Federal Report Suggests Raising Fuel Tax on Trucks and Buses to Improve Mileage
By Scott Doggett April 1, 2010
Heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses will face a wave of federal regulations in the coming years, and higher fuel taxes may be on the menu, according to a new report.
The National Research Council today released a report assessing how the fuel economy of buses and trucks can be improved. Among its recommendations: Raise the gas tax.
"Although the committee recognizes the political difficulty associated with increasing fuel taxes, it strongly recommends that Congress consider fuel taxes as an alternative to mandating fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks," the study says.
The study was ordered by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the same law that required the Department of Transportation to set fuel-economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles. EISA also charges DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with doing its own report on the subject and then setting up a fuel-economy improvement program.
Meanwhile, since the 2007 law, U.S. EPA has moved closer to regulating these vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions via the Clean Air Act.
The NRC report may inform the development of these regulations. It's a 400-page compendium of the technologies that can reduce fuel use, what these technologies cost, and what other policy options could also save fuel. NHTSA will use this information in its fuel-economy regulations.
"This is the first step to basically get the technical info to use in developing a rulemaking," said Don Anair, a senior vehicles analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Passenger cars have had fuel-economy standards for decades, but heavy-duty vehicles never have. Analysts say there could be vast improvements in fuel use because so many of these vehicles have single-digit miles-per-gallon scores.
In cities, for example, garbage and delivery trucks that stop and go could benefit from hybrid technology. On the highways, 18-wheel big rigs could attach aerodynamic fittings.
Some of these technologies only nick a few percentage points off fuel use, but others can reap vast fuel savings, as much as 35 or 50 percent, the NRC report says.
Using diesel engines instead of less-efficient gasoline engines, for example, was projected to improve fuel economy up to 20 percent.
These don't come cheap, though: The report estimated a new diesel engine costs $23,000.
Figures like that cause shudders in the trucking industry, where most companies are small businesses that live and die by tiny profit margins.
An edge in fuel economy can make a company more competitive, but the upfront cost often trumps that prospect. Most trucking firms expect their investments to pay themselves off within two years, when most fuel-saving gadgets need several more years.
DOT and EPA will have options in how they regulate fuel efficiency. While DOT is expected to set targets like CAFE, or corporate average fuel economy, does for cars, the NRC report says other approaches may be just as effective for less cost.
A higher fuel tax would send a price signal to the trucking industry, allowing companies to use technology or non-technology options as they see fit, the NRC said. Also, unlike a CAFE-like standard, a fuel tax would affect trucks already on the road today, rather than trucks to be built in the future.
Another approach: educating drivers. The NRC said this is a particularly cost-effective way to save fuel, since truckers could receive this education when they take their licensing classes.
Instead of spending thousands on new devices for their trucks, companies can teach drivers to inflate their tires and use cruise control. They can tell truckers that every time the truck comes to a full stop, it takes one-third of a gallon to rev back up to highway speed.
The NRC said in several case studies, such behavioral improvements have saved 5 percent of fuel.
LEAVE A COMMENT
This is crazy. Trucks and buses have lead the way in fuel economy. They already stand to benefit more. They were also hit harder by the increase in the price of fuel.
The incentive is already there. This is just another fundraiser.
I agree with brn... it's also ironic given recent years' humongous tax breaks given to buyers of large, gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs.
And of course, any increase in costs for these great drivers who move our goods all over the country will be passed on to you-know-who... consumers.
Another great (potential) decision by our friendly neighborhood government.
I think we should give big tax breaks/incentives for purchasing fuel saving technologies/upgrades. Then let the market figure it out.
On the other hand, I think we absolutely need to heavily tax all CO2/methane/greenhouse gas emissions, proportionate to their potency (i.e. methane is 20x more potent). We need to find a way to tax what we don't want, and subsidize what we do want. We need to stop cutting down our earth's forests for ranching/grazing and start planting trees like there's no tomorrow, because next thing we know, there won't be one.
ADD A COMMENT