Gojirra99

White House considers imposing an average of 25 miles per gallon for cars, trucks by 2011.

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is expected to announce next week final revised regulations to boost the fuel economy of the nation's vehicles.

A preliminary version of the rules released last summer required that vehicles average 24 miles per gallon by 2011, but the final rules may increase that to 25 mpg by 2011, environmental groups said Wednesday.

The White House is further considering including some heavier sport utility vehicles and passenger vans in fuel economy rules for the first time, including three of the largest GM SUVs: the Hummer H2, GMC Yukon XL and Chevy Suburban, the groups said.



Environmentalists say next week's announcement is a test for President Bush, who in his State of the Union address called for breaking America's addiction to oil and reducing Middle East oil imports 75 percent by 2025 -- what amounts to a reduction of 4.75 million barrels of oil a day.

The move is being closely watched by Detroit automakers, who face higher vehicle costs depending on how much the standards are increased. But automakers and trade groups no longer reflexively oppose increases in fuel economy standards.

When the proposed fuel economy rules were announced in August, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said it would gradually replace today's separate standards for cars and trucks with a single standard that would apply to an automaker's full fleet of models.

The new rules would raise fuel economy standards for all cars and trucks from 22.5 mpg in 2008 to 23.5 mpg in 2010 and about 24 mpg in 2011.

The current standard is 21.6 miles per gallon for light trucks; for 2007, it will be 22.2 mpg. Passenger cars currently must average 27.5 mpg -- where it's been since 1990 -- though some foreign automakers pay fines rather than comply with the standards.

A NHTSA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday.

On March 15, the Environmental Defense Fund disclosed that -- "one proposal, under consideration, is whether to include some heavier SUVs and passenger vans" in the rules for the first time.

"This is the first sign of President Bush's commitment to addressing our oil addiction," said Eric Haxthausen an economist at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Environmentalists have some backers. The American Automobile Association called on regulators to extend fuel economy rules to heavier SUVs and vans in written comments filed in November.

"The original plan should have been bolder in action in pushing for more significant gains in fuel economy," Mantil Williams, AAA's Washington public affairs director, said Wednesday. The exemption in the 1970s was issued because those vehicles were for commercial use. "Today, many consumers purchase heavier light duty trucks as personal or family vehicles. The rules should reflect the reality of what consumers drive."

Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, said automakers were "cautiously optimistic" about the government's proposed increase in August.

"We continue to work with NHTSA to meet the new requirements. We expect it will be a challenge that the industry is committed to meeting," Shosteck said.

General Motors Corp. defended its environmental record Wednesday and said it hadn't seen draft regulations that would include heavier SUVs. But it didn't say it opposed such regulations.

GM spokeswoman Sherrie Childers Arb said the company supported the proposed rules in August.

"We make every effort to continually improve our fuel economy," Arb said. "GM makes more vehicles that get 30 miles per gallon than any other automaker."

But Joan Claybrook at Public Citizen said the Bush Administration had put industry before improving fuel economy. She said the revised fuel economy rules released in August "were designed to save the SUV market for Detroit, not protect the public."

source : detnews

Ichigo

Thats good to see/hear. Seriously, the gas guzzling, 8mpg trucks/suv's need to stop being made... people using these cars as daily drivers are absurd. Yes, some of the "supercars" get horrible mileage, but those cars arent driven on a daily basis. If Bush wants to make a real impact, the minimum should go up more than 1mpg a year.

LexFather

And he'll be in office to enforce What about the record deficeit he leaves us?

ShowGSLuVv

Damn right. I feel bad for whoever has to be president after this bozo, they have a big mess to take care of.

SteVTEC

If Bush's predecessor had actually done even a single thing about the rising threat of terrorism all throughout the 90's then maybe Bush wouldn't have had a mess to clean up in the first place, and that's all I'm going to say on that.

I think stricter fuel economy standards are definitely a good thing. I'm all for a little government coaxing of the market when needed when it's getting out of control and people simply aren't seeing the big picture (the reality of foreign oil dependence, and steadily rising prices), but to call for large SUVs to simply stop being made is not what the free market economy is about. It's all about freedom of choice, and that's what it thrives on. Stricter standards will discourage them to all except those that truly need them. If you have a large family and lots of extended family nearby and you go on trips all the time, there is no more efficient vehicle than an American full-sized SUV. One Chevy Suburban on a long trip is much more efficent than two 4-cyl Accords or Camrys.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

then because of our freedom of choice everyones going to have to endure high gas prices because of these vehicles, yea like everyone has 4+ kids and goes on long trips everyday there is not many people with this type of situation. A majority of SUV/truck drivers do not use the vehicle to its intended use, and its very wasteful to use a 6000 lb vehicle to drive a 150 lb human to work and back. Americans whine about gas prices but they are in no position to complain when their own lifestyle choices created this type of situation. They need to be damn appreciative they dont have euro gas prices, couldve been 10x worse

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

Bush won't even be in office What is he doing

Lexmex

Amen to your first paragraph.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

OK, so how about saying what he SHOULD do instead? Would you rather he increase standards NOW when car makers can't accomplish that?

It's easier to criticize a book than write one.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

[tongue in cheek ...]

What a great country. After namby pamby Democrat presidents like Carter and Clinton almost ruined our military we need a good war monger to spend like a drunken sailor on our military, drive up deficits and make it less likely the next Democrat president can enact huge 'do good' spending programs.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

This is true, but if this was each presidents mindset then no president would ever do any long term regulation to improve anything, very bad for us

SteVTEC

High fuel prices right now are primarily caused by huge growth in China, India, and the threat of terrorism and a lot of political instability in oil producing countries. There is very little slack in the market these days, unlike just 5 yrs ago. Yes, lots of SUVs in the US has "something" to do with that too, but it's not a primary factor. Other secondary factors are all sorts of different fuel blends that are required in different regions of the country at different times which make things difficult for refiners, and the kicking and screaming from environmentalists wheneever anybody dares to mention drilling an ANWR.

Your perspective is skewed because you live in Texas which is truck central. Out where I live in the midwest I hardly see any of these things being daily driven, and in more rural areas most of the time people with a full-sized SUV are towing a boat, camper, snowmobile, ATV, horses, or whatever. And most people on the coasts are way too snobby to drive an American SUVs anyways and drive gas-guzzling Japanese and German SUVs instead including Toyota and Lexus. There are plenty of these things that drink just as much gas as foreign SUVs do.

True on the last part, but not really on the first part. Gas prices have not gone as high as they have simply because of Americans driving SUVs. Even without any real government coaxing thus far, there is already consdierable momentum going away from full-sized SUVs and back towards cars as the market and people's buying habits shift and adjust naturally for the higher fuel prices. If gas prices shoot up to $4/gal tomorrow that doesn't mean that everybody goes and trades in their Suburban tomorrow for a Corolla. A lot of people bought their SUVs when gas was still in the high-$1.xx to low-$2.xx range. Next time around, a lot of these people will probably not be buying big SUVs again.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

He is a president for the record books Any current discussion of fuel economy is colored by the conflict in the Middle East, rising gas prices and surging global demand for oil, particularly in China. But amending corporate average fuel economy rules - known as CAFE standards - is also fraught with questions about jobs and safety and safety.

Jobs, because the traditional Big Three - General Motors, the Ford Motor
Company and the Chrysler Group division of DaimlerChrysler would suffer and by raising the fuel economy standards would benefit foreign-based rivals, particularly an automaker like Honda that does not sell the largest vehicles. Safety, because one way to improve fuel economy is to make lighter vehicles,which tend to fare worse in crashes with heavier ones. Bush needs to look at alternatives, but he is too narrow minded

SteVTEC

How bout the whole CAFE system is a joke and needs to be revamped such that it won't specifically harm people who happen to specialize in making SUVs. Even Subaru has had trouble with this because even though they build all-AWD vehicles which don't necessarily get very good fuel mileage (more complex drivetrain = lower efficiency), they still have to meet the "car" CAFE standards which are much higher. It's a huge challenge for them to meet the standards even though they just build "cars".

And I think it's very narrow-minded to accuse the president of being narrow-minded for being forward looking and trying to do things NOW so that the country as a whole will be better off in the future.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

He is not accepting responsibilty for a war based on false pretenses. That is narrow minded to the 5th power.