The Obama Administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, which will require the equivalent of a fleet average of 54.5 mpg by 2025, are laudable, ambitious and aggressive. They will help new car purchasers save money at the pump, drive the development of new, more efficient automotive technologies and produce cars that emit 40 to 50 percent less carbon emissions than today’s models.

But to those expecting an electric vehicle revolution: not so fast. A 2011 Boston Consulting Group report predicts that much of the efficiency of new models will likely come in the form of significantly more efficient gasoline-fueled cars and trucks. By 2020, new, lighter models with more efficient cooling, smaller engines, lower friction and other improvements are expected to cost significantly less than plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles, due to the high expected cost of battery packs ($400 per kWh or $9,600 for a typical 20-kWh battery pack).

In an ideal world, the administration and Congress would follow up on these standards by offering grants, competitions, additional tax credits or loans to advance the development of rapid-charging infrastructure and better battery technologies. However, the cuts required by the just-passed debt reduction package make consumer subsidies, additional tax credits or other stimulative measures highly unlikely in the near term.

Are the standards realistic? From the automakers’ perspective, General Motors already went on record that they were tough but achievable. To consumers, it depends on how much compliance with the standards adds to sticker price.

Will they slash oil consumption and prevent climate-change pollution? To a point. Fuel efficiency standards are a relative target and only address how much fuel a car consumes (theoretically) and what level of emissions result from that consumption. However, if new models prove too expensive for consumers, they may opt to keep their older, less efficient model until they can afford one, or they may trade in for a used (and again, less efficient) car. If oil prices remain high, and consumers rush out to replace less efficient cars with more efficient ones – not a sure thing in the current economic climate – then those reductions in oil consumption and resulting carbon emissions will be larger.

However, the potential also exists that consumers, emboldened by better mileage, may start driving more and consume more oil overall. In other words, fuel economy standards don’t guarantee a reduction in oil consumption without complementary policies that encourage drivers to drive less.

For Americans, these standards were an “About time!” move. Americans sent in nearly 300,000 messages to the President in support of strong standards. We heard from people from all walks of life who wanted to end our dangerous addiction to oil by making our cars and light trucks as efficient as possible. We heard from mothers worried about their children’s future, and from veterans concerned about putting more of our troops in harm’s way.

While this step from the Obama Administration ensures that today’s technology is put to work to cut consumption, the standards being proposed are only a part of the equation to moving our nation beyond oil. Even if cleaner vehicles are created, Americans are now driving nearly three trillion miles every year. Consumers can help by making fuel efficiency a priority for their new car –buying vehicles that use the least oil (or none at all). Further, we can all help by driving less and advocating for a transportation system that makes it safe and easy for us to get out of the car. We must invest in smart transportation choices for all Americans, such as public transit, biking and walking and better designed, healthier, communities that will help us cut demand for oil.

We want better and know that American technology and innovation can get us there. American carmakers have the technology today to get to at least 60 mpg by 2025. Automakers must be challenged to not just meet the new standards but exceed them.

Fortunately the Administration did not cave into the “can’t do” message the auto industry pushed over the past few months , but the industry did secure loopholes and provisions that must be fixed over the next year. A 54.5 mpg standard will save consumers money at the gas pump and cut our need for foreign oil, but to deliver, the final rule must have integrity.

The step the President took last week to increase standards through 2025 is significant and guarantees 15 years of progress after decades of inaction. It is the biggest single step - or as the President noted, "the single most important step" we can take to cut oil dependence and cut carbon pollution.

The step the President took last week to increase standards through 2025 is significant and guarantees 15 years of progress after decades of inaction. It is the biggest single step - or as the President noted, "the single most important step" we can take to cut oil dependence and cut carbon pollution.

But now we need to synch up the numbers we talk about in policy and the experience drivers have on the road.

The fact remains, that the base testing for setting and defining fuel economy standards and determining compliance is outdated. It is time to look at how we set the standards - the number used for defining what the fleet wide average mileage for new vehicles will be in any given year (54.5 mpg in 2025) and bring that process up to date and move toward having one set of numbers that brings standards and label values in line.

On average consumers in 2025 should expect to see a fleet of new vehicles that averages closer to 40 mpg. According the last EPA trends report, 2009 new vehicles averaged 22.4 mpg (adjusted). We are basically doubling the fuel economy of new vehicles between the 2012-16 standards and the 2017-2025 standards.

Ultimately the conversation should be based on improving real world fuel economy to a higher real world fuel economy and of course greenhouse gas emissions standards.

.

The President’s announced plan, “Driving Efficiency,” states that the new CAFE standards “will bring the nation over halfway to the President’s goal of reducing oil imports by a third by 2025” along with reducing emissions of toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases. The other half of those goals, as the report notes, will be achieved with cleaner alternative fuels.

Unfortunately, the plan as laid out does not mention those cleaner alternative fuels or flex-fuel technology to accommodate increased use of biofuels. This seems like a wasted opportunity. Biofuels are already reducing reliance on imported oil and decreasing emissions of criteria pollutants – fuel efficiency adds to those. But economic growth around the world is increasing demand for energy and for cars. This increased demand will continue to drive up fuel prices, even with more fuel efficient cars. So along with higher mileage standards, we need alternative energy sources that can meet the increased demand.

The President’s report notes that automakers will benefit from a harmonized program that allows them to build cars that meet the requirements of all markets, including California’s – at least in terms of fuel economy. But California also has a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that differs from the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. The auto companies may still need to build different cars to meet those differing market requirements. We need a program where automakers, engine designers, and fuel providers all work together to insure we can get the most bang for our buck and the most mileage per molecule. As we move forward on this path toward a future with greater use of renewable transportation fuels, the interplay of engines and fuels will become increasingly important.

Greentech Media and Forbes have both suggested Top 10 Ways to meet the new fuel efficiency standards. Some of these new fuel efficiency measures, such as high compression engines, would make better use of the higher octane rating of ethanol and other alcohol biofuels. Others, such as hybrid engines, could be made compatible with biofuels..

Internal combustion engines since early last century have been engineered to make use of petroleum fuels. As the auto industry retools for increased fuel efficiency, there is an opportunity to retool for increased use of biofuels. A Sandia-led workshop in 2009 noted that there is even an opportunity to tailor biofuels to meet new optimal engine requirements. Implementation of CAFE standards should include some visionary thinking on how to make development of new vehicle technology compatible with development of advanced biofuels.

Against a backdrop of sharp differences on a variety of current public policy issues, new polling by the Pew Clean Energy Program demonstrates strong support from American voters for immediate action on vehicle fuel economy.

The proposed rule to improved fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025, announced in concept by the Administration and auto industry leaders on Friday, July 29, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, save consumers money at the pump, spur technological innovation, create jobs in the automobile industry and reduce harmful pollution.

In a national poll* conducted for Pew by the bipartisan polling team of the Mellman Group, Inc. and Public Opinion Strategies between July 8-12, 2011, 91 percent of Americans agree that dependence on foreign oil is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” threat to U.S. security, with 61 percent indicating it is a “very serious” threat. These views cut across demographic and partisan lines, with 65 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents identifying dependence on foreign oil as a “very serious threat” to national security.

The polling results reinforce news reports of an ambitious proposed interim fuel economy rule agreement reached by the Obama administration, the auto industry and other stakeholders to improve fuel efficiency for cars and light-duty trucks in model years 2017-2025.

The survey found 82 percent of respondents support an increased fuel efficiency standard of 56 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025, with 68 percent who “favor strongly.” Overwhelming majorities in every demographic subgroup support increased fuel efficiency to 56 mpg, including 70 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Democrats and 88 percent of independents.

Voters across all regions also backed increasing fuel economy to 56 mpg, with 80 percent in the Northeast, 85 percent in the Midwest, 77 percent in the South and 86 percent in the West. Further, 92 percent of Americans believe it is either “very important” (69 percent) or “somewhat important” (23 percent) for the United States to take action now to increase fuel efficiency.

Just as they did in 2009, the administration, the auto industry and other stakeholders have come together and agreed to a higher mpg standard—this time 54.5 mpg—that will both serve the interest of the public and provide market certainty for industry. We look forward to seeing the details of the proposed rule. As it is finalized over the coming months, the administration must ensure that it is not further watered down.

*This analysis represents the findings of a national survey of 1,000 likely 2012 general election voters. Interviews were conducted by telephone July 8-12, 2011, using a national registration-based sample. Respondents were screened for being likely voters. The margin of error for this survey is +/-3.1 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups.

For more information, please visit www.PewTrusts.org/CleanEnergy. To watch a video addressing the benefits of increased fuel efficiency, please visit http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/video-library/increase-my-mpg-85899361222

President Obama’s recent announcement of new fuel economy standards will help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, save drivers money at the pump, and curb harmful emissions and pollutants.

But the effectiveness of the standards will depend on the details and implementation—too many loopholes and the benefits could be watered down. For example, overly generous credits for electric cars might be good for battery makers, but will reduce the environmental and consumer savings of the rule if it causes lower-cost efficiency technologies to sit on the shelf.

That would be a big missed opportunity as even Obama’s first, more modest increase in efficiency standards (to 35.5 mpg by 2016) had the potential to garner as much as $2 trillion in benefits to the public. That number could be even bigger for the new rule.

There are potential bumps in the road though. Policy makers should beware of a possible “rebound effect,” whereby the cheaper price of driving will lead to an increase in vehicle miles traveled and, subsequently, emissions. This is one of the drawbacks of efficiency-boosting regulation: there’s no built in incentive to decrease car usage. Since increasing fuel efficiency lowers the cost of automobile travel, it makes cars a more attractive transportation choice, despite their many environmental drawbacks. Carpooling, urban transit, and biking—all with lower carbon impacts—look less attractive if car travel is kept cheap.

That’s why a cap-and-trade system would be more effective in controlling emissions while keeping compliance costs low. For mobile sources, a cap works by setting an upstream limit on the amount of petroleum that can be released into the market. Such a cap would provide an incentive to reduce gasoline consumption, even with more efficient cars.

Yes, any system to effectively price carbon from vehicle fuels would result in higher prices per gallon of gas. But revenue raised by auctioning allowances could be used to compensate consumers, and efficiency rules could work in tandem to keep total fuel expenses down.

In addition, cap-and-trade would more effectively target all mobile sources, such as off-road vehicles and marine vessels, which are not subject to the new standards. And regulating emissions at the source of fuel sale, manufacture, and import closes the door on potential loopholes, which can arise when regulation is applied piecemeal to various vehicle sectors. For example, the new standards provide credits and exemptions for light trucks, a category that includes pick-up trucks and SUVs.

Any complaint from the auto industry that it’s being pushed too hard to develop cleaner technologies should be taken with a grain of salt. Detroit has a long history of adapting to safety and efficiency standards after initially exaggerating costs.

An increase in fuel efficiency standards is a good start to addressing greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependency while saving drivers a lot of money. But rulemakers will have to be careful not to create too many loopholes that let automakers off the hook. And as technology further develops and the time comes to raise the standards again, we would be wise to consider all of the ways a trading system could push us to achieve more.

President Obama was recently joined by thirteen major automakers - including Toyota - in announcing an agreement to improve the fuel economy of the American fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. Make no mistake, these targets are ambitious. But as part of our unyielding commitment to developing cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, we intend to do our best to meet the challenge.

As with any good inside-the-beltway story, the most frequently asked question about this agreement is who “won” and “lost” among the automakers. In my view, this is a red herring. Any company relying on favorable regulatory structure to succeed is missing the bigger picture – namely, that long-term success will ultimately shine on companies that meet customer demands at an affordable price.

In order to provide our customers with options, our future technology portfolio will include a breadth of alternative vehicle choices, including expanded hybrid offerings, plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. With over a decade of marketing hybrid technology across the globe and over 3 million hybrids sold, Toyota understands that above all, consumer choices will dictate which vehicle technologies are embraced, which are left on the lots, and whether 54 mpg is eventually achieved.

Although the President’s announcement was a big step forward, many details and loose ends need to be tied up. As the rulemaking process moves forward, we hope to work closely with the Administration and other stakeholders to ensure that a variety of promising technologies are supported, rather than choosing single winners and losers. If we give technologies equal footing in the marketplace, consumers will help us forge the right path toward meeting our shared environmental goals.

In negotiating the nation’s new fuel economy standards, President Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to bring together constituencies that often agree to disagree. Consumer experts, car companies, unions, business leaders and environmentalists agree that the new 54.5 mile per gallon standard by 2025 responsibly addresses America’s energy challenges and finds the sweet spot for those that would benefit most from the program - consumers and the auto industry.

A 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 standard significantly reduces the burden of rising gas costs on American families - saving them $6,000 over the lifetime of their new cars. The standard is also strong enough to push our domestic auto companies to innovate, keeping them competitive in the U.S. and global markets.

The long-term approach for this program is sensible, achievable, and allows for a gradual adjustment by automakers and consumers. By adopting a steady annual 5 percent improvement in fuel economy for cars the program will deliver considerable consumer savings at the pump. The program also provides automakers with incentives to transform the vehicles we traditionally think of as gas guzzlers by encouraging them to put hybrid engines into pickup trucks and promote electric vehicles.

The best thing the Administration can do now as it enters the comment period in the fall is to maintain the integrity of the standard. When compared to the rate of fuel economy improvement for cars, having SUVs and trucks on a slower track of 3.5 percent annual fuel economy improvement for the first five years was a major concession awarded to the auto industry. The Administration must not further compromise the standard on the backs of consumers. Doing so risks leaving millions of dollars of gasoline savings on the table and will ensure that U.S. vehicles are not as competitive as they should be in the global market.

I applaud the Obama Administration’s announcement on Friday. Stronger fuel efficiency standards will reduce vehicle emissions, create jobs, drive innovation, save consumers money and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Our new report, shows a 54.5 MPG-by-2025 standard would:

· Create about 484,000 new jobs by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto sector;

· Save consumers approximately $107 billion on their gas costs in 2030 alone;

· Create net job gains in 49 states.

Our report released last Friday makes clear that the stronger the standards, the greater the economic benefits. For example, nearly 700,000 jobs would be created under a stronger 60 MPG scenario, with 63,000 of those jobs being in the auto sector.

The analysis evaluating how stronger fuel economy/GHG standards would impact the U.S. economy was done by independent research firm, Management Information Services Inc (MISI). To learn more, visit “More Jobs Per Gallon.”

Play Ball ! The Obama Administration and many automakers are getting ready for the next season of baseball to be played at CAFE Park. They've set the terms and conditions for the game, though are still working out the details. Whether or not you believe the (game) standards is going to be a good one or not, that an agreement was reached is in itself an important accomplishment, especially given the moment of time in which we live. And everyone loves a good baseball game in the heat of summer.

Precisely matching up technological feasibility, consumer preferences, economic realities and huge uncertainties like oil prices is an impossible task with every aspect being a moving target. Much like the game of baseball, this new rule is going to test the mettle of coaches, players and proven stars, bring rookies into the lineup and maybe retire a few jerseys. The umpires need to be the consumers-- they will decide what's a ball and what's a strike- what's fair and foul-- and what needs an instand replay.

Some will identify this rule as the means to mainstreaming electic vehicles-- the new kid in the AAAA farm league getting lots ob buzz and showing some promise in early starts but unproven in the big time. But more likely will be the interest in the every day players who through incremental changes become stars at their moment -- those are the new powertrain technologies and new fuels on deck to come to bat in showrooms into the next inning and the next decade.. One of those players is clean diesel technology.

Diesel's inherent 30 percent energy efficiency advantage over gasoline, driving performance and ability to use renewable fuels make it more than just a walk-on technology candidate, but more like the utility infielder with a steady bat and proven ability to play multiple positions -- small vehicles, pick up trucks, family sedans and SUVs. There will be some new kids coming into view-- those sporting electricity as a fuel have great expectations to live up to. But not everyone will find them their favore player--after all, consumer's are finicky with their baseball stars and vehicle needs -- one day you're up and the next day you're a no-body. Since not every need can be met by electricity or purely hybridization, there's plenty of interest in fielding a diverse team.

The recent announcement of a Chevy Cruze with a diesel option coming in 2013 is a good example of what's to come. Giving consumers choices in technologies and fuels that deliver proven results. After all, transitions to new fuels are highly uncertain and unpredictable; some stars look good on paper only to fizzle under pressure of the big leagues, or tragically get hurt along the way and sidelined. Steady progress and hitting consistent singles and a double and triple here and there win ball games more times than the grand slams in the bottom of the ninth inning. That's why i'm betting on the incremental improvements in existing gasoline engines and many more new clean diesel cars trucks and SUVs as starters in the future line up and delivering the lions share of those fuel economy gains. Batter up !

Improving fuel economy standards in an aggressive but achievable way is important for the nation’s economy and critical to our national security. I applaud the administration for advancing these new standards and look forward to reviewing the final details. It is my hope that this is just the beginning in a renewed effort to enact a comprehensive energy security strategy that will fundamentally alter our nation’s dangerous dependence on petroleum.

In addition to using oil more efficiently, as we will under these new proposed standards, it is critical to optimize production of our domestic oil and gas resources, and do so as quickly and safely as possible. But in the long-term, as long as our transportation sector is reliant on petroleum, we are reliant on other countries to power our economy. This dependence creates a risk that has stretched our national security apparatus and hurts the economic recovery. To address this threat, we must transition to a transportation sector that has fuel diversity, including rapidly expanding the deployment of electric vehicles on a scale that will make a dramatic impact on our nation’s oil consumption.

(These Comments were submitted by Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.)

The new fuel efficiency standard agreement announced by President Obama requiring the equivalent of a 54.5 MPG fleet average for passenger cars and light trucks by 2025 (163 gram per mile of CO2) is single biggest step the president can take to simultaneously save Americans money at the gas pump, clean up our air, and cut the country’s dangerous dependence on oil. It represents about a 50 percent cut in carbon pollution from today’s vehicles, and 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

The Obama Administration estimates these new standards will save consumers an estimated $1.7 trillion dollars in real fuel costs over the life of their vehicles and are projected to save families an estimated $8,200 in fuel savings over the lifetime of a new vehicle by 2025, compared to a 2010 vehicle. We estimate that by 2030, the 2017-25 standards will save 1.5 million barrels per day, as much oil as we currently import from Saudia Arabia and Iraq. Furthermore, based on our joint analysis with the United Auto Workers, Driving Growth, this standard has the potential to produce up to 150,000 new auto jobs by 2021.

If automaker and other stakeholders all work in good faith to implement the agreement in strong manner, then the consumer, oil and pollution benefits the President has promised can be delivered. However, there are some elements of the agreement that, depending on how implemented, could be taken advantage of by the auto industry to the detriment of the American people.

One concern we have is that under this agreement light-duty trucks will be held to a lower rate of improvement compared to cars - 3.5 percent annually between 2017 and 2021 compared to 5 percent for cars during this period. Depending on how the standards are designed, this could encourage automakers to build more light trucks.

Another concern is the number of electric vehicles that will be allowed to be treated as “zero emissions.” Of course, electric vehicles are responsible for emissions from power plants. Ignoring these emissions undermines the pollution benefits of the program. We think there needs to be reasonable limitations on the number of electric vehicles that receive this generous incentive.

We also have concerns thatthe proposal just announced requires a “midterm review” by 2018 to assess whether the model year 2022-25 standards need to be revised. We’re hopeful automakers will not try to take advantage of this as it certainly provides them a opportunity to lobby for weakening of the standards. It remains to be seen whether the auto industry can set aside their past history of battling new standards and focus on the business of making and selling fuel-efficient cars.

These standards, if implemented in a strong manner, will drive innovation and long-term investments in the American auto industry. Although we know automakers have the technology and ability to reach 60 MPG and beyond, this agreement is a major step forward in getting us where we need to be. As the agreement still needs to be finalized through the rulemaking process, we look forward to continuing to work with the Obama administration, California, UAW and other key stakeholders to ensure the best outcome for the American people.

It is indeed worth repeating that President Obama is better than his immediate fossil-fuel loving predecessor on climate and energy issues, but is mediocrity really something to cheer? The president’s vehicle fuel-emission standards clearly fall far short of what is needed to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. The proposed standards for tailpipe emissions and gas mileage for 2025 are below the European Union’s proposed standards for 2020 and would leave the United States, which has long had the weakest fuel economy standards in the world, as a global laggard.

Under Obama’s plan, gas mileage would reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The proposal would set standards far below what is achievable, requiring an increase of 5 percent for cars annually from 2017 through 2025, with a lesser increase required for light trucks. The Center for Biological Diversity recommended adoption of standards exceeding 60 miles per gallon. These relatively weak standards squander a golden opportunity to cut carbon pollution and reduce the nation’s oil addiction. As my colleague Kassie Siegel has noted, “In this country we perfected the technology to put a man on the moon in eight years, yet the administration’s proposed fuel economy standards for 14 years from now are lower than what we can achieve with technology on the road today.”

Current laws require the government to set fuel efficiency standards at the “maximum feasible” level and are designed to spur technological innovation by requiring that standards be set beyond what is achievable today. Yet despite these requirements, the administration’s proposal, widely reported to be the result of closed-door negotiations with the auto industry, would lock the nation into an inadequate pace of progress for the next 14 years. The transportation sector accounts for about a third of total U.S. greenhouse emissions — and passenger vehicles account for about two-thirds of transportation emissions, spewing nearly 1,200 million metric tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent” emissions each year. Technologies are available today to make significant reductions, including more efficient and less-polluting engines and transmissions, strong but lightweight materials, improved aerodynamics, and hybrid and electric vehicles.

It is vital that swift, significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution are enacted. The effects of climate change are already upon us, manifested in sea-ice loss, drought, heat waves, sea-level rise, an increase in disease, crop failure and species extinction risk. An ambitious improvement in fuel economy is one of the easiest and most important steps we can take to address the climate crisis. The administration needs to set the standard at the level the law requires and the public deserves, not the level to which the auto industry will agree.

Last week’s White House announcement of 2025 CAFE standards reinforces the notion that D.C. is 100 square miles surrounded by reality. Two reasons can explain the decision to mandate increased standards before it’s clear what technology would enable auto manufacturers to achieve the existing 2016 target of 35.5 mpg. It either stems from a political agenda or a detachment from reality.

President Obama is facing an unhappy base. Efforts to appease the environmental component of the Democratic Party represent a critical part of his re-election strategy. If not for these political ends, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the administration discusses a new mileage standard until 2016 when facts, not hope, could provide the basis for action.

Those facts include the state of the economy, advances in battery technology, the cost of 35 mpg vehicles, and oil prices. The economy is already experiencing a tough enough time trying to climb out of the recession hole without EPA coming forward with another costly mandate—especially when its current regulations are chilling the investment climate necessary to create jobs.

The obvious question then is why would the manufacturers agree to the new mandate? It boils down to loopholes and timing.

Friday’s proposed regulations provide for reviews on progress and technology. If lack of progress, no battery breakthroughs, and high costs make the new standards seem impractical in the post-2016 timeframe (as they are likely to be), the language offers the industry an off ramp.

Further, a year constitutes the standard timeframe for a major rulemaking. If EPA publishes the proposal by its goal of September 30, the final rule will come out next September. If President Obama does not win re-election (though currently an unlikely outcome), his successor can simply roll back the rule as part of an economic revitalization package.

This represents a cynical view of the proposal. However, cynicism is justified by the reputation of this administration, the history of D.C. politics, and economic and technological realities.

Current economic conditions make an uncertain future even more unpredictable. Studies recently performed on high mileage vehicles—over 50 mpg—show an average price increase of over $6,000. Consumers’ ability to afford and willingness to pay that kind of premium depends on the growth in U.S. per-capita income. Our debt and deficit situation, how it’s resolved, and how well consumers do in reducing their personal debt will play major roles in determining the state of economy beyond 2016. With good fortune, we could be on a growth path of 3% or more or we could resemble Japan’s lost decade.

The National Research Council (NRC) and the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) have recently completed studies dealing with advanced automotive technologies and cost. The NRC concluded that mileage standards beyond 35 mpg would require a large number of electric hybrids and that for electric vehicles to be practical a battery breakthrough would be needed. An earlier NRC study concluded that battery costs would have to be reduced about 75% for EVs to be cost competitive.

CAR’s study looked at a number of scenarios and—like the NRC analysis—concluded that over 50% of the vehicles sold would have to be hybrids to achieve 56mpg and the average cost would be almost $7000.

Over the next decade, unanticipated advances in technology could drive down battery costs and make a 50 mpg vehicle practical for the average American. But if history is any indicator, don’t bet on it. Mileage has improved with advances in engine technology, the use of plastics and composites, and low roll resistant tires. But in making these advances, manufacturers have also reduced the weight of vehicles, including not including spare tires in some models.

According to Investor’s Business Daily, the weight of a Lincoln Continental is now the same as the 1974 Ford Maverick and the lighter cars result in 2,600 additional highway fatalities.

Over seven in 10 Americans live in the suburbs. The preference for suburban living has to do with demographics, family formation, and housing affordability. Where people live influences the type of vehicles that are preferred--full size, cross over, SUV, and pick-up in rural and suburban areas. It is hard to see how those will achieve 50+mpg in the 2025 time frame. That is where gimmicks come into play. If all new vehicles were flexible fuel vehicles (FFV), manufacturers would get credit for higher mileage even if no alternative fuel was consumed. Look for more FFVs.

All of this technology forcing is being driven by reducing oil imports and climate change. By the time we get to 2025, it could be even clearer that the climate change models have grossly over estimated the affects of CO2 and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That is why actual temperature increases have been less than the models have predicted. And oil imports from unstable regions could be reduced by developing our own growing oil reserves.

Instead of using fear to force technology, the Obama Administration should pay heed to the counsel of the 14th century historian, Guiccardini: “... the affairs of the world are subject to so many accidents that seldom do things turn out as even the wisest predicted. Whoever refuses to take advantage of present good for fear of future danger ... often discovers to his annoyance and disgrace that he has lost opportunities full of ... glory, from dread of dangers which have turned out to be wholly imaginary.”