New mileage standards would double fuel efficiency

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration has finalized regulations that will force automakers to nearly double the average gas mileage of all new cars and trucks they sell by 2025.
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.
The regulations, announced Tuesday, will change the cars and trucks sold in U.S. showrooms, with the goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Automakers will need to improve gasoline-powered engines, and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," or CAFE standards, will vary by automaker depending on the mix of models they sell. The requirements will be lower for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which offer more pickup trucks. The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. The standards also are the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks will be halved by 2025.
President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.
Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.
In the arcane world of government regulations, the rules don't mean that each new car or truck will get 54.5 mpg. The average vehicle will get closer to 40 mpg in real-world driving. Automakers will be able to sell pickup trucks and less-efficient vehicles as long as that's offset somewhat by smaller vehicles that already can get upward of 40 mpg.
Automakers can reduce the mileage they're required to get with credits for selling natural gas and electric vehicles, changing air conditioning fluid to one that pollutes less, and adding stop-start circuits that temporarily shut off the engine at stop lights.
At showrooms, dealers are likely to offer more efficient gas-electric hybrids, natural gas vehicles and electric cars. There also will be smaller motors, lighter bodies and more devices to save fuel.
Automakers have already been adding technology to boost the efficiency of gasoline-powered engines, mainly because people want to spend less at the pump. Fuel economy is the top factor people consider when buying a car in the U.S., according to the research firm J.D. Power and Associates. The national average for gasoline hit $3.76 Tuesday, the highest price ever for this time of year.
Fuel efficiency has been rising for the past five years because government regulations and high gas prices have encouraged smaller vehicles and engines. The average new car now goes almost four miles farther on a gallon of gas than it did in October of 2007, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Market demand for more efficient vehicles already has pushed the auto industry to boost mileage with an array of technology, said Roland Hwang, transportation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're pleasantly surprised to see how fast the industry is moving," he said.
The administration estimates that the new rules, combined with those that began in 2011, will raise the cost of a new car about $2,800 by 2025. The estimates are based on 2010 dollars. But the government says the net savings from the requirements still will be $3,500 to $5,000 because people will spend less on gas.
The administration also predicts that the new regulations will cost the auto industry about $135 billion from 2017 to 2025.
The new rules were adopted after an agreement between the administration and 13 automakers last year. That's a change from the past, when automakers fought the regulations, saying they cost too much.
Industry leaders repeatedly told the Obama administration that they wanted one nationwide fuel standard, fearing separate mileage standards from California and other states.
"They wanted certainty so that as they invest in the future they will know what rules they are playing by," the EPA's Jackson said.
Fuel economy standards were first imposed on U.S. automakers in the 1970s. The aim was to make cars more efficient and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil at time when the Arab oil embargo was creating gasoline shortages. The administration says this is the first update in decades.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will enforce the standards, calculating the average mileage of cars sold by each automaker. Automakers can be fined if they don't comply.
The requirements, which can be imposed without congressional approval, will be reviewed in 2018 and could be reduced if the technology isn't available to meet the standards.
The rules are tough, but General Motors, the largest U.S. car company, will roll out features to comply, spokesman Greg Martin said.
"Consumers want higher fuel efficiency in their cars and trucks, and GM is going to give it to them," he said.
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.
The regulations, announced Tuesday, will change the cars and trucks sold in U.S. showrooms, with the goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Automakers will need to improve gasoline-powered engines, and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.
The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," or CAFE standards, will vary by automaker depending on the mix of models they sell. The requirements will be lower for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which offer more pickup trucks. The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.
The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. The standards also are the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks will be halved by 2025.
President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.
Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.
In the arcane world of government regulations, the rules don't mean that each new car or truck will get 54.5 mpg. The average vehicle will get closer to 40 mpg in real-world driving. Automakers will be able to sell pickup trucks and less-efficient vehicles as long as that's offset somewhat by smaller vehicles that already can get upward of 40 mpg.
Automakers can reduce the mileage they're required to get with credits for selling natural gas and electric vehicles, changing air conditioning fluid to one that pollutes less, and adding stop-start circuits that temporarily shut off the engine at stop lights.
At showrooms, dealers are likely to offer more efficient gas-electric hybrids, natural gas vehicles and electric cars. There also will be smaller motors, lighter bodies and more devices to save fuel.
Automakers have already been adding technology to boost the efficiency of gasoline-powered engines, mainly because people want to spend less at the pump. Fuel economy is the top factor people consider when buying a car in the U.S., according to the research firm J.D. Power and Associates. The national average for gasoline hit $3.76 Tuesday, the highest price ever for this time of year.
Fuel efficiency has been rising for the past five years because government regulations and high gas prices have encouraged smaller vehicles and engines. The average new car now goes almost four miles farther on a gallon of gas than it did in October of 2007, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Market demand for more efficient vehicles already has pushed the auto industry to boost mileage with an array of technology, said Roland Hwang, transportation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're pleasantly surprised to see how fast the industry is moving," he said.
The administration estimates that the new rules, combined with those that began in 2011, will raise the cost of a new car about $2,800 by 2025. The estimates are based on 2010 dollars. But the government says the net savings from the requirements still will be $3,500 to $5,000 because people will spend less on gas.
The administration also predicts that the new regulations will cost the auto industry about $135 billion from 2017 to 2025.
The new rules were adopted after an agreement between the administration and 13 automakers last year. That's a change from the past, when automakers fought the regulations, saying they cost too much.
Industry leaders repeatedly told the Obama administration that they wanted one nationwide fuel standard, fearing separate mileage standards from California and other states.
"They wanted certainty so that as they invest in the future they will know what rules they are playing by," the EPA's Jackson said.
Fuel economy standards were first imposed on U.S. automakers in the 1970s. The aim was to make cars more efficient and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil at time when the Arab oil embargo was creating gasoline shortages. The administration says this is the first update in decades.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will enforce the standards, calculating the average mileage of cars sold by each automaker. Automakers can be fined if they don't comply.
The requirements, which can be imposed without congressional approval, will be reviewed in 2018 and could be reduced if the technology isn't available to meet the standards.
The rules are tough, but General Motors, the largest U.S. car company, will roll out features to comply, spokesman Greg Martin said.
"Consumers want higher fuel efficiency in their cars and trucks, and GM is going to give it to them," he said.
Really??
Â
  There are cars and trucks that are manufactured here in the US and in other countries by our very own auto manufacturers that get 50+ MPG now but they are NOT sold inside the USA because there is no money to be made by the oil companies, and the lovely gas taxes collected by our government would be cut in half!
Â
It's all BS and it comes from both parties! The government is here to help you out of your pay check!
Â
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis says that NHTSA data indicate that â322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.â USA Today further calculated that the âsize and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.â
Â
Expect many, many more highway deaths due to this CAFE change.
This comment has been deleted
I do commercial tenet improvement for a living. Most of what I do is repair or small changes in work that is almost done. To do this job I need to carry almost a ton (yes that is almost 2000 lbs) of tools. I currently drive a mid-size 4 door SUV with the back seat removed to make room for the tools. The next time your job requires the building repaired and I cannot fix it because I cannot carry the tools or parts there do not complain that the toilet does not work for the week I have to wait till I get my next gas ârationâ. Most people do not think this line of thought out and all the problem it will cause for those of us who âworkâ for a living.
This comment has been deleted
@n9078jk4 @bustedupredneck most of the work I do takes 3-4 hours. I fix what the people that ocupie the offices break. One stop may be a door lock the next a toilet. These stops are usualy only 2-3 miles apart but, there is no way to know what tools I needs till I an on site and can find the problem. I have started the day painting comtrat walls and then finished the day pulling a car out of a conferance room (did this about 6 weeks ago). Would love to leave tools on a job site if I had a crystal ball I just might. Till them I have to take ALL OF THEM with me ALL THE TIME.
Â
T
This administration has to go!!!! It is not the job of the federal government to tell the people what kind of car they must drive!!! When we the people demand gas guzzlers that is what the auto industry makes. When we demand economic cars they make those. Look at the safety features in cars today. Seat belts and air bags were available in the early 60âs. People were not willing to pay for them so they did not install them very often. Today cars are ahead of the ârequirementsâ because that is what the customer demands. It is how the free market works if the government would stay out of the way of business.
These same issues just keep playing out over and over. This is not the first time there has been a green movement or an issue with fossil fuel and it probably won't be the last. Then sooner or later they will throw in the safety issues of some of these cars on the road and that will start another round in that direction. Apparently the only thing that hasn't been learned is what has happened in the past when they tried some of the same things. History just keeps repeating itself.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-white-party-20120828,0,7089439.story
This comment has been deleted
@2nd Baseman I'll bet you scream for getting our butts away from being dependent on foreign oil - particularly arab oil.
Â
well, when people won't stop buying gas guzzlers, there's not many ways to get us weaned off that damm foreign oil other than forcing this kind of thing.
Â
So we can either be beholden to Arab oil or we can do things like this.Â
Â
You can't have both.
Â
chose.
13 years to produce cars in the US that already exist and run in Germany and Japan. They have required a fleet average of 65 mpg for decades. Looks like a scam to me.
FYI -supply and demand works - when people get tired of high gas prices they will buy cars that get better gas mileage. AND the market will respond, hopefully not with Vegas and Pintos...
Â
DeadRabitz - Can liberals actually think? Can they look at a situation and make a rationale decision on their own OR do they have to have the government/Obama legislate forced choices? What is so hard about saying I can make a personal choice to buy a car that gets better gas mileage and not buy that SUV or V8 muscle car...?  Nothing against these cars - if you can afford to drive them then great!
 @Truth Percolates Yea, liberals can.  I do it all the time.  It's a shame you can't apply the same thing. Â
Â
Look at it this way. Â Because YOU and many other people out there can drive these gas guzzlers that has driven the price up on ME. Â So where is my choice. Â Can I get cheeper gas because my car gets 44 MPG. Â Hey, I am doing my part why should I have to buy expensive gas because others want to be wasteful. Â
Â
Sorry but your logic is flawed. Â It's one thing to argue against something that only effects YOU. Â Like Seat belts, wear them or not, thats your choice. Â I could care less if you die in an accident because you didn't use your seat belt. Â But when your bad decisions affect me, I have issue. Â Like when I have to pay higher insurance premiums because of smokers and obese people. Â I don't smoke, am not obese. Â However, I guarantee that my premiums go up because others are a burden on the system because of their poor lifestyle choices.
@Truth Percolates - I don't see your high and mighty right wingers getting us away from being dependent on foreign oil like they say the want us to. I just see them keep buying those giant engined trucks that get crap for gas mileage, those fancy cars that get poor mpg and so on....
Â
If they really wanted to reduce dependency like they SAY they want to (remember the reasons behind 'drill, baby, drill'????)Â then they would be demanding cars that get that kind of mileage instead of buying what they do.
Â
So let's stop calling this a liberal issue - it's an issue with ALL OF US.
As the VOLT Electric Flop made by OBAMA-Motors is on hold for two months because of EXTREMELY POOR SALES. They have only sold about 10K not the anticipated 45-60K. And even at the higher production rate it would still be sold at a loss and the loss is being paid in part by we the tax payer!!
Â
Thank you OBAMA and DEMOCRATS for more FAILED POLICIES.!!
 @Truth Percolates I notice you didn't mention any of the failed policies of the Bush administration.  You know the ones that got us into the whole recession.  You like to forget about those...and so would we.  However we are now cleaning up YOUR MESS. Â
Â
Sorry you don't approve of the methods but YOUR boy screwed us big time. Â
Â
HEY, I have an idea. Â Why don't you cut me a check for the money I lost when the economy tanked, you know when BUSH was in office. Â
Â
Till you cut a check, keep quiet.
@Truth Percolates Obama came to office 3.5 years ago. Do you think the whole Chevy volt thing started after he arrive. The developed of such a vehicle takes much longer than that.
@Truth Percolates Oh, So it's a bad thing to try and have clean air?
 @DDG  @Truth Have you checked the air standards lately. Do you know they are doing away with emissions testing because it is costing them more to do the test than they are bringing in in revenue (not that many failed tests)? Time to move yourself from 1975 to 2012...
WOW, just wow. Â The car companies won't push for fuel conservation so the president does. Â Last I looked, gas was costing 4 times as much as it did a few years ago and we all complain about that but when someone says hey, i'm gonna force the car companies to give us better fuel economy you all get your panties in a twist. Â Talk about hypocrites. Â
Â
Seems to me that you are all still running under the Bush idea that we can be wasteful because we are Americans. Â
 @DeadRabitz By 2025, gas will be so expensive you won't be saving $7400, it will be costing you to drive them, if you can afford the $150,000 price tag...Remember the last words you ever want to hear "Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
 @boeman So we should go a head a waste money now while we have it?  If yo seriously believe that gas will cost us $150,000 in 13 years then I have a few bridges to sell you.
 @DeadRabitz the drill baby drill mentality. Many republicans are not all that educated and quite self centered. A me first mentality and screw everybody else.Â
In other news: States scramble to increase taxes and to add new fees across the board to make up for the lost revenue from people using less fuel. ;)
I don't have the time to ready every negative comment on this thread so let me just say this.....
Â
In WW2 our nation created the atomic bomb in under 4 years and saved us a body count that would have been horrific had we been forced to invade Japan.
Â
In 1961, President Kennedy challenged this nation to get a man on the moon in under 9 years. Take in account that America's first astronaut had yet to orbit the earth. We landed there in 8 years.
Â
So, why is it the end of the world to get our country to cut it's dependancy (in regards to automobiles) on oil by half? The internal combustion engine has been around for over a hundred frick'n years. I'd call that an antique.
 @path_tech I would have to say that the engine of today, and the engine of 100 years ago bear little resemblence to each other...
 @path_tech Well, It has something to do with that other antique thing called a Constitution! Which was put in place to protect us from another common antique problem of when a government such as our own gets out of control and far exceeds the limits put in place by the constitution to protect the people of the United States.
 To have a oil dependency crises created by our own government and then that government to use that crises as an excuse to exceed it's constitutional powers(Forcing it's people to use an inferior technology because the government thinks it's right regardless of the consequences on the prosperity of the nation) tends to make many people negative =)
 @path_tech In WW2 our nation created the atomic bomb in under 4 years and caused a body count that horrified the citizens of Japan. Nothing to be proud of. After all we are the only country who has used the bomb. We all should be concerned about that.
 @donner  @path_tech And we haven't had to use it again since. Wonder why that is?
Â
 @donner  @path_tech FYI - The body count from the conventional firebombing of Tokyo matched that of Hiroshima by some counts. And as devastating as the atomic bombs were - they would have been nothing compared to what an actual invasion would have cost in lives - especially to the Japanese. It was only after the second bomb that Japan finally surrendered.
@donner Â
Â
my point is that technology was greatly accelerated during a time of crisis and challenge. Not saying we should be proud of the bomb. However, we as a nation has stuck our nose into Middle East politics/conflicts way too long. Eliminate the oil dependency, eliminate having us send over more troops.
I notice nobody who supports this sees the downside to things. 1) With electric cars where are you going to get the electricity from? Putting more strain on our already overloaded grid, along with regulations that are shutting down production of electricity, where is the electricity to charge the cars going to come from? Solar and wind are too inefficient to take up the slack. 2) I see people talking about cars like the Chevy Sprint. I had a friend who had a Turbo Sprint, and who's father had a regular Sprint. The regular Sprint was gutless and made it hard to gain a safe merging speed onto the freeway. The Turbo Sprint didn't have that problem, but both cars wore out fast and weren't cost effective. 3) What about all the toxic chemicals related to batteries for electric cars.
Â
The government can mandate all it wants, but physics and economics dictate what will and won't work. This is as bad as getting rid of the incandescent light bulb in favor of the mercury polluting CFL.
 @Dan Sherman And nothing is said about the polution cause to generate the electricity to run all these electric cars is probably greater that if we just drove the cars we have now. But that doesn't fit the adgenda...
Nothing like regulating cars out of existance in the United States.
 @hi61izq That is not going to happen as they've been around for decades /century.Â
 @hi61izq I am sure that is not their intent. Dear Leader has increased our chocolaty ration from 2oz to 1 oz.
Whatever. Where are our flying cars damnit...
 @RomeyRome 2015 was the date if Back to the Future II is an indication for you. Flying cars is a pipe dream that will never happen.
 @RomeyRome The Jetsons!Â
This comment has been deleted
@Big Don HAHAHA!!! I'm no fan of Romney, but in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the last 4 years, I will probably hold my nose and vote for him.
this can easily be accomplished, it's just a question of if the government wants to let it happen. A close friend of mine bought a new 1985 Chevy Sprint, that got 52 mpg and my 1980 Civic got 41, you want to tell me we haven't evolved since 1985 without going green/electric
About time. I love it. Toward energy independence. If Mitt Raw Money gets elected however, say goodbye to CAFE standards however. Anything for big oil and corporations!!Â
Great work Obama & Company!! Look forward to another 4 years of you!!
That should add thousands, to develop the technology, to a cars price.
Just what we need -- more government telling us what to do. These people understand nothing.
 @acmariner99 ha ha ha. Those darn bureaucrats. If government didn't have rules and regulations you'd have a pig farm next to your house or a nuclear power plant in your downtown.Â
 @HallandOates  @acmariner99 There's a big difference between reasonable regulation and over-regulation. This is an example of over regulation, especially when looking at the downsides to the regulation.
 @Dan Sherman  @acmariner99 Over regulation? I don't think so. Industry would never change if government didn't make requirements such as this.Â
Â
I see no downsides to this. Clean air is a good thing if you like your health. Energy independence is also a good thing unless you like supporting theocracies /dictators overseas and wars fighting for finite resources. Hopefully hydrogen cars are on the cusp of coming.Â
 @Dan Sherman  @HallandOates Here's the kicker: who gets to decide what is "reasonable". Reasonable is a very relative term.
@HallandOates @acmariner99 Can't wait for the government to regulate your freedom of speech...
 @hi61izq  @HallandOates  @acmariner99 Check out the 1st Amendment.Â
 @HallandOates In which case I would consider moving. Gee personal responsibility is a terrible thing
 @HallandOates I'll take that as a compliment :)
 @acmariner99 if there was no rules or regulations, it could happen over and over again regardless of how many times you move. Sounds like you need to live in Texas.
BTW, did Congress approve these changes or was this just another edict from the White House?
@acmariner99 Well under this president it was probably signed as an executive order.Â