DOT, EPA invite public input on new vehicle fuel economy window stickers

Together, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have produced a new vehicle fuel economy label, and we want your feedback on our two proposed designs.

A year ago I blogged that putting millions more fuel-efficient cars, SUVs, and small trucks on the road is a huge step forward toward US energy independence. Well, now that the Obama Administration has taken that step forward with fuel economy standards for model years 2012 through 2016, a new generation of vehicles is hitting the market.

But, as new technologies like battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids have become increasingly available, fuel economy and environmental information has become increasingly complicated. Our current label just won't cut it anymore.

That's why, beginning with the 2012 model year, DOT and EPA want to use a new fuel economy label. We need a label that captures energy and emissions information in a way that helps vehicle buyers make better-informed decisions.

The problem is we've created two new labels, and we need your help to choose between them.

As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are asking the American people to tell us what they need to make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car."

 Click on the image above to learn more about the features of the proposed labels.

First let's talk about a few key features new to both proposed label designs:

• Different labels for different types of vehicle engines (plug-in hybrids, flex fuel, electric vehicles, gasoline & diesel, compressed natural gas);
• Information on CO2 tailpipe emissions;
• Fuel economy in both miles per gallon (the familiar MPG) and gallons per 100 miles, two similar-sounding factors that can tell very different stories;
• A website (also accessible by smartphone interactive code) where buyers can recalculate information based on their own driving habits.

The key difference between the two labels is that Label Option 1 prominently features a letter grade from A to F. This combines fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe emissions into a single rating. Label Option 2 retains the current label's focus on miles per gallon.

Watch a video tour of the proposed new labels on YouTube.

You can see the labels look very different from each other. And, compared with our current label, we've added a lot of new information to both options. So we really want to hear your comments, preferences, and suggestions.

There are three simple ways to let us hear from you on this in the next 60 days:

• E-mail newlabel@epa.gov directly;
• Use www.epa.gov/fueleconomy, a web-based comment tool that will submit your comment to newlabel@epa.gov; or
• Visit www.regulations.gov, where you'll want to refer to Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865.

You can also mail or hand deliver a comment to EPA headquarters.

You know, this Administration is working hard to increase the number of opportunities for public participation, and DOT is happy to be jumping into that effort with both feet. So, however you do it, we really welcome your comments.

Between DOT, EPA, and you, I know we can arrive at a final design that captures important new information in a way that car buyers can use.

Comments

[skip Outcalt]

It would be much easier to rate them if they were clear enough to read.

[David Karasek]

Sir,

I live in the Delaware Valley, just outside Philadelphia.
Here's my problem. I just got a job that is an hour away by car. By mass transit, such that it barely is, it's double that time in each direction.

How does that relate to labels on cars?

Point blank, without effective mass transit in huge population centers such as the Philadelphia area, it's meaningless to be talking about saving a few dollars on efficiency when you have to drive from point to point with no other practical alternative.

Here's how we've been ignored in the past:

1) large companies and shopping centers move to tax-reduced non-urban locations without mass transit accessibility by workers and patrons.

2) sprawl is not coupled with construction of commuting alternatives to cars, whether express bus or light rail.

3) there is local political unwillingness to do anything to help; on the contrary it's to the advantage of the local tax based to actively dissuade regional transportation. Specifically, Pennsylvania intentionally dismantled Amtrak commuter services to New Jersey and New York to keep employment local.

Here's what we need to do:

1) End policies that limit bus franchises to single entities.

2) Encourage formation of transportation startups and cooperatives.

3) Provide insurance assistance to encourage formation of these startups and cooperatives.

4) Ensure that existing services are not cut back because of operational costs, as they have been everywhere during this recession.

5) Eliminate misuse of transportation funds re-directed to non-transportation causes. Specifically, the DRPA in Camden, NJ has used bridge tolls and transit fares for public works projects having nothing to do with transportation.

6) Put existing systems and their connections on the map. I can now Google map every bar in South Jersey but can't find PATCO, DRPA's underfunded rail link from New Jersey to Philadelphia, on Google maps or Google transit.

7) Eliminate multi-fare collections between connecting systems. Provide a single point of sale access card I can use for any system in the US funded by my tax dollars.

8) Kill Amtrak. Amtrak is for rich people and Washington politicians, not for everyday commuters. The routes interfere with the tracks needed for regular commuters, particularly along the Northeast corridor. Low cost discount bus carriers are already providing some of this service. Give the low costs carriers tax-payer paid subsidies and not Amtrak.

9) Enforce meaningful use of existing park and ride facilities. Specifically the Cornwell Height's station in the Philly Northeast that cost millions of taxpayer dollars has no raised platform for regional rail use, or formal station to speak of. Operational costs to run the facility in the absence of a formal station are high, since a bus is needed to get people from one side of the tracks to the other.

10) Eliminate bulk state by state allocation of federal transportation dollars with targeted region dollars. Now we have underutilized eight lane highways in the middle of the state while we in Philly or Pittsburgh have no reasonable rail systems to speak of.

11) Enforce requirements for point to point mass transit systems to all places of employment that hire large amounts of people.

12) For employers that hire thousands of people require efficient access via light rail or express bus systems.

[David Karasek]

Dear Sir,

I think these stickers are a good idea, and the information reasonably clear. I'm assuming that the web site link will allow people to compare their current car's efficiency with the efficiency of the car they want to buy, providing a cost saving value.

One thing I would also see listed are the known long term maintenance costs of a car. For example, it's known that a hybrid's battery will need to be replaced every 90,000 or so miles, at a fairly steep cost. This needs to be factored into the annual savings for consumers.

[Carroll]

I like the idea of the new stickers. I only wish that the MPG was more accurate. I know they say your mileage may vary, but be more realistic about those numbers.

Account for the stop and go traffic of in town mileage, instead of just put the vehicle on a machine and drive it at a lower speed.