HEADLINE: A Panel Backed by Bush
Urges Higher Fuel Efficiency for Cars
BYLINE:
By KEITH BRADSHER
DATELINE: DETROIT,
July 16
BODY: A federal panel that
President Bush has said will help him decide whether and how much to increase fuel economy standards has recommended in a draft report that the
government require automakers to improve the mileage of new vehicles.
The draft report also says significant improvements can be
made using new engine technologies inexpensive enough to pay for themselves
through savings on gasoline over the typical life of a vehicle.
The 13-member panel, appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
consists mainly of engineers and consultants who have worked for the auto and
oil industries, along with some economists and retired oil executives. It does
not include anyone from the environmental movement. Indeed, environmental and
consumer groups have in recent months criticized the panel, fearing it would be
biased toward the auto industry.
The government has not
raised fuel economy standards significantly since 1984. Ford
Motor, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler have all pledged to improve the
mileage of their sport utility vehicles. And a House subcommittee voted last
week for a small increase in fuel economy standards for sport
utility vehicles, pickups and minivans.
But the federal
panel argues that considerably greater improvements can be made without
penalizing drivers financially, if the savings on gasoline are counted.
The report does not recommend specific improvements in
miles per gallon. But it states among its findings that the fuel economy of new
vehicles, especially sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, could be raised
by as much as 8 to 11 miles a gallon over the next 6 to 10 years, with the extra
cost offset by the savings on gasoline over the typical 14-year life of the
vehicle.
The report also takes aim at the way
automakers have taken advantage of rules intended to encourage the use of
ethanol. G.M., Ford and DaimlerChrysler are now producing close to a million
vehicles that can burn either gasoline or nearly pure ethanol, so as to qualify
for fuel-economy credits that allow these vehicles to count as though they
achieved double or triple the fuel economy they actually produce.
Yet virtually none of these vehicles actually burn
ethanol. Barely 1 in 1,000 service stations sell nearly pure ethanol and
automakers have made little effort to tell consumers that they have bought
vehicles that could burn nearly pure ethanol.
The
report recommends that "credits for dual-fuel vehicles should be eliminated,
with a long enough lead time to limit adverse financial impacts on the
automotive industry."
A copy of the report's lengthy
executive summary, 14 findings and six recommendations was provided to The New
York Times by a person who wanted to make sure that the report received wide
attention. The panel, headed by Paul R. Portney, an economist who is the
president of a nonprofit research firm, has kept secret the entire draft
report.
Claire Buchan, deputy White House press
secretary, said that the White House did not have a copy of the report but that
the president had said Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta would advise
him on whether and how to change fuel economy standards, after
giving due consideration not only to the report but also to passenger safety,
economic effects and the American auto industry's competitiveness.
Chet Lunner, a spokesman for the Transportation
Department, which administers fuel-economy rules, declined to comment, saying
the panel had not briefed the agency.
Gloria Bergquist,
a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, declined to comment
on the report, saying that automakers had been unable to obtain a copy. But
automakers are generally worried that while it might be technologically possible
to build higher-mileage vehicles, consumer demand for such vehicles has been
weak, she said.
The auto industry has also argued that
making vehicles more fuel-efficient will make them less safe because they might
have to be lighter.
But the panel's report is
optimistic that new engine technologies can produce fuel-efficiency savings
without compromising safety, and notes that safety may actually be improved if
automakers are forced to reduce the bulk of the largest sport utilities and
pickups, which are especially deadly to other motorists. "Significant fuel
economy gains in all vehicles can be achieved with minimal or no weight
reduction and therefore minimal negative safety implications," the draft report
said.
The report mentions that rapid increases in fuel economy standards for cars in the early 1980's may have
contributed to thousands of additional deaths, as automakers sharply reduced the
size and weight of vehicles instead of improving their engines. But making large
sport utilities lighter may make roads safer by reducing the death rate of other
motorists, federal research has found.
The report says
that improved fuel economy is possible through the widespread introduction of
engine technologies like variable valve timing, which offers greater precision
in the combustion of gasoline, and integrated starter-generators, which
electrically assist a gasoline engine. Many of these new technologies are now
available on sports cars, and Ford has committed itself to introducing
integrated starter-generators on Explorer sport utilities as part of the
automaker's plan to increase the average fuel economy of its sport utilities by
5 miles a gallon by 2005.
But the report cautions that
the large gains in fuel economy that the panel foresees will occur only if all
the efficiency provided by these innovations is used to improve gas mileage.
Automakers improved engines in the 1990's, but used the improvements to
manufacture ever larger and heavier vehicles, notably sport utilities, and to
improve acceleration. So instead of improving, the average fuel economy of
vehicles sold in the United States has actually been falling for more than a
decade.
The draft report says regulation would be the
most effective way to achieve gains, while stopping short of recommending
fuel-economy targets. "Selection of a new fuel economy target will require
uncertain and difficult trade-offs among environmental benefits, safety, costs,
oil import dependence, and consumer preferences, trade-offs the committee
believes rightfully reside with elected officials," the report said.
Regulation is needed in part because vehicles with poor
fuel economy contribute disproportionately to global warming and the nation's
reliance on imported oil, yet these problems affect all Americans, not just
those buying the inefficient vehicles, the report says.
The draft report also recommends an overhaul of the current system of
fuel-economy regulation, which requires each automaker to produce cars with an
average fuel economy of 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks with an average
fuel economy of 20.7 miles a gallon. The report says that this system could be
made more efficient by allowing automakers to trade fuel-economy credits, with automakers that don't meet the
standards paying those that do. This idea, favored by many economists, is
similar to a system that already allows electric utilities to trade
air-pollution credits.
More lenient fuel
economy standards for light trucks date back to the 1970's, when these
vehicles were mostly pickups used by farmers and small businesses. One of the
report's findings criticizes automakers for marketing sport utilities and
minivans as substitutes for cars, while designing them so as to continue to
qualify as light trucks for fuel-economy purposes.
"The
car/truck distinction has been stretched well beyond the original purpose," the
report says.
http://www.nytimes.com
GRAPHIC: Photo:
A panel of mainly engineers and consultants who have worked for the auto and oil
industries thinks less time should be spent pumping gas. (Associated Press)(pg.
C2)
Chart shows a sample of how much gas mileage
may improve with new engine technologies. (pg. A1)
Chart: "Going Farther on a Gallon of Gas" A draft report of
a National Academy of Sciences panel has found that automakers could improve gas
mileage by 7 percent to 58 percent for various classes of vehicles by using new
engine technologies, now being introduced in sports cars. The technologies will
pay for themselves in reduced gasoline use over the 14-year life of a vehicle if
gasoline remains at $1.50 a gallon, the report said. But these gains will happen
only if the new technologies are used exclusively to improve fuel efficiency,
not to make vehicles larger or more powerful.
Chart tracks average mileage, feasible mileage and modification cost
for select cars and trucks. (Source: National Academy of Sciences
draft report)(pg. C2)
Document 641 of 803. 