Join
Search

The Future is Now: 39 Models Meet Tomorrow’s Fuel Economy Requirements Today

Bookmark and Share

A number of pieces in the media, including a recent column by long-time Automotive News number-cruncher John K. Teahen Jr., have wrongly claimed that the upcoming 2017-2025 vehicle standards will force consumers into small cars. The argument goes something like this: 35.5 mpg-equivalent in 2016 and 54.5 in 2025 are so high that only compact cars will be able to meet the standard. This is sometimes supported by the claim that very few, if any, car or truck models today even meet the standards.

There’s only one problem: Thirty-nine of them do.

You read that right. Thirty-nine different models on the showroom floor right now are available in a version that already meets its 2017 target fuel economy. And that’s a conservative estimate. If you account for a flexibility mechanism that allows companies to earn credit for improving their vehicles’ air conditioning systems, the number in question could sit closer to 50. (Moreover, about two dozen of those would already meet the 2020 standard.)

How is that possible? Well, most of this is rooted in a misunderstanding of how vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards work. When revamped in 2007, one of the policy’s key design changes was an “attribute-based system” that allows a company focused on large vehicles to be held to a weaker standard than a company focused on smaller vehicles.

Under the attribute-based system, each vehicle is assigned a “target” mpg (or gram-per-mile level) based on its size and vehicle class. This target reflects what the vehicle should achieve in order to pull its own weight in meeting the company average. As shown in the example below, larger vehicles have weaker targets, and smaller vehicles have more stringent targets. A company’s corporate requirement is simply the sales-weighted average of its products’ targets.

In other words, companies don’t focus on the “35.5” or “54.5” that garners the headlines. They focus on targets. And as long as the products they make meet their respective targets, they’ve got nothing to worry about.

Many models are already ahead of the game

So which models have versions that already meet the 2017 targets? High profile wheels like the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf are there, of course. As are hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion Hybrid. And popular conventional cars like the Hyundai Elantra, Honda Civic, Chevy Cruze, and Ford Focus. Minivans like the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna are also there, along with compact pickups like the Ford Ranger and Toyota Tacoma. And full-size pickups like the Chevy Silverado Hybrid and GMC Sierra Hybrid. Along with small SUVs like the Ford Escape Hybrid and GMC Terrain, and luxury sedans like the Buick LaCrosse eAssist and Infiniti M35h. The list goes on…

The point is, while the standards don’t take effect for another 5 years, the industry is already there. And not just in a handful of models. The conventional and hybrid fuel-saving, emissions-reducing technology in question is available and already being used in a range of vehicles, from the smallest cars to the biggest trucks. The upcoming standards won’t change that. They’ll just make the technology more prevalent.

(This assessment could not have been done without the painstaking work of UCS Clean Vehicles intern Jennah Bedrosian, who meticulously hunted down vehicle footprint data. Thank you Jennah!)

Posted in: Vehicles Tags: , ,

About the author: Jim Kliesch is an engineer with expertise in fuel efficiency, battery, and hybrid electric vehicle technologies and the policies needed to turn them into real solutions for U.S. oil dependence, air pollution and global warming. He holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and a master's degree in environmental and energy policy.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

  • Jim Kliesch

    Richard,
    I’m a “car guy” so I’ll defer to my colleagues in our Clean Energy program who kindly had the following thoughts for you on grid cleanliness:

    If generating your own renewable energy is a little tough — and you’ve already reduced your electricity bills by investing in energy efficiency (like getting efficient appliances and swapping out your light bulbs) — “green power” can be a great way for you to further reduce the impact of your electricity use. Green power programs let you buy the “greenness” of the energy from wind, solar, or other kinds of renewable energy. Those purchases drive the development of new renewable energy. (See the “Drive the Development” section here:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/earthwise/have-voluntary-green-power-programs.html

    Also, you may be interested in DOE’s Green Power Network, which has a page listing the options for purchasing green power in your state: http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/buying_power.shtml. In addition, to ensure that your purchase is both meaningful and delivers strong environmental benefits, look for the Green-E certification label. More info about Green-E and where to purchase Green-E certified products, go to http://www.green-e.org/.

    Finally, back in the vehicles realm, check out our Model E pages for more information on various electric-drive designs, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_electric_vehicles/model-e/

  • Richard Waldmann

    Dear UCS,
    I’ve often heard that “plug-in Hybrids” will be the ultimate fuel efficient vehicles. However, this assumes that the electricity used
    is “green”. When I opt (and pay extra) for the “100% green” option from NSTAR (in Massachusetts) what am I really getting. Is it truely wind or solar power? Is it carbon offsets? My house is not conducive to solar panels on the roof, because of shade from large trees to the south,and orientation of the roof east-west, not north-south. Thank you.

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, obscene, rude or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. When commenting, you must use your real name. Valid email addresses are required. (UCS respects your privacy; we will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)