Federal regulators propose national fuel efficiency regulations
Thursday, March 31st, 2011 | Car News, General
Buoyed by rebounding sales and more sympathetic political climate, the emboldened auto industry is digging in against official Washington on some key safety and environmental issues.
Automakers say they have no blanket opposition to the rules on safety and good fuel mileage; they just want adequate time to meet them, and at a cost that’s reasonable for them and their customers. Each safety or fuel economy rule can cost billions of dollars.
The most critical showdown is expected this summer, when federal regulators propose national fuel efficiency regulations for 2017-25. Automakers are seeking a workable federal plan that would pre-empt California and other states from setting their own patchwork of fuel requirements.
Already, on the environmental front, major foreign and domestic automakers have filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of a higher blend of ethanol for newer vehicles — a formula they believe could harm engines.
And on safety issues, they are seeking significant changes in pending rules, including plans to require additional safeguards to keep motorists from being ejected in crashes, and backup cameras.
Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — a trade association whose members include General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Toyota Motor Corp. — acknowledges that automakers already have “pushed back” against some efforts in Washington.
“Automakers have always supported legislation and regulations that are driven by data and sound science, and there have been some examples where there was more wishful thinking and targets being selected that weren’t based on the data,” Bergquist said.
“So we have become more outspoken on the need for data to drive policy decisions.”
The renewed starch in the automakers’ backbones comes as the industry is on the upswing and coincides with a shift in Washington’s political climate: Republicans less supportive of government regulations seized control of the House and made gains in the Senate.
Detroit-based GM is again contributing to congressional campaigns — a practice it suspended, along with lobbying contracts, after its taxpayer-funded bailout.
“We will not sit on the sidelines while our competitors in other industries have their voices heard,” said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
As a group, GM, Ford and Chrysler last month hired former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt, a Republican, as president of a group that lobbies Congress on their behalf.
But the industry is still far more open to regulation than it was for decades, when it used its clout to block any increases in fuel efficiency and lobbied against mandatory safety belts, air bags and catalytic converters.
And in a nod to the White House, both auto trade groups chose not to endorse controversial legislation to bar the EPA and California from regulating tailpipe emissions. “We plan to be collaborators, not opponents,” said GM’s vice president of global design, Ed Welburn.
‘Impractical burdens’
A new rule on “ejection mitigation” — keeping drivers and passengers from flying out of a vehicle in a crash — is among the safety proposals at which automakers are balking.
The alliance wants NHTSA to reconsider a final regulation it adopted in January, saying aspects of it are “inappropriate” — especially the phase-in period, which requires full compliance by 2017. The rule, to be phased in starting in 2013, will require automakers to keep unbelted adults from moving more than 4 inches past the side window opening in a crash. The government says it could save 373 lives annually and cost automakers $500 million annually.
“These timing changes impose unreasonable and impractical burdens on vehicle manufacturers and have not been justified by the agency,” the automakers said.
Porsche AG says it can’t comply without a “major vehicle redesign.” Absent a redesign, it said, production of some vehicles could be halted.
Automakers also want more lead time to meet the 2014 date set by NHTSA to have backup cameras in all new vehicles. That would cost the industry between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion annually, the government says.
For its part, the Obama administration is taking a more measured approach in setting expensive safety requirements. In a recent interview, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said the agency is sensitive to costs to automakers and hopes to achieve “consensus among automakers and safety advocates.”
Last month, for example, NHTSA abandoned a 2009 proposal that would have required some power windows to automatically reverse, to prevent children from getting injured. The agency acknowledged the rule would be costly and admitted it couldn’t accurately quantify the benefits.
While safety issues are simmering, the stakes are higher in the battle over fuel efficiency.
Cost, choice set standards
Faced with the prospect of strict fuel efficiency standards demanded by California, the automakers agreed in 2009 to a fleetwide average of 34.1 mpg by 2016 — a national standard higher than even Congress demanded — in exchange for a single standard. Federal rule-makers will proposal standards for the next time period, 2017-2025, this summer and finalize them by next year.
Automakers say they’re willing to support better fuel economy, but they want to stick with a national, reasonable standard that would not allow each state to set its own.
Furthermore, they want a standard that will enable them to continue offering consumers a broad mix of vehicles.
Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at IHS Automotive, said there’s growing concern that Americans who still love big cars and trucks won’t want the fuel-sippers that the government may require.
“Automakers are trying to tell Washington: ‘You need to pay attention to what consumers are demanding,’” Lindland said.
Choice and cost are hand-in-hand in setting the standards for 2017-2025.
The fuel efficiency increases that take effect in September, for the 2012-16 model years will cost the auto industry $51.5 billion, say the EPA and NHTSA.
Automakers are concerned that the next round of increases could be more burdensome.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says the next round of new rules is “likely to be significantly more expensive” than the first, and warned that if consumers don’t buy new hybrids and electric vehicles, the auto industry will suffer.
“If consumers do not buy the vehicles that manufacturers are required to produce, sales will fall, production will slow and manufacturers will be forced to eliminate jobs,” it said.
NHTSA and EPA are considering annual increases in fuel efficiency ranging from 3-6 percent between 2017 and 2025, which equates to a fleetwide average of 47 and 62 mpg by the period’s end. The range of government-estimated costs per vehicle is $770 to $3,500, depending on the stringency of the emissions limits.
Automakers says those estimates are “unrealistic” and pointed to a Center for Automotive Research analysis that said hiking fuel efficiency to 60.1 mpg could boost vehicle prices by 22 percent, cut sales by 25 percent and trim up to 220,000 auto sector jobs.
Recent Posts
Gallery
Polls
Loading ...