References [1] Ledbetter, M., and M. Ross (L&R). Supply curves of conserved energy for automobiles. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, March 1990. [2] Difiglio, C., K.G. Duleep, and D.L. Greene (DD&G). Cost effectiveness of future fuel economy improvements. Energy Journal, January 1989. [3] Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Increasing the efficiency of automobiles and light trucks--a component of a strategy to combat global warming and growing U.S. oil dependence. Statement of Steven Plotkin before the Consumer Subcommittee, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 2, 1989. [4] Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Estimating feasible level of Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Statement of Steven Plotkin before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, March 20, 1991. [5] Personal communication, M. Ross to J. DeCicco, ACEEE, based on recent analyses of advanced fuel economy technology by F. An and M. Ross at University of Michigan, March 1991. [6] EEA. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Developments in the fuel economy of light duty vehicles. Revised draft prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, August 1988. [7] Greene, D.L. Vehicle use and fuel economy: How big is the "rebound" effect? Draft paper, Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 13, 1991. REFERENCES (see text); L&R [1], DD&G [2], OTA [3,4], A&R [5]. NOTES BY ITEM: 1 OTA89,90 given here as average of several config. dependent values 3 OTA89 given here same as OTA91 value 8 DD&G go 3-4; R&L go 3/4-5, and OTA91 goes 4-5 gears 9 R&L use advanced fuel-economy optimized trans. mgmt. 10 CVT treated as mutually exclusive with other transmission measures, if applied, there would be some added gain by trans mgmt optimization. 15 R&L go to Cd 0.30; DD&G go to Cd 0.32 ⭑ Not reported for year 2000; the assessments were for 1995, for which DD&G found 34% (max feasible) and OTA89 found 17% (cost-eff, attainable) Source: ACEEE, using data from Stat.Abs. of U.S. and ORNL Transp. Energy Data Book Gallons per capita Appendix III-Additional Material Submitted for the Record Statement of Honda of North America, Inc. on S. 341, National Energy Security Act Submitted to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee February 28, 1991 Honda North America respectfully submits the following comments for the record on Title XI, Subtitle A of S. 341 currently under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We request that this statement be a part of the February 28 hearing record. Honda believes CAFE should be considered in the context of an overall national energy strategy and wants to commend Chairman Bennett Johnston and Ranking Republican Malcolm Wallop for their efforts in this regard. We do not oppose an increase in CAFE. Honda supports the general direction of the CAFE provisions of S. 341 which provides the Department of Transportation (DOT) with authority to set the standards based on a series of economic and technological criteria. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has already begun a detailed and unbiased analysis of the potential future fuel efficiency gains which can be achieved. NHTSA Administrator Curry committed to support the NAS results at the February 21, 1991 hearing of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Subcommittee on S. 279. He has stated several times that he believes further improvements in fuel economy are doable and that higher targets should be set. We believe the study currently being conducted by the NAS should form the basis for future fuel economy standards. Honda strongly objects to the provision in S. 341 that mandates a percentage increase in each manufacturer's 1990 CAFE. We believe DOT should be given the authority to determine both the approach and the stringency of any new CAFE program. The percentage increase approach penalizes manufacturers who have already used many of the existing technologies to achieve higher fuel economy. These fuel economy leaders start at a higher 1990 base and have to reach a much higher standard than companies with This places their products at a competitive lower fuel economy. disadvantage and restricts competition in certain market segments. It may eliminate certain types of vehicles from the high fuel economy fleets while allowing similar but less fuel efficient vehicles to be sold by manufacturers with lower standards. Limited competition guarantees higher vehicle prices and will undermine achievement of environmental goals. The percentage increase approach would be a dramatic departure from the way in which the motor vehicle industry has been regulated to date. Manufacturers meet the same standards for emissions, safety and fuel economy. While we prefer a single number CAFE standard, we recognize that it is insensitive to model mix and consumer demand. If a single number is unacceptable, we believe DOT should consider some type of market segment approach which allows manufacturers to compete head to head in specific market segments, not on an aggregated fleet basis. Through the use of penalties, credits and minimum standards, energy conservation goals can be met |