Switchboard, from NRDC › Luke Tonachel's Blog

U.S. DOT Proposes National Tire Efficiency Ratings and Labels

2009-06-18T20:12:59Z

The past week and a half have been noteworthy in the passenger car tire world. Last week, California proposed tire efficiency ratings and today the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a proposal for a national consumer information program with efficiency ratings and labels.

Both the state and federal proposals are designed to address the same concern: consumers lack information about which tires are more efficient. Armed with efficiency ratings, consumers can choose replacement tires that can cut the gasoline consumption of their current car, minivan, SUV or pickup and save money with fewer trips to the pump. If all automobile owners replaced their worn out tires with high-efficiency models, then the U.S. could save over $9.2 billion a year in fuel costs.

The California and NHTSA systems are complimentary. They both require tire manufacturers to report the same tire efficiency data (measured in rolling resistance), which is based on a common ISO test procedure. While California designates only the most efficient models as "fuel efficient tires," NHTSA shows a tire's efficiency along a continuous scale. As shown in the example below, NHTSA also combines the efficiency metric with data on traction and durability, which tire manufacturers already report to the agency.

It is important to note that tires can have excellent ratings in all three categories above: efficiency, safety and durability. The fictional tire rated above appears to be good in efficiency but not so good in the other two characteristics. Making tires that are superior in all aspects requires tire manufacturers to add technology and therefore cost to tire production. However, that additional cost, according to the National Academies of Science, is only about $8 for a set of four new tires, which can be paid back in a matter of months in fuel savings. A sound proposition for any car owner.

California Steps Toward First Tire Efficiency Ratings in U.S.; Federal Agency to Follow

2009-06-18T03:00:00Z

Last week, California proposed a new tire efficiency rating system based on a tire's energy consumption during driving. Under the system, efficiency information on all tires sold in the state is collected in a public database and the most efficient tires are classified as "Fuel Efficient Tires." The goal of the program is simple: give consumers reliable information about efficiency that can easily be part of their tire buying decision, along with traction, durability and other tire characteristics. For you, finding the most efficient tires that fit your car is straightforward because only the top performers receive the Fuel Efficient Tire designation. It's like ENERGY STAR® for your replacement treads.

Having a tire efficiency rating system is critical to making the use of fuel efficient tires widespread. You can't tell an efficient tire from an inefficient one just by looking at the tread pattern. Tire efficiency is a function of the rubber compounds in the tire (see my tire efficiency primer for more details). In the future--July 2011 is when the proposal requires tire manufacturers to report efficiency data to the State--you will be able to lookup on the Internet or ask a California dealer for the efficiency rating of any tire available for sale. The efficiency values will be based on an internationally standardized test procedure, which is expected to be finalized in October.

The rating system is designed to encourage manufacturer competition in efficiency. The Fuel Efficient Tire designation is reserved for tires that have an efficiency rating that is no more than 15% from the most efficient model of the same size and load rating. The most efficient tire--the Prius of its class, if you will--sets the bar, so an innovative tire maker that produces the top model can control which other models make the grade.

The next step to ensure that the tire market becomes more efficient is to adopt minimum efficiency performance standards for tires. Again, similar to standards for household appliances, efficiency standards on tires encourage on-going investments in innovations that will cut tire rolling resistance and, therefore, vehicle fuel consumption and emissions. Under California law (enacted through NRDC-sponsored legislation), the State's regulators are authorized to establish performance standards for tires, and the efficiency data collection and rating system being proposed provides a basis for setting the stringency of that standard.

California's leadership in tire efficiency can drive similar action nationally, and in fact, it already has. As other states considered adopting programs that mirror California's, the tire industry jumped to support a federal program that would preempt new tire regulations in other states. The federal program, which was passed under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directs U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop a tire efficiency consumer information program by the end of 2009. The NHTSA requirement, however, falls short of the California law because it fails to require minimum efficiency standards. NHTSA's proposal for a rating system is expected soon; it is currently in review at OMB.

California should act quickly to finalize their proposed rating system. Energy efficiency should become a new business for tire manufacturers across the industry ASAP. The tire industry will complain that the California program is too onerous and it may say the same of the federal requirements. It's time, however, for the tire manufacturers to provide efficiency data to the public just like appliance and car makers do today. Improved tire efficiency is a win for all: manufacturers can promote new, greener replacement tires (using solid data), drivers can save money at the pump and we all can benefit from reduced oil consumption and carbon pollution from our vehicles.

Tire Efficiency: How Your Car Can Cruise on Less Gas

2009-06-12T16:23:56Z

Did you know that some car tires are more efficient than others? It's true; some tires use less energy as they roll along the road and therefore make your car, minivan, SUV or pickup consume less gas. Fuel efficient tires can be designed to use less energy while being just as safe and lasting just as long as other, less efficient models. Therefore, they are a great way to save some money at the pump and cut our oil consumption and carbon pollution from cars and trucks.

This blog post is intended to be a primer on fuel efficient tires. In the near future, I will discuss state and federal policies which aim to improve tire efficiency in the market.

Replacement Tires Are the New Market for Efficiency

Fuel-efficient tires have been around for many years. Automakers seeking the least cost ways of complying with fuel economy standards and have relied upon the tire industry to provide tires that will reduce fuel consumption during CAFE tests. Typically, these tires were made only for sale on new vehicles (so-called 'original equipment tires'), so when you went to replace your new tires 3 or 4 years later, you were not able to buy the same, potentially more efficient model. Now, however, consumers are slowly getting more choices as fuel efficient models start to appear in the replacement tire market.

You Can Buy More Efficient Models Today

Michelin, Goodyear, and Bridgestone now offer tires positioned as more fuel efficient than other tires of similar size and load ratings. The challenge for consumers, however, is that the efficiency of the tires are measured according to proprietary methods, across different scales and with different labels that make comparing one brand to another nearly impossible. Fortunately, new government policies in California and the U.S. Department of Transportation are set to fix the information challenge (discussion reserved for future posts).

It's in the Rubber: Fuel Efficient Tires Cut Energy Losses with Improved Tire Materials

The technology to improve tire efficiency is in the rubber compounds that make up the tread and sidewalls. When you are driving along the road, tires must bend and deform to meet the flat contact patch on the road. After leaving the contact patch, the deformed section of tire will tend to return to its original shape. (This is similar to the reaction of a rubber band as it tries to return to its original size after being stretched around, say, a rolled-up newspaper.) However, repeated deformation of the tire as it rolls along the road inhibits the rubber's 'rebound' and the tire loses energy in the form of heat. Tire and rubber engineers discovered that new materials introduced into the sidewall and tread rubber compounds, such as silica or finely powdered recycled rubber, can reduce the energy losses. Furthermore, the rolling energy losses can be minimized while maintaining excellent road grip and tire life.

Fuel Efficient Tires Pay for Themselves in Fuel Savings

The energy losses in a tire that act to slow a moving vehicle (and cause it to consume more fuel) are referred to the tire's rolling resistance. Technically, the rolling resistance is defined as energy consumed by the tire per unit of distance. Lower rolling resistance values correspond to lower energy losses and lower fuel consumption. According a study by the National Academies of Science, a 10 percent reduction in rolling resistance can increase fuel economy by 1-2 percent. Among the replacement tires available on the market today, rolling resistance varies by more than 20 percent, which can affect fuel economy by as much as 4 percent. The extra cost of producing a set of four fuel efficient tires is about $8. If using fuel efficient tires improves your car's fuel economy by just 2 percent, you would recoup that $8 investment in just over 3 months, assuming a gas price of $2.50/gallon. Over a typical tire life of 3 ½ years, you would save over $100 in gasoline expenditures.

A National Fuel Efficient Tire Program Can Deliver Large Oil Savings and Reductions in Global Warming Pollution

A national tire efficiency program that uniformly rates and labels tires and that establishes minimum tire efficiency standards could save over 240,000 barrels of oil each day. That's more oil than the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates could be pumped out of the Arctic Refuge before 2020. If replacement tires improved fuel economy by four percent--an achievable goal considering the range of efficiencies in today's replacement tire market and the fact that tire companies are just starting to innovate in this market--then the tire industry would help cut U.S. global warming pollution by over 42 million metric tons and save drivers over $9.2 billion in gasoline at the pump each year. Fuel efficient tires are good for consumers, good for the environment and good for national security.

Clean Energy Cities Could Make the GM/Segway and Bicyclists Flourish

2009-04-07T20:02:51Z

If the GM/Segway P.U.M.A. (Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility) vehicle were zipping around my neighborhood right now, I would expect to see it in the bicycle lane on 6th Avenue. The experimental two-seat electric vehicle isn't ready to join cars and trucks on the roads of today, but with proper urban planning, we could open the roads to new modes of personal mobility and dramatically cut oil use and global warming pollution.

From my office in New York City, I can see just a slice of 6th Ave but it is enough to catch the multitude of different road users navigating traffic. Occasionally, I cringe as I see a cyclist swerve out of the bike lane into the crowded street to get around a delivery truck pulling up to the curb. Pedicabs drivers, piloting their 3-wheeled taxi bikes, join the fray to bring business folks and tourists to their next appointments.

A clean energy city of the future would also be full of ways for people to travel (faster than their feet will carry them). Public transit buses and rail, bicycles, pedicabs, Segways, and cars powered by electricity and/or sustainable biofuels could all be part of the mix. The modes, however, travel at different speeds and come in different sizes and shapes, so having roads with safe and efficient routes for all users is key.

Congress should give regional and city planners an incentive to plan cities in ways that maximize clean energy and carbon reductions. As I mentioned here, the draft legislation introduced last week by Congressmen Waxman and Markey includes a provision to reset the way we plan our cities, focusing more on low-carbon community development and alternatives to driving. It all starts with setting carbon reduction goals; then, with a target to achieve, regions execute their development plans while leveraging intelligent transportation information technology and clean vehicle technology (human-powered as well as motorized) to provide safe, convenient, low-cost and low-carbon mobility. Regions can choose how to meet their targets, but federal funding for their efforts should be tied to their success in meeting carbon reduction targets.

Along with the climate bill, the upcoming federal transportation bill offers another opportunity to get the planning (and distribution of funds) right.

Who knows, with proper planning, quiet Segways and bikes may become the transportation mode of choice in cities.

------------

Note: Photo from Segway link above.

Waxman-Markey: Putting America on the Road to a Clean Energy Transportation Future

2009-04-06T20:08:00Z

The transportation sector is second largest source of global warming pollution in the US (contributing about a third of total emissions) and it consumes two-thirds of our daily oil demand. Those two facts make it essential to act now to put transportation on a cleaner road, and that road is outlined in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposed by Congressmen Waxman and Markey last week.

To cut oil consumption and emissions in the transportation sector, we must tackle both supply and demand. The Waxman-Markey draft includes standards to make our cars, trucks, trains and planes cleaner and more efficient. It encourages alternatives to driving, like transit and bikeways, requires the oil industry begin shifting to clean fuels, and directs EPA to set standards for motor vehicles while protecting California's authority to set its own greenhouse gas motor vehicle standards. Critically, in order to ensure this country can meet its global warming pollution reduction targets in the most cost-effective manner possible, the draft also puts transportation fuels under the economy-wide cap.

Let's walk through the transportation-related sections of the draft:

Cap Carbon, Drive Innovation with Performance Standards

An overarching principle of effective carbon legislation is to assign a declining cap to as much of the economy-wide emissions as possible. Therefore, transportation sector emissions must be included. The Waxman-Markey draft uses an approach consistent with recommendations of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) that requires refiners and importers of transportation fuel (including gasoline, diesel, jet and marine fuel) to hold allowances for the carbon emitted when the fuel is burned in a vehicle or vessel. Fuel refineries, since they are large stationary sources of pollution, must also hold allowances for the global warming emissions released during refining. This means that the cap covers both the upstream emissions associated with fuel production and the downstream emissions from fuel use.

As explained in a previous post, the cap on transportation emissions will ensure that this sector joins the other major polluters in taking responsibility for cutting global warming pollution in compliance with national reductions targets. The price signal at the pump from the cap, however, may not be enough on its own in the early years to spur meaningful change in a sector that has grown accustomed to cheap oil, inefficient vehicles and expansive roads for nearly 100 years. For this reason, the cap must be accompanied by complementary standards and incentives to drive innovation in and deployment of cleaner technologies.

Clean Fuels Standard

As one such policy, Section 121 of the Waxman-Markey draft establishes a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to discourage unsustainable, high-carbon fuels and introduce cleaner ones into the market. The LCFS covers fuels that go into motor vehicles designed for road and nonroad use as well as aircraft. The draft gives EPA discretion to include marine fuels as well. The LCFS requires transportation fuel emissions intensity (e.g. grams of CO2-eq/MBtu) to decline by 5% in 2023 and 10% in 2030.

Before 2023, the standard supplements the existing renewable fuels standard (RFS) by introducing a requirement that prevents increases in the carbon intensity of the non-renewable component of fuels over 2005 baseline levels. This provides a powerful disincentive against investments in dirty fuel supplies such as tar sands, oil shale and coal liquids.

Importantly, the draft also defines what type of biomass will comply under the program to safeguard against the indiscriminate harvesting of forest lands for biofuel production. These safeguards reinforce and extend current safeguards in the existing RFS. The LCFS also extends the requirement of the RFS to include indirect land use considerations in the measurement of a fuel's greenhouse gas intensity.

Clean Vehicle Standards

Passenger Cars: In Section 221, the draft bill directs the President to use existing statutory authority to set vehicle performance standards for light-duty vehicles, to the extent practicable harmonizing fuel economy standards set by NHTSA and greenhouse gas emissions standards set by EPA and California. Standards have to achieve at least as much emissions reductions as would be achieved under a national implementation of California's stringency targets (my colleague Roland Hwang provides an example of how to this can be done). Furthermore, the draft preserves California's authority to continue to set its own emission standards for motor vehicles.

Trucks, Trains, Ships and Planes: Section 221 also requires the EPA to set greenhouse gas standards for new heavy-duty vehicles by the end of 2010, and for new marine vessels, locomotives and aircraft by the end of 2012. Standards for all vehicles "shall achieve the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable based on the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available at the time such standards take effect, taking into consideration cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such technology." Also credits can be generated for going beyond standards and those credits can be traded across mobile source categories.

Regional Planning Standards

The Waxman-Markey draft bill adopts a new paradigm for funding regional transportation planning that would boost public transit and other alternatives to driving. Passenger car travel makes up the bulk of transportation emissions and oil use, and curbing vehicle-miles-traveled, or VMT, is crucial to cleaning up the sector. Historically, about 80 percent of transportation funding has gone to road building, which encourages passenger car usage and sprawling development. As NRDC's Deron Lovaas points out, President Obama is focused on making a change and recently commented, "I think right now we don't do a lot of effective planning at the regional level when it comes to transportation. That's hugely inefficient..."

The draft bill (section 222) adopts language from Congresswoman Matsui's Smart Planning for Smart Growth Act of 2009 (H.R. 1780), which changes the direction of planning and investment by:

Requiring that regions set greenhouse gas emission reduction goals;
Requiring the establishment of standard models and methods for measuring progress;
Investing in public transportation, technology and other measures to reduce emissions;
Making regional plans available to the public via the internet; and
Authorizing a competitive grant program for regions implementing these plans.

Combined, these commonsense requirements make a sound foundation to design a program that reduces greenhouse gas pollution from transportation and land use patterns.

Provide Incentives to Overcome Market Barriers and Stimulate the Economy

Incentives can encourage a more rapid adoption of energy efficient technologies than standards alone, expediting the transformation of our entrenched transportation infrastructure and creating new jobs. Nearly 100 years of driving on cheap oil has created an infrastructure tied to the internal combustion engine. Clean mobility in the future will be across multiple modes and increasingly powered by efficient electric drivetrains. The Waxman-Markey bill establishes programs to start deploying advanced plug-in electric-drive vehicles.

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Vehicle electrification holds significant potential to minimize oil consumption and global warming pollution. This fundamentally different transportation system will require equally new ways to refuel our vehicles, regulate fuel supply, and invest in infrastructure. Thus, in Section 122, the draft bill directs electric utilities to begin planning the supporting infrastructure for electric drive vehicles. Utility plans will include ways to support a large fleet of electric vehicles such as charging stations and battery exchanges.

The components of our new electric transportation system must interact seamlessly. Careful planning will ensure compatibility between emerging vehicle and grid technologies. Towards this end, the bill requires utility infrastructure plans to achieve interoperability between new vehicle technologies and new grid technologies to the greatest extent possible. Utilities and regulatory authorities must establish protocols and standards for integrating plug-in vehicles into the electrical distribution system including a smart grid. This will include vehicle identification so that a vehicle owner can purchase electricity for fuel regardless of location. Cost recovery is left to the discretion of state regulatory authorities.

Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Program

Despite their many benefits, plug-in vehicles are subject to market barriers such as upfront costs. Section 123 addresses this problem by providing regional large scale deployment programs for electric-drive vehicles. The deployment program actually serves several purposes at once. It introduces advanced vehicles into the market but also collects information to control the integration of plug-ins with existing and new infrastructure. For instance, the deployment program will collect and disseminate best practices across different regulatory environments and it will address electrical system performance and demonstrate protocols to facilitate vehicle and grid integration.

State and local governments can apply for deployment funds and may apply jointly with electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, technology providers, car sharing companies, and other entities. Funds may be used to offer plug-in purchase incentives, install electric charging stations for plug-in electric vehicles, establish battery exchanges, or pay for smart grid or infrastructure investments that integrate plug-in vehicles with the grid.

Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Manufacturing

Existing fuel economy regulations are essential to keeping vehicle technology aligned with the nation's need to reduce global warming pollution and oil consumption. But they are also interim steps that can be met with conventional technologies. Significant long term emissions reductions will require unconventional technologies that sharply break with today's. Even so, technology deployment is inherently risky. It poses significant upfront costs which some manufacturers are reluctant to incur. In Section 124, the Waxman-Markey bill addresses this by defraying the costs of electric drive vehicle manufacturing investments.

The bill provides incentives for automobile manufactures to retool their facilities so that they can build plug-in electric-drive vehicles that are produced in the United States. The incentive would also help plug-in manufacturers purchase domestically produced vehicle batteries for their final products. The program is needs-based: the applicant must demonstrate that without the incentive, it would be unable to reasonable finance plant retooling or vehicle batteries.

Passenger Transport and Goods Movement

Section 223 of the draft bill authorizes continued operation of the EPA's SmartWay program to promote energy efficient technologies in passenger transport and goods movement. SmartWay provides financing to upgrade existing heavy truck stock with technologies that improve fuel economy, reduce idling fuel consumption and cut criteria and global warming emissions. The program also promotes operational changes that can reduce truck mileage. SmartWay is also expanded to compile a database of the nation's truck fleet characteristics and emissions performance, a task previously managed under the Census that has not been updated since 2002.

The Waxman-Markey draft houses the essential elements of a bill to promote clean transportation (essential elements are also described in NRDC's transportation policy brief here). The draft includes fuels in the cap and establishes performance standards to push innovation. We don't have time to wait when it comes to cutting our oil dependence and solving global warming, so incentives for clean technologies, such as vehicle electrification and the production of sustainable, low carbon liquid fuels, are key for kick-starting the transition. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the draft bill provisions.

Fuels Emissions Cap and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Are Key Parts of House Climate Proposal

2009-04-01T13:11:42Z

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed essential policies for cleaning up our fuel supply and reducing our dependence on oil. The proposal includes transportation fuels under an economy-wide cap and establishes a complementary, performance-based low carbon fuel standard.

The cap on emissions is crucial to ensuring that we achieve reductions in global warming pollution from the transportation sector. Other policies, such as CAFE and emissions standards, are intensity-based, meaning they reduce emissions per unit of use (e.g. grams CO2e/mile). If fuel use increases due to more driving, total emissions can still increase without a cap. Transportation fuels are responsible for nearly one-third of US global warming pollution, so they must be included in an economy-wide cap if we are going to hit our 2050 emission reduction targets. Including transportation fuels in the cap also increases the size of the allowance trading market and promotes easier access to the most cost-effective reductions first.

Performance standards, such as minimum fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles or a low carbon standard for fuel, are a critical complement to the cap because they drive low-carbon innovation beyond what might occur with a price signal alone. We are largely inelastic consumers of transportation fuel, meaning that our driving distances do not change much, if at all, with small changes in the price of fuel. Under a carbon cap, the price signal at the pump (about 18 cents/gallon at $20/ton of CO2e) will likely be insufficient to change our driving habits, the efficiency of vehicles produced or our choice of cars. Performance standards overcome the market barriers to innovation in the transportation sector.

A low carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, is a full-fuel-cycle emission intensity standard (e.g., grams of CO2-eq/Mbtu of fuels) on the entire mix of transportation fuels sold. Gradually decreasing the intensity standard forces a shift in the fuel pool toward cleaner fuels such as electricity and sustainable biofuels. Since it is technology-neutral, the LCFS encourages greater deployment (by fuel providers) of all low carbon alternatives to petroleum, which powers about 97% of our transportation.

The standard also discourages large, long-lived investments in high-carbon dirty fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale. Since the whole fuel pool must decrease in carbon intensity, adding high-carbon fuels to the mix makes it harder for fuel providers to comply and dirty fuel investments don't hold up to financial scrutiny.

Accurate accounting is an important requirement of the LCFS. It must account for emissions that occur during fuel production both nationally and internationally. These include tar sands development in Canada, where upstream fuel production emissions can be three times that of conventional gasoline. The LCFS must also account for indirect land use change emissions, which occur when US land previously dedicated to food is switched to energy crops and the displaced food is instead grown internationally by cultivating land that previously stored vast amounts of carbon.

By including both fuels in the cap and an LCFS, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 released yesterday establishes a framework that can dramatically cut global warming pollution from transportation fuels.

Higher Fuel Economy for 1 Year Gives Administration Opportunity to Set the Next 5 Years Right

2009-03-27T20:00:11Z

Today, the Obama Administration finalized fuel economy standards for model year 2011 cars and light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans, and pickups. This is a step in a process that could make the vehicles we drive each day dramatically cleaner. The big step comes with setting greenhouse gas and CAFE standards for model years 2012-2016, and the Administration has a huge opportunity to do them right.

In January, President Obama acknowledged deficiencies in the fuel economy proposal left over from the Bush administration for model years 2011 through 2015. The President requested finalization of just 2011--he had to meet a statutory deadline to give automakers at least 18 months of lead time before MY2011 production starts in October 2010--and he called for a thorough review of the process for setting future year standards.

NHTSA stated its commitment to a thorough review in today's final rule:

The deferral of action on the CAFE standards for the years after MY 2011 provides the agency with an opportunity to review its approach to CAFE standard setting, including its methodologies, economic and technological inputs, and decisionmaking criteria. It is reasonable to anticipate that this process may lead to changes, given the further review and analysis that will be conducted pursuant to the President's request, and given the steady and potentially substantial evolution in technical and policy factors relevant to the next CAFE rulemaking. These factors include, but are not limited to, energy and climate change needs and policy choices regarding goals and approaches to achieving them, developments in domestic legislation and international negotiations regarding those goals and approaches, the financial health of the industry, technologies for reducing fuel consumption, fuel prices, and climate change science and damage evaluation.

That process will take NHTSA another year or more. Before that, however, there are two other important steps the Administration needs to take. First, the Administration needs to grant California the right to enforce its greenhouse gas emission standards, a decision due before the end of June. Second, the Administration needs to make the long-overdue determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, pursuant to the Supreme Court's landmark global warming ruling of April 2007, and then to set federal greenhouse gas standards that equal or exceed California's.

Cost-effective technologies are available to meet the more stringent levels set by California, and more aggressive national GHG and mileage standards will result in greater oil savings and reductions in global warming pollution then simply reaching the Congressional minimum of 35 mpg in 2020. Recent analysis by NRDC's Roland Hwang shows that a national implementation of the California's standard would be equivalent to CAFE at 33.7 mpg in 2015, which would place the US on a trajectory to far surpass 35 mpg in 2020.

As I've said before, the opportunity is here for putting the transportation sector on a road to dramatically cleaner and less oil dependent future. The next moves by the Administration really count.

President Obama's Electric Ride

2009-03-20T16:25:24Z

When I heard that President Obama was going to visit Southern California Edison's Electric Vehicle Test Center, I pictured him behind the wheel of a plug-in vehicle with a big smile on his face. He'd step on the accelerator, feel the instant power to the wheels inherent with electric motors and know that he was driving a clean, quiet, and oil-free machine. Plug-in vehicles are not just about fun, though; the President knows that they are an essential part of our clean energy future.

The President's energy agenda calls for putting a million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015 and he and Congress have put forth funding to reach this goal. He announced $2.4 billion to put Americans to work on building the batteries and plug-in vehicle components and purchasers of plug-in vehicles are eligible for tax credits of up to $7,500, applicable to the first 200,000 vehicles sold from a manufacturer.

Over the next two years, we can expect rollouts of plug-in offerings such as the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius plug-in, Mitsubishi iMiEV, and upstarts like the Tesla Roadster, which is already being sold. Following in 2012 is the Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid, which is being tested at SCE's center.

Ramping up US production of plug-in vehicle components is critical for making the US a leader in clean vehicles production and strengthening jobs in the US auto industry. The President highlighted initial funding made available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but future, on-going investment in advanced vehicles--as well as smart growth and clean, renewable fuels--can be provided through global warming legislation that caps emissions and auctions allowances. Get lots more detail here.

Apparently the President didn't test drive some of the cars of the near future during his recent trip as I had envisioned, but he did work to steer transportation in the right direction. Serious action to deal with climate change is an integral part of that new road to a new energy economy. And plug-in vehicles will allow us all to have good, clean fun along the way.

Obama’s Clean Energy Vision for Transportation

2009-02-25T20:09:57Z

In his speech to the nation last night, President Obama connected the dots between a healthy, vibrant economy and clean energy. He pointed out that our oil dependence continues to gravely threaten our security and economy, that our ill auto industry -- which supplies millions of jobs -- must produce fuel-efficient vehicles to be a viable industry and that we must deploy clean energy to avoid the "ravages of climate change." In other words, dramatically cutting our use of oil will strengthen our economy and safeguard our environment.

For nearly 100 years, the United States has operated its transportation system with primarily one fuel: oil. As a result, the transportation sector is now the second largest source of U.S. global warming pollution, contributing 28 percent of all emissions. The total amount of transportation emissions is the product of three major factors: the carbon intensity of the fuels used, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet, and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). To solve global warming and kick the oil habit cost-effectively, we need policies that address all three areas.

President Obama calls for "cap on carbon pollution." A cap that declines over time is vital to ensure that we reach the low emission levels (an 80% reduction from current levels by 2050) necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. The cap should cover all sectors of the economy including transportation fuels.

Coupled with the cap must be performance-based standards that overcome obstacles to innovation. Unfortunately, in the transportation sector, a cap-driven carbon price is insufficient to achieve needed reductions (at $45/metric ton of CO2, gas prices climb about 40 cents). President Obama's energy plan calls for putting one million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. However, these vehicles will not come to market in large enough numbers without the clear requirements of fuel economy and emissions standards; they should at least equivalent to California standards implemented nationally in the near-term and becoming more stringent over time.

Similarly, Congress should enact performance standards on fuels that shift us away from oil and other dirty, high carbon alternatives (like tar sands) toward clean, low carbon biofuels and electricity. A low carbon fuel standard is an essential policy for the new energy economy and should include the fuels for our cars and trucks as well as aviation and marine fuels.

Congress should also require performance standards for regional planning. Federal investments in regional transportation infrastructure, housing and commercial development should be tied to plans that achieve reductions in global warming pollution. A new California law (S.B. 375) provides the policy framework and encourages development that gives people more transportation choices such as mass transit, safe pedestrian and bike ways and more livable communities near work and stores.

We must invest in clean energy to revive our economy and keep it strong. President Obama proposes $15 billion a year to develop and deploy big-change technologies such as advanced vehicle batteries, sustainable biofuels and wide-spread transit infrastructure. An economy-wide emissions cap provides the funding and performance standards drive innovation needed for the clean energy economy. The opportunity is in front of us.

Obama Administration Should Strengthen Fuel Economy Standards

2009-01-07T20:19:33Z

Today, the Bush Administration announced that it will not issue final fuel economy standards for automobiles, leaving approval to President-elect Obama's administration. This gives the Obama administration an opportunity to move quickly under the nation's clean air and energy laws to raise fuel economy and cut heat-trapping pollution from new cars and trucks.

The fuel economy standards, originally proposed last May, were weak and missed a major opportunity to save consumers money at the pump and to make the American car companies more competitive in the near future.

In a brief statement, the Department of Transportation said "recent financial difficulties of the automobile industry will require the next administration to conduct a thorough review of matters affecting the industry, including how to effectively implement the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)." The Obama administration should certainly take a closer look at the proposed standards and strengthen them. Automakers have already developed plans to not only meet the proposed standards but go beyond.

In their request for emergency government loans, General Motors and Ford provided production plans to show they would use the money to make more fuel-efficient vehicles that consumers are craving. NRDC analysis compiled by my colleague Roland Hwang shows that the plans not only hit proposed corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) targets, but also demonstrate that GM and Ford can meet the more stringent California greenhouse gas standards.

In a world of insecure and volatile oil markets and intensifying global warming, we must move aggressively to clean up our cars and trucks. We can't rely on gas prices alone to determine what kind of choices drivers will get in the showroom.

Importantly, President-elect Barack Obama has acknowledged that it is time to stop reliance on oil prices alone to drive changes in oil consumption. On 60 Minutes he put it this way:

You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it.

I couldn't agree more and I recommend that the Obama administration strengthen CAFE and make it at least equivalent to CA's standards. Stronger standards will benefit drivers, protect jobs in the flagging auto industry and help put America on a faster path to cleaner, more secure transportation.

Driving Quietly: Testing the Cars of the Future

2008-10-01T17:36:32Z

Last Friday, I was invited to the Consumer Reports test track to drive some of the cars of the future. It wasn't a typical test scene - no revving engines or the odor of petroleum. With the exception of the patter of rain drops, it was quiet. Sure, the cars were running but primarily on electricity.

Take, for example, the Ford Escape Flex-fuel Plug-in Hybrid (a bit of a mouthful, I know). As I started driving it around the track, I noticed a dashboard display with 'Engine Off'; I was quietly cruising on just the electric motor powered by a 10 kWh battery. I goosed the 'gas' pedal and got to about 30 mph before the engine started and seamlessly blended-in power to the wheels. Ford is already testing a fleet of these cars and expects to have them available to customers in the next few years.

I also drove around in the Nissan's entry into the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle world, the X-Trail FCV (Honda's FCX Clarity was also there). The X-Trail is not close to hitting the showrooms, but it definitely drove like a real car.

As my colleague Roland Hwang points out in the NY Times, there are three horses in the race to replace gasoline: electricity, hydrogen and biofuels. Cars driven by electricity and hydrogen have the same efficient and quiet drivetrain: the wheels of the vehicle are driven by an electric motor. The two cars differ in their source of electricity with plug-ins using a battery charged from an electrical outlet and fuel cells using a tank of hydrogen and fuel cell stack to create electricity. The flex-fuel plug-in Escape brings in the third element to a basically petroleum-free car. When driving demands call for extra power or a range that goes beyond the storage capacity of the battery, the engine can be fueled by sustainably-produced biofuels.

Also on display were some very near-term fuel-saving technologies that will show up in model year 2009 vehicles. Ford showed off their EcoBoost, which combines gasoline direct injection engine with turbocharging to allow smaller, more-efficient engines to operate with the same power performance as larger, thirstier predecessors. EcoBoost is an example of a host of technologies available today, such as high-speed transmissions and electric auxiliaries, that can dramatically improve conventional vehicle fuel economy. Using off-the-shelf technology, we could have a new fleet of cars and trucks that averages 35 mpg by 2015 instead of the 25 mpg of today.

My day at the track was completed with a Michael J. Fox reenactment of Back to the Future. No need to trigger the flux capacitor, though. This DeLorean drives on electricity-just like our future.

Clean Energy Saves Americans Money

2008-09-17T19:58:42Z

Efficiency and other clean energy measures are sound investments for the near and long-term. I realize right now that it's hard to believe that sound investments exist. The financial center at Wall Street seems to be crumbling with the news that Lehman Brothers is bankrupt, Merrill Lynch sells itself off and AIG is bailed out by the Feds. Oh and don't forget that the government just took over control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae too. Despite the bad news, however, some recent NRDC analysis reinforces that fact that clean energy is a safe bet.

Take, for example, insulating the walls of an old house to cut energy consumption: it is a no-brainer because it saves money.

Like many people in the Northeast, a buddy of mine heats his home in New York with fuel oil. With high fuel prices, he was looking at some scary heating bills this coming winter, so I recently helped him tighten up his home by blowing cellulose insulation into the walls. Over a weekend, we rented the necessary equipment, bought the cellulose (chopped up recycled newspapers) and got it done. It was a very small price to pay for the benefit of lower heating bills for years to come.

Home retrofitting is just one of many clean energy measures that save money while cutting oil consumption. Other examples include improved fuel economy of new passenger vehicles and heavy trucks; retrofits, like energy-saving low rolling resistance tires, for cars and heavy trucks on the road; smart growth and transit investments; and advanced biofuels production. Collectively, we can save 10 million barrels per day with these measures, or 11 times more oil than can be drilled from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and protected offshore areas.

How much money can these measures save? Let's look at it from the perspective of what it will cost to buy oil in 2030, according to the Department of Energy. For Figure 1 below, we calculated the net cost to the economy as the present value of the cost of clean energy technologies minus the future fuel savings in 2030. With each clean energy measure, the fuel savings outweigh the incremental costs and save Americans money. Furthermore, investments in clean energy made with American ingenuity is money that stays here in the U.S. In contrast, without clean energy measures, Americans will continue to drain their wallets for oil at a cost set by a worldwide oil market price.

More details are available here.

The majority of proposals being debated in Congress these days are heavily weighted toward approaches that are not only costly to Americans but are also dirtier. Calls to increase fossil-derived oil supplies by drilling in some of our nation's most pristine environments and converting coal and shale into dirty transportation fuels will spoil landscapes, threaten ocean life, ravage water supplies and pollute the air.

Clean energy cuts transportation fuel use and therefore avoids the environmental damage inherent in oil exploration and production and liquid coal and shale oil development. By cutting fuel use, clean energy reduces emissions of global warming pollution as shown in Figure 2. Dirty fuels, especially liquid coal and oil shale, actually increase the global warming emissions compared to today's gasoline. In fact, liquid coal emits nearly double the global warming pollution, and oil shale more than twice as much, compared to today's conventional gasoline on a full fuel-cycle basis.

Politicians pushing proposals for more drilling and dirty oil supplies by saying that they will help us deal with high gas prices are blowing smoke. I'll stick with blowing cellulose; it's a clean energy solution that will surely help us get off oil and save money.

Clean Energy: 9 Million More Barrels Each Day than Drilling

2008-09-08T15:53:09Z

The more I look, the more oil savings I find. My latest investigation continues to cast serious doubt on the advice of drilling advocates by turning up 11 times more oil in 2030 than we could extract from the Arctic Refuge and protected areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It turns out that we don’t have to look far for more oil; we must simply improve the way we use energy today.

Over the next two decades, we could save nearly 10 million of barrels of oil each day (mbd) by seeking out efficiency opportunities throughout our economy. For comparison, the U.S. currently imports about 10 mbd. Better cars, buildings, communities, and fuels would save about 9 million more barrels each day than we could get from drilling. Previously, I compared how setting cost-effective fuel economy standards for passenger cars produced before 2015 would save more oil than the Department of Energy (DOE) projects would come from OCS drilling. The gap between savings (which put money in your pocket) and new supply (which you would have to buy at the current price of oil) only grows when you consider other forms of clean energy such as electricity for powering cars, sustainably-grown biofuels, mass transit, and efficiency measures for heavy trucks, air travel and oil-heated buildings. In fact the sheer volume of possible savings suggests that before we go searching for more oil, we should ensure that our economy can use it efficiently.

Below is a list of realistic measures that can produce these savings (also available in .pdf here):

Saving 10 Million Barrels of Oil Per Day in 2030

Measure	Description
Higher Fuel Economy for New Cars and Light-Duty Trucks	Implement fuel economy standards as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), using realistic assumptions to determine feasibility. Continue to increase fuel economy so that new cars and light trucks achieve a fleetwide average of at least 42 miles per gallon in 2020 and at least 55 mpg by 2030.
Improved Fuel Economy of On-road Vehicle Fleet	Improve fuel economy of on-road fleet of cars and light trucks by 4 percent through low rolling resistance tires, tire inflation, and fuel-efficient motor oil.
Improved Fuel Economy for New and On-road Heavy-duty Trucks	Implement fuel economy standards as authorized by EISA 2007 to increase fuel economy of new medium- and heavy-duty trucks by at least 40 percent by 2030. Retrofit tractor trailer stock with fuel-efficient EPA SmartWay technologies such as trailer aerodynamic improvements, single-wide tires, and idling reduction equipment by 2014.
Building Efficiency	Retrofit oil-heated homes and commercial buildings to cut fuel consumption by 50 percent.
Advanced Biofuels	Produce 47 billion gallons of sustainable ethanol and 2 billion gallons of renewable diesel per year by 2030.
Air Travel Improvements	Improve fuel consumption per revenue mile by 1 percent per year from 2009-2012, then at least maintain efficiency levels.
Smart Growth and Transit	Keep per capita vehicle miles traveled at today’s levels through smart community planning and development and investments in public transit. Maintaining per capita mileage results in a 21 percent reduction from 2030 forecasts.
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars	Promote plug-in hybrid electric vehicles so that 8 percent of vehicle miles traveled are powered by electricity by 2030.

Drilling will never be an answer because the costs outweigh the benefits. Drilling spoils and pollutes our pristine landscapes and beaches. It disrupts sensitive ecosystems, releases toxins and brings carbon from deep in the earth into the atmosphere as heat-trapping global warming pollution. And it does this while offering basically zero financial advantage to consumers. In their analysis, DOE, for instance, doesn’t even bother quantifying the benefits of offshore drilling. Instead, DOE finds that the price impacts are “insignificant.”

By contrast, clean energy’s advantages are huge. Clean energy avoids oil consumption and all of its baggage like pollution, climate change, price volatility and dependency. Furthermore, clean energy saves you money because you buy less oil than now. Clean energy requires the manufacturing of new technologies, which can jumpstart flagging industries at home. And because the clean energy measures that we’ve identified are cost-effective, their use results in a net economic benefit to consumers and society. Drilling simply doesn’t.

Drilling is Not the Answer: Save Oil FASTER with Realistic Car Fuel Economy Standards

2008-07-15T03:49:59Z

Earlier today, President Bush announced the lifting of an Executive Branch ban on drilling in protected areas off our coasts. In an accompanying White House document, the Administration acknowledged that drilling will take a long time to produce any oil; in fact, even if Congress lifted the moratorium today, it would be about a decade before crude would start to flow. On the other hand, setting realistic fuel economy standards for our cars and trucks would save more oil faster than we could drill from the new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

According to the Department of Energy’s analysis, at peak production in 2025 the offshore areas currently under the moratorium could produce about 220,000 barrels per day. Compare that to saving over 300,000 barrels per day starting five years earlier in 2020. The 300,000 barrels per day savings come from instituting new vehicle fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon for model year 2015 instead of model year 2020.

When Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, it required that new vehicle fuel economy reach at least 35 mpg by 2020. Between now and 2020, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is charged with setting “maximum feasible” efficiency levels. However, as I discussed here, the agency failed in its first attempt to set standards up to model year 2015. Their primary mistake was to assume an unrealistically low gasoline price forecast, which reached only $2.42/gallon in 2016. As part of their analysis, NHTSA modeled a higher—but still unreasonably low—price forecast that reached $3.14/gallon in 2016; in this scenario the agency demonstrated that the new vehicle fleet could reach an average of 35 mpg starting in model year 2015 using existing, cost-effective technologies.

I compared the oil savings achieved with a standard that reaches 35 mpg in 2015 vs. 2020 and found over 300,000 barrels per day would be saved with the earlier implementation. Simple, right? Just use realistic price assumptions and the Administration can save drivers money at the pump long before drilling produces a drop.

And that’s just the beginning. As described here, efficiency and other clean energy oil savings easily trump drilling production beyond 2020. Clean energy solutions are simply the best way to provide lasting relief to American consumers.

As gas prices continue to skyrocket, Administration should stop dragging its feet on fuel economy standards

2008-07-01T22:24:52Z

As millions of Americans prepare to travel for the 4th of July holiday and as millions more stay home because they can’t afford skyrocketing gas prices, the Bush Administration is dragging its feet on increasing fuel economy standards while consumers pay the price.

Today is the deadline for public comments on the government’s proposed new rules to increase fuel economy standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is required to implement the fuel economy standards that Congress passed last year at the maximum feasible levels. Yet instead, they are undervaluing the price of oil and lowballing the American people.

The agency is forecasting that fuel will cost $2.42 a gallon by 2016, which most consumers would find laughable when considering the average of $4.09 a gallon they pay today. The agency is trying to justify weaker fuel economy standards, by severely underestimating the price of fuel.

Strong fuel economy standards are critical to helping consumers lower fuel costs, reducing our dependence on oil and curbing global warming pollution. Not only is it possible, but necessary to raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2015. Automakers have the technology, they just need to put it to use. By reaching the minimum standard of 35 miles per gallon fleetwide by 2015, NRDC estimates that the U.S. would conserve 3 billion barrels of oil.

Cumulative Oil Savings in 2020

This 4th of July, the President should help make America more energy independent and save consumers money by taking high gas prices into account and raising fuel economy standards even higher.