1990 Toyota Supra Turbo Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

Bibendum 2014: Former EU President says Toyota could lose 100,000 euros per hydrogen FCV sedan

Pat Cox does not work for Toyota and we don't think he has any secret inside information. Still, he's the former President of the European Parliament and the current high level coordinator for TransEuropean Network, so when he says Toyota is likely going to lose between 50,000 and 100,000 euros ($66,000 and $133,000) on each of the hydrogen-powered FCV sedans it will sell next year, it's worth noting. That was just one highlight of Cox's presentation at the 2014 Michelin Challenge Bibendum in Chengdu, China today, which addressed the main problem of using more H2 in transportation: cost. The EU has a tremendous incentive to find an alternative to fossil fuels, since Europe today is 94 percent dependent on oil for its transportation sector and 84 percent of that 94 percent dependency is imported oil. The tab for that costs the EU a billion euros a day, Cox said, on top of the environmental costs. To encourage a shift away from petroleum, European Directive 2014/94 requires each member state to develop national policy frameworks for the market development of alternative fuels and their infrastructure. For the member states that choose to fulfill 2014/94 by developing a hydrogen market – and to be clear, Cox said, it's not an EU diktat that they do so, since a number of other alternatives are also allowed – the aim is to have things in place by the end of 2025. The plans don't even have to be submitted until the end of 2016. The long lead time is due to a quirk in a hydrogen economy. In hydrogen infrastructure, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the firstmover disadvantage." – Pat Cox In deploying a hydrogen infrastructure, Cox said, "the first-mover cost is not the first-mover advantage, but the first-mover disadvantage, and high risk." That's why the EU and member states will financially support the early stages, but everyone agrees that "if this is to work, it will have to be ultimately and essentially a commercially viable and commercially driven infrastructure roll-out." Since 1986, European Union research programs have spent 550 million euros on hydrogen-related and fuel-cell-related research, including methods of hydrogen storage and distribution as well as improved fuel cells vehicles, Cox said. Expensive problems remain to be solved. At a conference in Berlin, Germany this past summer, Cox said, the unit cost of the refueling stations was identified as the main problem.