Skip to content
HomeACEEE BlogNew Fuel Economy Proposal Would Bring Major Oil Savings

 

ACEEE Blog RSS Feed  ACEEE Blog RSS Feed

Monthly Archive

Blog Categories

New Fuel Economy Proposal Would Bring Major Oil Savings
November 17, 2011 - 1:23pm
By Therese Langer, Transportation Program Director

Federal agencies have formally proposed standards that would raise average car and light truck fuel economy to nearly 50 miles per gallon by 2025, up from the current average new auto fuel economy of about 28 miles per gallon. The National Highway Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency acted jointly to propose standards that will substantially reduce our dependence on oil, save consumers billions of dollars, and reduce tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. 

After the passage of the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, fuel economy rose rapidly for a decade. But it didn't budge for the next 20 years as fuel prices stayed low and manufacturers produced bigger, higher-powered vehicles, until passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandated further progress.

The standards now proposed by the Obama Administration for model years 2017–2025 build on those adopted last year for model years 2012–2016, and would lead to the trajectory of fuel economy for light-duty vehicles shown in Figure 1. 

Oil consumption for light-duty vehicles under the 2012–2025 increases in fuel economy is compared in Figure 2 with a business-as-usual scenario.  The result is that the upward march of gasoline consumption changes to a downward trend, bringing the fuel consumption of light-duty vehicles in 2030 back down to 1998 levels. 

The more efficient vehicles would have a higher purchase price, but fuel savings would return that up-front investment and more. Annual net consumer savings (the savings after the increase in vehicle costs is subtracted out) from the 2012–2025 standards would be well over $100 billion per year by 2030, as shown in Table 1. 

A recurring but erroneous claim about the proposed increases in fuel economy standards is that they will force shifts to small vehicles.  Fuel economy targets now vary with vehicle footprint (the area of the rectangle defined by the car’s tires), allowing bigger vehicles to consume more (see Figure 3). This change was made to accommodate differences among manufacturers’ product mixes and the range of consumer preferences.  

In fact, auto industry lobbying resulted in a weakening of the proposed standards for large light trucks, and as a result they will need to improve less than smaller vehicles will. So if the new proposal has a weakness, it is that the standards won’t keep manufacturers from shifting toward production of ever-larger vehicles, causing the promised fuel savings to be reduced.

But auto manufacturers, most of whom have indicated their support for the increase in standards, must realize that an increasingly global vehicle market and rising gasoline prices together mean that having a strong line-up of highly efficient vehicles will be essential to securing a lasting recovery of the U.S. auto industry.

All in all, the new proposal is something to celebrate: an opportunity for a major achievement in energy security and environmental protection, accompanied by a windfall for consumers.

Shruti Vaidyanathan contributed to this post.

Fuel Economy, National Policy, Oil & Petroleum Fuels, Transportation System Efficiency, Vehicle Fleets, Vehicle Technologies, Transportation

Comments

car and truck efficiency

Submitted by: chandler on 02-07-2012

pres. obama allowed the new mpg ratings suspended because of the economy. are the car companies going to improve it any more now than they have done in the last ten years? that increases the price of new vehicles and the price of gasoline has only gone upward. where are there going to be nvestment when car sales are already low and employment is in the tank?

Efficiency is not the way to reduce oil consumption

Submitted by: James Ball on 12-12-2011

Efficiency can benefit us by reducing our "energy intensity", but it can not reduce overall consumption. In years of studying energy, I have never seen anyone build a case, based on data and logic, that efficiency reduces consumption. That's because it can't be done. It is just endlessly circulated as a fact that we are supposed to accept at face value.
If we lower the cost of operating petroleum-consuming vehicles, then their numbers and utilization will continue to increase - swamping any gains from efficiency. Look at the data from the time of the original CAFE standards when we doubled the efficiency of automobiles. There was a very brief drop in oil consumption, (much shorter than the time required to roll over the fleet) which coincided with a recession, then oil consumption continued it's upward trend. Not only did oil consumption increase, but transportation's share of oil use increased as well.
The idea that efficiency reduces consumption violates the fundamental laws of economics and consumer behavior. I am constantly amazed at the conflation of saving consumers money and decreasing usage. The two are completely incompatible. If you make something less expensive, then demand for that something will increase. Period. An individual may spend less on fuel, even if they use up some of their efficiency savings by driving faster and further, but we will add more and more petroleum-burning vehicles to the roads. Also consider that the fuel money saved by a consumer doesn't simply vanish - it is spent on something else, which increases energy demand in the economy. For example, if people buy more pizzas because they spend less on fuel, that will increase demand for pizza restaurants. It takes alot of diesel to build a pizza restaurant, the supplies are delivered by truck, and the employees drive to work.

If we want to reduce oil consumption, we have to make it more expensive to operate petroleum-burning vehicles. If we make it less expensive, by forcing efficiency onto the marketplace, then we will increase our dependence on oil, and kill alternatives.

More of my musings on energy at ConsideringEnergy.blogspot.com

This is still a BIG country--personal autos are still needed

Submitted by: David McGee on 11-18-2011

I just returned from 8 days in California. I flew from Nashville to LA in 4.5 hrs and rode to Orange county in my daughter's car. We rode 200 miles up the coast and then rented a car one way to return to OC that got about 40MPG. No reasonable public transportation was available. We went where we wanted and saw what we wanted. Then flew back to Nashville in 4 hours. This is part of what it means to live in the USA.
We do not want to be confined by "public" transportation. I live in the country. I have to drive to town for work or shopping. I DO NOT want to live in the same building with other families. I do drive an "economy" vehicle and do combine trips as much as possible. I do not like paying $50 for a tank of gas, but I will to have my freedom.
Many things need to change; eating the foods grown closer to home, not drinking bottled water shipped half-way across the country in plastic bottles and hundreds of others. Giving up my freedom though will be tough. The personal vehicle is one of those things that makes America great.
We can do better. EVs/hybrids are a start. They take other resources the world may have more essential uses for, time will tell. Greater fuel economy can be had and higher fuel prices will drive the market just as it has changed the market in the last couple of years.
If we must give up our freedom just to "exist," we may decide it is better to cease to be.

oil and vehicle manufacturers

Submitted by: chandler on 02-07-2012

yes fuel economy is available but will american ones invest and make it worthwhile? so far advances have only increased cost to consumers. we have improved our efficiency, now maybe they will. and true i want freedom to use and travel in this country without further headaches and taxes.

Better Efficiency

Submitted by: Hugh Coleman on 11-18-2011

Much like fuel itself. We have known how to do many things right for years. Passing laws is nice, but all that is really necessary is providing financing to those that could and would do a few of these things right. FDR had little understanding of the profit motive or technology, he wanted idle people to have work. Now we have to do what in most cases was known when he did this the last time only this time we do not have 25 cents per gallon gas, and our large population requires efficiency. We have a government destroyed and overtaxed financial system, and a government that still likes to meddle with things they caused to go wrong in the first place. As a teen I bought cars for $40 drove to the gas station and handed the attendant a buck, then drove until my parents found out they could not afford to insure me. Today few can afford $300 per month lease much less fuel insurance etc especially when there are so few jobs that actually do anything. The turn over rate of $100K per year employees is keeping the employment industry going, but who wants products that are made by those that just figured out how to get to work.

Safer Car Invention

Submitted by: steve shoap on 11-17-2011

Smaller and lighter cars are more fuel efficient, but they are less safe.
I have several patented inventions a to make them safer.
Please look at my website

www.safersmallcars.com

and help me promote these ideas if you can.

fuel economy standards (and cars) are 20th Century solutions

Submitted by: Reuben Deumling on 11-17-2011

We need to move beyond cars, recognize that they are an obsolete technology, no matter the fuel_economy. The remaining petroleum needs to be left unburned, in the ground. Fiddling with the rate at which we burn what is left (fuel economy) is no longer relevant. And we don't have until 2025 to throw in the towel either.
For anyone who doubts this:
http://www.350.org/en/understanding-350
http://www.carbontracker.org
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf

And it won't be impossible either. At least physically. Psychologically it could be a rough ride but that is really up to us. Ask your friends who don't have cars how they do it. Food transport will be a little trickier, but I don't think we have a choice but to figure it out. Re-localized economies; human & renewable power; creative thinking.

Add comment

CAPTCHA
This question is required to prevent automated spam submissions.