Spencer Platt/Getty

Consumer groups say the EPA's proposed fuel economy standard will mean you'll pay less at the pump.

At a public hearing in San Francisco today a diverse group of stakeholders lined up to support the EPA’s proposal to increase the fuel efficiency standard for cars and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon. As we’ve reported here, the rule would affect models between 2017 and 2025 and will likely be adopted by the end of the summer.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) worked closely with the EPA to develop the standard and testified that if the rule can be finalized as proposed, California will be willing to accept the national standard. CARB has been taking heat for this collaboration from Orange County Congressional Representative Darrell Issa, who has accused the state of meddling in national regulatory affairs.

“A lot of this work has been led by the state of California,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “California set the first tailpipe emissions standards more than a decade ago.” Unifying the standards across the country is something that automakers have long wanted.

Several auto makers including Chrysler and Hyundai testified early in the day that they support the proposal. Chrysler’s director of Regulatory Affairs, Reg Modlin, said the mid-term review built into the program will be important for companies that make cars. “We’re looking out a long way in technology terms and also in market acceptance terms,” he explained to me. “So the key thing in the mid-term review is to test, to evaluate if the market is buying the products that we’re looking for.”

Car dealers are worried that customers can’t afford the more expensive technology in fuel-efficient cars. “Part of the concern is that it’s $3,200 [added] to the price of a car and that’s a lot of money for our customers,” Forrest McConnell of the National Association of Automobile Dealers told me. He says he’d prefer the EPA move more slowly to allow customers to get used to the new products.

I asked Gillis, the consumer advocate, about the affordability factor. He said that car prices go up every year and consumers are used to it. In addition, he argued that better fuel standards will mean that the consumer immediately starts seeing returns on that investment when they get to the pump. It’s a timely question amid forecasts this week of $4.50 gas by Memorial Day.

On Thursday, the CARB will meet to accept its own set of emissions standards, dubbed the Advanced Clean Car package, which includes greenhouse gas reductions that match the EPA’s proposed standards. In addition the Air Board will consider proposals to cut California’s greenhouse gas emissions more deeply by increasing the number of zero-emission-vehicles on the road to 15% by 2025 and beefing up the state’s plug-in electric car infrastructure. Check out Lauren Sommer’s recent radio story for QUEST on California’s tougher regulations.

Craig Miller

The trade group for California’s truckers says it welcomes the new federal fuel standards for big rigs — for the most part, anyway.

Yesterday President Obama announced that all heavy duty vehicles must get up to 20 percent better mileage by 2014.  This marks the first ever federal fuel efficiency rules for heavy trucks and buses.

Michael Shaw of the California Trucking Association said he welcomes the standards but wants equal focus on improving vehicle reliability.

“We want reliability considered as important as fuel efficiency because, ultimately, if a vehicle is running more efficiently, but it’s spending more time in the shop… then you may have to purchase a new truck.” said Shaw. “So are we really getting the benefit we’re expected to get?”

Shaw says these rules may also increase costs for truckers.

“Often times, as has been the case historically, new engine technology has lead to increases in the price of trucks,” he said. “We’ve seen that in regard to California mandates for diesel particulate filters… which have driven up the cost of engines and trucks.”

The fuel rules affect model years 2014 through 2018 and designate separate fuel standards depending on the type of vehicle. For example, semi-trucks will have to improve fuel efficiency by 23%, but garbage trucks and fire engines will have to improve efficiency by just 10%.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an eight billion dollar up-front cost for the trucking industry based on current available technology, but says truckers would make this up over a one-to-two year payback period. The agency expects the new measures to save the trucking industry $50 billion.

According to the EPA, “Under the comprehensive new national program, trucks and buses built in 2014 through 2018 will reduce oil consumption by a projected 530 million barrels and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons.”

The new rules come just weeks after Obama announced tough new federal fuel standards for cars and light trucks built between 2017 and 2025.

Coming to a showroom near you: a new fuel economy sticker for an electric vehicle. (Photo: Lauren Sommer)

Buy a gas guzzler and you might discover a new form of “sticker shock.”

Cars and trucks sitting on dealership lots will soon have a new fuel economy sticker in the window. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency released newly-designed labels that emphasize environmental performance for conventional and electric cars.

The label might seem familiar to California drivers. In 2008, the state released its own environmental impact sticker for new cars. It rates a car’s smog and greenhouse gas emissions on a scale of one to ten.

The new national label follows California’s lead and incorporates the same rating system. But for the first time, it will also display the annual fuel cost for a vehicle, comparing it to an average vehicle over five years.

EPA regional administrator Jared Blumenfeld announced the new labels in the Silicon Valley showroom of electric car maker Tesla. He says as plug-in hybrid and electric cars started appearing on the market, it became clear that the old sticker wouldn’t cut it. “This label really allows a consumer to compare a gasoline vehicle to an electric vehicle for the first time.”

Blumenfeld says he expects the labels to make a difference in areas populated by early adopters of EVs. “Los Angeles and San Francisco are in the top three of hybrid purchases in the nation. People are already starting to buy these alternative vehicles in large numbers.”

Since electric cars don’t use gas, their energy use is displayed in “miles per gallon equivalent”, which the government calculates by assuming a gallon of gasoline is equal to 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity.

For Tesla’s Roadster sports car, that pencils out to 119 miles per “gallon” and a $9,900 fuel savings over five years, compared to an average car.

A new label for a gas guzzler. (Photo: Lauren Sommer)

Of course, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, electric cars are only as clean as the electricity they use. Electric cars in coal states are responsible for more emissions than in states that generate a lot of renewable power.

To estimate greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA took an average of the energy source mix across the country. But in a press conference, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized a new tool that consumers could use to “drill down” to their part of the country.

Crunch some numbers and the differences are pretty stark. A Nissan Leaf that’s charged in San Francisco produces 120 grams of CO2 per mile, according to the calculator. That same Nissan Leaf in Indianapolis, Indiana generates 270 grams of CO2 per mile.

One more number to note: in the US, consumers are accustomed to seeing miles per gallon. For the first time, the new labels also include gallons per 100 miles. Research has shown that “gallons per mile” is a much easier to understand when it comes to fuel economy.

One example: You might assume the difference between a 40-mpg and 30-mpg car is about the same as the difference between 30-and-20-mpg. Flip those numbers around to gallons used per 10,000 miles and the picture becomes a little clearer. A 40-mpg ride saves 83 gallons over one that gets 30 mpg. But the difference between 30-and 20-mpg is 167 gallons.

The new stickers will appear on model-year 2013 cars and trucks.

Hazy day in L.A. Photo: Craig Miller

Yesterday afternoon, as I started working on my news spot about the new federal standard for tailpipe emissions, I dug up my notes from over a year ago, the last time I covered this story in any depth.

The contrast in tone between then and now amazed me. Back then, I was describing accusations of outright lying, government actions that California enviros called “completely illegal,” and California officials “sharpening their knives” as they marched into battle with EPA former Administrator Stephen Johnson. It was September, 2007, and Democratic lawmakers, led by Henry Waxman (D-CA), were accusing the White House of strong-arming the EPA into denying California its “waiver,” or permission to regulate auto tailpipe emissions. The mood between California environmentalists, many of the state’s elected officials, and the Bush administration couldn’t have been more hostile.

Today, it’s as if we’ve landed in an alternate reality.  Not only has California been given its more fuel-efficient cars, but those same laws are taking effect nationwide. The new rules actually exceed anything that California–traditionally the most ambitious state in the union, when it comes to greenhouse gas regulation–could have asked for.

Instead of knives being sharpened, California enviros are singing the praises of “an historic blueprint to carry out rigorous greenhouse gas emission standards,” to quote one email I received today. Another group told the New York Times: “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” Compared to the fall of ’07–actually make that since ’05, when California first asked for the waiver and the EPA first started stalling–it’s like night and day.

Still, listening in to the White House background press briefing on Monday afternoon, you could hear the seeds of criticism taking root in a few reporters’ questions.

Sure, American automakers will be making more fuel-efficient cars, one reporter asked, but what is the White House doing to encourage consumers to buy them? (in addition to restricting tailpipe emissions, the new rules also substantially increase fuel efficiency standards for manufacturers’ fleets–SUVs and trucks will still be available; they’ll be more fuel efficient than before, but less efficient than smaller cars.) The question takes on new relevance as the federal government finds itself a major stockholder in auto companies.

President Obama says the new regs will have the equivalent impact of taking 177 million cars off the road.