President Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks; Calls to Extend LDV Program to MY 2017 and Beyond
21 May 2010
US President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to create a first-ever National Policy to increase fuel efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for Model Years 2014-2018.
The President also called for an extension of the National Program for increased fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles to Model Year 2017 and beyond.
Currently trucks consume more than two million barrels of oil every day, and average 6.1 miles per gallon. They also emit 20% of greenhouse gas pollution related to transportation. Preliminary estimates indicate great potential for significant fuel efficiency gains and greenhouse gas emissions reductions for large tractor trailers, which represent half of all GHG emissions from this sector, according to the Administration.
A new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and CALSTART concluded that strengthening the fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks could create as many as 124,000 jobs in the US by 2030, with all 50 states experiencing net job growth. (Earlier post.) Efficiency improvements could save class 8 fleet truck owners more than $120,000 per tractor-trailer over eight years and owner-operators more than $80,000 per tractor over 10 to 15 years, assuming an average $3.50 per gallon fuel price.
Using existing and emerging fuel-saving technology, the United States could save four times more oil on an annual basis by 2030 than the volume expected from expanded offshore drilling in that same year, the UCS/CALSTART report notes.
Additionally, President Obama directed the Department of Energy to provide increased support for deployment of advanced vehicles, including electric vehicles, and directed EPA to reduce non-greenhouse-gas pollutants from motor vehicles.
Following the President’s directive today, and with the support of a wide and diverse array of stakeholders, including auto manufacturers, workers, the State of California, the environmental community, and other states, EPA and DOT will develop forthcoming rulemaking proposals to achieve these goals, and continue building a stronger foundation for a clean energy economy and the next generation of advanced vehicles.
The new directive builds upon the new national policy President Obama set in motion one year ago (earlier post) increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for new cars and light-duty trucks manufactured in Model Years 2012-2016 and sold in the United States.
Last month, EPA and DOT issued coordinated final rules fulfilling the President’s earlier directive for a national policy increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for light duty vehicles sold in Model Years 2012-2016. (Earlier post.)
Just guessing, maybe an aero kit for these things cost $10-20K, which is small compared to the overall cost.
This will also force more emphasis on drag than body style.
Sounds like they included costs in the savings.
Posted by: GdB | 21 May 2010 at 01:57 PM
Hybrid, CNG/Diesel and other methods can lead to cleaner rigs that burn less diesel. 100,000 miles per year at 4 mpg uses 25,000 gallons of fuel each year. Getting 5 mpg could save the owner $20,000 per year at $4 per gallon.
Posted by: SJC | 21 May 2010 at 05:06 PM
It is too bad that Obama and his acolytes don't know any Science and participate only in feel-good, grab-a-headline, pseudo-Science.
He can't seem to find paltry amounts of a few hundred million, to continue ITER Fusion research, or to develop orbital space lifters, but plenty to hug a tree or spend prodigious multiples of that to further useless research in ultimately uneconomic, windmills and other politically correct pseudo-science. Meanwhile running Trillion dollar deficits on do-nothing expenditures.
They say when your only tool is a hammer, every problem appears to be a nail. Passing Laws that do nothing is stupid, but who ever claimed that he and his crew were anything but?
Tough, aggressively scheduled, Tier IV regulations on commercial diesels for trucks, locomotives and even ships are in place, and work is being done to meet the aggressive schedules for those targets. Further Coercive threats accomplish nothing, except grab headlines.
Posted by: ExDemo | 23 May 2010 at 11:04 AM
"the United States could save four times more oil on an annual basis by 2030 than the volume expected from expanded offshore drilling in that same year"
That says a lot no matter what cynical spew comes forth.
Posted by: SJC | 23 May 2010 at 01:25 PM
SJC,
That is true only if:
1) the estimate is valid, which I don't accept, without proof and substantiation.
2) You can actually attain the improvements legally mandated.
I point out the CARB requirements passed into Law that 10% of all cars in California, must be electric by 1990.
How did that impossibility, eventually work out for you?
If all it took was passing a law or imposing a regulation, Think of all the energy you could save, by repealing the Law of Gravity!
Posted by: ExDemo | 24 May 2010 at 10:35 AM
Ex,
You are the kind of people I do not want on here. You have nothing good to say and you make no contribution at all.
Posted by: SJC | 24 May 2010 at 11:15 AM
ExDemo:
"He can't seem to (...) develop orbital space lifters, but plenty to (...) research (...) windmills."
Are you out of your mind? Let's build an earth-tethered space station and abandon renewable energy? Seriously?
(If you feel I changed the substance of your comment by editing, I apologize)
Posted by: Nat Pearre | 25 May 2010 at 06:32 AM
Oh my GOD!!! How could they!
This will clearly endanger my useless crap from china by forcing it into unsafe trucks! Think of the chia pets people THINK OF THE CHIA PETS!!!!!!!
Sorry I couldnt resist.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 25 May 2010 at 08:53 AM
Stan wrote;
"That is true only if:
1) the estimate is valid, which I don't accept,...."
Then you don't have to. Others of us certainly have a different opinion than yours, so don't expect us to give the above statement any weight.
Posted by: Will S | 25 May 2010 at 10:34 AM
As distinguished professor of energetics Vaclav Smil likes to point out, diesel is the most important fuel in the world. Without gasoline, we would be greatly inconvenienced. Without diesel, commerce stops. Improving diesel fuel efficiency is critical, not as much from the standpoint of GHG emissions as for the continued movement of goods.
Posted by: fred schumacher | 26 May 2010 at 07:33 AM