Featured 54.5 mpg target is off the table, U.S. regulators say

I had followed it from another source and got the impression it simply means there are 'goals' for each classification of vehicles. The product mix changed and the policy reflects the new reality. I'm OK with adapting to the new reality.

Bob Wilson

 

looks like congress has put the economy ahead of mmcc.

 

how does it hurt our oil industry?

 

My paranoia suggests as soon as the review is over, oil prices will shoot up again. Probably not related to anything associated with the review ...

Bob Wilson

 

Increased Fuel economy vehicles is a win, win situation.
ALMOST everybody plus ecological situations are benefited

 

state gas taxers hate it.

middle east hates it.

koch bros hate it.

manufacturers hate it.

gas station owners hate it.

auto mfg.'s hate it.

 

I agree with Bob they have not really changed MPG targets much, they are just saying 50/50 SUV/cars vs. 30/70 SUV/cars in the orig numbers. I saw this article too decided it was premature to say too much.

 

I clicked through to the article and then to the Report. It's a monster (1217 pages), but the 15 page Executive Summary said nothing about 54 mpg being "off the table." Nor was there a quote in the article from the unnamed gov't officials that this was the case.
In fact, this is not even a report recommending what a regulation to be promulgated in 2018 should be--that will come later, in a Draft Recommendation.
Based on the evidence I have seen, "off the table" was just made up.
I agree with Bob that it is way too early to guess what fuel prices will be like in 2025, and therefore what demand for vehicles will look like.

 

Gawd forbid fuel taxes should get jacked WAY WAY up - in order to make land barges less financially attractive. In stead, politicians play against fuel economy;
"It's not fair that greenies get off with low fuel taxes .... why, the plugins are paying practically nothing ! ! ! "
.

 

what is mmcc?

They are saying that the regulations were written to take it off the table in our scenario. When you produce a tax or a reguation you change buyer behavior. By using income taxes and property taxes instead of higher fuel taxes for roads, and allowing bigger vehicles to be less efficient in the interest of "safety", the public is naturally changing the product mix to less efficient vehicles than the regulators envissioned.

That should be nothing new. Government seems to have a test to make sure regulations are not efficient. From the article

Now the solutions are rather known and simple. Higher oil taxes and an open fuel standard would greatly boost cafe mpg. Politicians seem oposed to both.
+1

A graduated increased fuel tax, and economists put it best on oil itself and not the fuel, would majorly change the dynamics and cut oil use. The other thing left out is cafe rules make new cars more expensive, so people keep their older guzzlers longer as long as gasoline and diesel are cheap. That is why raised fuel tax and using it to build roads and lower payroll taxes would be good for the car companies and the economy. But it would be bad for old people that drive guzzlers, and they vote much more than the young.

It often appears the politician's goal is to block progress and set up a regulatory scheme of smoke and mirrors so that people think the problem is much harder than it appears.

 

man made climate change.

heating oil should not be taxed.

 

man I thought it was ACC - anthropogenic climate change. it sounds cooler and has fewer letters, and if I google it it comes up with austin community college. Where as mmcc gets me mid michigan community college, and that is much further away, or maybe maryland medical cannibus center. ;-)

If heating oil had been taxed for the last 40 years, the country would use a lot less of it. Instead of building domestic energy infrastructure like natural gas pipelines we are still using a great deal of subsidized heating oil in the north east. At least Connetecut is finally getting with the program and getting natural gas infrastructure up and running. Heating oil: a last stand in the Northeast? - CSMonitor.com

Why not help people get of their addiction to home heating oil, instead of subsidizing the habit. I know I know, we are down to 6 million households or 5% mainly located in the northeast where they wield political power. It is not that much of a problem, but no reason not to tax it and use some of the money to build infrastructure to end it. So I don't care much. You can always tax it and give rebates to the poor that can't afford to change heating sources.

 

i'm only concerned about people that can't afford it, and cannot switch to gas. around here, we have joe kennedy pumping cheap venezuelian oil for low income people. that shouldn't be necessary.

 

It is not just the gas infrastructure, the heating oil lobby keeps talking about jobs, but is delivering home heating oil a good job. And if it pays well this is one cost that makes oil much more expensive than natural gas. If we start now we can have great natural gas infrastructure in the northeast in 10 years. Connecticut has fallen and looks like it wants to build it. Grid and electric regulation in the northeast also needs to be improved and then electric costs will fall.