This Tuesday, the Department of Defense announced that it would spend $18 million on six projects that will develop the American military’s ability to efficiently use energy. This step will allow our armed forces to rely less on foreign sources of energy, which are expensive as well as potential security risks.  As Secretary Panetta summed it up in the official announcement, ”The Department is taking the lead on this because saving energy on the battlefield means saving lives and money.” Given the immense amounts of energy used by the military, the success of even one of these projects would save many times the original investment.

Focus the Nation is hosting forums for student leaders across the country for solution-oriented clean energy programs between campuses and local communities.

Want to drive clean energy solutions in your community? Attend a Focus the Nation Clean Energy Forum! Head to http://www.focusthenation.org to find a forum near you.

Looking for service learning opportunities for the 2012-2013 school year? Consider Forums-to-Action (F2A). F2A is a dynamic program that develops new student leaders who drive solutions-oriented clean energy collaborations between their campuses and communities. Learn more at http://www.focusthenation.org/programs/f2a

Fresh from the Philadelphia Inquirer’s blog: Brendan Flynn, Coast Guard Academy graduate and Operation Free co-founder, testifies at length at the EPA hearings in Philadelphia.

Earlier, Brendan Flynn, a Coast Guard Academy graduate from Meadville, Pa., urged adooption of the proposal as well.

“It is very clear to me that America’s oil dependence makes us vulnerable,” he said. “A number of my good friends from the Coast Guard have served in-theater guarding oil platforms just off the coast of Iraq from waterborne suicide boat attacks. One such attack, in 2004, took the life of Damage Controlman Third Class Nathan B. Bruckenthal – the first Coast Guardsman to be killed in action since Vietnam. U.S. forces recently turned over oil platform security duties to the Iraqis, but oil infrastructure continues to be a target for attack both overseas and here at home.”

Flynn was Military and Veterans Affairs Director for U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Murphy of Bucks County. Most recently, he served on the staff of the Truman National Security Project, where he was a founding organizer of the Operation Free campaign, an effort to support clean energy from the national security perspective.

“This is why I believe that we must adopt the 54.5 mpg standard. Nearly half of the oil we use goes towards fueling our cars and trucks, meaning building cars that use less gas will help break our addiction to oil,” Flynn said.

“This standard is good for our economy, as it will spur new investments in energy-efficient engines. It is good for our national security – as the less reliant we are on one source of energy, the less vulnerable we are to a major disruption of supply,” he said. “Frankly, the only people that this standard is bad for are the insurgents and terrorists fighting against our troops and plotting to attack our nation.”

Read More: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/greenliving/More-local-voices-at-US-mpg-hearing.html

In a guest commentary in the Detroit Free Press, Mark McManus tell us how Detroit automakers have the power and technology to meet and exceed to the new 54.5 fuel economy standards.

Guest commentary: Detroit automakers have the technology, creativity for 54.5 mpg
On Tuesday, Washington will come to Detroit to talk about how many miles per gallon American drivers will soon be getting.

Officials from the National Highway Transportation Administration and the EPA will hold a hearing on a proposal — announced last year by President Obama, flanked by leaders of the major car companies in a show of support — to require a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
Since that announcement, voices of doubt have grown louder, even from those who might benefit from it like the National Auto Dealers Association. Some are fearful that the new mileage goals will hurt Detroit’s signature industry. And especially in tough times like these, that’s the last thing anybody wants.

But as I will testify at Tuesday’s hearing, the truth is that higher fuel economy standards will boost the bottom line for American automakers. In fact, I believe the Detroit Three need exactly this sort of ambitious but doable national mileage goal to help keep them from repeating mistakes that have proved so costly in the past.

Research shows that when automakers boost fuel efficiency, their profits actually rise. They sell more cars and trucks. And they create more jobs across the board — from manufacturing and marketing, to developing new and cleaner technologies that make their vehicles more competitive on the world stage. Add it all up, and economic models predict that the 54.5-mpg mileage standard now being considered would boost auto industry profits by billions of dollars per year.

On the other hand, we in Michigan know only too well what can happen when automakers ignore driver demand for more fuel-efficient cars. A few years back, Detroit stayed focused on SUVs and gas-guzzlers even as oil prices rose. By 2009, two of the Detroit three had declared bankruptcy. Government bailouts cost taxpayers billions. Here in Michigan, our friends, families and our neighbors lost their livelihoods. From 2000-2010, we were the only state in the country to lose population.

Now gasoline prices are rising again. In 2011, the price of gasoline (all grades and formulations) averaged $3.58 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is 74 cents per gallon higher than in 2010, and 28 cents per gallon higher than in the crisis year of 2008.

Against this backdrop, vehicle manufacturers are deciding on the mix of vehicles they will be offering for sale; some highly fuel-efficient, some very inefficient. A strong national mileage standard will help ensure vehicle manufacturers make better choices this time around, while giving American drivers what they want: cars, SUVs and light trucks that go farther on a gallon of gasoline.
Consumers have confirmed their preference for more efficient vehicles in poll after poll. A recent Opinion Research poll commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America shows that 75% of Americans believe it is important to increase fuel-economy standards. And in a recent Mellman Group poll of likely voters here in Michigan, 76 percent said a national 60-mpg standard would encourage American carmakers to innovate, boosting sales and protecting US jobs.

Sixty miles per gallon is not on the table, but 54.5 mpg by 2025 is. Michigan’s automakers can do it. They have the technology and the creativity. They can give American drivers what they want. Along the way, they can make more money, sell more cars, and rebuild one of America’s great industries.
Economist Walter McManus is research professor of decision and information sciences at Oakland University. He is the former director of automotive analysis at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute, and spent nine years working in the automotive industry, focusing on forecasting, marketing analysis and new product development.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/comments/article/20120116/OPINION05/120116049/Guest-commentary-Detroit-automakers-have-the-technology-creativity-for-54-5-mpg

A strong, new editorial from Automotive News tells the National Automotive Dealers Association to get on board with the new 54.5 fuel economy standards.

NADA Must Be Reasonable About CAFE Proposals

Automotive News — January 16, 2012 – 12:01 am ET
It’s time for the National Automobile Dealers Association to reconsider its opposition to the Obama administration’s proposed corporate average fuel economy standards for the 2017-25 model years.

NADA is just about the last remaining industry group trying to derail the proposals. The association says it is still raising questions about the proposed standards because it has not received satisfactory answers from the government. The group says it will continue to pursue the issue in 2012 as one of its top legislative priorities.

One NADA question is whether consumers can afford or even want the technology required to meet the standards. The group says the estimated cost would be an average of nearly $3,000 a vehicle to achieve the equivalent of 54.5 mpg by the 2025 model year. The association says it favors a single, national standard but fears the proposed rules would cost jobs and limit consumer vehicle choices.

The group also criticizes the way the proposals were created when the administration allowed the EPA and the California Air Resources Board to participate in the process with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which by law has the sole responsibility.

But the process also gave a voice to automakers, 13 of which publicly supported the fuel economy proposals last July.

The administration’s proposals aren’t perfect. They include CAFE credits and inducements that unfairly favor the administration’s thesis that electrification is the ultimate solution to limit hydrocarbon emissions and improve fuel economy — at the expense of other, proven technologies such as clean diesels.

At a public policy forum during last week’s Automotive News World Congress in Detroit, there were many points of agreement among representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group; Ricardo Inc., an engineering firm; and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 12 automakers.

The panelists agreed that despite the administration’s predisposition toward electrification, conventional internal combustion engines would still account for a majority, perhaps some 80 percent, of all light vehicles produced for the 2025 model year, thanks to advanced technology.

Consumers have not yet fully embraced electrification, with gasoline-electric hybrids, pure electrics and extended-range electrics accounting for less than 3 percent of U.S. light-vehicle sales. But since the administration’s proposals include a provision for a 2018 midcourse review to measure the effects of the standards, there is general agreement that the most reasonable approach for the industry is to get on with it.

NADA would do well to take that into consideration.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20120116/RETAIL07/301169955#ixzz1jdDsqB00