• On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
January 26, 2009 11:48 AM PST

Obama lays first piece in energy policy puzzle

by Martin LaMonica
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 21 comments

In signing two executive orders on Monday, President Barack Obama made the first moves in a bold multi-pronged strategy to reshape energy policy and spur technology innovation.

At a press conference, the president ordered the Department of Transportation to establish rules by 2011 to raise fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

He also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of a waiver that would allow California and other states to set limits on tailpipe emissions.

In Washington, D.C., the moves signal a sharp change in direction from the Bush administration which was the first to block a waiver request from California and did not implement existing legislation that mandated a 40 percent increase in car and light truck fuel economy.

Technology entrepreneurs and investors got the signal, too. If firmer regulations around fuel efficiency take hold, the business for energy-efficient technologies in transportation technology starts to look more attractive.

"Right now, the investment community is thinking that by 2015, if we're lucky, electric vehicles may be one percent of the marketplace--that's not very many," said Bilal Zuberi, an investor at venture-capital firm General Catalyst Partners. "But if that becomes larger and becomes nearer, then that's pretty interesting."

If California adopts stricter greenhouse gas emissions levels, at least 13 other states and the District of Columbia are expected to adopt those mandates. That effectively creates a larger market for fuel-efficient technologies like electric vehicles, efficient transmissions, or lighter vehicle materials.

Zuberi said technology investors typically have a seven- or eight-year window for making a financial return. Knowing that there is demand for fuel-efficient technologies allows investors to invest with more confidence and a better-understood timescale.

The auto technology companies themselves can also develop and validate products faster, he added. Established car companies could also seek to acquire auto start-ups.

Not so fast
Through its industry association, automakers quickly voiced their opposition to granting California its waiver, underscoring the difficulty of establishing tougher environmental standards in an ailing industry.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers issued a statement on Monday calling for a set of national regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It noted that, at the moment, there are effectively three "voices" influencing fuel economy and carbon dioxide emission regulations: the EPA, California, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It also urged the administration to have the higher fuel efficiency standards to go into effect for model year 2011 cars "because automakers are working on their product plans now and need the certainty of final standards," according to the statement.

General Catalysts' Zuberi noted that large automakers typically make less money on small, fuel-efficient cars. Changing the mix of their sales to include more fuel-efficient vehicles will force them to innovate on technology or manufacturing, he argued.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, praised the move.

"The cleaner cars he will help put on the road will show us the way to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and will push automakers to make the cars that the world will want and need in the 21st Century," wrote Dave Hawkins, head of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Other shoes to drop
During Obama's press conference--his first official event in the East Room of the White House--he indicated that the proposed changes in transportation policy are part of broader set of measures his administration is rapidly lining up on energy and environment.

A proposed $825 billion stimulus package includes billions of dollars in tax incentives and direct government spending on clean-energy programs.

In addition to repeating the administration's pledge to doubling the amount of renewable energy in the country in three years, Obama on Monday said that the stimulus plan calls for laying 3,000 miles of new transmission lines--considered crucial for moving wind and solar power to different corners of the country.

The plan also has billions for dedicated to weatherizing two million homes and saving $2 billion a year by making 75 percent of federal buildings more energy efficient.

"Embedded in America's soil, wind, and sun, we have the capacity to change," Obama said. "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence of foreign oil while creating a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

In transportation, plug-in electric or all-electric vehicles do promise to bring a jump in fuel efficiency. All major automakers are preparing some form of electric sedans to be first released in the next two years.

But the policies outlined by Obama on Monday only address a portion of the policies needed to get electric car on the roads en masse, said Brian Wynne, the president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.

Auto suppliers are not yet prepared to meet a huge spike in demand for electric cars, in particularly the lithium-ion batteries planned for these vehicles.

"There's little doubt this will impact the demand for greener vehicles across the board," said Wynne. "But trying to transition to deployment and a new manufacturing infrastructure for advanced electric vehicles as the auto industry is shedding capacity is a big challenge."

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.

Recent posts from Green Tech
Solar-power start-up Ausra looks to sell itself
CEOs endorse 'foothold strategy' for electric cars
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Wary green-tech venture investors shift gears
Start-up compresses air in tanks for energy storage
DOE technologist handicaps impact of carbon price
Start-ups partner on universal wireless charger
U.S. Army orders bridges made of recycled plastic
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (21 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by gustavion413 January 26, 2009 12:42 PM PST
President Obama's stance on energy is enthralling. I hope he continues to back up his motto of 'change'. I especially hope that he works to further the green sector. I think it is particularly important for us, as consumers, to support green business. For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment. I hope the new administration supports the movement.
Reply to this comment
by jkohut January 26, 2009 1:20 PM PST
3 big three need to agree to a "standard" batttery pack and voltage level design. Then manufacturers could source all their batteries from common sources and not have different designs out there. U.S. manufacturers could then ramp up production when this wave of Electric cars hits (sometime staring in 2010 and hiting stride probably in 2011). It is sad that American car companies decide to "reinvent the wheel" instead of sharing technology/production to gain economies of cost.
Reply to this comment
by maxsell January 26, 2009 1:42 PM PST
The individual states setting tail pipe emissions is stupid. You need a standard for all the states. This proposal will make the lowest standard the default standard. What happens when 1 state decides to go to an unrealistic level? I guess the only thing you could sell would be an electric car. That may be their ultimate goal but we are not in economic position to do this now.
Reply to this comment
by Oleg Simkin January 26, 2009 2:19 PM PST
this is not true at all.

What this does is the opposite of what you are saying because if the car company wants to sell a car in California they would have 2 choices. 1 make two types of cars one for sale only in california and one every other place or 2. make all cars pass California standards.
by Joe Real January 26, 2009 7:41 PM PST
A very smart logical analysis is that if the car manufacturers can meet California's emission standards, then they can meet all the other states requirements. California wants to be the leader, the one to set the standards simply because California is the biggest retail market for vehicles.

The car manufacturers are free not to use California's standards and are not required to sell there, just sell to the other states that they can pollute more, if that is really painful for them.

Parts of California have very unique microclimate setting. All the tailpipe emissions accumulate get trapped, concentrated and are thus magnified. For example by the foothills of Kern County, and also those by the foothills of Shasta. These emissions get trapped in the California Valleys (Sacramento and San Joaquin), and are extremely harmful to the nearby counties where the pollutants gets accumulated and becomes very unhealthy to breathe. That is why California is so sensitive to vehicular and other man-made emissions and need to set its own standards.

But the wonderful thing is that if the car manufacturers can meet California standards, then they can meet it in every state. And it is just right for California to be the leader in setting the standards, after all, they are the biggest market for vehicles!
by maxsell January 27, 2009 10:11 AM PST
I meant the lowest emission standard meaning the lowest allowable amount of pollutants.
by January 26, 2009 2:30 PM PST
test
Reply to this comment
by open-mind January 26, 2009 4:09 PM PST
Good goals .... bad approach. The federal and state governments are basically forcing businesses to spend billions extra to manufacture vehicles that consumers may or may not actually want.

I think a better approach would be to offer an income tax credit to citizens who buy a fuel efficient American car. Say $3K for 30+ MPG and $5K for 35+ MPG. Same result, but with less risk and less big-government intervention.
Reply to this comment
by ppgreat January 26, 2009 8:08 PM PST
Terrible goals. Thirty-five mpg AVERAGE in 10 years?? This is embarrassing and evidentiary of again catering to the Big Three.

This is no longer an argument about what consumers want. The huge SUV that gets 7 mpg. The muscle cars that substitute for men's diminished private parts. The latest incarnation of the Taurus or Mustang or whatever.

This is about having food. Breathable air. Less than crazy weather.

If you are going to throw money at auto manufacturers to bail them out, it needs to come with stricter conditions than just loan repayment with interest. How about 50% conversion of all lines to hybrid/electric vehicles in the next 4 years?

These cars don't have to be little or underpowered or the like. The technology is out there to do it. Companies are building vehicles today that do this.

Are you really going to let a bunch of overpaid business school pukes begging for tax money dictate the way that the world is going to go down the crapper?
by open-mind January 29, 2009 3:43 PM PST
ppgreat, you seem to be a fan of government controlled industry: "it needs to come with stricter conditions than just loan repayment with interest".

That's usually called "socialism" and history has shown it's usually a disaster.

Do you have a home/car loan? If so, should your bank control your life just because you owe them money? Tell you what to wear? What to eat? Of course not, but that's exactly what you're suggesting for the auto companies.

If government wants to help things, they should do it by altering DEMAND (using tax incentives) and never by altering SUPPLY (using socialism). Then business, eager to make money, will respond to that demand as fast as they possibly can.
by redallthesame January 26, 2009 4:16 PM PST
Okay, here's what I didn't understand from the article.

1) How many of these millions of jobs will be persistent jobs and how many will be temporary infrastructure jobs that go away in six months or two years after the new wires or factories or whatever have been built?

2) What is the energy demand for 2020? And beyond that?

3) How much energy will these alternative sources produce (at a cost of missions of jobs)?

4) Will the energy consumers be able to afford energy when it costs an additional millions of jobs?

5) Would the removal of the catalytic converter solve both our fuel efficience problem and our greenhouse gasses problem? We added catalytic converters in the '70s to counter global cooling. I guess it worked.

6) What does it take to mass produce large lithium-ion batteries, what are the byproducts, and what special disposal do they require (I know I'm not supposed to just throw them away)?

7) What about driving cross-country in a batt-op vehicle? At 75 MPH, it's not too stressful to go 600 miles in a day. Will you need to own or rent a gasoline powered vehicle to do this?

8) What about people who have tow-behind campers and such?

9) How will we produce all that electrical power for automobiles? We have difficulty getting enough power to certain regions nowadays. With nuclear-electric and hydroelectric being the only sources of electricity that are both efficient and reliable (sometimes the wind doesn't blow), both are also extremely controversial, how will we get people to accept these sources (or do we force them by law)? After all, the conversion (and subsequent storage) of energy to electricy is even less efficient than the conversion of gasoline to tire rotation.

10) Regarding a former comment: Do automakers already produce different automobiles for sale in different regions? I don' t live in California and I'm unaware of my vehicle having California emissions. Or is that something added by the dealer as part of their delivery charges?

11) Solar energy may be an excellent solution to global warming. With the huge fields necessary to produce usable amounts of solar energy, the result will be tremendous amounts of solar power not being used to heat Earth. I wonder which 30 blocks of downtown Manhattan they'll choose to level to help meet the solar energy requirements? Or did folks suppose that I wanted all those solar panels in my back yard to transmit power to Manhattan.

12) What about capturing tidal energies?

13) What about geothermal. Of course, if we start using energy from Earth's core, won't that cause a cooling of the core thereby resulting in planetary changes we'll be unable to undo?

I know I'm getting outside the discussions of the article now. But I really want to understand how this is all supposed to work, especially the math of it.

One final question:

14) Will mandating electrically powered vehicles simply create a different corporate power base? Will the wealthy people be best suited to invest in this new energy base thereby becoming even richer? Or will we regulate this new electricity infrastructure so that it charges less than the cost to produce? Or better yet, let's charge people who have more money more for the same energy.

Okay, just another couple of questions from previous comments.

15) Is stopping postal junk mail a form of sensorship, thereby denying the freedom of speech to businesses advertising their products and thusly making television and radio advertisements more lucrative and probably unaffordable to the small businesses?

16) The idea of a single standard for automobile battery power is great, but at least ten years in the future. If you tried to standardize today, there would be significant flaws in the standardized product. Then, you either return to design and tell all those early purchasers, "sorry, we can no longer produce that flawed product," or you keep the standardized design with its flaws. Competition will likely bring us a better product line faster than cooperation, as long as we can keep other unbalancing hands out of the mix (like Government and marketing). The best features of each product will be adopted by each manufacturer, as long as they're not gouged with patent costs.

Okay, lots of comments. I hope you all enjoy.


RED
Reply to this comment
by Nicholas Buenk January 26, 2009 7:34 PM PST
This is absolutely the right course of action, and there is really no alternative. No choice.
To quote from Obama himself, in a campaign speech "Without a doubt, this addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced. We know that we can't sustain a future powered by a fuel that's rapidly disappearing.... For the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we must end the age of oil in our time." Obama
It is not a choice whether to adopt alternative energies or not, it is inevitable that they will be needed. The only question is do we get a head start now, or wait until energy shortages are hurting the economy?
Reply to this comment
by redallthesame January 27, 2009 5:32 AM PST
Why?

Why is this Obama strategy the right course of action (demanding higher MPG vehicles and doubling renewable energy)?

Why are there no other alternatives? What are possible alternatives? What would be the outcome of pursuing those alternatives vice Obama's mandates?

Why is petroleum bad? There is no part of your computer that is not made with or by consuming petroleum. Therefore, if petroleum is bad is it not also bad for you to use your computer?

Are you aware that the estimates, based upon increased future consumption, of crude under Earth's crust is enough to last some 65 Thousand years? I'll see if I can locate that information. The "crisis," as it's called, is to harvest reserves that are not transferring money to entities that wish to do harm to our nation and other nations. Cost of petroleum based products (like gasoline) is affected by supply and demand but the supply side is artificially manipulated to drive higher prices. It's more of an attack by the supply side on the consumers, probably to bring about changes in the consumer side that is more beneficial to the supply side (it's not for the consumer benefit, that's for sure).

Why is global warming bad? Is it because plant life will thrive better in a richer CO2 environment? (.06% CO2 would be ideal vice the present .035%) Is it because humans are better suited to a warmer climate? Is it because we really we cannot adapt to a warmer climate, leading to the conclusion that we did not get her through evolution? Is it because change is good?

What is the problem to be solved? What makes the "problem" a problem?

I apologize if this seems focused at you Nicholas. It's just to make everybody ask questions, not follow blindly the hype.

The doomsdayers talk about currents being altered, ice melting, and water levels rising. Okay, and why is that bad? Okay, so some weather patterns will change. It's been happening for eternity. We will either adapt or we will not. But regardless of that, what will happen after that? Ask those doomsdayers to trace further the events. For example, when ocean water temperatures rise, the currents which take warm water from the equator toward the north pole thereby melting the polar ice, these currents will sink in the now warmer water. This will result in a cooling of the northern waters and the formation of ice. Of course, the doomsdayers don't go that far. I guess they think life will be extinguished by then (or at least human life).

Anyhow, let's all ask "why" more often.
by Nicholas Buenk January 27, 2009 7:12 AM PST
Oil is, as Obama puts it 'rapidly disappearing'. And this will have serious economic consequences and will require new sources of energy to replace the depleted oil. This the reality of the situation. Alternative energies will be adopted whether you like it or not, hence this is not a matter of choice, and the best course of action is to pick the right one and invest early to minimise damage later.
That estimate of 65000 years is laughably wrong. Infact, it's the most probable outcome that production will be below demand before 2020, 2030 at the very latest. And production slowly drop off for the rest of the century.
And I haven't even brought up climate change which is another big problem. The effect that will have is cities and farming land being wrecked, I dunno about you, but I think it might be worth some effort to stop cities like new york and shanghai being flooded?
by bmw39 January 26, 2009 8:55 PM PST
I love the "pledge to double the amount of renewable energy in three years." Yeah, you can do that, as long as you don't count hydroelectric power as renewable, and they don't. Its not politically expedient to classify hydroelectric power as renewable, even though it clearly is. Sounds anti-science to me.....
Reply to this comment
by boxter January 26, 2009 8:56 PM PST
Gambling on an unknown technology falling out of the sky instead of using nuclear sounds like a really smart policy ;)
Reply to this comment
by Think4UrSelf January 27, 2009 5:13 AM PST
Great questions by redallthesame. The transmission investment is a good start and accomplishes the dual goals of spending on infrastructure at the same time laying ground work to move renewable energy. One big delay will be approval of TX lines quick enough to get going. NIMBY folks will not roll over. Must have a law to circumvent this or it will be two years before anybody but lawyers are put to work.
Reply to this comment
by matthewbulat January 27, 2009 5:53 AM PST
Consider cars that can be electric or petrol driven.
e-Mini versus Mini
Smart ForTwo electric vehicle versus Smart ForTwo petrol vehicle
Mitsubishi Miev electric vehicle versus Mitsubishi Colt
Also consider Toyota FT electric expected to cost less than $20000.
Consumers and States can choose petrol or electric.

To see you much electric cars can save in running costs compared to a petrol car I have made an on-line calculator. The savings are large even with a higher purchase cost. Compare your car against most of the electric cars available.
http://www.matthewb.id.au/media/Electric_Vehicle_Calculator.html
Reply to this comment
by HeavyJim January 27, 2009 4:09 PM PST
So Obama says the oil is fast disappearing. Jimmy Carter said we would run out in 10 years. Oh well, they are just career, power hungry politicians. Evidently not fortune tellers.
Reply to this comment
by S. Houston January 27, 2009 4:31 PM PST
Interesting discussion.

Let's look at the problem another way.

Subject: California's Automotive Emissions Waiver = Problem or Opportunity?

Tags: Saving Detroit, US Auto Industry, Economy, Jobs, Industrial Base, US Employment, Energy Independence, Oil Imports, Environment, Emissions, National Security, CAFE, Gas Guzzler Tax, Fuel Economy, self funding Stimulus Package ($20 to $120 billion)


All of this discussion about tighter emissions and fuel economy standards raises an STRANGE question about compliance with the "tighter" California Waiver emissions specs/standards.

Which MOST CLOSELY satisfies the proposed California Emissions standards:

US manufactured and specificationed vehicles?

OR

GM, Ford, and Chrysler/Fiat?s E/U spec?ed vehicles rated above 52 mpg(Imperial), about 44 mpg(US), combined cycle?


IF ... the Det3 EU vehicles ... are closer ... then why not temporarily (say, for 24 months) WAIVE ALL import restrictions on new EU approved vehicles rated greater than 52 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle. This would open a previously untapped US market segment, giving the Det3 the opportunity for immediate NEW POSITIVE CASHFLOW and the chance to increase domestic market share and subsequently, ultimately increasing domestic production output and associated jobs.

The 24 month waiver immediately gives consumer choice/experience, IMMEDIATE NEW CASHFLOW for Det3 and their dealers, provides low cost/risk visibility to buyer preferences, opens the currently untapped 44 to 63 mpg(US) combined average market sector, reduces oil imports/emissions, provides Det3 time to resolve emissions/safety issues in order to establish DOMESTIC (US) manufacture/sale of ?popular? configuration (including small displacement diesels), and more jobs.

Not bad for a ?Quick Response, Self Funding, Low Cost, Low Risk, Auto Industry/Economy Stimulus Strategy? (probable value $20 ~$120 BILLION).

At least with this strategy there would certainly be REAL CHOICES!

So, are tighter emissions and fuel economy requirements and the California Waiver ... PROBLEMS or OPPORTUNITIES?

It is time some good reporter(S) should ask OUR leaders in Washington and Detroit about which class of vehicles (US versus EU) have the lowest emissions and about this type of stimulus strategy for ... Detroit ... and ... OUR economy.

Just in case you don't believe that Chrysler/Fiat, Ford/Mazda/Volvo, and GM/Saab/Vauxhall/Opel have more than 130 vehicles (MY 2008/2009) rated between 44 and 64 mpg(US) [52 and 76 mpg(Imprerial)] combined cycle, look at this VCA site.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp

Any comments, suggestions, OR criticisms?
Reply to this comment
by cancercomesfromoil February 5, 2009 2:40 PM PST
If you care about alternative energy cars, if you ever hoped to drive one. If you ever wanted to be supportive and help make cars happen then now is the time to act on a VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE:

There is no more investment money for alternative energy cars. The Venture Capital market is dead and may never come back. IF, it comes back, Tesla?s problems have put such a bad taste in the VC?s mouth that they will never invest in cars again and those few that did invest in a few car companies have proven that they have no comprehension of how a car company works.

Detroit and the oil industry has managed to block alternative energy cars for decades.

BUT, now, a single door, a last chance has opened. Money was approved and banked, on a emergency fast track basis called the Section 136 DOE ATVM but it was supposed to be released last year and it has been either stalled intentionally by Detroit and Big Oil or mismanaged by those with no idea what they are doing or mis-used by those exploiting the interest revenue on the $25B sitting in Treasury.

Most of the alternative car companies have applied for this money, they are dying in this economy and they all planned for receipt of funds long before this.

What can you do? Tell those in charge to get this money released today.

Today: Call the White House at 202-456-1414

Today: Call Steven Chu, the new head of the DOE at 1-202-586-5000

Today: Call CNN and demand an expose at 800-CNN-NEWS

Please re-post this and forward it to your friends.
Reply to this comment
(21 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right