the program at the halfway point, when a president more friendly to the industry may be in office, said Dan Becker, director of the Washington-based Safe Climate Campaign.

Environmental groups had initially pushed for 62 mpg by 2025. The 56.2 mpg target represents an improvement of about 5 percent a year in each company’s fleetwide average fuel economy from 2016, when they are required to have a 35.5 mpg average for vehicles sold in the U.S.

“A slow ramp-up leading to a midterm review could end the program before the 5 percent levels even begin to hit,” said Becker, whose Washington-based group has also been meeting with the White House. “The question is whether the midterm review becomes an off-ramp rather than an evaluation of the program.”

Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on details of the talks.

“We are engaged with a number of stakeholders including automakers, the state of California, environmental groups and others,” Stevens said. The goal is a standard “that will save families money and keep the jobs of the future here.”

‘Aggressive but realistic’

Regulators need to see “an aggressive but realistic schedule, commitment to advanced-technology vehicles, real improvements in efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions, and closing loopholes that could undermine the benefits of the program,” Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said in an e-mail.

Automakers are rallying public support. The Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Detroit’s three automakers, Toyota, Volkswagen AG and eight other companies, is running radio ads in Michigan and other states with manufacturing plants, the Detroit Free Press reported July 15.

“Families would be hit with higher car prices,” according to a recording of an ad at the newspaper’s Web site. “The government is predicting a drop in auto sales in what amounts to an electric-vehicle mandate. A sales drop means job losses.”

Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Washington-based group, declined to comment on the ads.

Carmakers are lobbying for relief on several levels. They want a slower increase in mandated fuel economy in the early years of the schedule and bigger increases in later years, said two people familiar with the talks between automakers and regulators who declined to be identified because the discussions aren’t public.

Lobbyists for General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group have pushed for relaxed standards on pickup trucks. That could come by assigning a lower mileage standard for pickups with higher carbon emissions or by making a special exemption just for those trucks, three people said.

Pickup trucks

The auto industry is not allied on the truck issue, they said. Domestic carmakers would be more willing to agree to larger fuel economy increases for passenger cars in exchange for lower increases on trucks, the people said. That concerns some foreign carmakers who don’t sell pickups or get much greater sales from cars, they said.

Christin Baker, a spokeswoman from Ford, and Shawn Morgan, a spokeswoman for Chrysler, declined to comment. Jay Cooney, a GM spokesman, couldn’t be reached for comment.

Automakers are also seeking credits for more efficient air conditioning systems, for zero-emission electric cars and for flexible fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol, said Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign.

Environmental groups are watching the size of all of the credits under discussion to determine whether they’ll be used as loopholes, Becker said. If automakers get too much credit for electric vehicles, it may enable them to sell many more gas- guzzling SUVs and pickups, he said.

"Automakers are looking for loopholes big enough to drive large pickup trucks through,” Becker said. “We like EVs, too. The question is whether they’ll do more harm than good.”

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110720/OEM05/110729986/1179#ixzz1Smp1DBAy

" It’s been said that an engineer will spend an entire three day weekend and hundreds of dollars fixing (and improving) something that could be replaced for $29. It’s true."

And an engineer could work on a fully funded project, hold peer reviews, discuss issues with management to make sure he is still on track, and meet budget goals. That’s true, too.

TSM, it’s true discretionary income is dropping and increased costs will put pressure on other purchases. The original premise to which I was responding is the loss of auto workers jobs over the proposed mandate. If we extend the discussion to include the remainder of the economy, let’s take a closer look at the potential impact;

This is a CAFE standard. Not all cars will have to meet it. There may still be low cost economy cars for the people who need them as the manfrs are not going to allow a segment of the potetial buying public go unserved and lose that revenue stream.

I believe the cost estimate is inflated as well. Seriously, a 30+% increase in the total price to achieve that level of fuel efficiency?

The increase is offset some by the improved efficiency. I won’t go through the numbers but a quick, back of the napkin, check shows that there is a decent reduction in YOY costs for gasoline for that level of improvement.

If the buying public stops showing up, you can bet the dealers will start offering longer lease and purchase terms to offset the increased prices and make the payments affordable again. Yes, it costs more in the long run but I believe the vast majority of people never look at that aspect. They only look at the monthly cost, not the length of the contract.

All in all, I think the net effect will almost unnoticable.

Respectfully TT, I think you’re underestimating the sophistication of the vast majority of people. Those at the bottom of the economic spectrum perhaps have no choice but to consider only the monthly payments, but increased prices would likely drive them out of the new car markket and into the used car market…which is also likely to suffer cost inflation.

All in all, I think rather than the effect being almost unnoticable it will be far more significant than is being recognized. I hope we never have to find out who’s right. I hope unrealiatically high CAFE mandates never take root.

Respectfully TT, I think you’re underestimating the sophistication of the vast majority of people.

Sophistication? Economic smarts? Fiscal responsibility?

You mean the people who, on average, were carrying $15k in revolving debt even when times were good??

The ones who over bought in the housing market because housing prices never go down??

Or the vast number of people who lease a vehicle beyond their means because it makes luxury seem affordable?? (aka keeping up with the Jones’)

I still say these people aren’t going to think twice when the payment is the same but the length is increased by one year…

I like the idea of aiming high. If you aim low, you’ll always end up, well, low. Funny thing about “mandates”. When the corporations say, we did the best we could but fell short, they always end up negotiating a compromise. No one wants to shut down an automaker :wink:

I still think you’re underestimating the general public. As I said, I hope we never have to find out which one of us is right.

As to “aiming high”, that’s great for personal life management, but unrealistic government mandates do not a healthy economy create, and it’s always the working class that suffers.

While I do agree this goal may be unrealistic…I’m NOT very keen about allowing the Auto industry decide what’s realistic or not…

Back in the 60’s when the Government gave the Big-4 tax incentives to come up with solutions for the growing auto pollution…after 3 years they come back with…“Gee…cars are as clean as they can get…nothing we can do…thanks for the tax incentives.” We all know what a lie that was.

And what party was in the White House then, just kidding, not really?

and it’s always the working class that suffers

Fits right in there with death and taxes… :wink: