Fuel-Economy Rules for Trucks Would Enrich Truckers and Economy, Study Finds
By Scott Doggett May 21, 2010
The Union of Concerned Scientists reported today that once fuel-economy rules for trucks and buses kick in, they'll prove a net boon to truckers, drivers, and the economy at large.
If medium- and heavy-duty vehicles get 3.7 more miles per gallon, and gas prices stay around $3.50, the economy in 2030 will be $10 billion and 124,000 jobs bigger, according to the report, authored by the UCS and CALSTART.
The report was timed to coincide with the announcement by the White House today unveiling the first-ever fuel economy standard for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. It was originally called for in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The report claimed that these standards would create jobs, on a net basis, as vehicle manufacturers hire engineers and line workers to produce fuel-efficient technology.
Trucking companies would spend less money on fuel, meaning either they or their customers would have spare cash to invest elsewhere in the economy.
The biggest job gains would show up in manufacturing states, such as Ohio, and states that consume a lot of fuel in trucks, such as California and Texas.
Who would lose the most jobs? The mining and oil refining sectors would leak about 15,000 jobs by 2030.
Fuel-efficiency technologies make the most sense if truckers think beyond a two-year payback cycle, the report says.
Consider a Class 8 tractor, the sort of vehicle that would pull a trailer to a grocery store. To buy one that was 43 percent more fuel-efficient than average would cost an extra $41,000, according to the report.
If the owner wanted the fuel savings to pay back right away, she'd be disappointed: After two years, she'd be $13,000 in the red.
But if she kept the truck for 15 years, the report said, savings from fuel and maintenance would add up - and combined with the resale value of the truck, she'd come out $88,000 ahead.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Fuel costs are a large part of the spending of bus and truck operation. They've a built in incentive to operate more efficiently. This is why they they tend to be drastically more efficient than personal vehicles. They lead, not follow, in fuel saving technology. Why would we want to place additional rules where they're not necessary? Let's keep our focus on personal vehicles. Heck, small engines could really use a lot of work!
I'm also tired of junk like this:
"The report claimed that these standards would create jobs, on a net basis, as vehicle manufacturers hire engineers and line workers to produce fuel-efficient technology."
That same excuse can be made for just about anything. It doesn't make it meaningful.
ADD A COMMENT