Senate Passes Landmark Fuel Economy Bill

40% Boost In Efficiency Would Be First Such Federal Law In 32 Years; House Is Next To Act

(CBS/AP)  The Senate passed an energy bill late Thursday that includes an increase in automobile fuel economy, new laws against energy price-gouging and a requirement for huge increases in the production of ethanol.

In an eleventh-hour compromise fashioned after two days of closed-door meetings, an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020.

But the fuel economy issue threatened to topple the legislation up to the last minute. Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the vote until late into the evening so several senators could be called back to Capitol Hill to provide the 60-vote margin needed to overcome a threatened filibuster from pro-auto industry senators.

Shortly before midnight, senators voted 62-32 to cut off debate, and followed by passing the bill 65-27. The measure now awaits action by the House, which is expected to take up the issue as early as next week.

Attempts to combine the two bills and send a final version of the legislation to President Bush probably won't be possible until later this year.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of auto industry interests, has said his House Energy and Commerce Committee will not address the matter until fall - as part of global warming legislation.

President Bush, commenting during the day Thursday while visiting a nuclear power plant in Alabama, said Congress must "be realistic" about the energy legislation. The White House opposes having Congress mandate a specific mileage number for auto fuel economy. Mr. Bush believes the Transportation Department should be given increased flexibility to set a standard.

The legislation would be the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency since the current 22.7 mpg for cars was put in place in 1989 and the first time Congress has imposed a new auto efficiency mandate in 32 years.

CBS News correspondent Kelly Wallace reports environmentalists – who have been fighting for years to get tougher fuel economy standards – are hailing the bill as a win for both the environment and consumers.

"Consumers are paying more than $1,000 a year in additional fuel costs at the pump," says Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency. "This is really going to help consumers drive farther on less."

Auto industry analysts say it could play out another way. They point out that the last time Congress tightened fuel efficiency standards for cars, motorists gave up their station wagons and switched to larger, heavier trucks on the road.

That could happen again, says Rebecca Lindland, who tracks the auto industry for Global Insight, a team of economic forecasters.

Consumers, says Lindland, "don't want to change their lifestyle, they want to protect their families. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"

Supporters say the new fuel economy requirement would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, when large numbers of the more fuel-stingy cars would be on the road.

The compromise which cleared the way for approval by the Senate removed a requirement that automakers would have had to meet an additional 4 percent increase per year for 10 years after 2020. The ethanol flex-fuel requirement also would have been three years longer.

Automakers had strongly opposed the 4 percent requirement, saying it was not achievable and would have required them to make vehicles with a fleet-wide average of 52 mpg by 2030.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is confident that even without the 4 percent requirement, the bill can make a difference for consumers.

"It closes the SUV loophole," says the California Democrat, referring to current requirements that allow much less-stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. "This is a victory for the American public."

Republicans complain that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production.

Supporters argue that the measure reflects a shift to new energy priorities, away from promoting fossil fuels to supporting other energy sources such wind and biomass to make electricity and ethanol to power cars and trucks.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.

[akpals]

Funny how old idiot Bush said that congress must "be realistic" about energy legislation. I think it's high time to do something drastic and unrealistic. Auto makers will follow any fuel efficiency laws when they are forced to. I know, I just left one of those companies. I think it's funny that getting rid of the illegals was mentioned! What kind of mileage does an El Camino get anyway?

[toddpw01]

The Chinese are targeting 40 mpg already, pretty soon we will be importing cars from Asia again because Detroit is still in bed with Big Oil.

Our trade deficit is about half oil at this point, so anybody who says a weak dollar is good for the trade imbalance doesn't really understand it...

[tucano2]

When CURRENT LAWS ARE ENFORCED ILLEGAL ALIENS WILL HAVE NO JOBS AND WILL SELF-DEPORT.
when THE ILLEGALS ARE GONE HIGHWAY GRIDLOCK WILL DISAPPEAR, SMOOTHER AND SHORTER COMMUTES WILL RETURN, GAS CONSUMPTION WILL PLUMMET.

The key is of course to fine and jail criminal employers of illegal aliens.

The worst thing in view in the Senate is S.1348/S.1639, the gigantic Corporate Welfare and AMNESTY proposals.

[lorinkundert]

Show me which clause in the Constitution gives congress that power. Only the States as being sovereign to the Federal Government have that power. See 10th Amendment and get out a dictionary if the words are too hard for you.

[lilvinnyb]

While they are patting themselves on the back for this, havent they noticed how practically the price of everything we eat is going up. Why, because parctically ALL our food is "corn based".

This bill will make it even worse. The more corned used for ethanol means less for food/feed and everything else. Less corn for food means higher prices.

Another typical example of "pepe le peu" politics. Walk around thumping your chest while you leave a trail of mess behind you.

[pepperp1]

You keep wishing it's about those Dems in Congress, cause what I hear, it's those Crooked Repugs, the party of TAX and STEAL that are the problem. Keep it up, keep staying the course and trying to work that propaganda cause you have nothing, everything the Repugs did has been against the interest of the American people and we the American people will not allow special interest to steal another election, we are awake involved and there is 75 percent more of us than you and we are going to the polls. Repug the party of corruption and special interest welfare tax dollar giveaways, welfare mothers never had it as good as this crowd of leeches.

[donnie900]

,, when I git my motor runn'n.. I GIT MY MOTOR RUNN'N! Vroom vroom .. vroom vroom.

I gots tinted windows and fancy shoes. And I stick my azzzz up in de air like a .. big buttt dude.

[donnie900]

What rules? If you people think you can put a catalytic converter on me, yer mistaken. I'm mean, lean, raunchy, and gotta big peckkkker.

[weareone2]

A species that destroys the environment they need to survive, will deservedly die out.

[montraville]

That spokesperson Lindland should probably be fired. The debate has matured far beyond the proto-insulting minimum she reduces it to, and her attidude will only get those interests arrayed against her employers more riled up.

Duke Power, BP, even Exxon no longer use that kind of condescending language, so a mere think tank (whose patrons can barely afford to keep their own lights on) is not gonna hold back the tide.

[notblue]

The new poll numbers came out today for the new Democratically lead congress. There approval rating is now the lowest of any congress in U.S. history! CBS has been tireless in presenting poll numbers regarding Bush, I wonder why they are ignoring this benchmark? TOOO funny, does CBS have an agenda?

[tuckerndfw]

Energy independence would be assured if congress enacted legislation imposing a "gas guzzler tax" on all non-commercial vehicles that was $500,000 dollars or 50 percent of a person's net worth, whichever was greater.

"Gas guzzler" could be defined however they wanted, but I suggest a baseline of 50 mpg. And, restrict "commercial vehicle" to vehicles used routinely to carry commercial cargo in excess of 10,000 lbs.

We would see how quickly auto makers could produce vehicles that achieved much higher fuel economy. And, how much Americans really do want fuel efficient vehicles.

So long as Congress wastes their time passing laws that do not take effect until after the next elections, there will be no "energy independence" in the US.

[simpsonman19]

Apparently 35 mpg isn't "realistic" for Bush. Hmm...aren't there already tons of cars that get that very same, if not more fuel economy? Oh yes, they're made by the Japanese, the automakers that are kicking our butts right now all while the US makers are lossing money. Seems to me that the US makers should have realized this a long time ago and not be forced to do it.

[space_poet]

"The 1908 Model T got 28 mpg. That was 100 years ago. What lies and excuses do they want to make for this?"

Oh man, that is such bullshyyyt. 28 mpg gasoline, and 20 mpg oil. WIT BLUE SMOKE COMING OUT DE ******** TAILPIPE!" posted by donnie

Look donnie, first off, you need to chill out. Do you see anyone swearing like a sailor or screaming like a lunatic? You do know you are blatantly disregarding the posting rules here, right?

Now to the topic, I tried to confirm what you said, but I can not, maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But the comparison still has value and is relevant. We should be 10 times the fuel mileage than we are at, but we don't care cause oil is so readily available.

This legislation is a joke. We are the grossest polluters on this planet, so I really don't expect any one of you Americans to understand. It seems it is our right and our duty to take as much as we can, destroy it, and scoff at anyone who really is trying to make a difference.

[Syndicate]

I wonder if anyone in congress asked an engineer if this is even possible? I have my doubts.

[tuckerndfw]

It's deja vu all over again.

Some of us are old enough to remember the "oil crisis" of the mid 1970's. And, to also remember how congress passed "landmark legislation" to ensure energy independence at some future date.

But, then Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and "energy independence" was replaced with "feel good and be happy."

Sure hope Americans aren't throwing away their bicycles. Some people will need them in a few more years when gasoline is $15 a gallon.

[jimibear]

Kiddbilly, are you saying that we have a right to drive a vehicle which guzzles gas? I'd tend to disagree ...

If you mean that the gov't does not listen to the people, then you are right. The war of 1812 had nothing to do with that, though ... Washington DC's only meaningful role in that war was being burned by the British.

[jimibear]

"Consumers, says Lindland, "don't want to change their lifestyle, they want to protect their families. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"


Good points, AaaBee.

Furthermore, what exactly does reduction of fossil fuel consumption have to do with saving trees?

And in fact, over time, if increase fuel economy requirements leads to reduction in the average size of vehicles on the road, that will be a good thing.

While I agree with Donnie that the only really effective way to make a change is to make a better product, it clearly has not been possible to depend upon the auto industry or the consumer to drive the demand for the better product. In fact, the trend has been toward larger vehicles with worse fuel consumption, which is mind-boggling in its stupidity, arrogance and self-importance, and unfortunately typical of US society as a whole.

Perhaps forcing a change is the only way, assuming it works. Personally, I would be in favor of imposing size/weight maximums on cars, personal trucks and SUVs which would effectively make the most appalling of the mega-vehicles illegal.

[kiddbilly]

has any one in the senate or congress actually read american history???? boston tea party?? taxation without representaion ??? 1776,1812??? the american revolution ??? well if they haven't they might be getting ready to experience it!!! let rethink our rights!!!

[aaabee-2009]

Consumers, says Lindland, "don't want to change their lifestyle, they want to protect their families. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"

Pardon, are economy cars excempt from the same safety standards as luxury models?

Very imaginative excuse though. Because we have the vehicular equivalent of locomotives on US highways these days, and aggressive people who choose to drive them as if they were, negates the manufacture, purchase, or driving of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

What this excuse fails to explain is why smaller cars cannot be built just as safe as larger vehicles, but it also fails to explain that the auto industry is in bed with the oil industry and both have a choke-hold on American innovation.