NYT: Fuel Economy Plan Bypasses CA (& other blue sts?) to Help Out Detroit

[DeepModem Mom]

Fuel Economy Plan Bypasses California to Help Out Detroit
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: August 25, 2005


The silver Lincoln Navigator used Tuesday by Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta to travel to a news conference at a Los Angeles Mobil station would cost $78 to fill up. With regular, that is. Premium gas at the station goes for $3 a gallon, so replenishing the vehicle's 28-gallon tank could cost as much as $84.

The secretary said a sweeping fuel economy proposal unveiled Tuesday by the Bush administration would lower gas bills for sport utility vehicles like the Navigator and other trucks. It would save $800 million to $1.3 billion over nearly two decades when the higher upfront costs for more efficient vehicles are included.

But the plan conflicts with air quality rules passed by California. The administration supports legal efforts by automakers to turn back the rules, which sharply curb tailpipe emissions of global-warming gases.

Because such emissions are related to how much gas a vehicle uses, California's rules would save far more at the pump for the state's residents than the White House plan. That would also be the case in states in the Northeast and Northwest that follow, or plan to follow, California's car rules. For California alone, the state projects annual net gas savings of more than $1 billion by early next decade.

The competing federal and state proposals use similarly low projections for gas prices - just over $1.50 in the administration's proposal - that environmentalists say woefully understate the potential benefits of fuel efficiency....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/business/25place.html?oref=login

[Hobarticus]

1. So, can states levy fines against in-state dealers for selling vehicles

that don't comply with their state's MPG requirements?

[krkaufman]

2. $1.50 per gallon is the price estimate? What nonsense.

Have the frickin' idgits ever used a spreadsheet?

[n2doc]

3. so much for state's rights

And I am so friggin' tired of the propaganda of how increased fuel standards woud "hurt Detroit". The only groups that increased fuel econ would hurt are the oil companies and oil producers. Period. The short term costs in R and D would be paid back many times in increased sales, better environmental conditions and less imprtation of oil. If the big 3 were forced (and I think that this is the only way, given their resistance to hybrids) to produce cars and suv's with increased economy, people would be falling over themselves to upgrade from their old guzzlers. Does anyone really think that people will go "boy I sure wish I could be spending 50-80 bucks every couple of days on gas! I think I will hold onto my 10 year old SUV because it has that big , inefficient engine"??? The stupidity, narromindedness and arrogance of this administration and the big manufacturers has no limits. :mad:

[Dover]

5. And so much for allowing Darwinian market forces to play out

S&P Junks GM, Ford

By Nat Worden
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
5/5/2005 3:43 PM EDT


http://www.thestreet.com/markets/natworden/10221988.html


________________________________________________________________

[obxhead]

6. well said n2doc

I've also read that increased fuel standards would make Detroits vehicles "less safe". How they came up with that I have know idea.

[n2doc]

7. the "less safe" argument is bogus, of course

Anybody want to run a 1959 caddy into a wall at 50 mph? Airbags, smart seatbelts, crumple zones, good engineering (knowing where to put support, center of gravity) do much more to keep you alive and unhurt you than a mass of iron. People have died in tanks from rollovers, so no amount of mass can keep you perfectly safe. But it is a simplistic, idiotic way of thinking compounded by media "nostalgia" for the good old days and sensationalistic stories of how some redneck's truck ran into a prius and recieved nary a scratch while totaling the other car. Run two SUV's into each other, though, and see what happens.

[Dover]

self deleted

[Dover]

4. Plans structure could (read WOULD) encourage production of larger vehicle

From the article:

The plan aims to increase the fuel efficiency of light trucks sold nationwide to 24 miles per gallon in 2011 models from 21.2 m.p.g. today. How much it would actually increase efficiency is hard to say because of the plan's structure, which could encourage production of larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles.

By contrast, California's emissions regulation would effectively force automakers to have a combined fuel economy for cars and trucks of about 33 m.p.g. by the 2016 model year and save 1.7 billion gallons of gas in California alone in just five years, the state's Air Resources Board projects.

But the California plan faces an uphill battle; it is being challenged in court by automakers, and the administration's new fuel economy proposal says it would interfere with its own regulatory authority. The administration's vision for the American automobile is a far more likely regulatory future.

The White House plan is intended to help the struggling domestic automakers, General Motors and Ford Motor. They could use the help - Moody's cut the debt rating of both companies to junk on yesterday.


__________________________________________________


S&P Junks GM, Ford

By Nat Worden
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
5/5/2005 3:43 PM EDT

In moves that were seen by many as inevitable, Standard & Poor's on Thursday lowered its ratings on the debt of General Motors (GM:NYSE - news - research) and Ford (F:NYSE - news - research) to speculative grade, or junk, status.

Shares of both companies slid more than 5% in the wake of the cuts, one day after rallying when a private investor offered a rich price for a big slug of GM stock. The S&P downgrades also sent broader stock averages down as much as 1% and roiled corporate bond markets, where many fund managers will now be prohibited from owning GM and Ford.

"This is the beginning of the end of the U.S. auto industry as most people have come to know it," said Sean Egan, managing director of Egan-Jones Rating Co., an independent firm. "In another two years, we're likely to see substantial layoffs and bankruptcy filings by possibly one or both of these companies and massive restructurings of most of the U.S. auto manufacturers."

cont'd

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/natworden/10221988.html


________________________________________________________________

Moody's rates GM, Ford stock junk

August 25, 2005

BY BILL KOENIG
BLOOMBERG

Stock shares of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the two biggest U.S. automakers, were lowered to junk by Moody's Investors Service.

Moody's lowered Detroit-based GM's rating two levels to Ba2 and the rating on its finance arm to Ba1. Dearborn-based Ford was cut one level to Ba1, one step below investment grade. Moody's also reduced its rating on Ford Motor Credit Co. to the lowest investment grade. The Ford cuts affect about $150 billion in debt, Moody's said in a statement Wednesday.

It's the second junk rating for Ford after Standard & Poor's lowered the company to non-investment grade on May 5. That will push the automaker out of the most widely followed investment-grade bond index by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and could spark selling of the bonds....>>

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/moodys25e_20050825.htm

_____________________________________________________________


Both plans are WAY too INefficient! We should have vehicles using MUCH less gas (with much fewer emissions) by those dates. Europe already has such vehicles on the road. Why is it not so here?
If this isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is. The oil and automobile industries are suppressing meaningful progress in this country. We will continue to stagnate under such abuses and corruption.

Check out this list of top ten most fuel efficient cars currently in production in the US. How many of them are American?


Honda Insight — 61/66


Toyota Prius — 60/51*


Honda Civic Hybrid — 45/51


Volkswagen Golf TDI — 38/46
Volkswagen Jetta TDI — 38/46
Volkswagen New Beetle TDI — 38/46


Honda Civic HX — 36/44


Toyota Echo — 35/42


Toyota Corolla — 32/41


Scion xA — 32/37


Honda Accord Hybrid — 30/37*
Pontiac Vibe — 30/36
Toyota Matrix — 30/36
Scion xB — 31/35*


Dodge Neon — 29/36
Toyota Celica GT — 29/36*


http://edmunds.nytimes.com/reviews/list/top10/103325/article.html?tid=nytimes.e.....Other+Make*?pagewanted=all

NOW COMPARE THAT LIST WITH THE UK's


10 Most Fuel Efficient Cars in the UK
From http://www.360clicks.co.uk/cars

1) HONDA INSIGHT at 94.2MPG (Why does it get another 30MPG in UK?)

2) SMART CITY-CABRIOLET at 65.7MPG

3) SMART CITY-COUPE at 65.7MPG

4) SUZUKI SWIFT at 62.8MPG

5) AUDI A2 at 58.9MPG

6) DAEWOO MATIZ at 55.4MPG

7) TOYOTA PRIUS at 55.4MPG

8) FIAT SEICENTO at 54.3MPG

9) DAIHATSU SIRION at 53.3MPG

10) DAIHATSU YRV at 53.3MPG

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Thanks for these additions, Dover! nt