HybridBlog

Holiday Driving Tips

Have you seen the HybridCenter?  Check it out at www.hybridcenter.org.

Hey everyone, on this Memorial Day weekend, our engineers cooked up this little guide to help folks get the best bang for the ever-increasing dollars we’re doling out for gas.  Here it is, and drive safely (and efficiently) this weekend if you’re headed out on the roads!

UCS BACKGROUNDER
HOW TO SAVE MONEY ON GAS THIS MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND
 
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has some simple advice for the 32 million Americans AAA expects to be on the road this Memorial Day weekend that will save them money, cut gasoline consumption, and reduce global warming pollution at the same time.
 
At today's national average regular gasoline price of $3.83 per gallon, even small increases in fuel economy can add up to big savings. Over the short-term, UCS says, drivers can reduce their fuel use with routine maintenance and smart driving habits. Over the long-term, the national science advocacy group recommends that they buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.
 
UCS'S TOP MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND TIPS:
 
DON'T SPEED. Most cars hit their fuel-efficiency sweet spot around 55 miles per hour, but fuel economy quickly declines at higher speeds. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), observing the speed limit can boost fuel economy between 7 and 23 percent. This alone is equivalent to getting a 25-to-71-cent-per-gallon discount at the gas pump. (UCS also reminds drivers that it wastes gas to hit the gas pedal when driving toward a red light or a stop sign, or to floor the gas pedal when a stoplight turns green.)
 
CHECK YOUR TIRES. Just as it's harder to pedal a bike with a flat tire, vehicles with underinflated tires require more energy to move down the road. According to DOE, keeping tires properly inflated can boost fuel economy about 3 percent, equivalent to an 11-cent-per-gallon discount at the pump. Tires naturally lose 1 to 2 pounds of pressure (pounds per square inch, or psi) each month, so if you haven't checked them lately, there's a good chance they're underinflated. Be sure to follow the instructions for safely inflating your particular tires. Overinflating tires increases the risk of a blowout.
 
GET A TUNE-UP. Make sure your car is in top shape by getting regular tune-ups, spark plug checks, oil changes, brake and fluid level checks, and air filter replacements. According to DOE, replacing a dirty air filter alone can boost mpg as much as 10 percent. At today's fuel prices, that's equivalent to a 35-cent-per-gallon discount.
 
BE WEIGHT-CONSCIOUS. Don't overstuff your car with unnecessary items for your Memorial Day trip. For every 100 pounds of extra weight in your vehicle, fuel economy decreases by 1 to 2 percent. In other words, adding 100 pounds of luggage to your car is akin to paying 4 to 7 cents more per gallon. If you must pack a lot of gear, try to fit it inside the car instead of on a roof rack. Roof racks create wind resistance that can lower fuel economy.
 
OVER THE LONG-RUN, BUY A HIGH MPG VEHICLE. Consumers can save the most money by driving less and purchasing the most fuel-efficient vehicle that meets their needs. Car and truck buyers can also take advantage of more efficient options, such as choosing a four-cylinder engine option instead of a six-cylinder, or a two-wheel drive option rather than four-wheel drive. Also, keep in mind that tomorrow's vehicles will be more fuel-efficient. A recent law passed by Congress requires fuel economy to climb to a minimum average of 35 mpg by 2020, equivalent to more than a dollar-per-gallon discount at the pump at today's prices. So keep an eye out for more efficient models coming soon to a showroom near you. (For more information, go to: http://www.hybridcenter.org/.)

Posted by: ScottN

GM Hybrids, Hybrid Rentals, ZEVs and more

If you haven’t had a chance yet, check out the latest issue of our HybridCenter.org Driving Change Network newsletter.  A bunch of fun things in there, including a very interesting case of two gents, namely myself and our Senior Engineer Jim Kliesch trying to rent a hybrid car around the same time.  There’s also an interesting examination of the possible revisions to the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in California—something that could blunt the leading edge of auto technologies if not properly addressed.

Of course, what would a DCN newsletter be without GM vice president Bob Lutz.  On March 20, General Motors (GM) vice chairman Bob Lutz admitted at the New York Auto Show that not making a vehicle like the Prius was “a mistake.” Indeed it was, for as a long-time GM car owner, I anxiously awaited a GM hybrid to buy when my family needed a second car. With none available, I bought a Prius instead—my first foreign car.

Yet GM continues to make that same mistake with the Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrids, using the very hybrid technology that attracts the fuel-conscious consumer primarily to boost power rather than efficiency.
 
General Motors has recently initiated an online program called GMnext that, according to their website, is “a dialogue-based campaign…to showcase GM's commitment to transportation solutions employing technologies that are relevant to consumer needs.”  We asked our activists both to comment on GM’s blog about  their plug-in Volt, and send letters directly to GM to “engage in the dialogue.”

You can head to the site and see a number of great comments posted—several of them by DCN members.  A few of the comments submitted, however, didn’t get posted for whatever reason, and I wanted to make sure that everyone had a chance to read them.

Here’s what Richard in Colarado had to say:

General Motors, along with the other major American automobile makers, are already late bringing plug-in hybrids to market.

It is time to pull your heads out of the sand, break out of the old status-quo, and really start to address the issue seriously.

The capacity is there, but where is the will power in upper management?

If upper management is too stodgy to accept change, then get rid of them.  We need fresh new thought and sweat equity, to bring about the solutions we need now!

Get to work, there is no time to waste!

And this one from Kristen in New York:

It is time to increase the miles a vehicle can get using fossil fuel and/or change the direction of fueling vehicles with fossil fuel.

Make the wave instead of waiting to ride it.

Here’s one from north of the border, Dianne in Quebec:

Comfortable cars with as little gas consumption as possible are required by the population.  With so many baby boomers about to retire, and with a FEW dollars to spend, we need comfortable cars - not uncomfortable vehicles that we have to climb up into and are afraid to drive too far due to their high gas consumption, high insurance costs, etc.  i.e.  give us back the Buick LeSabre only make it a hybrid, or electric car, but give us comfort and economy!

Last, but not least, here’s an interesting one from Carolyn in Kansas:

As a long time GM employee, I'd like to again be able to buy a GM car - however US car-makers seem determined that I buy foreign (started in '75). 

Our latest purchases are Priuses (2).  We're delighted with the vehicle and are now only waiting for a van-type roomy vehicle.  The concept of making SUV type hybrids is ridiculous. 

All these blog comments, plus the 13,000 letters sent directly to GM on this issue should send a clear message to Lutz, Wagoner, and company that there’s a market to be won for fuel-efficient vehicles, but they’ll need more than concept models and muscle hybrids to win that market over.

Posted by: ScottN

P.S.  For any of you who sent your comments to GM through our action center and got a bounce-back on your email, I got in touch with the GMNext webmaster, who told me that they had some issues with messages getting caught in their spam filters.  Rest assured, we will make sure your messages are indeed delivered to GM.

Clean Car Fight Goes “Hollywood”

Well, Patty isn’t the only one calling out Johnson over his “justification” for denying the clean car waiver.  A number of articles took the EPA administrator to task, and this fantastic blog by Lisa Heinzerling, the Georgetown professor who wrote the plaintiffs' briefs in the Supreme Court case on auto emissions and global warming, really helps put this decision in its proper context.  This scathing editorial from the New York Times, and the fact that unionized EPA workers are withdrawing from a cooperation agreement with political appointees who supervise them really shows the depths to which this ill-founded decision has taken the agency.

The lines on this particular fight seem so stark, and the stakes so high; it ‘s like something out of a Hollywood legal thriller—especially when “The Governator” himself is right in the middle of the action.  So we helped our friends over at SaveOurEnvironment.org with a fun little “movie trailer” to let activists keep up the pressure on states that haven’t joined the lawsuit.  You can head right over to the action page to check out the video created by the good folks at Free Range Graphics (you’ll notice our green minivan design—The UCS Vanguard—plays a significant supporting role…).

So go check it out and pass along the fun…and the outrage.

Posted by: ScottN

What would YOU call “compelling and extraordinary?”

Hello everyone, Patricia Monahan here, the Director of the California Office at UCS.

The US Environmental Protection Agency just issued its formal rationale for denying California and 12 other states the right to cut global warming pollution from cars and trucks. According to the EPA, the state of California does not have “compelling and extraordinary conditions" required for a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

This bizarre interpretation of the Clean Air Act implies that the inundation of California’s coastline, the loss of 50 to 80 percent of Sierra Nevada snow pack, and the potentially profound and costly changes to state agriculture are unworthy of unique attention.  EPA Administrator Johnson discounts the impact of climate change on California. He is quoted "I'm not saying that California isn't experiencing problems as a result of global climate change. There are in fact other parts of the country that are actually worse."

Now that the details are out, we can see exactly why his staff scientists, analysts, and lawyers were lined up against his decision: Johnson is not only wrong on the science, as I note above, but he’s wrong on the law. Compelling and extraordinary does NOT mean unique.  If the conditions had to be unique, then why would other states be allowed to adopt the California standards?  Given the profound near-term effects specific to California, there is no rational way the Golden State does not meet the “compelling and extraordinary” standards.  Unfortunately, Administrator Johnson seems more interested in protecting the interests of recalcitrant automakers, rather than obeying the law and the mandate of the Supreme Court to fight climate change through cleaner cars.

Together, the states that have adopted California’s vehicle standards comprise about one-third of the new vehicle fleet.  According to the California Air Resources Board, implementing the clean car standards in these states would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 204 million metric tons of global warming pollution (carbon dioxide equivalent emissions) compared to business as usual. That’s nearly a 90 percent reduction in global warming pollution from the CA standards relative to the newly passed federal fuel economy standards.  Indeed, those federal fuel economy standards were created as part of an energy bill.  Global warming pollution is not mentioned in those standards, nor is the right of California to tackle global warming pollution from cars in any way modified or preempted.

In the face of growing evidence that climate change is happening faster than experts anticipated, Administrator Johnson is putting the brakes on state actions to address the problem. So, unfortunately it may be up to the states to push the Agency out of the way.  We didn’t need another lawsuit—we need solutions.

Posted by: Patty

Debate "Flows" on EPA Blog

Hi folks, Aaron Huertas here in the UCS media department.  I’ve been helping ScottN get out the word on this EPA blog effort.  I wanted to let everyone know your comments are being noticed by the EPA and beyond.  Take a look at this great piece by Marianne Lavelle, the Energy Editor over at US News and World Report.

While over 700 comments have “flowed” into Deputy Director Peacock’s blog, he has, to date, made only one very cursory follow-up that I could find:

Just a reminder to folks: this blog is not an EPA-wide blog (as opposed to what the Department of State does, for instance). It's a blog by the Chief Operating Officer so it tends to deal with the work I do. That work doesn't always align with the EPA business some people are most interested in.

Posted by: Marcus | February 08, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Of course, the responsibility over the EPA waiver decision rests with Administrator Johnson, but that has not stopped Peacock’s blog from commenting on this issue not once, but twice as far as I could find. 

Beyond that, the Quarterly Management Report (.pdf) from Peacock’s office documents two areas where the waiver most definitely applies. First, the report measures EPA's performance related to Congressional interaction. The report says, “Constructive interactions with Congress ensure appropriate tools and resources are available for protecting human health and the environment.”  Yet EPA staff was certainly not permitted to be constructive in meeting Senator Barbara Boxer's request for information about the waiver denial according to this op-ed the senator wrote.

Additionally, Peacock’s office measures EPA effectiveness at workforce recruitment. The report says, “Recruiting a talented staff is critical for maintaining the credibility and performance of the Agency.” But when the EPA ignores its own lawyers and scientists and suppresses their findings when it reports to Congress, some might argue that this will have a chilling impact on recruitment of talented staff who want their work to be respected and appreciated.

And this isn’t the first time EPA staff have interfered with work from their scientists. UCS’s Scientific Integrity program has documented at least 20 such cases at the agency.

I hope that Mr. Peacock does decide to make a more direct response to all of your comments on his blog.  Or, in the same way that ScottN is allowing me to “guest blog” here, perhaps Administrator Johnson will take a turn at the keyboard himself.  Either way, it’s great to see this public dialogue continue online and in the press.

Posted by: Aaron Huertas

Helping the EPA’s Blog with “Openness and Transparency”

Hey everyone, ScottN back at you with something of interest, especially to the online community, regarding EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s dubious decision to deny the waiver individual states need to implement the California clean car standards.

A little background: a few of us here have been following the EPA’s blog, Flow of the River, written by Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock. Washington Post columnist Al Kamen recently took interest in it as well, and in his column, "Enough About Pollution Regulations; Here's a Riff on Amy Winehouse," Kamen takes Peacock to task for glossing over key issues, including the decision to deny the clean car waiver.

Peacock responded to the column citing the blog itself as a "risk," then added:

I'm pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?

That seemed rather ironic to us, since the EPA has silenced and ignored so many of its "rank-and-file" scientists and legal staff in the past. UCS's Scientific Integrity program has repeatedly documented EPA suppression of staff scientists, and scientific information related to global warming, mercury pollution, and many other issues.

So we asked activists to leave comments on the EPA’s blog, explaining to Deputy Administrator Peacock that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas."

The response, both from folks making the comments and from the EPA, has been tremendous.  I’d suggest you head over to the EPA blog and have a look at the over 500 comments for yourself, as there are a lot of heartfelt and sophisticated ways that citizens are making an open appeal to the EPA to reverse its ill-founded decision.

So hats off to Mr. Peacock for creating the blog, to the EPA moderators for allowing citizen input to be seen, to my fellow bloggers, like Kate at Out in Left Field, the folks at Warming Law, and Mike at WNY, for helping to spread the word, and most of all, to everyone who has taken advantage of the opportunity to flex their online muscles in defense of the environment, cleaner cars, and scientific integrity.

Keep those comments coming, and have a great weekend!

Posted by: ScottN

Are Plugin Hybrids the Future of Cars?

Hey everyone, Jim here again.  I thought share some info on a recent forum we were asked to participate in.  On January 31st, the Center for American Progress held a panel discussion in Washington D.C. entitled “Plug-in Hybrids: the Future of Cars?”  Four panelists, covering a range of perspectives, spoke: General Motors, Honda, an expert battery consultant, and yours truly.

On a number of topics, all the panelists agreed.  Everyone concurred that batteries continue to be a major challenge for plug-ins, especially in terms of cost.  Everyone also agreed that no silver bullet exists to get our country out of its transportation energy quandary, and that a full portfolio of technologies and policies to improve fuel economy, reduce carbon from fuels, and reduce the total amount of driving (vehicle miles traveled, a.k.a. VMT) will be required.  In other words, successful plugins could help get us there, but they’re only one piece of the puzzle.

GM had an optimistic view of plugins, as demonstrated by their commitment to the Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue Green Line plugins.  In contrast, Honda made the case that the small additional fuel savings offered by a typical plugin over a comparable non-plugin hybrid isn’t worth the high price to consumers or Uncle Sam (who, in all likelihood, would have to incentivize at least the early vehicles to make them marketable).  Moreover, Honda questioned whether the enthusiasm for plugins would last, citing the ebb and flow of interest in other advanced vehicle technologies.

Battery expert Jack Deppe, from Deppe Consulting, characterized the batteries as making progress on durability, but that challenges remain, especially in terms of cost and safety.  With respect to the cost challenges, he thought we may see short range plugins (in the neighborhood of 10 miles) sooner than longer range (i.e., 40-mile) plugins, though even low-range plugins still face battery cost-related hurdles.  That said, he commended GM on their aggressive pursuit of the 40-mile Volt.

As for me, I discussed how plugins fit into the larger transportation/environment picture, and addressed the challenges this technology faces.  For those keeping score, those challenges are battery cost, safety, and durability, as well as the unknowns about the people who drive them (where they live, if they park on the street, when they’ll recharge, etc.).  I also addressed how over-hyping plugins stand to hurt this promising, but fledgling industry.

From an environmental perspective, the all-important questions is, of course, “how many, how soon?” and, to that, I raised the question of at what point “commercialization” becomes real.  Put more plainly, at what sales volume does greenwashing end and environmental progress begin?  To this last point, as reported by the Detroit News among others, GM announced at this forum that the Volt would be sold in the “tens of thousands” within a short period of its 2010 release.

GM will have a challenge on their hands delivering that many vehicles, that soon, but if they start there and deliver millions more over the years that follow, I won’t argue.  After all, the auto industry has historically been most innovative and effective in finding solutions when challenged.  I look forward to watching GM on this front.

Posted by: Jim

Truth in Advertising for Super Bowl Sunday

Hey everyone, Jim Kliesch here. I know that ScottN is our resident pop culture nerd, but during the Super Bowl on Sunday, I caught General Motors showcasing their advanced and efficient technologies: plug-ins, fuel-cell vehicles, electric vehicles, hybrids, biofuels, and efficient conventional vehicles with ads like this one.

Very exciting, yes?!?

Yet if you watched closely, the fine print at the bottom of the screen detailed the fact that many of the vehicles being promoted had either limited or no sales volumes. When it comes to improving the environment, sales volume means an awful lot. Engineering vehicles with the environment in mind is one thing; engineering them with an ad in mind is quite another.

Now let's compare that to the host of recent announcements from Ford. First, they are planning to put approximately 500,000 of their "EcoBoost" engines, which can increase fuel economy to around 20 percent, on the road by 2013. They have also been talking about cutting weight out of their vehicles to save fuel and are going to spread electric power steering throughout their fleet in the next few years to boost fuel economy and even save money on warranty costs. And, yes, it is just a concept and it does not go all the way, but I can't help but see some hope and a little UCS influence on Ford's Explorer America "Greener SUV" concept.

I'm by no means saying Ford has completely changed their stripes (note what Scott said about the '09 Escape Hybrid in the last HybridCenter.org Driving Change Network newsletter), but their emphasis seems to be more on products than PR--and that's a real step toward the end zone, rather than just an engineering lateral.

Posted by: Jim

Detroit Auto Show in the New Fuel Economy Landscape

Happy New Year, everyone!  As Detroit gears up for their big auto show, they do so in the light of a very different landscape.  The Detroit News itself sums up how 2007 went down:

In the decades-long battle to increase fuel economy standards, 2007 was the year environmentalists outflanked the auto industry at nearly every turn.

Environmental groups like the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club joined forces with select CEOs and retired military leaders to call for a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The retired military leaders and generals formed a group called Securing America's Future Energy, or SAFE, that got wide attention for their proposal, including meeting with President Bush at the White House last January.

Their efforts ended in victory on Dec. 19, when President Bush signed into law the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars in more than two decades. Detroit's automakers reluctantly signed on despite estimates that the regulations will cost more than $85 billion and fundamentally change the makeup of their fleets.

The Detroit Auto Show will be the first chance to truly see how the automakers are going to deal with this new landscape.  Our own senior analyst Jim Kleisch had some thoughts on this, and put together this preview:

DETROIT HOSTS FIRST AUTO SHOW AFTER NEW FUEL ECONOMY LAW;
WHICH AUTOMAKERS WILL DELIVER GREENER CARS?

The upcoming North American International Auto Show in Detroit will be the first major auto show since new fuel economy standards were signed into law, and automakers will be jockeying to "out-green" their competition. A number of companies are running ad campaigns touting their fuel-efficient fleets, and many are expected to roll out the green carpet next week in the Motor City.

Engineers at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) are expecting good things from the industry, but caution that there's a big difference between PR glitz and reality.

"It's not enough to simply make a green concept car," said Jim Kliesch, senior vehicles analyst for UCS's Clean Vehicles Program. "Every time an automaker introduces something new at the auto show, consumers should ask how many and how soon. With gas prices hovering around $3 a gallon and a new fuel economy law in place, successful automakers will be those with sound business plans to put millions of fuel efficient cars on the road in the next few years."

In Detroit, automakers will be plugging vehicles featuring both conventional and futuristic technologies to respond to consumer demand and comply with the new fuel economy law. General Motors will unveil the latest concept vehicle using "E-flex" hybrid technology, first introduced in last year's Chevy Volt plug-in prototype. They also will introduce more models with the "Two-Mode" hybrid option currently available in some Yukon and Tahoe SUVs. Meanwhile, Ford is expected to trumpet its "EcoBoost" gasoline turbo direct injection engine, a cost-effective conventional technology capable of delivering a fuel economy increase of as much as 20 percent. Ford also has been talking up cost-effective ways to cut weight using high strength materials and incorporate energy-efficient accessories such as electric power steering.

Companies likely will meet their fleetwide fuel economy requirements by employing a variety of efficient vehicle technologies. "You don't need a silver bullet when you have an arsenal of good options," said Kliesch. "Simple, cost-effective technologies are the industry's best bet to meet the new standards, though hybrid electric cars could blow the doors off 35 mpg."

Automakers at the Detroit show also will feature diesels that, for the first time, meet smog pollution laws in all 50 states; "crossovers" -- smaller SUV-like vehicles that can be, but are not necessarily, more fuel efficient than larger SUVs; and B-cars, the efficient, compact cars popular in Europe.

Every two years, UCS ranks automakers' environmental performance based on smog-forming pollution and global warming pollution from their entire American car and truck fleets. Honda won the title of "Greenest Automaker" in the 2007 rankings, beating out, in order, Toyota, Hyundai-Kia, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler. (For the full report, go to: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/autorank_2007report.pdf.)

The new national fuel economy law may shake up how the auto companies compare to one another, said Kliesch. "It will be interesting to see what Honda does to try to stay ahead of the competition. And given that Toyota tarnished its green halo by actively opposing the new fuel economy law, will the company fighting to become the world's biggest automaker go back to its greener roots?"

The Detroit show is a chance for automakers to give the public a first peek at their plans, said Kliesch. "This show is a real opportunity for automakers to let their engineers shine. Now that the fuel economy fight is over, automakers should demonstrate their ability to meet or exceed all of our expectations."

Only time will tell if the automakers will make the market adjustments needed for so long.  I’m just glad that the new fuel economy law has put a fresh new lens on this auto beauty pageant.

Posted by: ScottN

And What Environment is the EPA Protecting, Exactly?

It’s pretty flabbergasting that just hours after signing the most significant national step toward addressing energy use from autos in 30 years, the Bush administration would turn right around and use it to try and take a step backward on global warming pollution from autos.

Yes, trying to use the new fuel economy standards as a rationalization, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected the waiver request for California and other states to adopt the clean car standards program.

Ho…Ho…Ho.  Talk about a lump of (liquid) coal in your stocking.

Here’s what we had to say about this.  A couple of interesting additional notes.  First, of course, California will be suing right away.  This story in the Washington Post reveals that Johnson’s own lawyers and policy people told him that it was really unlikely that they can win this case in court—yet they did it anyway.  Also this is the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act waiver for California air pollution policies, started in 1967, that the EPA has denied a waiver.  California has 60 days to appeal this decision, which they will certainly do on top of the lawsuit.

Waves of discontent are already crashing down around the administration for this decision, including a promised congressional investigation of the whole waiver process by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).  But this line from Sen. Diane Feinstein sums it up nicely:

“Candidly I find this disgraceful.   The passage of the Energy Bill does not give the EPA a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution.”

I rarely suggest people take action that is purely to show outrage, because it is usually not productive.  Not so in this case.  I’ve set up this alert if you want to join me in demanding that the EPA put public health and sound science before the politics of obstruction.

Posted by: ScottN