Senate Passes Landmark Fuel Economy Bill

(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.