Last Updated: October 19. 2010 5:27PM U.S. to unveil first efficiency standards for heavy trucks David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau Washington — The Obama administration will unveil the first fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks next week. The new proposed requirements will cover the 2014-18 model years and will be finalized by July 30, said Margo Oge, director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Advertisement "The announcement is going to happen soon," Oge told reporters today. "It's going to be a historic announcement that will advance energy security, climate change and will be a win-win situation." The EPA said in May that the rules could save 500 million barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles built over the five-year period and achieve $70 billion in fuel savings. The new requirements are required by Congress under a 2007 energy law. "Many of the technologies pay back in a very short period of time," Oge said. David Strickland, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — which is co-writing the new rules with the EPA — called the planned proposal "historic in terms of its impact on the environment." "We're going to have another successful rollout very soon," Strickland said, calling it a "thoughtful and concerted approach." He said the proposal will provide "stability" to medium- and heavy-duty truck producers. He also praised NHTSA and EPA's work together on the proposed regulation. "In years past, there were issues in trying to get NHTSA and EPA to work together — and work together well — and could that be done without the force of Congress and the force of law," Strickland said, touting the work of career staff and political appointees at both agencies. EPA also estimated that the new rules could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 250 million metric tons. These heaviest trucks on the roads consume more than two million barrels of oil every day and average 6.1 miles per gallon. They also emit 20 percent of greenhouse gases from the transportation sector. Medium-duty trucks are generally defined as 13,000 to 33,000 pounds, while heavy-duty trucks weigh more than 33,000 pounds. The government since 2005 has spent more than $200 million to help retrofit dirtier, older diesel engines with newer cleaner engines. President Barack Obama signed a directive in May that ordered the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to work jointly to set the new rules. "This is going to bring down the costs for transportation — for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike," Obama said in May, flanked by heavy truck manufacturers including Daimler Trucks, Volvo, Cummins and Navistar. Obama's directive said "preliminary estimates indicate that large tractor-trailers, representing half of all greenhouse gas emissions from this sector" can reduce emissions by 20 percent and increase their fuel efficiency by 25 percent with the use of existing technologies. The president also ordered the agencies to work together on the 2017-25 fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions limits for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. NHTSA and EPA said they could propose a 62 mpg fleetwide combined requirement for 2025. The government already has hiked fuel efficiency standards by 40 percent by 2016 for passenger cars and light-duty trucks — to a fleetwide average of 34.1 mpg — a move that will cost the auto industry about $51 billion to comply with. From The Detroit News: http://detroitnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz12rKocgkq John Shiels is invisible Report Post Edit/Delete Message
You ever notice how they spout how significantly it will affect the environment but never how significantly it will affect people's lives. I guess the in the eyes of the bureaucrats we are nothing but a negative impact on the earth.
John Just think what a clean place Earth would be without all of us humans poluting the planet.:ban We are really just like a virus to the planet.:Banghead If you don't believe it, just ask the nearest enviro nutcase.:beatsme
gee!, one more ruling and my truck will be filling the tank as i drive it.... I can hardly wait!.
hmmmmm.. wonder who pays for that.... not the auto industry... the consumer! If the ruling costs the auto industry 51 billion.... whats this going to cost the trucking industry??
no one cares but the employer and he's a minority now.
I hope we all remember this when a new 3/4 ton truck is costing around $100K.
"We'll all be drinking that free bubble up, and eating that rainbow stew." Merle Haggard song.
Reserve your spot in Hooverville. Prime spots are next to the railroad tracks so you can ride the rails to the soup kitchens.
If you don't think the earth was cleaner before humans started polluting it tell me why? I remember being a kid when a traffic jam made your eyes water from the fumes.
What is saved in fuel cost over the years and less pollution? It is not all bad.
On the other hand...........as soon as we use up all the gas they'll figure out something else to use. re: neccessity is the mother of invention. There is only so much gas on this planet and i'm gonna burn all i can before it's gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
most large trucks will already meet the new laws, well they would over here anyway. Most new trucks here meet Euro 4 emissions(from memory euro 3 in compulsory)
Emissions and effeciency are not the same requirements. Lately, they've been at odds with eachother. Since 2008, light truck diesel emissions requirements have been met at the cost of effeciency. I imagine that holds true for medium and heavy trucks as well (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). It will be interesting to see the response from the manufacturers as far as what's going to roll off the assembly line.
The manufacturers don't care. They are just passing the extra cost onto the customer. As far as the pollution goes, I'm quite sure the air around here is far cleaner now than when I was growing up in the sixties. So at what point is it acknowledged that we have met the minimum amount of pollution possible for the amount of population per a given area? The other thing I want to know is why are pollutants rated in tons while fuel specs are given in barrels. I'm suspicious as to how much pollutant is emitted from current diesel engines per gallon of fuel. As I recall the estimates in California were challenged on that basis. If diesel fuel weighs approximately seven pounds per gallon, how many pounds of NOX, hydrocarbon and CO are emitted from that gallon? Next question is why can't those specifications be broadcast that way to the public? I'm thinking because the public would then understand what is actually going on.
Truck Makers Tell ATA the First Round is Very Achievable A panel of engine and truck manufacturer representatives at the annual American Trucking Assns. conference said the initial phase of ground-breaking new Federal fuel-economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks (details expected this week) will be achievable with current technology at little additional cost to truck buyers. Unfortunately, Washington regulators are using economic assumptions in formulating future fuel-economy goals that are very different than those used by fleets, according to one panelist. The coming rule anticipates a 3% improvement in fuel economy by 2014 compared to 2010 performance, a 5% gain by 2017, and unspecified improvements phasing in by 2020. Measuring those improvements will vary by truck size and application, but both truck manufacturers and engine makers will be required to certify fuel economy gains. More at FleetOwner.com
Next Round Of Truck Standards Proposed Well that was fast . . . The U.S. EPA and the U.S. DOT proposed the first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. The national program, open for public comment over the coming 60 days, is projected by the agencies to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of vehicles produced in the program’s first five years. The agencies propose separate standards for gasoline and diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks, beginning in with the 2014 model year and gradually achieving a 10% reduction for gasoline and 15% percent reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year. For vocational vehicles, the agencies propose standards starting in 2014 which would achieve up to a 10% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018. More at DieselProgress.com (Link from here to the standards presentation on the EPA web site. Should be directions for public comment there.) Hope this helps, Larry
Of coarse they got to get what they can in before they get voted out. How would we know you got a time machine handy? If we where around and polluting then the dinosaurs wouldn't of died in the ice age. Of course there was all that methane from the dino gas though. Hmm the EPA wouldn't of liked that Don't you think if it was cost effective the manufactures would already increase the mileage? The demand is there for efficacy in the trucking industry so there is no reason to force it. That is just going to greatly increase cost then you also have an unproven powertrain and the bugs to go with it.
for all these emision regulations they put on the light duty trucks has anyone noticed there fuel mileage? 6.5 miles per gallon:Banghead ya sure my 08 ford has a fillter that stops some of that black smoke and then regen's and blows blue smoke and smells like a woren out torpedo heater. yet a 97 powerstroke got between 18 and 20 miles per gallon. Those enviro wackos won't be happy till were all riding mules and digging with shovels. A bummper sticker I saw that was priceless said " if you want to stop all logging try to wipe with plastic"
I replaced a 1997 Ford L series powered by a 230 horse Cummins B with a Hino powered by a 260 horse engine and gained 3.5 MPG. Exhaust is super clean compaired to the Cummins. Hybrid powertrains for trucks were coming into use before the goverment mandate for higher truck MPG. Techonolgy is not a bad thing.
Here is an example of why we as a group are upset with the direction of the leadership in the country. Quote taken from Rod Michaelson, HEF member, on his blog, Quote: "CARB is just a symptom of the problems and even though I might speak for pragmatism if I got on the CARB board, the forces behind the environmental movement care nothing about the environment. It is social engineering, globalization, and making money for nothing. Read about Lisa Jackson' coming to Oakland last Saturday on her fifth environmental justice tour this year. This is just after she steps off a plane from China! "Diesel particulate kills anyone with compromised lung function." She said. "It's no different than having a gun in the hand." This is from the head of the federal EPA." End Quote The relevant portion is the contained quote from the head of the EPA, equating diesel exhaust to a smoking gun. Where do you think our economy will head with people of that mindset in power??? Technology is a good thing, but laws that restrict open competition and free commerce with the side effect of raising costs are not the way forward.