|
Hello again and welcome to our November issue of Up The M.P.G. Yes, I know it’s December, I’ll blame my tardiness on too much turkey (I'm a vegetarian, but I'll use the excuse nonetheless). But, man, are there a lot of big things to talk about—elections, the Supreme Court, automakers meeting with President Bush, and the LA Auto Show for starters!
Enjoy.
Scott Nathanson
UCS National Field Organizer &
HybridCenter.org Administrator
In this issue:
I'd love to take credit for being so much in the know, but in reality the following was written by our Clean Vehicles Program Washington Representative Eli Hopson.
 Here’s the good news: Several new members of Congress have indicated that they will support increasing fuel economy of cars and trucks, including Congressman-elect Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania, a former admiral, and Senator-elect John Tester from Montana, a farmer.
Now the bad news: although we've seen support grow in both houses for fuel economy and oil savings proposals, the infusion of new members won't guarantee success, or even a vote. Traditionally, the strongest opposition has come from members of Congress with automaker facilities in their districts, regardless of their political party. So as John Dingell (D-MI) returns to his old role as chair of the powerful House committee on Energy and Commerce, don't expect him to quickly move to allow a vote on increasing fuel economy standards or lifting the hybrid tax credit.
Democratic leaders in both houses have put forward energy agendas that incorporate some of our policy goals, but the more controversial pieces that divide Democrats, either the more aggressive oil savings targets or increased fuel economy standards, weren't included. Although we are more likely to get floor votes on these issues under a Democratic leadership, both parties will be divided based on regional interests, with senior Democratic Senator Carl Levin from Michigan joining his colleague Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) in resisting any policies opposed by the automakers.
On the other hand, strong emerging interest in climate policy that incorporates the transportation sector, volatile gas prices, and continued concern about oil dependence as a national security issue should help move vehicles policy forward, despite regional objections. We will see what happens and continue to push for solutions that can provide us with more vehicle efficiency while providing the auto industry the jump start it needs.
- Hybrid driving 101: In celebration of Hybrid Vehicle Awareness Month in California, the American Automobile Association (AAA) held a 2-hour hybrid driver training seminar for hybrid owners seeking to maximize their vehicle’s fuel efficiency. The seminar took place at the Infineon Raceway in Sonoma, CA and included classroom instruction followed by an opportunity for attendees to apply their new skills while accompanied by a AAA instructor. To learn more, check out the Hybrid News Center.
- The Big 3 finally get a sit-down with the President: The long-awaited, oft-delayed meeting of President Bush and the chief executives of General Motors, Ford, and the Chrysler Group was held on November 14. Topping the meeting’s agenda were discussions on trade, healthcare cost, and advanced vehicle technology development. The automakers stressed that they are not looking for federal bailouts, but hope for a continued dialogue with the White House regarding the global competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry. Highlighting their efforts in advanced technology, Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally and GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner arrived at the White House in hybrid vehicles produced by their companies. For more information, visit the Hybrid News Center.
- European autos may miss CO2 reduction targets: The European Federation for Transport & Environment (T&E) reports that three-quarters of the 20 major car brands sold in Europe are not on track to meet voluntary carbon dioxide reduction commitments. According to the T&E report, Nissan is the worst performer and Fiat has done the most to reduce the average carbon dioxide emissions of its new cars. The report notes that automakers must improve vehicle emissions across the fleet, not with just one or two super-clean vehicles, in order to ensure that the European Union’s climate targets are met. Click here for more information on T&E’s findings.
 You’ve probably heard that on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard a landmark case debating whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate global warming emissions from automobiles as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The case, brought by over a dozen states, several cities, and various public interest organizations including the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a fairly straight forward one on its face. As to whether the EPA can regulate global warming pollution as, well, pollution, here’s how we see it:
- Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act defines an “air pollutant” as including “any chemical, substance or matter emitted into the ambient air.” CO2 and other greenhouse gases clearly meet this definition.
-
Section 202(a)(1) of the Act authorizes the EPA to regulate any pollutant emitted by motor vehicles that the agency determines “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
-
In Section 302(h), Congress explicitly defined “welfare” to include “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate.” So threats to the “climate” are expressly included in dangers to our “welfare.”
Even if the administration loses this case and still chooses to sit on its policy hands, a decision in favor of auto global warming emissions as a pollutant would be a tremendous boon for those states already trying to adopt the California global warming standards. Frankly, if you look at the transcript of arguments (.pdf), I think you’ll also find that the government had a hard time defending itself on the core issue. Here’s how the New York Times noted it:
But the government lawyer seemed defensive when challenged by Justice Scalia on the agency’s view that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. Mr. Garre referred several times to “the conclusion the agency reached,” an unusual locution that seemed something short of the full embrace that lawyers from the solicitor general’s office usually offer the agencies whose positions they defend.
The Bush administration’s conclusion that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to address climate change marked an about-face from the agency’s previous view of its legal authority.
The agency’s current position is that even if it had authority, it would choose for various policy reasons not to exercise it. That position was upheld in a fractured ruling by the federal appeals court here, a decision that led to the Supreme Court appeal, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120.
What split the court even more is the question of standing—whether the states, cities, and other parties have the legal right to bring the lawsuit up in the first place. Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia expressed doubts that addressing U.S. auto global warming pollution would have a noticable effect as, to paraphrase their argument, “if cars don’t pollute, someone else will.” Justice David Souter countered, contending that the policy only needed to show that they could mitigate ongoing loss, not solve the entire problem by itself. Justice Stephen Breyer joined in with an interesting analogy, saying, “Would you be up here saying the same thing if we’re trying to regulate child pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a computer can get pornography elsewhere?... I don’t think so.”
It seems that in the end, Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the crucial swing vote. This decision could make a big difference in the way we see vehicles roll out over the next decade, automakers could merely produce a limited number of specialty low-emitting vehicles, or with strong standards pushing them forward, they could use existing technologies to make all their vehicles far better for the planet.
 The Los Angeles Auto Show is getting a jump-start this year, moving from its traditional early January date to December 1-10. Because there’s now a larger time gap between the LA show and the “mother of all auto shows” in Detroit, the Southern California show is getting bigger play from the media and the automakers.
Heading into the show, General Motors seems to be leading the way on advanced technology concepts. The company seems determined to create a reputation in the green vehicle market despite a rather lackluster start with the Green Line Vue. (GM is adding the Saturn Green Line Aura to its hollow hybrid collection in ’07 as well.) GM’s Chief Executive Rick Wagoner has been making headlines with a so-called “strategic shift” on fuel efficiency. On display will be the new dual-mode hybrid system with the GMC Yukon Hybrid—GM’s first true foray into hybrid vehicles. Also on the turnstile will likely be a new plug-in hybrid known internally as the I-Car. Wagoner has been getting a lot of buzz for his plugin pledge, mentioning the Vue once again as the potential platform. However, the plugin vehicle is on an indefinite timeline, and the dual mode hybrid system only seems to be offering a 25 percent fuel economy boost. The style is promising, but we’ll see whether GM is really letting their engineers loose on fuel economy when the rubber hits the road.
Nissan’s Altima Hybrid and its estimated combined 41mpg will be on display as well. So far, Nissan has announced that the Altima will be sold only in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California, mostly to help meet the tighter emissions requirements that all of these states have adopted.
Ford is introducing its retooled Escape Hybrid, but if you’re expecting something really new from the hybrid drivetrain—don’t. Early reviews seem to indicate they’ve worked mostly on the cosmetics of the vehicle rather than doing anything to the operating components. I can’t really bash Ford too much on this, as the hybrid drive they have is a strong piece of technology. It looks like they wanted to work to make the creature comforts a bit more in line with the expectations of their target demographic. Ford will also unveil a hydrogen fuel cell Explorer.
Other advanced vehicles will also make their U.S. debut at the autoshow, like the dual-fuel BMW Hydrogen 7, which uses a modified combustion engine to burn liquid hydrogen (or gasoline) rather than a fuel cell. The automakers have also had some eco-fun with their concept cars, working on improving the recyclability of many components. And while I’m no fan of Hummers, I have to give kudos to the “02” concept vehicle that actually uses algae to help convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, actually creating a positive net environmental impact on use.
So from functional to near-fantasy, it certainly looks like a major focus of the LA show will be the environment. That in itself is a small breath of fresh air.
On our “Who’s Got Hybrids?” feature, that is. We have hundreds of people who have completed their testimonials and sent us a picture, but we have thousands more hybrid owners we’d like to hear from and see. If you’ve already sent in your testimonial, and just need to send a picture, dress up your hybrid as a reindeer, a menorah, or whatever, snap that picture, and send it over to me at hybridcenter@ucsusa.org. If you haven’t written your testimonial, please take the time to do so here. The more the merrier!
Happy Holidays Everyone!
|
