Biden administration sets 50 miles per gallon fuel economy standard for 2031
Biden administration sets 50 miles per gallon fuel economy standard for 2031
The new standards are part of a broad push to get more Americans into electric vehicles, and reduce the environmental cost of driving.
Supposedly they want us all in EVs, but American manufacturers aren’t producing shit except for Tesla which are safety hazards, and they effectively banned Chinese competition that could have actually accomplished it. US car manufacturers will likely ignore these new standards by pushing more “light trucks” that are exempt.
Light trucks aren't exempt, but have a different standard. The article posted lacks a lot of detail. First off, 50 mpg is just the expected average given the mix of "light trucks" and cars. The actual standards are 65 mpg for cars and 45 mpg for "light trucks."
The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines, their passenger cars would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today. The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/climate/biden-mileage-electric-vehicles.html
So actually the light truck standard isn't far off of the 50 mpg figure this article inexplicably comes up with even though that's not the standard for either cars or light trucks under the new rules.
Heavy trucks and vans also are included in the policy with a greater percent increase than for cars and light trucks (though beginning from a lower floor).
Aptera, baybeeee.
Also, ev prices are way down and their efficiency is going to keep going up.
https://electrek.co/2024/04/18/ev-prices-down-18-last-year-drastic-price-cuts/
GM has the Bolt, and now the Silverado, Ford has the MachE and the Lightning, Dodge is catching up, mostly with Jeep of all brands.
The Jeep wrangler PHEV is the top selling hybrid. The bolt and MachE are pretty great and can be found on the used market with decent miles for an affordable amount. The Lightning is a fantastic truck, better in almost every way that matters than the cyber truck. The Silverado EV is just launching but seems very capable.
Ford is the number 2 EV seller behind Tesla. If you think American manufacturer aren’t producing shit, you’re just not looking.
The only EV I can find from an American brand that is in any way appealing is the Bolt. Everything else is a giant truck or SUV, and to be honest I don’t feel safe driving such a huge piece of metal, and I don’t have the money to justify buying one. No American options are affordable or reasonably sized. The US is doing EVs in possibly the most unsustainable way possible.
For American manufacturers, Chevy has the Bolt (next year), the Blazer, and the Equinox. Ford has the Mustang Mach E. Lucid has the Air and the Gravity.
The Apterra will also be available soon and that thing gets like 600 mile range. It's only a two seater though.
This isn't aimed at just American manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Ford) but all vehicles sold in the US. People always seem to resort to "American protectionism" and other falsehoods when discussing stuff like this or the proposed ban on Chinese EVs, but either miss or purposely ignore the rest of the market in the US. Nearly every company that sells here has at least one EV and many others have excellent fleet MPG like Toyota with all their hybrid options.
This isn't aimed at just American manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Ford) but all vehicles sold in the US.
Sure, but with almost no exceptions, the popular cars with the worst mileage are American ones.
Most other rich countries have much more ambitious plans that include phasing out fossil fuel only cars COMPLETELY, and are able to do so because their politicians don't have to kowtow to the intertwined interests of their owner donors from Big Oil and Detroit.
People always seem to resort to "American protectionism" and other falsehoods when discussing stuff like this
Because it's NOT a falsehood. See above.
Teslas are perfectly safe. Stop making excuses lol.
Are they though?
The employee training the company offers is “woefully inadequate,” Reveal reported in its investigation. Turley told me she was never taught how to do her job and only shown videos that included a history of the plant and information about Tesla, but nothing about the work she would be doing. “You pretty much have to learn from the people that’s in there,” she said. Cleon Waters also said in his filing that he was never given any training for his job assembling parts of car motors. California safety regulators cited Tesla eight times for deficient training between 2013 and 2018.
-- Possibly the least offensive thing in this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/tesla-racism-sexual-harassment/
Does that sound like a vehicle that is "perfectly safe" to you? A vehicle built by people who have to learn on the job?
American vendors aren't producing more EVs because EVs don't have mass appeal. See the currently tanking EV market and crashing prices on these vehicles. The market clearly cannot bear mass adoption of EVs at this time because the buyers for all those EVs we were making don't exist.
Why? A mix of reasons. Poor infrastructure. Range anxiety in a car-centric nation. Total incompatibility with some lifestyles like apartment living at a place without a charger.
Half of all EVs cost >$54,000. Give us the $10,000 Chinese ones and they'll sell like hotcakes.
When there's that big of a difference in price, people can afford to put in chargers or take extra steps to make it work.
American vendors aren't producing more EVs because EVs don't have mass appeal
You've got that backwards: there's less people buying American EVs than there should because there aren't enough and cheap enough options from American companies.
Just about every other car maker on the planet has several popular EVs on offer, though, so they're shooting themselves in the foot long term to avoid the expense of pivoting short term.
the market clearly cannot bear mass adoption of EVs at this time
Again, you're wrong. I suspect you're taking the bad build quality of Teslas specifically beginning to hurt their sales as a sign that all EVs are unviable. That's not reality.
the buyers for all those EVs we were making don't exist.
Again, other way around: people WANT EVs, but American companies are hardly making any good ones available. Almost all other car makers are, though, at increasingly competitive prices too.
And pickup trucks will be the size of a Mack truck.
Will be? I've seen literal Mack trucks smaller than some of today's "regular" pickups...
I miss S10 sized trucks.
I’d love a truck like that little B-series Mazda had when I was in high school in the 80s. Or the little Toyotas. I just need something with a bed that gets decent mileage. Not something with 6 tires, needs a step ladder to get into, and enough room for 8 people. My penis is big enough already. 😂
I went with the Maverick for a work truck and I’m very happy with the choice. 30mpg and I don’t have to climb up to get a ladder. Ford is an idiot for not making this a plug-in, I’d buy 2 more on the spot.
if it doesnt apply to suv's then it is useless
it is slightly less strict on SUVs but it does apply to them. Smaller cars are going to require a 10% increase by 2031 but SUVs and pickups will only require 6%
The fuel savings translate into about $600 less in gas costs over the life of a new vehicle, NHTSA projects.
I don't understand this. Let's be extra safe and say I currently drive a car that gets 30 mpg 15k miles per year and the average fuel price was $3.60. If I switched to a vehicle that got 50 mpg, my savings per year alone would be $720.
15,000 mi / 30 mi/g x $3.60/gal = $1,800
15,000 mi / 50 mi/g x $3.60/gal = $1,080
$1,800/yr - $1,080/yr = $720/yr
Still being extra safe, let's assume the car only makes it 100k miles, that's a savings of ~$4,800 for the life of the vehicle.
100,000 mi / 15,000 mi/yr = 6.67 yr
6.67 yr x $720/yr = $4,802.40
$4,800 > $600
Again, this is being safe with a car that is fuel efficient, a person that travels a relatively short amount, and with low fuel prices. What am I misunderstanding??
Maybe that is compared to the current fuel efficiency standard? The current standard for cars is 46 mpg.
It also assumes gas prices don’t go up!
Stupid EPA laws sacrificed all the cool lightweight sports cars and utility trucks for giant hunks of useless metal which people use exclusively to drive on the highway.
Big 3 already deleted all their compact car production teams, they make all their bank from SUVs and mega sized trucks.
This will change basically nothing.
I'm a little confused, how is the EPA responsible for vehicle size increasing?
I've posted about this before so I'm just going to copy it here
No, vehicles have gotten larger because of the same problem as most of the issues in the United States: politics!
You see automobile manufacturers have to meet an average fuel economy across their entire fleet under the CAFE (Corporate average fuel economy) act of 1975. CAFE was a good idea as it forced the auto industry into actually improving on fuel economy year after year throughout their entire fleet or be met with steep fines for ever 0.1mpg off the target.
In 2011 CAFE was changed which directly caused the auto market we have today. See in 2011 the formula on how you'd calculate your fleet's avarage MPG got changed to now factor in vehicle footprint as a variable which auto manufactures quickly caught on to mean the larger a vehicle is the smaller their entire fleet's MPG has to be.
On top of that in 2012 "medium-duty trucks" was added as their own category with a lower MPG requirement meaning if your truck or SUV fell into that category then you would have a smaller MPG target for your entire fleet.
Now put yourself into the shoes of an early 2010s auto manufacture, would you rather design small and light vehicles that require you to meet a pretty high fuel economy level across your entire product range or would you inflate the size of your vehicles and move all R&D into finding ways to get your entire fleet classified as a medium-duty truck/SUV with a smaller MPG requirement? Of course you are going to take the latter.
The changes to CAFE in the 2010s killed small vehicles as we knew it. Ensured light duty trucks stayed dead domestically built or chicken tax be dammed. Caused the explosion of crossover SUVs to flood the market. All while making vehicles more dangerous and worse for the environment.
My understanding of the current situation is that EPA Guidelines give a lot of wiggle room / outright don't control vehicles above a certain size. Therefore manufacturers are reducing the vehicles that actually get regulated by those guidelines in favor of monster trucks for grocery getters.
Regular cars are hit by the regulations, but trucks are exempt.
Essentially, the guidelines set a minimum MPG/ton, or something like that. Whether vehicle manufacturers increase MPG or increase weight, both have the same effect. Manufacturers figured out they could save money by not increasing fuel economy and also make more money by making larger vehicles and selling them as if they're premium for being larger.
My old Geo Metro could do that.
My mom said the same thing. She also said that 4 moderately strong people could move her geo metro if it was parked in the wrong spot.
I have been a part of a group of people that moved a geo metro across a parking lot. Took 6 high school kids about 5 minutes.
the Geo was both awesome and shitty. I wish 2 seat cars became more of a thing. I hardly ever use the back seat, and it's not like anyone can afford to have kids anyway.
2 seat cars are a thing, but they're typically low-clearance sports cars.
and the sprint (the earlier version of a metro) before that, even... in the 1980s.
Not sure why this is news. The current economy standard is 46 mpg.
Keeping on the right path is still a good thing. Also, it's news because it's new. That's what that word means.
Why don’t politicians ever set these targets in their own terms?
This is six years away from when he’ll get back in, effectively punting the problem to the next president.
What targets exactly? Should every policy be limited to just their term? That completely removes the possibility of any target that takes a long time to reach. It would be a waste of time and resources to do smaller increments and then revisit them.
Almost every policy put into place will have effects that future presidents have to deal with. Do you actually care about this in principle or do you just not like this policy?
Iirc, the original target was supposed to be something like 58 mpg; he's lowered it. We're fucking doomed, all of us, because a bunch of rich boomers don't like change.
I like the idea in principle, but hasn't the market already said that it cannot produce more efficient ICE vehicles? We can legislate better cars, but can we actually build such cars and sell these? This sounds off (hybrids exist), but bear with me and let me explain.
As another commentator wrote, it's much more cost effective to simply sell larger cars to go around the rules. Why is it better to sell much larger, much more expensive cars? Maybe it's because there is not a good, cost effective solution in this problem space. Many consumers don't want to buy electric cars due to lack of infrastructure, and it's a complete non-starter if you can't charge at home such as if living in an apartment. Right now, the EV market is seeing trouble moving inventory. Automakers prefer not to produce or sell smaller cars because it doesn't make sense for some reason, and part of that reason could be an impracticality of a small, low cost, mass market, yet efficient car that people will actually buy. Maybe a small hybrid that meets this goal is still too expensive for enough of the consumers who want to buy a compact car. The trend to larger cars might be telling us something.
Overall, I think I favor the legislation, but I'm concerned that we're not thinking this through enough. We can legislate the requirement. Are we also taking steps to expand charging access and have a plan to make such cars with consumer appeal outside of the premium segment?
Automakers prefer not to produce or sell smaller cars because it doesn't make sense for some reason
it's mainly two things:
automakers and their dealers make significantly more profits off of big cars and trucks,
and then also the typical buyer mindset that 'bigger is better'.
The reason is years and years ago the EPA formula set some goals based on speculation that future technology would keep up pace. And we can't achieve those goals. But car manufacturers can increase the footprint of their vehicles to move the goal post.
Does that stipulation include hybrids or just ice? Seems like it would be more easily attained in hybrids
I think many Hyundai and Kia Hybrids already exceed that so there's not much point in including them but whenever exceptions don't exist you can assume it affects everything.
I like electric vehicles, but when will the charging infrastructure get better? People without garages, ones that live in apartments and cities don't have a convenient way to charge an electric vehicle. Most people living without a convenient way to charge their vehicle can't afford an electric vehicle either. Hybrids are a lot easier to have now until the infrastructure gets better and they meet the 50mpg.
I just went on a (2) 650 mile trip in my EV. It was fine. Took about 40 minutes longer than a gas vehicle. My car is an 800V vehicle with a great charging curve. Peaks at 240 KW and keep that high power for a lot of the curve.
You have to plan the trip out more because you don't have a charger on every corner. Plugshare and ABRP help a lot. I had one issue with one charger. All others were plug and play. I wish we could move away from needing an app to charge.
Plugshare is great to plan things out for a long trip.
I see more and more stores and parking lots with EV parking/charging. Once it becomes a value-add for the average car user many apartments and shared parking spaces will start to include EV charging.
I don’t understand the comment arguing about upgrading power infrastructure. EVs don’t use more electricity to charge than say a fully electric water heater or any major appliances/tools that a maker has at their homes. Maybe in some more rural areas, but then again, those are the places that 3-phase 240v already exists to support farming/processing tools.
So I have an EV and solar. This gives me a very clear picture of my power usage. The EV adds a lot to my base power usage. And this is with a class 1 charger. A commercial class 2 charger is 4 times the power usage.
Orange is my power usage. Here is a day whew I came home at noon charged and then went out in the evening charging when I returned home. You can see how much it adds to the base draw. The spikes are my ac.
If you add thousands of electrical car chargers to the grid without upgrading the carrying capacity of the transmission lines and the power generating capacity of the power plants you'll have more demand than what the utilities can supply.
It isn't even the charging infrastucture, it's the distribution infra. There are a lot of upgrades from the main HV transmission lines to the last mile that need to be taken up by an order of magnitude if everyone starts to drive EVs.
I mean, it's not impossible, but we'd better start now. Hell, AC use alone has brought places like Texas to its knees, now add EVs to that demand.
Texas has those problems because they refuse to be a part of the national grid. EV charging/demand has little effect on a national sized grid. A fully electric water heater draws more power for long periods of time than any EV I am aware of. And those are everywhere in the US.
3-phase 240v service is already available in most modern homes and def available to most apartment complexes that have to supply power for hundreds of apartments.
But it’s really not. Sure, we need serious upgrades to support the end result, but that’s not a place we suddenly get to. The same years/decades it takes to get there are what we have to grow infrastructure to match.
Distribution infrastructure handles current power needs and has some buffer built in to handle expected growth, so no big deal to install more chargers. Distribution infrastructure already reacts to growth - as it approaches capacity, utilities have incentive to build more. In that sense, this is just like all other power uses, and no big deal.
The real difference is the speed. Most people are expecting a faster transition to EVs and electrification than distribution growth has historically supported. While this does need to be addressed, there’s no reason for it to block buildout of chargers. It’s fine in the short term and in the long term, the biggest driver of increased transmission will be that demand.
The move to EVs will not happen overnight. Expect it to take a few decades.
Texas' (and California's) issues are due to massive deregulation. Having extra capacity than is necessary esta into profits. So companies try to only have as much infrastructure as absolutely necessary. Additional AC use from "100 year" heatwaves (that are now happening every few years) were not really something they planned for and since they do not have the extra capacity, there are issues. They basically just have to properly model it...or have a more regulated market that makes sure there is additional capacity.
Landlords have even better govt incentives to install chargers than homeowners do. But why should they? It’s all down to motivation. Chargers still cost money and do not make a profit in themselves.
So how do we change that? The best way is for EVs to become ever more common. Landlords will install chargers when there’s enough demand, when it’s a competitive factor that makes a difference in whether they get tenants and how much they can charge. Currently there are only a few EVs out there so it doesn’t matter: landlords can just ignore them.
I wonder more about HOAs. I know they’re notoriously conservative/reactionary, but they are run by homeowners. They are closer to the people who want chargers. Why aren’t more of them installing chargers?
People without garages are fine if they are in a house. You just need an outlet within reach of your parking spot. Apartment dwellers do need a solution. Orange Charger sells level 1 and 2 chargers targeted toward apartment complexes. The systems cost $600 (level 1) or $750 (level 2) and they deal with the payments. The power company in my city has level 2 chargers throughout the city that are near apartment complexes.
As far as affordability, a used 3 year old Bolt can be bought for $16k. My state has added on another discount which brings the cost down another few thousand. Considering you will save about $1000 per year in gas costs, that's a pretty good deal.
How many amps is that?
A gallon of gasoline is roughly 33 kWh, depending on a lot of variables.
Most new cars can do that already though can't they? I'm not part of the 'new car demographic' but even when buying used cars, i wouldn't buy one that had lower mileage that that.
I was looking at a Ford Focus station car from 2011 that did 21km/l and the target above translates to that too!
By 2031 hilltops will be the new beach front property
Don't worry, we'll just get even larger trucks that nobody actually wants to bypass these standards.
The larger truck exist b/c of the standards. It's more economical to change the weight class of a vehicle than it is to make the vehicle more environmentally friendly.
Edit: "more economical" -> "more environmentally friendly"
I'm 70% sure that the larger truck exists because exceptions have literally been made to the law on purpose due to lobbying, which is why every company pivoted to them.
Large trucks exist because of wheel base allowance. Small, slow, borderline useless cars exist to keep fleet average low.
People buy trucks for towing and hauling, and bigger is better and safer for towing.
The real problem is every other type of vehicle has become so useless and disposable (shittily made) to meet fuel economy standards that you can't tow anything with them and are forced to buy a raging-mega-huge truck to get a high enough GCWR/GVWR and big enough motor to safely and reliably haul stuff.
You may live somewhere where people constantly tow travel trailers or large boats, but this isn't the case everywhere. Loads of people buy trucks with the idea the bed will be used every other weekend, then they end up commuting to an office job and getting groceries. If they were primarily used for hauling things around, the average truck wouldn't have a larger passenger cabin than its cargo bed.
Station wagons can just as easily go to the hardware store and pick up full sheets of plywood, load up the lawn mower and trimmer, and as much sporting equipment as a family could wear. What wagons don't have is the aggressive design that pick up trucks have come to be.
Most cars could tow a single axle utility trailer if you needed to move what I mentioned - even appliances or furniture. I know a couple that tow a two person caravan with a Mini Cooper. Even when someone does need larger weight or volume capacity on a regular basis, a van has most of the benefits of a pick up truck with better fuel efficiency.
All the lifted duallies with caps and rubber band tires would say different.
I never ever see people towing and hauling with those machines. My Honda Civic is 16 years old and is fine, my car before that was a Nissan Sentra and died at 22 years old.
New cars are not shitty.