Detroit Pushes National Fuel Efficiency Standard -- But Will it Like the One it Gets?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a hearing today on the waiver request by California, as well as more than a dozen other states, to allow higher auto fuel-efficiency standards under the Clean Air Act.
The Detroit Three -- General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler -- are not sending direct spokesmen to the event. But one of their home-state senators, Carl Levin (MI), is there, and his argument tracks with what the auto industry wants: a "single national standard" to govern auto tailpipe emissions.
That doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, the Clean Air Act did allow California to set its own environmental regulation standards and give other states the authority to opt in, but let's assume that a national standard would be the best solution for automakers as well as the nation. Now where should the national standard be set?
When I asked Levin this question last week, he said any national standard should simply be "fairly achieved" and that the specific fuel-efficiency level should be "left to the experts."
But Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign and the Sierra Club's former senior global warming advocate, sees the "national standard" push in a different way: as Detroit's code for urging rejection of the California waiver. "When they say 'one national standard,'" Becker told me, "what they mean is ... [that] California['s waiver] should be obliterated and the EPA should keep its nose out. That ain't gonna happen."
What may happen? The automakers may end up ruing the day they advocated for a uniform national standard.
"What looks as if it might happen is the federal agencies ... may eventually meet California where California is," Becker added. "In other words, they'd set a national standard for auto fuel economy and emissions at the California level."
If you think the automakers would be okay with a national standard at California's level, check out the National Automobile Dealers Association's recent report blasting the state's stronger emissions rules. The auto dealers, reflecting the industry's overall view, appear to assume that a "national fuel standard" would be lower than California's level.
Particularly notable is the automakers' alarm at the idea of eliminating "mix shifting," which allows them to sell smaller numbers of cars with poorer fuel-efficiency records as long as the overall average of cars sold complies with the cleaner standard. Here's the passage of note:
Absent mix shifting, the only way to comply with [California]'s fuel economy/GHG regulation is to deliver for sale in each [California-backing] state a new vehicle fleet that, on average, emits significantly less CO2, which can only be achieved by significantly improving fuel economy.
Significantly improving fuel economy?! As awful as it sounds to Detroit, that may just be the future.


















Jeez, it's no wonder why Detroit is in such dire straights. They need to wake the f up and stop believing that just because they invented the car doesn't mean they can stop there. These companies remind me of people who decide to stop growing and then get cranky that they are no longer relevant.
March 5, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to nitpick, but the car was actually first invented in Germany by Karl Benz. Ford et. al. invented the assembly line method which allowed the car industry to expand at the rate it did. Otherwise I concur wholeheartedly. Larger engines, more trunkspace, and seatback DVD players are not serious innovation, it's the industry shooting the breeze because they found out that if they just managed the expectations of their customer base, then there would never be a need to undergo the significant investments that real innovation requires.
March 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another time the way I write gets the best of me. I meant invent in the 'she wrote the book on manufacturing economics' broad kind of way.
The big 3 used to come up with neat ideas and put them into practice. But, as you say, their recent ideas like seatback DVD players are just cosmetic.
March 5, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big three are like the kid in middle school who was dominant in all the sports because he developed faster than the rest. He was taller, stronger, faster, and better skilled. Then, he gets to high school, and he finds out the rest of the people (Toyota, Nissan, Audi, Honda, etc.) have finally developed in the same manner. Now, the kid who has taken everything for granted, let's the competition pass him by, and he's left reminiscing about how great he used to be. The big three have left their mark on history, sure, but they are going to be a footnote from here on out without taking major strides to improve and cement themselves as a leader in quality and innovation. America is "going green". The big three might as well follow suit to help boost their image, along with sales.
March 5, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, their image is 'following suit'--actually that's too generous: They have to go from totally (1) ignoring the problem to (2) following-suit to (3) leading. They don't get credit for the past any more. I doubt all 3 can climb back. In fact, only Ford seems viable right now. I was looking at the current (?) Consumer Reports ranking the big 3's cars, and it isn't pretty.
March 5, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will Detroit wake up?
I saw the Duke Energy CEO on Rachel the other night and while he's still pushing back on details of Cap and Trade and taxes, it seems the power industry understands massive CO2 reductions are in the future and the future started January 20.
The fact their sales of SUV's and trucks plummeted during last summer's $4/gallon gasoline and they have recovered should have been a very late wake-up call.
March 5, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 14 states that use California Emission Standard make up 37% of the population. And more states are considering joining. The car companies need to get with the program and go with the California Standard.
March 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink