Automakers Support Obama Administration’s Development of National Program for Reducing Carbon Emissions and Fuel Consumption
18 May 2009
The US auto industry, via the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, is lining up to support a new national, harmonized program to reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption that President Obama will announce on Tuesday, 19 May.
EPA and NHTSA will initiate a joint rulemaking that reflects a coordinated and harmonized approach to implementing the Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The rulemaking is expected to include several elements important to automakers, including:
Preserving Vehicle Diversity: Harmonized NHTSA and EPA standards would be attribute-based, or based on a vehicle’s footprint. This approach allows for a range of sizes of vehicles to meet consumer needs for passenger and cargo room.
Providing Certainty for Long-term Planning: Automakers would know what standards will be through 2016, which is critical in an industry where bringing a product to market typically takes 5-7 years. The National Program is intended to give automakers sufficient lead-time to incorporate technology as part of existing vehicle design schedules, so manufacturers would not have to incur added costs from redesigning all their models at one time.
Providing Flexibility in Achieving CO2-Reduction Goals: EPA and NHTSA would consider a range of compliance flexibility measures, such as earned credits, credit trading, air conditioning credits, and credits for using additional technologies that reduce carbon dioxide (CO2).
A national program is a priority to automakers because a national fuel economy program allows manufacturers to average sales nationwide, avoids conflicting standards from different regulatory agencies, and gives automakers much needed certainty for long-term product planning. (Earlier post.)
For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos. President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a National Program. What’s significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. We’re all agreeing to work together on a National Program.
—Dave McCurdy, president and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
In addition, said the Alliance, a national program delivers overall greenhouse gas reductions equal to or better than those that would be realized under separate programs by different regulatory bodies.
The debate over who sets CO2 and fuel economy standards for autos has been decided, but there is still more to talk about. We have the broad outlines of an agreement, but we will need to work closely with NHTSA, EPA and California in the rulemaking process to resolve multiple issues, trying to fit all the elements together into one program. There is a strong commitment from everyone to move past any hurdles that may arise as we work through differences in the way these two federal agencies set standards
We want to finalize a national program so we can move on to policy discussions on what the future of sustainable mobility looks like and how we can get there faster. Alliance members are supporting measures that reduce carbon dioxide even more, like low carbon fuels, advancements in battery technology and consumer incentives to get more advanced technology autos on our roads.
—Dave McCurdy
Autos represent 17% of all anthropogenic CO2 in the US, according to EPA.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is a trade association of 11 car and light truck manufacturers including BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
Thanks to BILLIONS and BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars, GM and Chrysler are going to be propped up enough to produce shoddy green cars. Hopefully, they will make enough shoddy electric cars to offset the gas guzzling vehicles they actually make really, really well - full size trucks and SUV's!
Posted by: ejj | 18 May 2009 at 07:17 PM
You have to guide the flow of events with incentives and disincentives. You can not just stop in mid stream and do a 180 degree turn. This practical method of getting consistent laws in all states makes sense for once.
Posted by: SJC | 18 May 2009 at 07:21 PM
How ironic. After years of complaining that fuel economy regulations would drive them out of business, the car companies are going out of business anyway and the government has to step in to save them. Thus, the car companies are in no position to complain about government regulations now. If they had been producing good cars throughout the years, they probably could have saved themselves and perhaps avoided the heavy hand of government.
Posted by: Peter9909 | 18 May 2009 at 07:29 PM
If we want to reduce emissions from cars, how about using a different fuel. Yes, not all biofuels are the same, but we California and EPA have recognized that sugarncane biofuels can reduced GHG emissions by upwards of 90% compared to yesterday's gasoline. See http://tinyurl.com/lowcarbonbiofuel
Posted by: John Valente | 18 May 2009 at 07:39 PM
Ejj:
US treasury channeled 15B to GM and 5B to Chrysler. Compare with giving to AIG 150B, which are already wasted (including 30B to European banks) to pay for AIG issued gambling insurance (other vice known as Credit Default Swaps). US government has direct responsibility to minimize recession damage to strategic industries, like domestic automotive. They are not doing good job of it.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 19 May 2009 at 01:55 AM
So it is news that a government run industry agrees with the government. What's the next headline, "U.S. Auto company agrees with government proposal to give Union majority stake in company." or "U.S. Auto company agrees with government propoose to fire CEO and slash advertising budget."
Don't get me wrong, you take government money and you don't have any right to complain when a 47 year old community organizer that has never run a lemonade stand is telling you how to run your business. But now that Obama has those companies by the _______, it isn't exactly news that they are falling in line behind whatever crazy idea he comes up with.
Posted by: ESabre | 19 May 2009 at 03:08 AM
So Obama's never run a lemonade stand. So what? Like the people who have been running car companies for 10, 20, 30 years have been doing such a great job of running car companies. Perhaps if they had been doing as wonderful a job as they supposedly should have been able to given their experience, then they wouldn't have had to hand over the reigns to somebody who has never run a lemonade stand. Keep in mind, most lemonade stands make money. Not much, but it's better than losing money.
Posted by: Peter9909 | 19 May 2009 at 05:20 AM
Regarding the double standard in the treatment of the banks versus the auto companies: it makes "sense" once you learn who Chrysler's biggest creditors are. They are Bank of America, Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase, etc. I don't know what the story is with GM, but I assume it's similar.
Obama hasn't earned my trust, either, but it's worth noting that Bush similarly recommended blank checks to the banks. The influence of that industry, even while receiving welfare payments may seem to defy gravity, but it's just how things work at the moment.
Posted by: J | 19 May 2009 at 08:28 AM
The three U.S. auto makers talked with Bush years ago, he told them to take a hike. Yeah, W would have done such a much better job....not! Get your head out and get with the program. We need to put the country back on the correct course for the future...quit complaining.
Posted by: SJC | 19 May 2009 at 09:34 AM
Most Lemonade stands only make money because mom provides all the supplies without any thought of reimbursment and let's junior keep all the profits. Come to think of it, Obama's giving the auto companies billions of our money without any expectation of getting one cent back, is kind of like a parent helping a kid with a lemonade stand.
Yes, the management of the Union Labor auto companies has done a terrible job, but the answer to that is not to bring in someone even more clueless. The answer is bankruptcy.
Under Obama's leadership, we are funneling billions of dollars to Chrysler to cut jobs, and billions to GM to ship jobs to China.
Posted by: ESabre | 19 May 2009 at 12:59 PM
Please do not disparage Mr. Obama about running a Lemonaide stand.
He spent twenty years as Cook County Democrat machine politician "community organizer".
It is hard work to be the Registrar of the Gravestone Vote. He had to create an organization of trained gangsters to vote all those dead voter's names. You don't think they just arose from the Dead to go to the polls, do you?
ACORN is his proudest achievement. That's why he gave it $4 billion of your dollars to spread around voting precincts countrywide, not just Cook County.
And also finding jobs voting for all those illegal aliens, dope dealers, unemployable illiterates, car thiefs and grifters and all. Its not easy to get them to vote and reliably make an X next to a Cook county Democrat when they can't read, do you?
Hail to the Chief!
PS (In German that would be... Seig Heil!)
Posted by: ExDemo | 19 May 2009 at 06:06 PM
I think the so called "New Program" that Mr. Obama announced on May 19 is the typical example of two seperate sets of the same requirement because there is a direct connection between fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions.
Once the proposal is finalized, the auto industry will have to meet duplicative and overlapping regulations - both fuel economy standards(CAFE) and CO2 emissions standards.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 21 May 2009 at 05:27 PM