The House Energy Bill -- What You Can Do to Help Change Federal Energy Policy for the Better
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 25, 2007 - 9:45am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: committee reports, energy, energy bill, house of representatives, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
I have some homework for the readers of TOD, if you all are up for it. We need many pairs of eyes and excellent minds to contribute to a project that could be important for our democratic Republic.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has more influence over what will make it into the House Energy Bill than any other Member. Under House procedure, the Rules Committee has the job of taking all of the energy-related bills approved by the various committees that have some jurisdiction over energy and combining them into one bill -- hundreds, if not thousands of pages with no time to consider the interaction of the pieces and parts.
A draft Energy bill will be released at a news conference perhaps on a coming Friday afternoon--we're not exactly sure when. By close of business the following Monday or Tuesday, proposed amendments to the bill have to be drafted into legislative language by Legislative Counsel and submitted by Members to the Rules Committee.
The next day or so after that, the Rules Committee will meet to consider which amendments are "in order" and will be allowed to have a 10 minute debate and a vote on the Floor. Any proposed amendments have to be "germane" -- the non-partisan Parliamentarian's office has to declare the amendment is related to narrowing or changing a specific provision already in the bill. If it's not related to something already in the bill, it's not germane. The Rules Committee is stacked with Members in a 9 to 5 ratio of Democratic Majority to Republican Minority. The Democrats are loyal to the Speaker, Republicans to Boehner, as it usually goes. So amendments that are politically undesirable to the Speaker and the Majority can also be denied a Floor vote.
Bottom Line -- There's a lot to do, lots of rules to follow and little time to do it. What The Oil Drum folks can do to help can be found under the fold.
There's a lot of detective work involved in this little experiment.
The plan is right now for TOD to blast the House of Representatives with a link to this thread and the comments as the time becomes right. It's time to make some hay. Keep it civil. Staffers will be reading this thread. Be conscious of that, please.
Here's what The Oil Drum can do:
It all starts at http://www.house.gov and CRS: http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ (Congressional Research Service).
The priority: We need to review the Committee-approved bills that will be sent to the Rules Committee and propose changes to improve them that would promote conservation, efficiency, transition to renewables and sustainable EROEI.
Provisions that are egregious violations of these goals are targets for amendments to "strike" or delete them or to strike and replace them with something similar, but different and better.
For sure, everything in the Senate or House bill will not be/is not worthy. The bottom line consideration -- would the overall bill be better or worse than perpetuation of the status quo? So, let's do what we can to steer the rudder.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has been regularly updating its analyses of major energy bills moving through Congress. These reports are available for downloading off the internet by the public.
Places to find specific likely bills to be combined into THE SINGLE House Energy bill (that's how this sausage is going to be made):
H.R. 6 already approved by the House had a lot of placeholder provisions -- so it has to be reviewed-- it will be back as part of the bill Rules will put together.
The Ways and Means Committee has approved a bill with tax changes.
The Natural Resources Committee has approved a bill sponsored by its Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV, biggest coal district in WVA).
The Energy and Commerce Committee hasn't yet approved a bill. Energy and Air Quality Subcomm. Chairman Rick Boucher (biggest coal district in Appalachian VA) has produced a draft that has been reported on. Energy and Commerce Chairman is John Dingell (MI).
The Agriculture Committee may have approved a bill(s). There is a draft Farm Bill with an Energy Title--some of that might also make its way into the House Energy bill.
The NOPEC bill and the Price Gouging bills from the Judiciary Committee already approved by the House may come back as part of the comprehensive House bill. There is a veto threat against the price gouging bill.
The Science and Technology Committee has approved a half-dozen bipartisan R&D energy bills.
The Transportation Committee may have approved some bills. Can't find them yet.
Remember, the Senate bill will NOT be the House bill. Even the House bill that is passed will go to a Conference (which is another whole set of problems, but let's cross that bridge later). However, to the extent there are provisions in the Senate bill that are good or bad -- those should be flagged for action in the House -- to support/add the good and oppose/strike the bad. And that's where you all come in.
Time Frame -
Energy and Commerce is supposed to mark up the Boucher bill this week.
Perhaps a comprehensive bill will be introduced on Friday, June 29 and a summary if not draft legislation circulating for review over the July 2-6 District Work Period. Legislation might not be posted on the Thomas website http://thomas.loc.gov, or the House website http://www.house.gov for several days after it's introduced because of its size. That means that you need to dig through the committees' websites linked at the house.gov site.
Remember also, the House of Representatives is constituency driven. What I mean by that is that congresspersons and their staffers really only listen to their constituents or their leadership, that's about it. That means you need to share these ideas and recommendation(s) whether it is for/against specific amendments and the final package with your Member.
The main Capitol Switchboard phone number is 202-225-3121. They will connect you to any requested Member's office or committee office. At www.house.gov -- the main House home page, there is a link to all of the Committee websites and Members' websites and a zipcode locator search function that will identify your Member for those who don't know.
(fyi, this post will be in existence for quite a while, and it will be kept somewhere in the top 10 posts until the Energy bill makes its way through the House.)
(edited) Hats off to PG for providing the links, proactive is better than noactive.
Maybe after this exercise we can determine the truth of another old saying:
"If pro is the opposite of con, then Progress is the opposite of Congress."
Easy on the polemic. This thread should be credible and substantive.
Debate all you wish about the component parts of the energy bill, but keep it on point please.
Off topic comments and the responses to them will be deleted.
I'm glad you have confidence in the TOD commenters, but I'd suggest not sending them this thread for a couple of reasons and instead send them a distilled version ("greatest hits" or whatever) of what's been discussed. One of my reasons behind this is that, as an open and unsecured thread, we always get some nutties. People outside of our group here already think we're nuts, and if we inside the group think someone's a little off their rocker - someone from outside is going to think we should be committed. Second - and perhaps the most important - if these people don't have time to actually read the bill they're signing...do you think they're going to spend the time wading through 300 comments, 70% of which will probably end up as irrelevant fluff, 25% will have at least one tidbit to add and if you're lucky 5% will be exceptionally well put together.
So I would definitely recommend sending some form of distilled, unified statement, composed from the ideas put forth in the comments - rather than the comment thread itself. You can send the link to the thread if you wish, but it would seem best to send something a little more user friendly if you actually want them to pay attention to it.
Sorry PG I didn't know you considered "b*z*" a 4 letter word!
At any rate calls on this site for a direct energy consumption tax must be confronted.
Not only is a tax political suicide, IMO those who propose it simply haven't thought it through as they ought.
As I have argued before energy tax will not have the desired result.
A more equitable method would be to lower the speed limit.
A lower speed limits hurts the wastrels and thrifty equally.
If we need to cut back on oil consumption, the way to do it is to impose an oil consumption tax. It's as simple as that. It is only "political suicide" if the oil producers aren't named as the main parties to profit from the current situation (whether they produced it or not). A pol who argues for keeping more of that money at home by taxing what would otherwise go out of the country can sell the idea.
Who gets the money? All you hurt is the poor. As I've said before there are plenty of weekend warriors hauling every kinda "pleasurecraft" imaginable who zip down the highway at 85mph+. Do you think a few bucks more is gonna stop him?
There are real fuel savings(thats what this is all about, right?) in lowering the speed limit on the Interstates. And an indirect tax on those who willingly break that speed limit. Again, figure out who is the fuel hog here and target him, indiscriminate taxation is something we once went to War about.
You know something? I have been seeing that same excuse for literally fifteen years. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now. You have to move the new-vehicle fleet away from guzzlers sometime, and the poor are going to have to wait for them to come onto the used market anyway. Delaying the pain has only prolonged it.
Who takes the hit depends on where the tax money goes. If it goes into a deductible on employment taxes, the poor come out ahead.
It's already stopping the casual excursions of rich powerboaters, it'll hit the "weekend warrior" lifestyle too. I bet it already is. Five bucks a gallon will pare it back even further. Using the bully pulpit to paint it as unpatriotic... that could go far.
Only if people obey them. I remember the hated "double nickel". People went to extreme lengths to evade it.
There are also real fuel savings in changing people's other choices:
This actually produced a decline in US gasoline consumption from the late 70's through about 1985. The biggest effect was people's reaction to the price spike. Another price spike would do it again, especially if it was accepted as a patriotic measure. After all, what's better: an F350 driving 55, or a Honda Insight cruising at 75?
Is there any way other than gallons used to measure this? Is there any better place to hit them than at the pump?
Recycling, economizing and rationing are measures we've used to help win wars.
Disclaimer: I have done work for all of the Big 3, either directly or through subcontract firms. I know whereof I speak.
Increased taxes were a bad idea 15 years ago and they will always be a bad idea. Can you name examples where an increase in taxes actually had the desired effect? Other than increasing revenue which is what taxation is all about. Try Googling "sin tax".
I couldn't agree with you more on this as I have argued the same for the 20+years(and hurt my career) I've been in this industry.
I actually had a job pumping gas when it was $0.29, when the embargo hit it jumped to $0.43 but nobody stopped buying. We only stopped when we literally ran out of gas to sell. That experience has stayed with me.
Now you're hoping. Direct evidence is to the contrary. Most pro taxers on this forum believe some good will come from an energy tax, I argue show me. What is our government doing now with our tax dollars? If you're OK with that then I can't argue with you.
I'd like to see some numbers on this because I think the analogy of the "boiling frog" comes into play. People(at least those who can afford it) will adjust to higher prices, tax induced or not.
Thats when you lay the whammy on them. If they hate the 55mph speed limit, they'll hate the $300, $400, $? fine even more. BTW try 60mph its much less hateful. :-)
Oddly enough wasn't the speed limit mostly 55 during that time?
What is patriotic about driving a Jap car?
Good point. The amount of gallons purchased is how I'd put it. Sounds more like rationing to me.
Thanks EP for responding, you've given me plenty to think about. The fixation many on this site have with higher fuel taxes really perplexes me.
Are you really that ignorant?
One of the key principles of economics is that taxes discourage activity. If you want to cut the amount of fuel used, tax it more.
Yeah, they would have done us a pile of harm:
And they certainly would have done a better job of pushing the US towards energy independence than the CAFE fiasco.
Our government is using income tax dollars to pay for the cost of defending the oil supply. This is a subsidy of oil worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year — the better part of a trillion dollars so far. If this had been charged to the consumers of the oil instead, the problem might have solved itself as people substituted efficiency and engineering for oil. Instead, the consumers didn't get a choice.
The speed limit was constant, but US gasoline consumption slid from 1978 to 1982. It didn't reach 1978 levels again until 1993, despite a considerable economic expansion over that period.
When the money you save isn't going to a Marxist or terrorist.
The word "rationing" came from you, not me. All I suggested is making each gallon hurt more, not telling people how many they can have. Thriftier cars are like CF bulbs, reduced driving is like turning lights off when you leave the room. The more it pays to do it, the more people will get serious about it.
Your dogmatic unwillingness to understand mystifies me.
Are you really that ignorant?
Be nice, I gave blood today, what did you do for your fellow man?
Lets tackle these one at a time and compare our levels of ignorance.
"Motor fuel taxes in Britain have been key to holding consumption flat over a period when US consumption rose steeply."
They've also spurred a panic and near shutdown of the British economy.
"Tax penalty of gasoline over diesel fuel has driven European vehicles to be 50% diesels."
So substituting one fossil fuel for another is some kind of improvement of the condition? I guess you'd like to see lots of particulate emitting diesels on our roads?
"Tax preference of trucking over railroads (freeways pay no property taxes, railroads do) has helped drive most US freight to trucks and pushed the cannibalization of rail infrastructure (removal of rails to cut taxes)."
So the tax burden was shifted to the common man, very progressive!
"One of the key principles of economics is that taxes discourage activity"
So by your reasoning the government of Germany, in announcing a 19% sales tax is trying to discourage undesirable behavior like ... commerce! Anyone who believes taxation is a tool for other than revenue is fooling themselves.
"They could have made hybids and plug-in hybrids attractive fifteen years sooner."
Sorry, the technology for hybrids, series or parallel, was not available then. Rather than tax consumption why not reward alternatives with reinstating the tax incentives that Reagan summarily dismissed?
They could have prevented the SUV craze.
My company's vice president spent an afternoon at a Home Depot watching people load their various vehicles with stuff for their homes. This was after the SUV "craze" was well underway. But when clinical trials of new vehicles were held, respondents said they felt unsafe in smaller vehicles (see my post below) partly because of your tax subsidized trucking.
They could have continued, rather than stalled, the push towards better economy which started in the 70's.
Well, I didn't vote for Reagan, did you?
Our government is using income tax dollars to pay for the cost of defending the oil supply.
Do you really believe there is a lock box that War funds are appropriated from? Grow up! The tax you favor will only add to the pile.
Your dogmatic unwillingness to understand mystifies me.
As much as I'd like to go on, I have to work in the morning and the job I have demands it all from me (let me hear ONE comment about the "lazy American auto worker" grrrrrrrrrr).
When discussing dogma, lets stretch out our minds a bit and consider ALL human activity.
Life teaches us that there are three types of practical activity; one can build up, one can destroy or one can steal. What category do you think accurately describes the tax collector?
Non sequitur. The shutdown was caused by deliberate actions to block activity, not the economic impact of fuel prices. British fuel prices are over twice US levels and the country still runs; they even have the phenomenon of "Chelsea tractors" on the roads.
You asked, and I quote, "Can you name examples where an increase in taxes actually had the desired effect?" Europe increased taxes on gasoline to drive demand for diesels, which are more efficient. This had the desired effect.
Non sequitur. You asked for an example. Europe got the desired effect, whether it was a good idea or not.
Quite the opposite, but this was an entirely foreseeable effect of the tax policy.
Desirable or not, it is a foreseeable effect.
"Mother Earth News" published an article on a home-built series hybrid in 1978. The technology has been around since the 1930's.
Because that only rewards particular favored options (including some with low or even negative benefits, like ethanol from corn), while a fuel tax rewards all real alternatives including efficiency measures. If the real cost of oil (all costs and externalities included) is anything close to the $480/barrel calculated by some, even a $3/gallon gasoline tax is only 1/3 of the way to parity.
It isn't mine. I have long opposed fuel tax breaks for trucking, and that was before I knew about the property-tax issue.
Your dishonesty in ascribing support to me is noted.
I voted for Anderson.
My heart bleeds for you. I have been working evenings to get work done. I will be at work tonight, tomorrow, and through the holiday weekend. I would be at work now if I wasn't recovering from a virus which has sapped my energy.
We have established that taxes discourage the activities which incur taxes. Let's consider the merits of taxing BADS, not GOODS. Imported oil and carbon emissions are BADS.
So's dishonesty. You have become a liability to TOD. I suggest you clean up your act.
The Good: The CAFE standard which came out of the Senate is surprisingly good policy by Washington standards. I would suggest keeping this intact. 35 mpg by 2020 is at the upper end of the range of what is doable.
The Bad: The proposal for 36 billion gallons of ethanol (15 billion from corn) must die. In 2006 we made a little over 5 billion gallons of corn ethanol and we can already see rising prices for steak and other things thanks to the soaring price of corn. Food has become a major contributor to inflation. Imagine how much worse things will get if we triple ethanol production from corn. Rising food prices hit everyone, but are especially noticeable to poor people and women.
On an energy basis, corn ethanol already costs 40% more than gasoline (July wholesale futures). Yes, ethanol does presently cost less per gallon, but a gallon of ethanol contains much less energy than a gallon of gasoline. A gallon of ethanol only has 68% as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. Driving on ethanol costs more. A vote to force us to use more ethanol is a vote to raise the price of driving.
As for cellulosic ethanol that is still experimental. The estimates I have seen indicate it will cost twice as much as corn ethanol. Requiring that 15% of our car fuel comes from this source is idiotic. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in this area, and maybe not. Making all that fuel will require 200 million tons per year of biomass. Maybe farms and forests can produce this sustainably, and maybe they can't. Why do we have to go so fast?
Congress is drunk on ethanol, and wants to drive at full speed across a bridge that isn't built yet. Better leave that sort of thing to the Dukes of Hazzard.
The Ugly: The price gouging stuff is American Socialism. Remember the gas lines of the 70s?
And what makes Congress think we have the power to enforce a NOPEC lawsuit? They'll tell us to get lost. They will sell US assets if they fear them being taken. The whole idea is American hubris on steroids.
I can see one use for the NOPEC act: informing the exporters (esp. Saudi Arabia) that they won't be able to use supply constraints to extract lots of wealth from the West and still keep it out of the hands of their restive masses.
In other words, keep pumping as fast as you can or you're toast.
Can I ask -- as politely as possible -- why you state that "35 mpg by 2020 is at the upper end of the range of what is doable." This is not in accord with anything that I hear / read that I take with a grain of salt. 35 mpg is, perhaps, only 'at the upper end' if we assume that efficiency gain priorities will focus on improved 'performance' rather than improved mpg (preferably is gpm, but will put that aside for the moment) and that American vehicles will simply continue to grow in weight and power.
I agree, 35 mph seems far from the upper end of the range of what is do-able, technically. Nevertheless, politically it may be at the upper end of what is do-able.
But, should TOD / energy specialists / people concerned about Peak Oil celebrate 35 mpg? (35 mph would probably get us far better than 35 mpg ...) We should be pointing out, imo, that "politically acceptable" is not adequate for dealing with real-world challenges like Peak Oil.
A, I am with you--but as you surely are well aware by now, politically palatable is all that MoC's CAN care about if they like their job.
That's why I am pushing for valuable insights inside the framework of the legislating process as it stands currently. We are not going to persuade any MoC's of much of anything in two weeks without a massive movement and events on our side.
All I am suggesting is that we help steer the rudder as much as we can without losing the bargaining game. That's ALL this is right now, a bargaining game--understanding which bills need improving/amending, which bills to support, and the interplay between pieces of legislation doing a lot of damage...
My view that 35 mpg is the upper end of what is doable is based on a couple of things. 35 mpg is a 40% increase over where we are today. In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences did a study which I think concluded that a 25% increase in fuel economy was possible using then current tech. It would add $1000 to the cost of a vehicle which would be paid back in gas savings over the life of the car. To get a 40% improvement we will need some new tech by 2020 which probably means hybrids.
Secondly, other countries are targeting 35 mpg or less except for Japan which I think is going for 40 mpg. They want to get there before 2020 but they don't have as far to go as we do.
Thirdly Americans have always demanded larger cars and will not accept the superminis that Europeans and Japanese ride around in. Also, Europeans use diesels to get their high fuel economy and US emmissions standards make diesels difficult.
Finally many Americans would like to give Detroit a chance of survival. Those companies are very weak, and if they fail the well paid union jobs and pension plans will be a thing of the past. If you set the CAFE standard too high then they are doomed. Of course if they get their way and do nothing on fuel economy, then they are also doomed.
I really hope you're talking about political feasibility, but the way you're saying it almost implies you're not. The technology is sitting around to pretty much easily do 60mpg cars - no hybrid required. That would be cars that would look "normal" on todays roads. Look at the VW Lupo...3liters per 100km, basically in the 80mpg range. Then there are zillions of cars that Americans have never heard of that are running around in Europe. Take a look at this link. There are four cars that they tested there that get 45mpg or better at 55mph and only one, the Prius, is available in the US. Hell, the Echo is available in the US and my friend that owns one usually pulls 40mpg real-world fuel economy and I know he doesn't drive slowly. After you look around Europe and see all the great cars they have over there that get fuel mileage that would easily exceed the lame 35mpg standard just put through the Senate you can turn your starry eyes to The Loremo and The VW 1 Liter. The Loremo is slated to be a production car and expected to get 140ish MPG, and the VW 1 Liter which was more of a concept car but also a proof of concept vehicle in the upper 200MPG's. Hat nod to The VentureOne (100mpg) and The Aptera (230mpg) and The Mercedes Boxfish (80mpg, and not at all small or slow)
If Detroit would put as much effort into engineering as it did into marketing and image manufacturing, it might actually build some decent cars. Todays cars are dime a dozen overglorified throw away toys meant to be cheap to manufacture and their aerodynamics are dictated by the marketing department. If the guys on gassavers.org can increase their fuel economy 15% with simple homebrew modifications to existing vehicles like fender skirts, grille blocking and body pans, imagine what an actual effort by engineers with CFD and wind tunnels might acheive. After years of lobbying for and promoting the status quo, Detroit's dug their own grave and it's high time they lay in it.
It's really a question of political and commercial feasibility. I've been travelling between the US and UK for years, and when I come back to the US all the US cars look huge. It's always been that way. US cars used to be super long and wide, now they are massive in every dimension compared to a typical European vehicle. I think it is a cultural thing. Also car parks and roads are about one third narrower in the UK than what we are used to here in the States. Large cars are not fun to drive over there. Europeans are quite happy with cars that are small, fast and corner well.
Your 80mpg Lupo is an impressive piece of engineering, but on a US road it would look like a toy car. Very few Americans would buy it willingly. In fact, there are plenty of Europeans who want something bigger and more powerful.
Sub--
I drive a Toyota Yaris and get over 40+ on the highway right now. With the new diesel hybrids coming on line in Europe, 40 will be a embarrassing small number shortly.
Getting the sheeple to give up driving the 4X4 to WallCrap for a case of Bud will be the big hurdle (during half time of course.
A key point you haven't mentioned is that the 35mpg requirement is for all passenger vehicles. That is, they are proposing to do away with the car/truck distinction. Recall that truck sales are more than 50% of American passenger vehicle sales (see Ward's Automotive most recent update.
The average US fuel economy is about 17mpg, since there are so many trucks out there. The average new vehicle fuel economy is about 22mpg. The proposal for a 35mpg new vehicle average by 2020 is quite a bit more impressive when you consider that it includes trucks.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
The way CAFE is set up is interesting, for sure. The legislation is definitely a step in the right direction, though the idea of the "footprint" is a little disturbing as it's likely to form a giant loophole big enough to drive an SUV through. That link you provide actually shows sales about perfectly split, which is a little surprising as I'd imagined it more biased towards truck sales. The CAFE is calculated based on the fuel economy and fleet sales. So if you were to have an SUV/light truck rated at 20 mpg...on a 1 to 1 basis for CAFE purposes you would have to have a 50mpg vehicle to counter it. On a 2 to 1 basis to counter a 20mpg SUV/Truck the other vehicles would have to be rated at 42.5mpg. An SUV at 25mpg would require a 45mpg vehicle to counter it or two 40 mpg vehicles. Of course they can put out all the 35mpg vehicles they want. So that would, indeed, be impressive...but it'll be interesting to see how the "footprint" wild card plays out and the flex fuel credits. The only problem with it being impressive in comparison to today's standards is that it's still not going to be enough, the production decline is more than likely going to overrun its effect by a long shot. But considering the people who passed it (supposedly) aren't aware of peak oil makes it even more amazing that it got through. Through the re-introduction of the mini-truck, aero improvements, minor overall size reduction, and minor power reduction, increased diesel fleet, and possibly a few hyper-mileage cars thrown in, I think 35mpg would be achievable without hybrids and without a "holy s$h!t" dramatic change in the way things look.
Hi Sub
Ever had a semi on your tail for an hour because you made the mistake of flashing your brights when you passed? In your 3cylinder 50mpg car? Think Duel. Thats the kind of vehicle you're going to have to share the road with. And I don't see anything in the legislation improving semi fuel economy.(correct me if I'm wrong)
The main thrust of this legislation is aimed at the pick up. And that is going to affect the pocketbook of many Americans.
Hooboy! Skirts! As an automotive designer let me state catagorically that if skirts would sell they'd be on every damn vehicle we make!
Sure theres more to be got from aero and weight too but I was talking to some guys from the aero group the other day and they have made trucks that get great mileage. How? Carbon fiber and titanium! Is anybody out there willing to pay $100,000+ for a 40mpg pick up? Because if there are enough of you we sure as hell will make them!
"As an automotive designer..."
Ah, you are one of "they." Now that I've insulted you...
This is probably the worst argument I've ever heard. Even if you pissed off the driver of an 18 wheeler, and they started tailgating you...you could, my gosh!, pull off at the next offramp. It's exceedingly unlikely that they'd follow you and waste their time and money. They're professional drivers and they simply aren't that stupid.
Holy H311, you slipped in an actual point! 18 wheelers do have a ways to go, especially aerodynmically. Look at the designs of Luigi Colani, for example. Large improvements in efficiency using standard engines. A lower speed limit specifically for trucks would also help fuel efficiency and create jobs.
1957 Chevy Belair, 1956 Ford Thunderbird...these are classics, man. The fender skirts can live again. They just need the marketing departments behind them instead of "Got flaccid penis? Drive a NITRO!!! It'll perk that sucker right up!" Yes, a barn door will make you more manly.
Sounds like they're unimaginative, or as I said before...ruled by the marketing department.
"In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences did a study which I think concluded that a 25% increase in fuel economy was possible using then current tech."
I'm driving a '95 Prizm. Typically this car gets 25mpg in my mixed high/city use. Simply by driving more conservatively (max 45-50mph, slow starts at lights) I can bump the mileage up by 20%. With aggressive conservation I can get 33mpg.
Thus I question the idea that it would take technology changes to make a great impact on our fuel consumption. The weakest link in automotive efficiency is the nut behind the steering wheel.
Electric utilities have discovered that immediate feedback on consumption very quickly results in voluntary individual conservation. Perhaps what is needed is not technology changes to the cars, but instrumentation changes.
Many BMW's (and other cars as well I imagine) have a button on the console that puts the vehicle into 'sport' mode where the computer adjusts shift points and fuel mixture for maximum performance. Perhaps new vehicles should be required to have a software option that places strong performance limits to assist the driver's natural impulse to drive aggressivly. This could be as simple as a 'conservation' button, much like the 'sport' button on the BMW.
Along with this would be a consumption rate meter in a conspicuous location. Perhaps as a head-up display of some sort, so that drivers are aware of it during acceleration, when their attention is typically on the traffic around them. This would help them to understand which driving behaviors consume the most fuel. The indicator would provide both a quantitative measure (cc/s) and qualitative measure (e.g., green or red light of varying intensity).
These ideas do not require any changes to the technology in the vehicles and can provide a 25 to 35 percent increase in fuel economy, driver willing. Once a driver has learned the driving habits of conservation the gains extend to other vehicles he drives as well.
So, future legislation might pick the low-hanging fruit by requiring car makers to include a performance-limiting dash switch that limits the fuel consumption of the vehicle at the users option and a short-period moving average fuel consumption rate indicator. This allows car makers to very cheaply encourage conservative behavior without requiring them to invent new technology or to significantly reduce the performance characteristics of their offerings.
As an extension auto makers might include a very simple short range wireless communication module that would allow vehicles to share their consumption information. Each vehicle would compare it's own consumption rate with that of the vehicles around it and then display to the driver his ranking. This would be designed to encourage competitive conservation. (Some people would cheat by broadcasting false signals of course, but if widely deployed cheaters would have minimal impact)
Is that a bad thing?
More and more, I'm coming to believe that the big changes in fuel economy in the last energy crisis were caused by gas shortages, not high prices.
Leanan,
You may be right, that shortages are a necessary prerequisite for both consumer and legislative response. In my experience, the fear of shortages was much greater than the reality. For example, people with ski boats would put six five-gallon cans of gasoline on top of their station wagon so as to be assured of a weekend of high-speed boating--but the marina never ran out of gas.
People do change their behavior in response to fear, and the fear of shortages is a far more potent motivator than the reality of high prices.
Yep. Look at Europe - high prices no longer have any impact.
What has an impact are
- actual shortages - that hits home pretty directly
- brutal price changes - that works too, but only for a while (cf Katrina)
- regular price increases, each sufficient to be noticed, and frequent enough that the pain is real each time. That gets the message across slower, but more durably.
A simple test of what has an effect os to look at car ads - do they focus on fuel efficiency (or lower emissions), or on other features (price, security, room, luxury, whatever...)?
"Look at Europe - high prices no longer have any impact."
Wow, I had no idea people were buying so many V8 light trucks in Europe. Half of new vehicle sales there are trucks as well?
Gas lines will be a very bad thing for the politicians that cause them.
Shortages, high prices, what's the difference? If there are shortages a black market will form with gas available, but at very high prices. If prices are high enough, for many low income people it looks just like a shortage.
I think the big changes in fuel economy were due to 1) a decade of rising prices and 2) expectations of higher prices in the future. We haven't seen big changes yet because we've only had a few years of rising prices and people still believe that prices will come down when the middle east mess is straightened out. As more people understand that the quagmire in Iraq *is* the future of the middle east, expectations for higher prices in the future will change, and people will make decisions accordingly.