Copyright 2001 The Washington Post


The Washington Post
July 31, 2001 Tuesday
Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01

LENGTH: 1294 words

HEADLINE: Study Urges Better SUV Efficiency;
Fuel Savings Could Offset Added Costs

BYLINE: Greg Schneider, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:


Carmakers have the technology to make sport-utility vehicles and light trucks significantly more fuel efficient over the next decade, a National Academy of Sciences panel said yesterday, rebutting years of auto industry arguments against tighter restrictions on what has become the most popular category of new vehicles.

Making vehicles more efficient would add to their sticker prices, but that cost would be offset by savings on fuel, the panel said. A small SUV, for instance, could average 26 percent better mileage for an upfront cost of $ 818, while a large pickup truck could improve its mileage by 47 percent for $ 1,466. In both cases, the owner would save the same amount over the 14-year life of the vehicle.

But a majority of the 13-member panel added that those improvements could lead to more traffic fatalities if manufacturers simply opt to make vehicles smaller and lighter instead of implementing other technologies to achieve the fuel savings.

The congressionally mandated report, a month late and the subject of intense political and industry debate, was being anticipated by the Bush administration as a tool for framing national policy on reducing reliance on overseas oil. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that the report "highlights promising technologies and reforms" that could increase fuel efficiency.

Administration officials were pleased that the report linked fuel standards to safety, reasoning that framing the debate as a balance between degree of fuel efficiency and level of driver safety is more politically benign than casting it as a showdown between environmentalists and the automobile industry. The report also feeds into a debate in Congress this week over a House energy bill that contains provisions requiring SUVs to cut gas consumption by 5 billion gallons over a six-year period. A group led by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) plans to push for far stricter guidelines.

The panel's report did not set specific fuel efficiency goals. It also did not settle any arguments among those lobbying for and against higher fuel efficiency standards for SUVs, congressional staffers said.

"From our perspective, no one has really gained a strategic advantage in this debate as a result of this report," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Both sides of the issue drew ammunition from the findings. Environmental advocates said their longtime claims were validated by the panel's insistence that automakers know how to get better gas mileage out of SUVs. Classified as light trucks, SUVs and minivans currently are required by the Department of Transportation to get an average of 20.7 miles per gallon, while passenger cars must average 27.5 mpg.

The panel suggested establishing fuel efficiency standards based on a vehicle's weight. It said that holding the two types of vehicles to different mileage standards "has been stretched well beyond the original purpose," which was to allow for differences between the way families drive cars and farmers or workers drive light trucks.

Paul Portney, chairman of the panel and president of the energy policy think tank Resources for the Future, said a weight-based system might also bring all types of cars and trucks closer together in size and improve overall safety.

Environmentalists have long argued that SUVs -- which now account for about half of all new-vehicle sales -- no longer qualify as work vehicles, and the panel of scientists agreed.

"This is basically a triple for the environment but not a home run," said Dan Becker, director of energy policy for the Sierra Club.

That's because there were many findings that left automakers just as pleased, such as the lack of definitive standards for fuel economy. Setting such standards -- called "corporate average fuel economy," or CAFE -- is more properly left to Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Josephine S. Cooper, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Politicians and regulators can be lobbied, of course, and carmakers say there are many issues to take into consideration before imposing stricter CAFE standards. G. Richard Wagoner Jr., president and chief operating officer of General Motors Corp., said at a media luncheon yesterday that it is unfair for the government to demand higher fuel economy without providing a market incentive for consumers to buy the products that result from such regulations.

"If we aren't going to do anything to address oil supply or oil pricing, that undermines what we do on the technology side," Wagoner said. He said GM and other automakers would rather focus on technology, and the panel of scientists agreed that that is where much of the solution lies, including advances such as direct-injection, lean-burning gas engines, direct-injection diesel engines and hybrid electric vehicles.

Cooper, whose group represents 13 major automobile manufacturers, also praised the panel's finding that CAFE standards can affect safety.

The panel found that when strict fuel standards were imposed in the late 1970s, automakers had so little time to react that they did what seemed simplest: made smaller, lighter cars. That tactic contributed to increased traffic deaths, the panel said -- including from 1,300 to 2,600 additional fatalities in 1993 alone.

Two members of the panel disagreed with that conclusion, writing in a dissent that the potential link between fuel standards and fatalities was "complex, ambiguous, poorly understood and not measurable by any known means."

To help guard against any possible impact on safety, though, the panel as a whole recommended phasing in new fuel standards over a 10-year to 15-year period.

The panel also advocated basing the CAFE system on tradable fuel economy credits, much as coal-fired power plants that violate air-quality standards are allowed to purchase emissions credits from cleaner facilities.

If Ford Motor Co. had trouble meeting fuel economy standards, for instance, it could buy credits from Honda, which tends to far exceed requirements.

Although the Sierra Club's Becker argued that such a system would actually make the current situation worse, Portney said that such flexible practices are necessary to tackle such a "complex and difficult task."

Portney defended the decision not to recommend specific gas mileage targets, saying that the panel's role was "to illustrate what are the technological possibilities and the attendant costs. It's the responsibility of Congress to make those trade-offs."

One of those trade-offs involves the will of the consumer, which is what worries the auto industry. Many drivers were unwilling to give up their SUVs even when gas prices were escalating, and a brief survey of local drivers yesterday found many concerned that tighter fuel standards would rob their trucks of power.

"If they can make it so that a truck still runs the way it's supposed to run, that's great," said Scottie Melo, of Bowie. Melo drives a Dodge Durango every day for his landscaping business and spends at least $ 100 on gas every week.

It's a price he's willing to pay. "I buy a big vehicle because I want my family to be safe," he said.

Bruce Duncan, of Upper Marlboro, said the $ 58 worth of gas he was pumping into his Chevy Suburban was worth the cost. A more fuel-efficient version would not have the same power or towing capability because it would be too light, he said.

"I could care less about gas mileage," Duncan said. "When fuel costs went up, I just sucked it up. You can't buy a large SUV and not expect to pay the price."

Staff writers Cindy Skrzycki, Dana Milbank, Sara Kehaulani Goo and Warren Brown contributed to this report.

LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2001