Battered by depressed new car sales and waning political power in Washington, the automotive industry still has some fight left.

An industry trade group led by Detroit's Big Three urged lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week to oppose language in the Democrats' energy and climate bill that would force automakers to produce more flex-fuel vehicles.

"Thus far, Congress has refrained from picking technology winners; these [flex-fuel vehicles] mandate proposals do exactly the opposite," wrote Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing the Detroit automakers, Toyota Motor Corp. and others. "[Flex-fuel] mandates will divert important limited resources away from the development of other advanced vehicle technologies."

The opposition is aimed at language in Chairman Henry Waxman's (D-Calif.) bill that would create an "open fuel standard," which would require automakers to produce more cars and trucks capable of running on high blends of alternative fuels, as well as a possible amendment from Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) that would strengthen the requirements.

The existing provision, which found its way into the energy and climate effort as part of a substitute bill [pdf] introduced this week, would give the administration the ability to mandate the required percentages of flex-fuel vehicles in an automaker's fleet, assuming the needed alternative fuel and infrastructure are available.

To count as flex-fuel capable, internal combustion engines would need to be able to run on blends of E85 or M85, and diesel vehicles would need to be able to operate on biodiesel.

E85 is a fuel mixture of 85 percent ethanol by volume. M85 is a methanol fuel mixture.

Engel has voiced his displeasure with the strength of the flex-fuel language and has indicated he may introduce an amendment that would require half of new U.S. cars and trucks to be able to be flex-fuel capable starting in 2012, with the mandate jumping to 80 percent by 2015 -- regardless of fuel availability.

"I know this bill generally takes us in a direction that you and I would like to go," Engel said Monday. "I'd like to vote for this bill, but I'm not sure I can vote for this bill in its current form without strong flex-fuel language."

The alliance's letter was sent to the committee on the same day that many members of the alliance were at the White House for President Obama's announcement of new national auto standards that would mandate a dramatic acceleration in fuel economy improvements and create the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standard for cars and trucks (Greenwire, May 19).

"The Alliance and its eleven member companies stand ready to help solve our nation's energy problems," McCurdy wrote. "However, mandates to produce vehicles for which there is inadequate fuels or fueling infrastructure should be opposed."

The president's new auto standards are estimated to add an additional $600 to the cost of each vehicle, which is on top of the extra $700 that Americans were expected to pay under the current corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, program.

Automakers say adding flex-fuel technology will force the price tag up an additional $100 to $300 per vehicle.

6 Comments

1. 1. Innov8or 04:12 PM 5/21/09

   Is this to support Corn Ethanol? Corn Ethanol has finally been regarded by most experts as a loosing proposition, it costs more energy to make corn ethanol than you get out of it. Corn Ethanol production creates more pollution. Corn ethanol costs more than gasoline.
   By 2015 50% of new cars sold will be electric, by 2020 the ICE will be dead. Why spend money on a dying technology?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. retpro 10:24 PM 5/21/09

   As usual, congress is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Crush 10:38 AM 5/22/09

   It would support alternative fuels. Yes, you could use corn ethanol, but you could also use cellulosic ethanol, methanol, or, if you'd rather, straight gasoline. For $100 to the cost of a car, the driver suddenly gets some serious fuel options. It's ridiculous that a mandate hasn't already been instituted.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jdhays 12:39 PM 5/22/09

   I helped my mom in buying a car several years ago and I steered her wrong in recomending her to buy the Flex-Fuel version of the car she wanted, a Ford Exporer. Since then she has yet to find a gas station in the Philadelphia area that sells E85, or any station along her route to West Virginia (I-76, I-81, I-64). What good is having the ability to use multiple fuels if you still only have one choice?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Crush 05:46 PM 5/22/09

   It's the chicken/egg argument. There are many in the Midwest, and they are finally starting to expand. A flex fuel mandate would prompt rapid expansion of the infrastructure.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. E85Prices in reply to jdhays 06:58 PM 5/22/09

   Hey Crush there is a Station selling E85 in Philadelphia
   
   http://e85prices.com/pennsylvania.html
   
   Also check out the Map http://e85prices.com/e85map.php
   
   
   We have gone from 300 Stations selling E85 in 2004 to 2,122 Stations today...around 1,500 Cities have E85 now.
   
   And you are right chicken and the Egg ..even with the good growth in the number of Stations selling E85 ..with a FFV mandate ($100-$300 vehicle) how cheap is that ..with a FFV mandate then that sends a signal to the retailers to go ahead and install E85 pumps because the cars that are able to run are actually going to start coming in big numbers.
   
   A electric car adds $10-30 thousand to the cost of a car, Hydrogen around 100K ..
   
   So it's peanuts to add FFV capability to every vehicle.
   
   Bottom line $100-$300 and ALL consumers have a REAL CHOICE at the pump.. thats pretty powerful for a couplel hundred bucks.
   
   For most Americans for th past 100 years it has been the Oil companies gasoline or the Oil Companies Gasoline
   
   The taxpayers are bailing out the Auto Industry it's time we get something TANGIBLE back on that investment ..so lets not be whining about a couple hundred bucks
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this