Final rule means better fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions; a win-win for consumers, automakers

What would you say if I told you we could save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and cut greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions by 960 million metric tons--the equivalent of taking 50 million cars off American roads? And what if I told you we could do those things while saving American consumers money at the pump?

If you were the nation's environmental organizations or automakers, you would cheer.

And yesterday, when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and I announced historic new federal standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, that is exactly what those stakeholders did.

Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said:

"America needs a road map to reduced dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases, and only the federal government can play this role. The national program announced today makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers." 

David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed:

"The standards forthcoming under the 'clean car peace treaty' are a good deal for consumers, for companies, for the country and for the planet."

Our new standards, covering cars and trucks for model years 2012 to 2016, require automakers to meet a fleet-wide fuel-economy average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

We are talking about a nearly 10 mpg increase over current standards. But we aren't asking for that kind of increase all at once. The way we get there is to ask manufacturers to improve fuel economy by 5% each year. That incremental approach makes these standards ambitious but achievable.

I'm also excited about our first-ever greenhouse gas reduction measures. And it looks like America's auto experts agree.

The technologies to hit the earliest of the incremental targets exist right now. The Wall Street Journal even called them "mundane." We just want consumers to have that fuel-saving technology available to them when they walk into a showroom.

Look, the shapes of the cars we drive is unlikely to change much. SUVs will not disappear. Full-size sedans will not disappear. The higher standards we require will simply encourage development of new technologies and give a spark to emerging technologies. So, if you're comfortable with the look and feel of today's cars, you don't need to worry.

But there are also game-changing innovations close to market. Earlier this year, I went to the Detroit Auto Show, and I saw how excited everyone was--from consumers to manufacturers--about the advent of our first mass-market electric vehicles. Nissan's Leaf and Chevy's Volt had everyone fired-up about a new age in automobiles.

Between hybrids, electrics, and clean-diesel vehicles and enhancements to conventional vehicles like better gearing, direct-injection, and more efficient tires, consumers will actually have more choices in 2016 than we have today.

And putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road isn't just a great way to save the environment. It's also a great way for Americans to save money at the pump. In fact, consumers will save as much as $3000 in fuel costs over the life of these new vehicles.

That kind of savings more than makes up for the cost increase associated with these new standards.

A recent report co-authored by the United Auto Workers and the Natural Resources Defense Council also shows that putting a fleet of more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road will be an engine of job growth all the way through the supply chain.

"Increasing automotive fuel efficiency will create jobs," noted UAW President Ron Gettelfinger.

Administrator Jackson observed that our final rule shows environmental protection "can be done in a thoughtful way that doesn’t turn the economy on its ear, that doesn’t cause the sky to fall."

In January 2009, President Obama promised a new direction in American fuel-economy. In May of that year, Administrator Jackson and I stood with the President when he announced his national fuel-economy policy, uniting EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions with DOT efforts to set fuel-economy standards. And in September, we proposed a rule based on that policy.

Yesterday, after receiving over 130,000 comments on the proposed rule and after months of exhausting work by dedicated employees in both agencies, we finalized that rule and delivered on President Obama's promise.

Administrator Jackson summed it up nicely: "This is a win for automakers and drivers, a win for innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet."

Comments

[Michael E. Bailey]

This is the beginning of a new kind of economy that will create 10s of thousnands of new, good jobs, and will be a huge benefit for the environment and American workers. When the different parts of the system work together to achieve a common goal, anything is possible. Transit will also play a key role in making the Clean Air Act work. And where they still exist, we should do everything possible to get old diesel burning buses off the road and replaced by those that use CNG, LNG, Hydrogen, or electric power. The situation down in Clayton County Georgia, needs to be reversed as quickly as possible. C-TRAN service ended altogether at midnight on March 31st. It looks like disabled persons who need paratransit service in Clayton County will continue to have access to it to get to work, medical access and social integration, and housing, but the cost to the County will go up considerably from what it was when C-TRAN was doing it up to $100.00 a round trip with a private paratransit provider. Disabled persons who used C-TRAN fixed route buses have had no transportation since the start of the crisis on the morning of April 1st. People who are transit dependent in Clayton County have already began to lose their jobs for lack of transportation or are having to pay scalpers prices of more than $6.00 a one way trip to get to work in a car or pickup. C-TRAN was a victim of certain social issues held by different segments of society that date back at least to the 1890s in Clayton County. Something needs to be done to restart transit there for those who depend on it. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Steve Murphy]

You must think the American people are stupid by saying that the cost increase to achieve these new mileage standards will be paid for in gasoline savings at the pump as it's being reported. In order to achieve these types of mileage goals, I'm guessing the fleets will have to be boosted with a significant number of hybrid cars. That in itself is great, but the economic reality is that the payback is just not there. If we consider a base level Honda Civic today, the premium for the hybrid is over $8000. For 5 year ownership driving 60,000 miles (5 years @ 12K miles/year) the additional cost for gasoline is about $1700 (with gas around $2.60/gallon)for the non-hybrid. Before the driver even comes even near paying back the hybrid premium, this little Honda will have long been in the scrap heap.

[Tom West]

In the EU, the *current* average is 47 miles per US gallon, while the USA is aiming for 35 mpg in six years time. The 5% improvement per year should be continued to 45 or 50mpg, not stop at 35mpg.

[Ellie]

Speaking of Clayton County, how is it that a local government can choose to do such a ridiculous, irresponsible, inhumane thing and continue to receive any federal transportation dollars? A region that does something so damaging to their citizens and environment should not receive one penny of federal highway money until the situation is remedied and a plan is in place to permanently provide an integrated, multi-modal transportation system for their county. USDOT, the Georgia DOT, and the Atlanta MPO (I'm assuming Clayton County is within the urban area boundary) should use every resource at their disposal to punish Clayton County in a way that will set a national example to any other set of ignorant politicians who ever consider such an idiotic move. No federal or state money should be used to so much as repair a pothole in Clayton County until the county commissioners get their heads out of their behinds and undo one of the biggest mistakes any local legislative body has made in a long time.

[Atlanta Honda Carland]

I think it's very encouraging that automotive companies are coming up with new technologies. Even if the savings are not as plenty as generally portrayed, it is still a step in the right direction as far as emissions are concerned. Sometimes the bigger picture is important.

Honda also has a fuel cell electric vehicle, it's the FCX Clarity FCEV. Water is the only byproduct this car leaves behind.

[Quentin Sanz]

It's good that there's actually a movement towards having a greener environment by implementing some rules on automobiles. With the technology we have today, further developments can be made on the hybrid cars that we currently have. In the near future, do you think these types of cars would take the lead over traditional cars?