
Here we have yet another example of legislators legislating without regard to the unintended (possibly?) consequences of their actions. In a move that will be sure to cost thousands of Americans their jobs, and set back our already foundering auto industry even further, our Senate went all out in an attempt to reduce their historically low approval numbers even lower. By passing a new energy bill containing revised CAFE standards, our enlightened body ensured future members will have to answer the question sure to be asked by their constituents; “Why the hell am I unemployed?” According to the 2002 AEO report from the U.S. DOE, the net effect of the proposed standards will be a loss of 214,000 non-agricultural jobs in the short term. Eventually the economy is predicted to fully recover. If you're one of those 214K, that may not make much difference, however.
Although the bill passed the Senate by a wide margin, 65-27, it has yet to pass the house or the president's desk. Maybe he can pull out one of his (far too rare) vetos. Here is one area where the market will do a great job on its own. We will do just fine controlling the fuel economy of our vehicles without congressional members sticking their noses into an area where they have neither the expertise nor the directive to be sticking.
For those that aren’t sure what the hell the whole CAFÉ thing is and why an eatery should elicit such venom, C.A.F.E is the corporate average fuel economy. It’s a mileage figure that, as the name suggests, an auto manufacturer's vehicles are required to meet. It currently stands at the same place it's been since the first Die Hard movie, 27.5mpg.
As fuel prices increase substantially, consumers will turn to more fuel efficient vehicles on their own, with out congress legislating their personal choice right out the window. Witness the sales figures for hybrids, light trucks and SUVs so far this year. According to R.L Polk, the information source of record for all things vehicle related, sales of hybrid vehicles for Q1 2007 increased a healthy 31% over the same quarter of 2006, while new car dealers sat on a whopping 102 day supply of new Chevy Silverado pickups.
The proposed CAFE number is 40% higher than the existing standard by the year 2020. From the manufacturer's perspective, it's actually even higher as the current 27.5 mpg standard doesn't include trucks and SUVs, which are required to attain only 22mpg. The new standard makes no such distinctions, and so is even tougher to attain than it would first appear. In addition, beginning this year, the EPA milage figires are being revised to more closely reflect the kind of mileage you can expect, instead of the, uh, optimistic figures we’ve experienced in the past.
While it’s certainly well within reach, is this economy goal realistic? Who will pay to meet the new standards? You will, of course. There will be a price to be paid on the dealer's lot and possibly in safety, to meet the new standards. In addition, the healthy power output we've been enjoying from our new vehicles is sure to be reduced dramatically. For those of you that thought the high performance car was dead in 1979, you may be right this time around.
Our vehicles could get much better fuel economy right this minute, if that was the type of vehicle you, as consumers wanted to buy. One only needs to look at the average vehicle leaving the dealership these days to see that it would be no stretch to grab a few extra mpg without breaking a sweat. Two main predictors of fuel economy, horsepower and weight, are up substantially from 20 years ago. According to the U.S. DOT the average new car in 1978 weighed in at 2805 lbs. For model year 2004, the same figure jumped to 3235.
This, despite the growing use of materials such as carbon fiber, other lightweight materials, and computer optimized designs. Simultaneously, horsepower, that elixir of driving fun, rose from 3.43hp/100 lbs in 1981 to 5.54 in the 2004 model year. Without the effect of modern electronics and power plant design, fuel economy figures would be truly abysmal. It really says something that modern vehicles, using basically highly developed versions of 100 year old power plants, can be so laden with heavy options, yet perform as well as they do.
There is a definite safety cost to reducing vehicle weight. A study by the National Academy of Sciences indicated that the downsizing in vehicles in the 1970's and 1980's, likely caused between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle deaths in 1993. There have been substantial safety improvements since that time, ironically, given the tone of this post, many have been legislated. However, the reduction of weight will cause vehicle crashes to be more deadly. This will partially offset by the increased ability of a lighter vehicle to avoid crashes because of their greater agility and shorter stopping distances.
We can only hope the technologies required to meet these new fuel economy goals will be developed here, using American engineering talent. It will be a real shame if not only do we lose tens of thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs, we fail to capitalize on the opportunity to create new industries and technologies. Let’s hope we are not driving small, lethargic technological wonders we can not afford to pay for, developed by the growing cadre of “smart guys” working in the engineering firms of China and India. It's your money!