The CAFE standards govern fuel economy across the U. Federal officials argue that forcing automakers to achieve an average of 54 mpg in seven years would lead to cars that are too expensive, thus forcing people to keep too many old vehicles that are less safe.
The CAFE standards govern fuel economy across the U. Federal officials argue that forcing automakers to achieve an average of 54 mpg in seven years would lead to cars that are too expensive, thus forcing people to keep too many old vehicles that are less safe.Tags: Mr Holland'S Opus EssaysThe Poetry Of Anne Finch An Essay In InterpretationSoftware That Writes EssayEthics Prostitution EssayS Rights Essay2006 Higher English Critical Essay Paper
The Vehicle Technologies Office is supporting research to greatly improve the fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions produced by both light and heavy-duty vehicles.
It also supports Fuel Economy.gov, which provides consumers with the fuel economy of all vehicles back to 1984, as well as tips to help drivers save money and fuel.
He is among a group of interdisciplinary scholars from leading universities who participated in the study, including experts from USC, Carnegie Mellon, Yale, the University of California and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others. A midterm review conducted in 2016 affirmed the benefits exceeded the costs and the measures would be technologically feasible.
In 2007, Congress adopted laws to require corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) to increase to 35 mpg by 2020. But this year under the Trump administration, the federal agencies reversed course, proposing rules to freeze CAFE standards at 2021 levels through 2025.
It also flies in the face of economic principles because, the economists argue, only more stringent standards -- not fewer -- would increase costs for cleaner, new vehicles, and as prices for new and used vehicles increase, fleet size would diminish -- not the other way around.
The revision "is simply inconsistent with basic economic theory," the study finds.But the new study goes a step further, suggesting the shortcomings in the government's economic analysis are so egregious they seem like a deliberate attempt to manipulate statistics and mislead people.Ironically, Bento occupies a special position in the controversy: He is the economist most often cited in the documents the EPA used to make its case for the regulatory relaxation. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set fuel economy gains between 27 mpg and 55 mpg between 20.Scholars from USC and other leading universities conclude that rules on the books to increase fuel economy for passenger vehicles will do more good than harm, contradicting claims by the Trump administration as it seeks to roll back fuel economy standards.In a research paper that scrutinizes the cost-benefit methods used by federal officials to justify rolling back the regulations, the researchers conclude the government analysis is flawed and that it departs from accepted protocols.By miscalculating the size of the auto fleet, the researchers say the report underestimates vehicle miles traveled, gasoline consumption, GHG emissions and traffic fatalities.A correct estimate of fatalities alone represents a .7 billion savings, which the federal proposal omits.These technologies have the potential to save consumers and businesses trillions of dollars.Much of this research focuses on technologies that can improve the efficiency of a variety of vehicles, including internal combustion, alternative fuel, and plug-in electric vehicles.They found the analysis overlooked 6 million used cars, wiping out benefits estimated at least 2 billion.The research findings, which are reported in today and will be presented to automakers and policymakers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris this week, are significant because they reflect best practices identified by leading, independent economists and engineers.