The EPA wants to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Photo from ODOT.

The Obama Administration is taking the federal government’s first steps to reduce greenhouse gases – and it’s starting with cars and trucks.

It’s doing this by requiring new passenger vehicles to get better gas mileage. Cars that burn less fuel also produce less pollution, including greenhouse gases.

The new rules kick in for the 2012 model year and get increasingly tough over a four year period.

Here’s where were headed.

By 2016 new cars and trucks sold in the United States must, on average, emit no more than 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. That’s roughly the same as getting 35.5 miles per gallon of fuel.  There is some wiggle room in the regulations, and the actual average fuel efficiency might actually be closer to 34 mpg.

The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation says…

• The vehicles covered by the new rules will produce nearly a billion fewer tons of greenhouse gases.
• They’ll also consume about 1.8 billion fewer barrels of oil.
• The rules will add, on average, $950 to the cost of a new car or truck in 2016. Those costs will be offset by better fuel efficiency. The feds predict the average new car buyer will actually save about $3,000 over the life of the vehicle.

While the new rules are clearly designed to encourage automakers to produce more electric vehicles and hybrids, the feds say these tougher regulations can also be met with existing technology applied to cars and trucks running on gasoline.

At a press conference, administration officials stressed that all types of passenger cars and trucks can get better gas mileage. They say there’s no reason why consumers will be limited in their choice of vehicle, including pick-up trucks and SUVs.

The EPA came under criticism earlier this week when it said it would give stationary sources of greenhouse gases at least another year before requiring them to get Clean Air permits. Administrator Lisa Jackson says that was done in anticipation of today’s announcement. She says the agency is moving deliberately to phase in greenhouse gas controls so that people, industry and Congress have time to adjust.

Jackson says she hopes Congress will soon pass greenhouse gas legislation. But until then she says, “This shows it can be done in a thoughtful way that doesn’t hurt the economy, and doesn’t cause the sky to fall.”

This summer, Oregon will be one of four test markets for the EV Project, a plan to deploy 4,700 electric cars and more than 11,000 charging stations. The other states include Washington, California and Arizona.

But this report is looking at the long term, saying Oregon can do even better.

Created by Governor Kulongoski in 2008, the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Infrastructure Working Group has spent more than a year studying how the state can help more Oregonians give up their gas guzzlers. The group looked at biofuels and natural gas powered vehicles, but the bulk of the work is focused on EVs.

Some of the recommendations are:

Give consumers a bigger tax break for buying EVs. The report calls for doubling the tax credit to a maximum of $3,000.

Look at selling Green Energy Bonds that can be used to pay for infrastructure, such as more EV charging stations.

Increase the number of charging stations along the I-5 corridor, starting in the Willamette Valley. The report says Oregonians who live in metro areas travel fewer miles than rural residents – about half as much. Since EVs don’t have the range of gas vehicles, it’s easier for metro residents to get around in EVs.

Expand the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) to include business that make EVs or supply the parts. Currently, only renewable energy projects can get BETC tax breaks. Governor Kulongoski says he’s working with the legislature on making these changes during the special session.

Create a new tax break called the Transportation Electrification Tax Credit (TETC). This would designed for just electric vehicle and infrastructure businesses.

Increase funding for EV research and create new research centers in Oregon.

According to the report, Oregonians spend about $12 billion a year on fossil fuels for their cars and trucks. Transportation is responsible for 38% of the state’s emissions of carbon dioxide. While EVs can be more expensive to purchase, the report notes that they need far less maintenance than regular cars.

Imagine all those EV drivers coming home from work, about the same time of day, and plugging in their cars at about same time. It could put quite a strain on the power system.

Helping manage that demand is one of the goals of a project at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, WA. They call it the Smart Charger.

Michael Kintner-Meyer and colleagues with the Smart Charger. Courtesy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The Smart Charger is a device that decides when it’s the best time to charge your electric car. It communicates via wireless technology with the grid, making decisions based how much electricity costs at any given moment, and the current demand on the power grid.

If the charger notices more power is needed in the grid, it will stop charging the EV. It will resume charging when overall demand is down and electricity is cheaper. The idea is to even out peaks for demand, easing strain on the system, and saving money.

“Using the device could save up to $150 a year for electric vehicle owners who pay based on when they charge their vehicle,” according to Michael Kintner-Meyer, one of the engineers who developed the Smart Charger.

The Obama Administration wants one million new electric vehicles on the road by 2015. This kind of “smart” technology could play a huge role in helping our grid system accomodate all those new EVs. Earlier research by PNNL shows we could replace 70% of light trucks and cars with EVs, and not put extra demand on the system, if they’re connected via smart technology.

VIDEO: Using The Smart Charger Controller. Courtesy PNNL.

The bill tells agencies and industry to develop plans that will meet goals of reducing emissions at least 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Part of the discussion includes an ongoing argument over whether mandating these goals is a “hard cap” (a term used by opponents) or something else.

Here’s what witnesses are telling the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Andrea Durbin, Oregon Environmental Council, Supporter:

• She says the greenhouse gas reduction goals established by the 2007 Legislature are a good first step but, “We’re not going to see action in Oregon until we have a process for moving forward.” She believes the bill will make sure Oregon industry will be more competitive in a “carbon restrained world.”

Dave Robertson, Portland General Electric, Opponent:

• He says the bill will force PGE to close some power plants and build new ones, costing consumers $7 billion. Robertson says that could nearly double power bills by 2020. “A hard cap,” says Robertson, “is something we simply can’t accept.”

Tim Miller, Green Lite Motors, Supporter:

• Miller’s company is a start up that builds electric vehicles. He says EVs will help Oregon meet these reduction goals, noting that the state already has some EV manufacturers and other big companies such as Nissan and Think may build factories here, “The demand is here and the products are coming.”

Jennifer Hudson, Ash Grove Cement, Opponent:

• She says Ash Grove is the only cement manufacturer in Oregon. Located in Baker County, the plant employees more than 100 people and provides about 20% of the county’s tax base. She says if Oregon moves forward alone on global warming, it will put her plant and the state’s economy at a disadvantage. She says the state should wait for Congress to create a national plan.

To leave comments, please click on the “Continue reading” link.

And none of this involves riding a bike or taking mass transit. You’d be driving to work in the privacy of your own car.

Sound too good to be true? Maybe not. The solution involves a massive switch from gasoline powered cars to plug-in hybrids.

According to Dr. Michael Kintner-Meyer with the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richland, Washington, some 43% to 73% of the nation’s gas powered cars and light trucks could be replaced with plug-ins.

If that happened, Kintner-Meyer says it could lead to dramatic improvements in carbon emissions and oil consumption. And if we handled it right, we wouldn’t have to build new power plants or transmission lines to keep the plug-ins powered.

Kinter-Meyer says the key to making this work is charging up the plug-ins during overnight hours, when demand for electricity is lowest. Not only would we get those environmental benefits, but the car batteries could be incorporated into the grid and help provide some stability.

News of Kinter-Meyer’s research came to us from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The Council has been studying how the increased demand for electricity from hybrids would impact the power supply in the region.

According to the Council, the demand for power from plug-ins and electric vehicles in the Northwest is expected to reach 25 megawatts by 2020. That added demand will increase power plant emissions by 1 million tons . But factoring how much less pollution we’d be getting from automobiles, the Council says the net result would be 6 million fewer tons of carbon gases.