I would like to thank you for your recent appearance as a contractor to the Office of Technology Assessment at the hearing held by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 20, 1991. Your time and effort to provide the Committee with your views concerning the provisions of S. 341 pertaining to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are greatly appreciated. In order to assist the Committee in its consideration of this pending legislation, I am attaching additional questions for inclusion in the hearing record. I would appreciate it if you would provide answers to these questions as soon as possible. Again, thank you for your testimony. I look forward to receiving your additional comments. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Karl Hausker of the Committee staff (202-224-3329). JBJ/kah Sinegrety, Bennett Johnston QUESTIONS FOR K. G. DULEEP 1. How would the estimates of domestic and import fuel economy for cars for the 2001 "maximum technology scenario" change if one held size and performance at 1990 levels? a. What would be the average change in price per car be b. What would be the average change in car weight be under this scenario? 2. How would the estimates of domestic and import fuel economy for cars for the 2001 "maximum technology scenario" change if one assumed: 100% market penetration of weight reduction, 100% penetration of drag reduction, and 2-stroke engines replacing all 4-stroke engines without intake valve control, and 1990 size and performance levels? a. What would be the average change in price per car under this scenario? b. What would be the average change in car weight under this scenario? 3. How would the estimates of domestic and import fuel economy for cars for the 2001 "product plan scenario" change if size and performance were held at 1990 levels? a. What would be the average change in price per car be b. What would be the average change in car weight under this scenario? 4. Please describe the factors underlying the weight changes in the three scenarios above. Do some factors involve reduction of materials? Do other factors involve substitution of lighter materials for heavier materials? Describe the effect, if any, of these weight changes on the safety of the cars under these scenarios. 5. Please provide in writing your most recent estimates of fuel economy potential for domestic light trucks in 1996 and 2001 (product plan and maximum technology scenarios). When you update this analysis, please provide a copy to the Committee. a. Have you conducted any analysis of fuel economy potential for imported light trucks? If so, please provide a copy to the Committee. b. Are you aware of any other published studies of fuel economy potential for imported light trucks? If so, please provide the citations. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. 1655 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 FAX: 703/528-5106 TEL: 703/528-1900 May 7, 1991 Senator Bennett Johnston Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Sir: I am writing in response to the questions posed to me by the Senate Energy The answers to question 1, 2 and 3 are presented in Table 1 in the attachment to this letter. The fuel economy numbers are supported with more detailed documentation in the attached tables 2 to 7. Your question 3 requests an estimate of the "product plan" scenario if size and performance were held constant at 1990 levels. Of course, freezing size and performance at 1990 levels departs from the "product plan" and so the terminology may cause some confusion. As a result, I have assumed that the question relates to the technologies adopted and not the product plan itself as the terminology is commonly understood. Answer to Question 4 In the maximum technology scenario, weight is reduced by The weight reductions are partially offset by the weight increase due to the installation of air bags and side restraints. The weight increase will be approximately 75 to 95 lbs depending on car size, according to DOT. It should be noted that many 1990 vehicles already feature air bags and some can meet the side intrusion standards with no design changes. These changes will contribute to a net benefit in safety. MANAGEMENT / ECONOMICS / ENGINEERING Letter to Senator Bennett Johnston May 7, 1991 Page Two The impact on safety due to material substitution and consequent weight reduction is expected to be small or non existent due to the fact that (1) newer lighter materials will be as strong as current materials and (2) the overall length and width of the car will be unchanged. Front wheel drive conversion is expected to make the exterior dimension of vehicles smaller, making them less safe, but front-wheel drive vehicles offer better traction in poor weather conditions making them more safe; it is difficult to estimate how well the two factors counteract each other. EEA would look to ongoing analysis being conducted by DOT to answer these questions. Answer to Question 5 - The analysis for light trucks that was initially performed in 1988 has not received the level of scrutiny and subsequent updates that were performed for the analysis of car fuel economy. Based on preliminary update of the 1988 analysis, I can report the following numbers for domestic manufacturers. These estimates assume 1990 levels of performance, but there are some mix changes assumed due to the projected increase in popularity of mini-vans that are factored into the estimates. We have not evaluated the potential 1996/2001 fuel economy for import light trucks but can state the percent increases in fuel economy from the 1990 baseline are likely to be smaller than those for domestic light trucks. We are not aware of any other study on light truck fuel economy in the public domain. I hope that the attached tables are self explanatory. If any questions arise, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely, Красир K.G. Duleep Director of Engineering KGD: gyw |