Cheap Gas and Big Cars Are Killing Obama’s Fuel Economy Push

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601929/cheap-gas-and-big-cars-are-killing-obamas-fuel-economy-push/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Cheap Gas and Big Cars Are Killing Obama’s Fuel Economy Push[/font]

[font size=4]Americans continue to favor light-duty trucks and SUVs.[/font]

by Jamie Condliffe | July 19, 2016

[font size=3]In 2011, President Obama announced an agreement made between 13 automakers to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Now two government reports suggest that cheap fuel and a love of trucks may make that unlikely.

Both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency have published draft reports which claim Obama’s 2011 promise currently looks out of reach. The agencies claim that a combination of sustained low fuel prices and an increasing popularity of trucks compared to cars. If things don’t change markedly, fuel economy might reach 50 miles per gallon at best.

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the rules for which were tweaked in 2012, set a goal of 36.6 miles per gallon as an average fuel consumption for 2017 vehicles and a 54.5 miles-per-gallon average for 2025. While the former target looks set to be met, the 2025 figure looks less likely. That’s because forecasts were based on an assumption that demand for trucks would fall. But in fact, low fuel prices seem to have been increasing demand for light-duty trucks and SUVs, a trend that’s continued from last year.

If the auto industry is to right the trend, it will have to push cars with better fuel efficiencies upon buyers over the coming years. With a clear consumer desire for large vehicles and the electric car market still a relatively small and expensive slice of the automotive sector, though, manufacturers can’t rely on buyers actively switching to smaller, more efficient cars.

…[/font][/font]

[msongs]

1. gas is up 60 cents/gallon the past few months nt

[happyslug]

3. Depends on the state and area, prices are still declining in my area

Now part of the reason is Pennsylvania adopted a 50 cents a gallon oil tax and that is slowly working its way into the system, but as a whole prices of oil bottomed out in February and have increase since then.

In New York prices bottomed out in February at 94 cents a gallon and now up to $1.31

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EER_EPMRU_PF4_Y35NY_DPG&f=D

Gulf coast prices bottom down at 93 cents a gallon but as of July 18, 2016, are $1.34 a gallon

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EER_EPMRU_PF4_RGC_DPG&f=D

LA bottom at at 73 cents a gallon in Febuary, but as of July 2014 at $1.41 a gallon

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EER_EPMRR_PF4_Y05LA_DPG&f=D

Please note all of the above prices are per gallon as the oil hits the harbor, no taxes and no cost to transport to your local gas station are included.

EIA web site for the above and other spot markets:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm

This can lead to some complexity, for example Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania gets its oil from the Gulf Coast, it is shipped by barge to Pittsburgh (Please note Allegheny County, the county which contains the City of Pittsburgh. must use a special blend of gasoline in the Summer to reduce ozone, that oil must come from the East Coast and is trucked in but the rest of Western Pennsylvania gets its oil in the summer from the Gulf, thus gasoline is about 10 cents more expensive as you get close to Allegheny County). Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania gets its oil from "East Coast" which uses the New York Harbor price. Thus in the mountains of Pennsylvania the price of gasoline is 20 cents more expensive then in Eastern Pennsylvania (but still 10 cents cheaper in the summer then Pittsburgh and Allegheny County). In winter the price difference stays the same EXCEPT for Pittsburgh, which sees its price drops BELOW the price in the Mountains.

I suspect other areas have similar complexities. I suspect the West Coast price to become closer to the Gulf and East Coast price for the expanded Panama Canal can take on the super takers the old canal could not. Thus any oil for the West Coast NOT produced in California had to be shipped via small ships or large tankers to the canal, then into smaller tankers and then once across the Canal into large tankers again. Not only is California oil production is down, so is Alaskan Oil production. Russia shipments out of its East coast goes to Japan and China. Indonesia has been a net oil importer since the 1990s, thus the West Coast has to import its oil from either the new Fracking Oil Fields in Texas or North Dakota, or Saudi Arabia or some other Persian Gulf Oil producer. This is the main reason west coast oil price have long exceeded east and gulf coast oil prices, but given the enlargement of the Panama canal that should soon end.

Please note, do to the concept of "Price stickiness" it takes twice as long for prices to go down then to go up, thus the affect of the opening of the expanded Canal will take a few months to work its way into the price of oil on the West Coast.

[happyslug]

2. A few years ago a read a report that the increase in MPG could have been achieved with a 25 cent tax

Last edited Wed Jul 20, 2016, 04:45 PM - Edit history (2)

The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" or CAFE for short, has been a US policy since the 1970s but one economic review of all the efforts to increase the CAFE since the 1970s could have been achieved with a federal fuel tax increase of 25 cents a gallon.

In simple terms, if you want the CAFE to go up, the price of fuel MUST GO UP. If you do NOT want the CAFE to go up, say you for it, make it a requirement for car makers, and then act shocked when the CAFE does NOT go up. The only reason everyone thought the goals were achievable in 2011 was the price of oil was still high. With the price of oil DOWN, the demand is for more fuel efficient cars is down. Some people still fear the price of oil will go back up, but a lot of people refuses to believe that to be possible.

The biggest fuel efficiency in recent years if Ford's decision to make its Pick ups out of Aluminium, that and increase production of hybrid and electric cars is what has increased CAFE in recent years.

The best part the Dollar a gallon gasoline tax can provide the money needed to improve mass transit, NOT by subsidizing rides on buses, but providing the money needed to build transit systems independent of the road system. The dollar a gallon tax on oil would be enough of a subsidy for buses and other road bound mass transit systems.

I am sorry, if the Federal Government really wanted to increase CAFE, it would pass a dollar a gallon tax on oil at the pump. A Five dollar a gallon would be better (and both could be phased in by increasing the tax 10 cents a month, thus giving people who have fuel inefficient cars to pay them off and trade them in). No one is even PROPOSING such an increase and for that reason increasing CAFE is all talk.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Back in the ’80 presidential campaign, John Anderson ran on a 50¢/gallon tax

http://www.4president.org/brochures/andersonlucey1980brochure.htm

[font face=Serif][font size=5]John Anderson for President 1980 Campaign Brochure
‘Most polls show that if people believe John Anderson can win, he will win. Your support will make Anderson President.’[/font]

…

[font size=4]Energy[/font]

[font size=3]Oil-the 50-50 Plan
Over the past several years, John Anderson has been a leading Republican spokesman on energy. In August 1979, he called for a 50-cent-per-gallon energy conservation tax on all motor vehicles to cut consumption and reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. He realizes the need to offset the burden, of such an energy tax by using the revenues from the tax to reduce employee Social Security taxes by 50 Percent, increase Social Security benefits, compensate those who are not on payrolls, exempt farmers, and allow tax credits for businesses unfairly penalized.

Coal and Alternative Energy
To reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil, Anderson proposes to expedite the conversion of oil-fired electric power plants to coal and speed the development of environmentally sound coal technologies. He proposes to accelerate the development and commercialization of renewable energy source technologies through expanded Federal procurement and R&D.

Nuclear Power
Anderson believes that there should be a moratorium on further nuclear plant construction permits unless we can achieve and maintain adequate safeguards for the operation of reactors and the disposal of nuclear wastes. The resolution of these problems, he says, can be postponed no longer. Anderson supports increased research on nuclear fusion, which, if brought to commercial feasibility would provide a relatively inexhaustible fuel supply at dramatically lower human and environmental risk than existing nuclear fission technology.

…[/font][/font]

[NNadir]

5. Obivously, he was an idiot, but may be excused since climate change was poorly understood...

...and there was very little data on life cycle analysis. At the time the nuclear industry was relatively new, the consequences of a reactor failure was the subject of extreme fantasies that proved to be garbage (although some people still cite them in an endless stream of dangerous nonsense) and the epidemiology of air pollution was still poorly understood.

It's interesting to see that the stupid so called "renewable energy" scheme was being pushed even back then, before, of course, it soaked up trillions of dollars for no result.

His plan was not materially different than that proposed (and acted upon) by Jimmy Carter, whose energy policies are unfortunately still with us, except for the part where we kissed the ass of the late "Shah" of Iran.

The fact that we are still spouting 1980's ideas 30 years later is a good part of the reason that we are now in disaster mode.

[cprise]

7. The Shah was our puppet

I see idiocy, but its not coming from Jimmy Carter. This sounds like sour grapes from the solar panel-dismantling wing of the Republican Party.

[cprise]

6. Oops!