Alternative-Fuel Choices To Make Gains in 2015


It looks like 2015 will be a good year to be an alternative-fuel full-size pickup truck and that includes the Ram 2500, GM's 2500 and 3500, and Ford's entire truck lineup. Why, you ask? Because the Obama administration's 2015 budget was just released and the part of the Department of Energy involved with advanced-vehicle and alternative-fuel technologies is budgeted to get 15 percent more money than it did this year.

According to the Next-Gen Transportation News, a business-to-business website that addresses fleet technology and strategy for the transportation sector, the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will be getting $2.3 billion to support alt-fuel and clean transportation solutions for qualifying states and cities. That's very good news for General Motors, as they revealed their most recent bifuel HD truck (the 2015 Chevy Silverado 2500) at the Chicago Auto Show.

Fuels like compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, electric vehicles, hybrids and anything else that can replace those that run on gas, diesel or jet fuel can qualify for funds. And just in case you want to track and follow the other changes in governmental spending, click here to see an overview of the currently proposed 2015 U.S. budget.


2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Tank II

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Guages II

2015-Chevrolet-Silverado-2500HD-Bed II



Personally, I don't really see this stuff catching on. Its going to take time for people if a few will actually use this.

"Because the Obama administration's 2015 budget was just released"

Click bait..............

Nothing the Obama regime does is good for this country. If you haven't figured that out yet, you are either stupid or too selfish to care. Sorry to be blunt, but it has got to be said because there are WAY too many people not paying attention.

Looks like Tesla may just get the head start they need. After all, they've already mentioned that they're looking into a BEV pickup truck.

The money being distributed by DoE is peanuts and the increase in peanuts is peanuts.

The Big 3 and their global competitors are dealing in the many billions of dollars annually, just in the revenues they get from new-car sales.

The money GM and Ford invest in their fringe divisions like data processing and plastics research dwarf this little DoE funding. It's also only being distributed to states and cities that are playing ball politically with the White House.


How cheap would fuel be if every state was doing what North Dakota is doing? How great would the entire country be economically? Everyone's pay would increase, unemployment would drop, businesses would be thriving from all that money circulating. We wouldn't have to be talking about minimum wage increases. We wouldn't be supporting foreign oil production. We would be more environmentally friendly because we wouldn't have to transport the fuel as far. We could use pipelines to cut the costs and environmental impact even further. If only the left would get the hell out of the way, we'd all be so much better off. Then if alternative fuels like dimethyl ether were viable, they would take off anyway. If you have to artificially keep the prices high of traditional fuels to make it look good (by keeping the supply low), then it probably isn't the best idea anyway.

Will be so glad when obummers time is up. He's doing so much damage till it ain't funny. Idiot should have approved that pipeline and jobs and economy would improve tremendously. Now we have to deal with this crap. Trucks are just that, trucks so fill em up and go!!

It is like Mark Williams is a big Obama supporter. Awhile back he is reporting a million jobs Obama said he saved which was a lie. Obama admin is artificially driving up energy prices and driving down our work hours. This is all part of the plan to deindustrialize America through the EPA. Don't you get it?

People talking as if all we need to do is put a stick in the ground, and we will have all the oil we need, HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION WORKS.

North Dakota is sitting on the remains of a 100's of million year old lake. It isn't the same geology as the rest of America. It takes specific heat and pressure over millions of years to produce a field like the Bakken.

Oil is not infinite. Just remember the oil industry speaking of peak oil 5 years ago.

That and all the politics. There is one thing true about a post about politics. Half the people think you are an idiot.

Something has to change on this forum. It is a pickup site. talk pickups, stop rambling about nonsense.

@Buddylam- I think the government and obummer knows how it works. I don't think you do as your post shows that. Yes this is a pickup truck site and we as truck owners are not stupid as the government thinks we are. obummer wants other ways of fueling our trucks and cars and its being shoved down AMERICA'S throats. Enough is Enough. The oil is there, that has been proven over and over again. We just need to take it and go. Should of been done a long time ago.

Alex, amen to that...and I wonder just what Obuma and his cronies would do if the big 3 banned together and told them to stick it where the sun don't shine as far as telling the car companies how much MPG their cars/trucks should get..and lastly, that chevy is one ugly truck, a mug only it's creators could love

There are just too many vehicles. The government needs to focus on public transportation. In the 1950's to 1970's every family had one vehicle, today the average family has 3, back in the old days if you had to travel more than 20 miles from home you took a bus, or a train. Everybody lived close to where they work and shop, nobody traveled far, everybody would stay close to home, back then vehicles were not reliable to travel a long distance. Or you learned to fix your car along the side of the road. American's have a love affair with their car or truck and would be lost without one.

I need to know? Does have a 2014 Ram 3.0 V6 Turbo-Diesel on order to do testing and reviews on it? I can't wait!

I'm not a pro-Obama man, but some of the comments in this thread are quite naive.

Pickups are where they are today for a number of reasons. The current situation has evolved for the past 40 years or so.

It's so easy just to blame, everyone needs someone to blame. Why not blame yourselves? You are the ones who tell me how free the US is. Don't you guys vote?

US energy has a significant amount of lobby power in DC. The farmers growing corn for ethanol are a strong lobby group in DC.

Environmentalist lobby DC.

The pickup manufacturers along with the auto workers have significant lobby power in Washington. Wanting to protect themselves with tariffs and technical barriers etc.

So, what do you end up with? The current mess you guys have with a bias given to fuel and energy types, vehicle types, etc.

You guys want your gasoline and big pickups that much they are being killed off, by the very regulations that used to protect them in the past.

Pickups are entering the 21st century, like cars.

Look what happened to US cars.

It seems you are loving your full size trucks to death.

How many of you guys will or can afford one of those future aluminium truck's with a twin turbo V6? I bet not many.

But I bet many more could afford a $24k 4x4 pickup.

Well, dreams are great, they sometimes inspire and sometimes encourage people reflect where they went wrong.

@Big Al--True. "Wake up and smell the coffee."

Mess? We have what we want. You said long ago American trucks would get smaller. Just the opposite happened. Most Americans don't want small trucks. Why drive a cramped truck when we can have a comfortable vehicle. I drive a Ford F-250 daily, I don't have the bed or cab full most of the time. But when I need it occasionally it's there. A small or mid size truck can't do what I need several times a year. A medium duty could, but I don't want to have an ugly uncomfortable truck as a daily driver. Don't need multiple vehicles. I don't want to see what is happening in your current country happen to this country. Why would we remove all barriers so cheap foreign makers could flood the market and kill off domestic manufacturers? All your talk about the US being broke, why not point your finger at yourself. Au is heavily tied to China, and is raping their land of natural resources to stay afloat. When the American economy falters so does China. Guess who's next.

@ Big Al from Oz The tariffs are there to try and keep work in the US. Maybe Aussie land should of had some since now all auto companys are pulling out of AU. What are them thousands of people going to do for work? Oh I know they'll join the Aboriginals doing rain dances in the out back licking toads. Any one can sell any car/ truck in the US. if they spend the time and money to put a plant here so people have a job.

Looks like somebody doesn't know what those aboriginals know, down there in Oz. They've probably got the best grasp of global 'cycles' than any scientist on Earth. They don't have the problems we do. What they do have is a level of happiness in their lives that far exceeds us poor, "intellectual", civilized people.

As has been said before, "We are where we are because we put ourselves there." If you don't like it, vote.

@johnny Doe and Tom - Looks like BAFO or BAF-NJ was putting up a front that he is Australian. He is actually from Staten Island and NJ. That is where is attitude comes from and why he is so disliked. Typical Staten Island Jersey attitude. Unlike guys like Alex who grew up in Australia and doesn't have the Staten Island attitude is not disliked by anyone. BAF-NJ is giving Australia and Australians a bad name on this blog in my opinion.

Political ideology like any ideology (i.e. fanboy posts) get in the way of reality and how to deal with it. Politicians see only as far as their term in office. They think about what will get them elected and what will keep them there.

Pandering to special interest groups and pushing the correct electoral buttons are all that matter to them.

Hard/tough decisions will not be made to fix the current mess the USA is in.

Ever wonder why several billion dollars were spent on the last election?

Did any of you get your money's worth?

Some of the biggest contributors to election campaigns contribute to both sides.

Ever wonder why?

Those who contribute do so expecting a return on investment.

I find it odd and interesting that people blame the current skipper of the sinking ship. The hull of the ship has been rotting for decades and is taking on water at an exponential rate.

All of the pumps added to the vessel to keep it afloat are just making it sink faster.

The emission laws, were upgraded in 2004, the standards for 2007 and 2010, they were set by president BU and a republican house and senate. There has not been an emission law even proposed in the Obama administration.
right after the emission laws were passed the Brother were big supporter of the republicans and the fuel usage in diesels went up. Why is it that the republicans are not proud of things they did. Tax cut for the rich, nothing for the 99%, economy in the ditch, they gave all the money to the banks, Boehner was crying to get it passed.
You really should be proud of the things you did not blame everyone else. That is what cowards do, you want to get back to watching cartoons looking for the gay ones.
You should leave coments for different technologies to adults.
Just a thought!

Maybe you should learn how things work in Washington. Just a thought.

Emission regulations and CAFE standards don't have to pass through Senate. The regulations are written by unelected officials like the EPA and other departments. Obama admin doubled CAFE through the back door.....

"Earlier this year, the (Obama) Department of Transportation (DOT) and EPA released the finalized, new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks, which will require 2025 model year vehicles to have an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg). The new standard comes close to doubling the current CAFE average of 29 mpg and, combined with the administration’s fuel efficiency standards for 2011–2016, will increase the average cost of a new car by $3,000 by 2025."

These unelected bureaucrats in Washington are implementing rules that are hurting our economy and the way we live our lives using phony global warming arguments.

And another thing. Look at Obamacare. Why does Obama not want us to feel the full effect of Obamacare? Why does he keep delaying it? Why don't Democrats call him out on the delays? Because Obama and the Dems know Obamacare will hurt us.

Morning Bell: Obama's Cap-and-Trade Scheme for Cars

As for Bush, he is no conservative. If he signed off on CAFE increaes, at least it went through Congress first.

He didn't just say if Congress won't act, I will. And go through the back door like Obama is doing on everything or ramming Obamacare down our throughts without a single Repubic vote.

And there was no reason for Obama to double those increases. CAFE doesn't work! These regulations don't stop global warming and doen't decrease our dependance on foreign oil.

We need an all and above approach starting with our own oil and natural gas. We have more oil than the Middle East. We just need to stop being so stupid and start using it!

If go to here, you will see CAFE increased in a 2007 with a Democrat House bill. Dems gained controlled both the House and the Senate in 2006 - conveninetly right when everything started to tank..

In 2012 Obama directed CAFE to go to 55 mpg all by himself without going through Congress.

EPA Finalizes Yet Another Expensive Mandate
ATR ^ | 2012-10-15 | Christopher Prandoni

Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 3:56:00 PM by 92nina

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) codified their war on American drivers by finalizing new car mileage mandates, otherwise known as CAFÉ standards. Increasing the cost of new cars by thousands of dollars, new CAFÉ rules will require cars built in 2025 to get at least 54.5 miles per gallon. With current 2011 cars averaging 28.6 miles per gallon, the EPA is going to require automotive manufacturers to nearly double fuel economy standards in a little more than a decade.

While the Obama administration has made the 2009 Auto-Bailout one of the center-pieces of their re-election campaign, the reality is that these new rules will affect and cost consumers more money. Emily Wismer, Policy Analyst for Independent Women’s Forum writes:

While it sounds fantastic to drive twice as far on each tank of gas, this extra efficiency comes at a large, up-front cost to consumers: New cars are expected to cost about $2000 more because of this mandate. As a result, many potential new car buyers will be priced out of the market. The effects of higher new car costs will ripple into the used car market, as fewer families will be able to trade in old vehicles for a new car. That means less supply and more demand for used cars, and higher prices for used cars as well.

Ms. Wismer’s $2,000 figure might actually understate the actually cost of complying with the EPA’s newest mandate. Bill Underriner, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, estimates that the new regulations could increase the cost of new cars by $3,000 which would “shut almost 7 million people out of the new car market entirely and prevent many millions more from being able to afford new vehicles that meet their needs."

The Obama Administration hails new CAFÉ rules as a necessity to save consumers money at the pump. If higher mileage standards are inherently such a good deal, one has to wonder why the government must ratchet up CAFÉ rules. Consumers are more than capable of deciding what car they would like to drive and what they fill their car up with. Next time you hear about a government mandate coming to save you money, make sure to hold on to your wallet.

Read more:

FUBO. How about letting Congress pass laws and the EPA can simply suggest them? The executive branch cannot, by our Constitution, make law.

The money being distributed by DoE is peanuts and the increase in peanuts is peanuts.

The Big 3 and their global competitors are dealing in the many billions of dollars annually, just in the revenues they get from new-car sales.

The money GM and Ford invest in their fringe divisions like data processing and plastics research dwarf this little DoE funding. It's also only being distributed to states and cities that are playing ball politically with the White House.

Posted by: papa jim | Mar 14, 2014 3:51:37 PM

This and Obama and the enviro-statists don't really care about clean air or global warming. They want CONTROL over our lives.

Why is it then that the US exports massive quantities of Euro diesel and sells a lower grade of diesel in the US?

Why do EPA regulations then make emission limits near on impossible to meet with the current US diesel quality?

The reason is US energy is making a large profit exporting the diesel to Europe. They lobby the government to have outcomes to boost their bottom line.

Why is their a chicken tax (for 50 years)? Because Detroit needs that tax so they can continue to manufacture a lucrative product, to improve their bottom line.

Why does the US have different vehicle design regualtions? Are US vehicles safer than other OECD vehicles? No, this is evident by the high US fatality rate on your roads.

This makes it harder to import vehicles into the US, again enhancing the bottom line of the US vehicle manufacturers.

CAFE, why does the government mandate CAFE for light vehicle and not heavy? Europeans more or less regulate their vehicles similarly to the way the the US will with trucks and commercials of Class 3 and above.

Why? Again to protect pickups and vehicle design.

This plus more has evolved since DOT was formed back in 1967.

This doesn't include the fact that Brazil can produce ethanol for half the price the US does. But the US imposes a 54% tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Why? To protect the farmers.

All of these decisions has cost the US tax payer trillions of dollars. Someone has to pay for this, and it you guys on this forum who now have the debt to pay down.

These policies have been put in place by both sides of politics, not just the Dems or GOP.

Like Lou stated companies 'bed' both sides of the fence.

@BAFO - What "Situation" are you taking about? Is that your TV crush? But why blame anyone for what's evolved in the last 40 years? And why is it a bad thing? Full-size tucks have always provided tremendous value and have yet to go out of style. They're part of the American experience and culture. Songs, movies, you name it. You can't legislate that...

As soon as Americans demand diesels in everything that moves, it'll be a different story. But diesel fuel is a byproduct of refining oil, so a prescribed ratio will be surplus. A tremendous surplus actually. Other markets need our diesel fuel exports and we need gasoline imports. Works good that way.

But what exactly are full-size truck protected from? Does Audi, BMW or Peugeot have 1/2 tons to battle against the "Protected" Tundra, Titan, etc???

You fully acknowledge global trucks wouldn't be big seller and would mostly cannibalize mid-size SUVs and CUVs. So wtf? Full-size pickup offerings have absolutely nothing to fear. Global trucks are more of threat to themselves. Or a threat to their own, highly profitable mid-size vehicles, across the showroom. And conflict/cannibalize their business partner's vehicles. Mazda/Ford. Isuzu/GM. Or Hilux/Tacoma, Frontier/Navara. Or VW autos vs VW trucks. Or Mitsubishi autos vs Mitsubishi trucks.

So things have "evolved" by OEMs chasing consumer trends, not chasing their tail. And chasing max profits from the least amount of cash outlay. Remember, BOF trucks are crazy expensive to build (and way too many models/cabs/beds/trim/options/packages compared to cheap to build and easy to assemble (simple) fwd cars, SUVs and CUVs that often sell at a premium vs small trucks. Americans don't want to pay for expensive small trucks. That's if they're even inclined to buy "new" small trucks.

If it were as simple as all OEM throwing everything they have at every market they s
ell in, we'd have all the Toyotas, Hondas, Mercedes', BMWs, VWs and others, missing from the US line up. It's called Market Strategy.

Again, WTF?

Your comment appears as if you are incoherent or somehow when posting your blog the comment managed to be corrupted.

Can you please re-do your comment so someone not on an opiate based drug can comprehend it.

The CAFE standards evolved from an issue that existed in the 1970s--crude oil shortages, or at least the perception that oil was in short supply.

The problem in 1974 resulted from the crash in the greenback between 1971 and 74. It was a currency problem. The OPEC nations blamed it on Israel/US relations.

It happened again in 1979 when the Iranians occupied the American embassy in Tehran--Oil prices spiked.

Since that time, the world's industrial nations have developed strategies for dealing with the geo-political concerns and the OPEC leaders have hired smart bankers and financial advisors to coach them on the currency issues.

Now the world is oversupplied with crude--there's so much crude oil in the world today that there arent' enough tankers and refineries to handle it all.

CAFE does nothing to address this.

@What's the matter, BAF0? You have no response so you act like you don't understand English? You may speak it, but you don't speak 'American'. You don't have a clue about anything.

@papa jim
Contrary to your view the world isn't 'awash' with crude.

That's why it is sitting on around $100 for WTC up to $120 for Tapis.

The crude oversupply that you speak of is because we don't have enough refining capability.

Most OECD economies have not replaced refineries quick enough.

The over supply is due to and under supply of refining. Even then the cost of crude can't drop too much or the wells will shut down, increasing the price of crude.

Oil can't go much below what it is currently priced at. The cost of retrieving oil is high, because we have drained the easy reserves.

There is plenty of oil on the planet, the problem is we don't have adequate technical expertise to extract it economically.

The same goes for lithium, the oceans are awash with the stuff (along with gold) but extracting the stuff is hard.

Why don't we use hydrogen, the oceans are awash with the stuff. Because we can't extract the hydrogen from water molecules economically.

It all comes down to cost vs demand.

The cost of fuel will rise. People soon forget that developing nations are increasing rapidly their use of fossil fuels as well.

The US doesn't own global energy resources let alone now dictate pricing like it used to with commodities.

As the US gradually becomes a smaller player, commodity prices will become more expensive and unstable.

In the old days when the US economy sneezed the world caught a cold. This time round the US has the flu and in Australia we didn't even sneeze and the Canadians' only caught a slight cold.

Then present a tangible argument. Your arguments are emotive. This leads to misrepresentation of facts.

Why do you only present anecdotal evidence. This is because you don't have an argument.

Your arguments are based on what you wish for and not reality.

Look at what is going on outside of your door.

Travel outside of your township, even travel to another neighbouring county. Even travel to another state.

Go overseas, I know you have many fictional stories on your life, but really if you aren't living on food stamps and have a job, go overseas to another country.

You have so much to learn about the US. When you travel overseas for the first time, actually go to Spain and look at how and what vehicles they use.

Then you will realise that your Spanish F Truck dealership might be a poor idea.

You see DiM, you are a very sad person. After reading your blogs for awhile now it appears you are lost and living in the past, the distant past.

You just don't seem to be able to connect the dots. Did you ever join the dots as a kid, or were you the odd one out all of the time?

@BAF0 - 1st you need to search the word "anecdotal". You're confusing that with logic, commonsense and well known American automotive history. And world trade/economics. You also have zero business sense. An OEM's main concern is turning a profit, not pleasing a few fanboys and trolls that happen to live on the interwebs.

Business? I'm talking about government policy.

So, in your words the business of the US is going well? WFT?

Remember DiM, learn how to connect the dots.

Here, I'll start teaching you about the world here's your first lesson.

Anybody whom argues that either the Dems or republicans are better than each other is simply only looking at the good side of the one they supposedly like. They are both equally awful for mostly the same reasons. But fools here will continue argue within this small spectrum....wake up!

Like it or not Big Al from Oz, Mr_Lou & John Pringle are dead on.

I haven't disagreed with their views. Show where my views differ or argue against their comments. Boy, I can see why Lou stated the school system isn't that good.

Do you guys still have Comprehension as a subject. You know read a story, then answer questions regarding the story?

I actually built on their views.

Maybe you need to look at the connect the dots link I have given DiM as well.

@BAF0 - If enough American consumers want a vehicle, they'll have it. OEMs will find a way to fill the need, if, and only if, it fits in their over all market strategy. The biggest obstacle an OEM faces is lack of desirability and or lack of profitability. Import or Domestic. Governments can only do so much, to encourage or discourage buyers. Still the US is the friendliest meaningful market for import OEMs. Selling in a foreign land and convincing consumers to buy your cars can have varying results. Japanese, German, and Korean OEMs have stuck gold in the US. Italian, French, Swedish, Finish and English OEM have struggled in the US while often thriving in their home markets. Was that US policy that decided that? Is it US policy that discourages Tundra and Titan sales?
Or did the market decide that on its own? Does US policy ban Tata or Lada, or do they ban themselves? And who's gonna cry for them???

Again? WTF?

You seem to be on a different wavelength here.

It seems much of this article is about CAFE, EPA regulations and the impact it appears not to only have on vehicles, but individuals as well.

So, what do you want to talk about?

Do you want to discuss the virtues of the Finish automotive industry?

@Big Al

The $100 barrel of oil today is exactly equal to the $10 oil of the 1970s--it still makes as many gallons of fuel. Discussing price of commodities in the absence of any awareness of dollar volatility misses the point.

The OPEC countries got smart about this after Bretton Woods. Once Nixon's Treasury Dept stopped allowing the conversion of paper dollars to physical gold, all hell broke loose.

The crash of the dollar's buying power took a only a short time to evidence itself in markets for crude oil and it impacted the OPEC countries in a huge way.

Thus, the same barrel of oil, the same ounce of gold and the same US dollar that had remained in balance for almost fifty years fell apart.

If you haven't studied this well enough to get a firm grasp you may wish to do so.

@papa jim
From what I've read it was CAFE that broke OPEC's cartel in the mid 80s.

Yes, I don't disagree about the cost of oil prior to the oil crisis. But we don't live like we did in the early 70s. The cost of many goods and services have outstripped the CPI.

The reality is more like the size of the US economy as a percentage of global output has shrunk considerably. From around 40% of global GDP in the early 70s to less than 20% now.

You see, in the days gone by when the US economy went into recession commodities reduced in value. Now that the US economy is much smaller it's impact is much smaller on commodity prices.

This is one of the problems why this recession has impacted harder than most in the US and the US is finding it harder to climb out back to where it once was.

The commodities are being bought up by other countries that are developing. This will continue from now on.

After WWII only a few nations weren't affected as much by the war as Europe and Japan. Now that they are no longer affected, money has been going into other investments or countries.

Like I stated oil prices will not move down significantly, unless the world enters into a depression. This still might happen as we aren't out of the woods yet.

Explain this;


2006 reform attempt and lawsuit

The CAFE rules for trucks were officially amended at the end of March 2006. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the rules, returning them to NHTSA, stating that the rules must be made stricter. These changes would have segmented truck fleets by vehicle size and class as of 2011. All SUVs and passenger vans up to 10,000 pounds GVWR would have had to comply with CAFE standards regardless of size, but pickup trucks and cargo vans over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) would have remained exempt.
Under the new final light truck CAFE standard 2008-2011, fuel economy standards would have been restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint", the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy would have been established for each increment in footprint using a continuous mathematical formula. Smaller footprint light trucks had higher fuel economy targets and larger trucks lower targets. Manufacturers who made more large trucks would have been allowed to meet a lower overall CAFE target, manufacturers who make more small trucks would have needed to meet a higher standard. Unlike previous CAFE standards there was no requirement for a manufacturer or the industry as a whole to meet any particular overall actual MPG target, since that will depend on the mix of sizes of trucks manufactured and ultimately purchased by consumers. Some critics pointed out that this might have had the unintended consequence of pushing manufacturers to make ever-larger vehicles to avoid strict economy standards. However, the equation used to calculate the fuel economy target had a built in mechanism that provides an incentive to reduce vehicle size to about 52 square feet (the approximate midpoint of the current light truck fleet.)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found these new Light Truck rules to be arbitrary and capricious; contrary to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; incorrectly set a value of zero dollars to the global warming damage caused by truck emissions; failed to set a "backstop" to prevent trucks from emitting more CO2 than in previous years; failed to set standards for vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) range; that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate, and that the rules may have had significant negative impact on the environment. The court directed NHTSA to prepare a new standard as quickly as possible and to fully evaluate that new standard's impact on the environment.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

On December 19, 2007, President George W. Bush rendered the court judgment obsolete by signing the Energy Independence and Security Act, which set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel. This is the first legislative change to the CAFE standard since it was created in 1975. The requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." President Bush faced serious pressure to reduce the Nation's dependency on oil and this was part of his initiative to do so.

Increases and light truck standard reform.

In 2006 the rule making for light trucks for model years 2008–2011 included a reform to the structure for CAFE standards for light trucks and gave manufacturers the option for model years 2008-2010 to comply with the reformed standard or to comply with the unreformed standard. The reformed standard was based on the vehicle footprint. The unreformed standard for 2008 was set to be 22.5mpg.
To achieve the target of 35mpg authorized under EISA for the combined fleet of passenger cars and light truck for MY2020, NHTSA is required to continue raising the CAFE standards. In determining a new CAFE standard, NHTSA must assess the environmental impacts of each new standard and the effect of this standard on employment. With the EISA, NHTSA needed to take new analysis including taking a fresh look at the potential impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and assessing whether or not the impacts are significant within the meaning of NEPA.
NHTSA has to issue its new standards eighteen months before the model year for fleet. According to NHTSA report, in order to achieve this industry wide combined fleet of at least 35mpg, NHTSA must set new standards well in advance of the model year so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with lead time enough to make extensive necessary changes in their automobiles. The EISA also called for a reform where the standards set by the Transportation Department would be are “attribute based” so as to ensure that the safety of vehicles is not compromised for higher standards.

@big al


Sir, that is dead wrong.

CAFE did nothing of the sort--it simply created jobs for bureaucrats! CAFE cannot create or refine a single ounce of oil. It cannot build a single refinery or pipeline.

Capital can, however. But capital for long-term projects like refineries and pipelines will not go to places where rules like CAFE are in place--hence we have today in America where there have been no new refineries built in 3 decades or where getting approvals for a new pipeline like Keystone takes longer than putting a man on the moon.

A stronger dollar fixed things in the 1980s.

It was a painful shot of medicine back in 80 and 81 but by summer 1983 the price of pump gas had stabilized and the dollar/oil relationship returned to the pre-1972 zone.

The dollar stayed strong from 1982 through 1998, when Clinton and Gore decided to help Russia through a rough spot (they were poised to default on billions of Swiss loans).

The price of Russian crude went up, saved the Swiss bankers and the price of oil ran like a bull until 2008.

@papa jim,

Cycle throught this document. Hold your cursor over the page and click to the next page. To go back a page you will need to use your back arrow.

It explains much and might even change your mind on what goes on and why certain decisions are made.

Even putting the climate change politics aside you will see that improving FE will assist the US in maintaining it's currency at a higher level through the reduced importation of crude.

@Big Al

We've been there before!

You cannot legislate or regulate your way out of this. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Bush and Obama all thought you simply need to have more agencies issuing more rules. Reagan and ironically, Bill Clinton, respected free markets enough to let the process work. It did.

Lower global prices for energy (and stronger economic growth) were the hallmarks of the Reagan and Clinton years. It had nothing to do with CAFE or higher FE.

Since Bill Clinton left Washington a pauper in January 2001, his net worth has gone through the roof. Where did the money come from?

The United Arab Emirates, The Kingdom of Saud and Britain. All monarchies, all major exporters of crude oil.

It's all in black and white. When Mrs Clinton ran for the Democrat nomination in 2008 she had to reveal her income tax documents going back 10 years.

It's all right there.

Washington consumes energy and produces hot air. Please no more alphabet soup this morning.

@papa jim
I can see more LPG, less CNG , more Diesel as the future fuels to be used in the US. Weight saving for Pickups can only go so far, hybrids will become less prominent.

@papa jim
Did I state that CAFE has had a huge affect on the US economy?? Come on.

Well, unfortunately it's DC that makes these regulations. Irrespective of how much hot air they make, they do make a difference.

From what I can gather CAFE will reduce the number of larger vehicles on US roads. That's the aim of it.

Like I have stated the US to meet these newer and gradual tightening of FE and emissions the US is using European and Japanese technology. They are already there.

The problem is the US Big 2 and Fiat make large CUVs, SUVs, mini vans and pickups. This is the crunch for them.

Diesel is out of the equation as a cheap alternative. So CNG, Hybrid and EVs are going to fill the void along with aluminium trucks.

As great and technologically wonderous these new vehicles are, they are going to cost.

This has been the basis of my argument for the past couple of years.

Maybe the US should look at what we are doing in Australia.

But, the EPA, CAFE, design regulations, etc are entrenched and it will be hard to alter the trajectory you guys are heading in.

I just hope the Colorado works in diesel in the US. If it does you guys should still have a relatively cheap pickup.

I don't think the new F-150 or Silverado will be as affordable as they once were.

But I do hope the 2.7 V6 Eco Boost goes into our Ranger here.

I am fascinated about the 2014 Ram 1500 with the 3.0 V6 Turbo-Diesel. Hungry for any information about it. Watched all the You Tube videos and I don't believe it when they say they get 31 MPG cause when the F-150 Eco-Boost first came out there were similar videos of them getting 25 to 30 MPG. The only place you can get real MPG numbers is I will just sit back, wait and see and allow other people to be the scapegoats that own one. Not going to spend that big money on the unknown! I mean if I could get a full size pickup that does the job that I know for sure gets close to 30 MPG I would be the happiest guy in the world owning one!
Come On! please get one and test it as soon as possible!

"...CAFE that broke OPEC's cartel in the mid 80s.

Yes, I don't disagree about the cost of oil prior to the oil crisis. But we don't live like we did in the early 70s. The cost of many goods and services have outstripped the CPI.

The reality is more like the size of the US economy as a percentage of global output has shrunk considerably. From around 40% of global GDP in the early 70s to less than 20% now."

@ Big Al

Please, really--no more alphabet soup!

GDP, CPI are cooked-up, made-up, Washington DC numbers that are total BS! They make heavy use of what they charmingly call "adjustments."

When someone is busy trying to stick a banjo up your ass, an "adjustment" is when he offers you some lubricant to ease the discomfort.

Hence we get the "adjusted" CPI or the adjusted Unemployment Rate, or the "seasonally adjusted" this or that. All BS.

They are simply the tools that economists working for the government and lawmakers use to BS the public. Or if you prefer, the "lubricant."

CAFE is simply an imposition that Washington placed on the US auto industry, and its consumers, to make it less competitive--or at least that's how it looks from here!

One of our frequent commentators on this site whom I will charitably NOT refer to by name, is convinced that American consumers are ruled by so called "corporate cartels."

There is a CARTEL under every rock for this guy. No more cartels, no more alphabet soup. I'm begging you.

@Big Al--The problem many have is they cannot adjust to the US not being the only major economic power in the World. As you stated in the past when a recession hit the US economy commodity prices would go down around the World. With China and India becoming more of a World factor this is no longer the case. Washington does muck up things with nonsensical regulations but we as a people are not blameless. Many feel that cheap energy and cheap money are a birth right. Everything has its costs and eventually we have to pay the piper whether it is economic and/or quality of life. It is much easier to blame someone else for your problems than face them.

@Jeff S

Pray tell, who is having that "problem?"

The comments to this entry are closed.