How to raise fuel efficiency without changing CAFE standards

In March a bill (which has subsequently disappeared) was introduced to require the EPA to change its fuel efficiency rating tests to more accurately reflect real driving conditions.The tests currently used by the EPA to measure fuel economy produce gas mileage rates that are inflated from anywhere between 10% and 30%. If the EPA were to lower the ratings to more accurately reflect real milage manufacturers would be forced to increase efficiency just as if CAFE standards were raised.

To me this is a very clever strategy. Who can argue against providing consumers with accurate information?

about what our fearless leaders think about the idea of providing consumers with accurate information.

Upon furhter investigation, I found that the bill was sent to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality where no action had been taken.

The bill, HR 1103, is available on thomas.gov:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109WkuRwA::

... you imagine. For starters, the EPA has been reacting, albeit slowly, to the charges that the EPA estimated mileage doesn't reflect real-world experience. One of the things that's been added to the test for each vehicle is a progressive increase in drag on the chassis dynamometer to simulate wind resistance and rolling drag on all four wheels.

To do real world testing means putting the vehicle in the real world and that, unfortunately, makes uniformity of testing much more difficult. The EPA program sets optimum shift points, braking schedules, acceleration rates, and any deviation from these causes the manufacturers to scream bloody murder. Any deviation of results from the EPA tests to the in-house tests done by the manufacturers themselves causes them to do the same.

In practice, EPA mileage estimates haven't had a big impact on sales--if they did, SUVs would not be selling as they have been (until recently). Gas prices have a much bigger impact. That's why the manufacturers are now in trouble--they tooled up to make SUVs and large trucks the majority of their offerings.

The other issue is one of warrantees. If the EPA somehow could come up with some uniform testing which more closely resembled real world mileage estimates, the customers--regardless of their driving habits (which account for the major differences between real-world and EPA figures)--will demand that the vehicles perform as advertised. I know this is true, because I encountered it when doing new car service, even years ago.

The greater problem today is that manufacturers have found loopholes in EPA law to enable them to include their biggest, most gas-guzzling vehicles in their passenger fleets without having them affect their fleet mileage figures. Just bringing those vehicles into the existing standards would require the manufacturers to drastically improve mileage just to meet the existing 1989 fleet mileage requirements.

Almost three decades of experience has shown that the only way to get the manufacturers off the dime with regard to mileage is to mandate higher standards. When the standards were there, they complied or couldn't sell (because the per vehicle fines made them uncompetitive).

For some time now, gas has been cheap, so there have not been consumer complaints. It's only since gas became relatively expensive again that consumers are looking for some relief. Addressing symptoms of that cyclicality based on price doesn't serve as a suitable substitute for long-term policy to actually reduce consumption.

The quickest and surest means of achieving real conservation is one of two things--raise the price of gas artificially with taxes, or demanding higher efficiencies from the manufacturers. The latter is preferable for two reasons--the consumer can't buy something that doesn't exist, and gas taxes are effectively regressive in nature. If the offerings from the manufacturers are all in the same mileage range, there's small opportunity for the consumer to exercise choice in that regard.

Moreover, if the manufacturers were truly looking beyond the next quarter's sales figures, they'd realize that increasing standards is to their benefit, because what is happening at this moment is the same thing which happened in the `70s. Manufacturers were getting beat up by smaller, higher-mileage, higher-quality cars from Japan. If gas prices stay high, the market will be saturated with Japanese hybrids and the US manufacturers, having fallen behind, will be struggling to catch up. The customer loyalty which the Japanese built up in the late `70s has lasted right through to the present day.

Cheers.

perhaps, the improved 7000 ft mile, or

the Canadian way,
40c tax on the Imperial gallon,
becomes,
40c tax on the liter.

Of course, some people won't like this.