By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 18, 2009; 4:02 PM

The Obama administration is set to announce tough standards for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from new automobiles, establishing the first ever nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

It will also establish high fuel efficiency targets for new vehicles that would set a 35.5 mile per gallon average for new passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2016, four years earlier than required under the 2007 energy bill, sources close to the administration said.

The administration is embracing standards stringent enough to satisfy the state of California which has been fighting for a waiver from federal law so that it could set its own guidelines, sources said. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) will be among a variety of state and industry officials attending an announcement tomorrow, said sources close to the administration.

The compromise deal, which has been under negotiation since the first days of the administration, includes the White House, the state of California, and the automobile industry, which has long sought a single national emissions standard and has waged an expensive legal battle against the California waiver. The industry will get its single national standard, but at the price of one that approximates California's targets.
Under the compromise, the federal government will establish two parallel sets of standards, both using the federal approach of pegging those standards to the attributes of vehicles, such as size and engine type, said sources familiar with negotiations over the deal. California, by contrast, planned to use just two broad categories of vehicles.

The Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will set the new fuel economy standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, will propose a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA would need to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect and it was not clear whether it would announce those specific targets tomorrow.

The EPA is also expected to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions resulting from leaks of air conditioning coolant in vehicles. The automakers would be able to use some credits for complying with those regulations to offset a small part of fuel efficiency requirements, sources familiar with the talks said.

One source close to the administration said that President Obama would still grant a waiver to California, but that the state would not exercise it in light of the new national standards.

Proponents of tougher fuel efficiency standards hailed reports of tomorrow's announcement.

"If media reports are true, after years of oil price inflation, policy stagnation and automotive industry litigation, President Obama has solved the energy and economic policy equivalent of a Rubik's Cube," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who was a principal author of the 35 mile-per-gallon standard that Congress adopted in 2007.

"In addition to dramatically reducing the global warming emissions from our vehicles, this move will slash our dependence on oil and make us more energy independent," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said in a statement. "Congress put us on the road toward more fuel efficient vehicles two years ago when it passed the first increase in fuel economy standards in more than 30 years. Now President Obama is dramatically accelerating our progress."

Let's see. It's mid-2009, which means that 2010 and 2011 vehicles are essentially complete from a design and production perspective; 2012 vehicle designs are locked in and 2013 vehicles are probably past the design point of no return. So, any real changes might just begin to be seen around 2014 in terms of band-aid fixes like taller gearing. 2015? 2016? Too soon to see the revolutionary changes in design and materials needed to practically and economically meet this goal, and too soon to present mature infrastructure to support large numbers of propane and/or full-electric vehicles. Hope all are ready to pony up $60,000 for that all-aluminum 2017 Chevy Malibu with a 1.6 liter twin turbodiesel and 7 speed transaxle that will be a four-star, chrome-plated beatch to service/replace broken parts and repair.

This will actually be an easy transition. Exotic parts aren't needed. First, it helps that the US Gov mostly has controlling interest in the auto makers. 2nd it helps that there is a huge design infrastructure already in place. Remember when MB was getting suckered by Chrysler? One of their stated reasons for “merging” was the Chrysler design facility that permits very short times for development to production. Of course, nearly everyone has learned that if you buy Chrysler in any way you get *****ed by them. It’s not so much different with Ford and GM. But that aside, they do know how to get a car to market in little time.

Speaking of getting *****ed by US car makers, the prime motivator for the US manufacturers has for the last 40 years been a largely garbage product at a low price point. Look at how the US manufacturers compete: At or near the bottom of the reliability bucket in nearly every category, and usually they aim to undersell Honda, Toyota, Nissan, et al.

Anyway, it will be easy for them to quickly develop small vehicles. The real question is if they will continue to compete at the bottom of the price/quality barrel. If they do, which I predict they will, then absent the mantra of “pay less, get trash, they will never recover from this transition, and within 5 years the big 3 will likely be the not so big 1, at best.

The good news is that this will actually help to get most of the current US made vehicles off the road. Absent a large manufacturer, the sub-contractors who actually make the vast majority of the parts, will have every motivation to abandon making parts for dead products. This will lead to a full scale abandonment of entire vendor lines.

Next is the cost of fuel. Around here premium is back up to 2.98 a gallon. In a couple of years, when gas gets back to $5 or $7 per gallon, many people such as PaulC who own large fuel inefficient vehicles will be heavily pressured to abandon them in favor of something which is more fuel efficient, and/or something for which they can get parts. Of course if someone makes enough money, they’ll probably cling to their 7,000 lb steed until they can’t even rob a wrecking yard for parts. Which, again, if it was made in the USA, the parts supply will be gone in about 5 years.

"the president did not repeal the laws of physics"

http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/13569249

__________________

1982 300CD Turbo (Otis, "ups & downs") parts for sale
2003 TJ with Hemi (to go anywhere, quickly) sold
2001 Excursion Powerstroke (to go dependably)
1970 Mustang 428SCJ (to go fast)
1962 Corvette LS1 (to go in style)
2001 Schwinn Grape Krate 10spd (if all else fails)

If someone wants to take away my Tahoe, they'll have to pry the keys from my cold, dead fingers. Unless the lease is up.

I have to admit feeling some pressure to find something more efficient; I plan to test-drive a Toyota Sequoia this weekend.

P.S., what graces your driveway?

Toyota is a great manufacturer. Due to my work, I have to cart a lot of stuff around in all kinds of road conditions, and it won't fit it into a Smart or the equivalent. I have looked at the new GLK. If/when they sell a diesel version in the US it might hit the fuel efficiency numbers suggested.

Re my vehicles, I’ll only say that I have more than one driveway and more than one vehicle for each driveway.

P.S. Wait until the Sierra Club fleebs see the consequences of the increased harvesting and burning of coal needed to stoke our electric powerplants to charge up what relatively few full-electric vehicles will be on line in the next 10 years.

Who says they have to emit anything? Being one who works in the refinery business, I can tell you that anything that comes out of a smokestack can be refined into something else instead, it's all just a matter of money. People who own fuel-inefficient cars should pay taxes to help pay for it, at this point it has become a matter of national security, and perhaps even the end of the species.

One bit of extra weight that can be eliminated are the electronic stability controls. Then people will be forced to drive a little better.

__________________
1984 300TD

Hatterasguy has the right idea with the taxes, provided the revenue is used for a worthwhile purpose as opposed to more "nation building". It is the easiest way to modify peoples' behavior without all this fuel economy legislation. This idea doesn't seem to be hurting the Europeans too badly- that's why they have all the fuel-efficient cars that they do.

Seat belts, airbags, ABS systems...let's cut the fat and return to the essence of the automotive experience circa 1946. Just don't hit a random squirrel crossing the roadway, else you smite the metal dashboard and the non-safety glass windshield.

Yeah, electronic stability controls are essential safety features.

__________________
1984 300TD

Well you've put your finger on the problem: we have become wedded to arrangements that require an unsustainable flow of cheap energy to maintain.

I do a fair amount of work in the Berkeley and Oakland hills. Without cheap gas, living in such areas would be impractical. Walking those hills every day? Nope, not likely to work. I mean, it does in Pak. and Afg. to a point but we're way softer than them.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

There sure will be a lot of teeny-tiny cars running around for the remaining SUV to run over.

Americans own a lot of Stuff, and you can't stuff a lot of Stuff into a Smart.