Dems Reach Deal On Fuel Economy Rules

First Increase In Fuel Efficiency In 32 Years Would Require 35 Miles Per Gallon By 2020

(AP)  Congressional Democrats reached a compromise late Friday to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent, clearing the way for a House vote probably next week on an energy bill that Democratic leaders would like to send to President Bush before Christmas.

The agreement came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reached an accord with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry that dominates his home state, to ease the impact of the new fuel economy requirements.

“A compromise has been reached on automobile fuel efficiency standards,” Dingell announced in a statement.

Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.

With oil prices hovering near $90 a barrel and gasoline above $3 a gallon, Democrats have been eager to sent Bush a package of new energy measures.

But Democratic leaders were stymied over disagreement on the auto fuel efficiency issues as Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, insisted on some provisions to ease the transition for automakers.

Under the agreement, the ability of carmakers to use production of so-called flex-fuel vehicles that run on 85 percent ethanol, would be extended to 2020 and more flexibility would be given in improving fuel efficiency for SUVs and pickup trucks, although overall the industry must achieve 35 mpg average counting all vehicles.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that the auto efficiency increases - similar to what already has passed the Senate - “will serve as the cornerstone” of the energy bill she intends to bring up for a vote next week.

She said the bill also will include a ramp up in the use of ethanol and other biofuels and a requirement for nonpublic electric utilities to use a minimum amount of renewable energy such as wind and solar to produce their power.

While details of those provisions were still being worked out, aides said the ethanol provision was expected to mirror Senate requirements for use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over today's productions.

Power companies would have to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy, aides close to the discussions said.

Both the Senate and House approved separate energy bills last summer, but Democratic leaders have struggled for weeks to try to work out a compromise acceptable to both chambers - and garner the 60 votes needed to survive a sure filibuster in the Senate.

House Republicans have called the legislation a “non-energy bill” because, they said, it ignores any measures to promote domestic production of oil, natural gas or increased use of coal.

But Pelosi has said its aim is to turn away from fossil fuels toward development of renewable fuels and place greater emphasis on spurring energy efficiency and conservation.

She said the auto fuel economy provisions represent a “landmark ... that will offer the automobile industry the certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller vehicles.”

The agreement on vehicle fuel economy came after days of tense discussions between Pelosi and Dingell, a staunch defender of the auto industry, who had pressed for concessions to help the industry. Pelosi agreed to a number of Dingell's demands but stood firm on the overall requirement of 35 mpg, phased in over the next 13 years.

“The agreement reached today prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable,” said Dingell. “We have achieved consensus on several provisions that provide critical environmental safeguards without jeopardizing American jobs.”

Manufacturers currently have to meet a fleet average of 27.5 mpg for cars - a level that has not increased since 1989 - and 22 mpg for SUVs, passenger vans and pickups.

Meanwhile it became increasingly likely - though not yet certain

that Democratic leaders will abandon attempts to repeal nearly $16 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry as had been approved by the House earlier this year.

It remained unclear Friday whether some, more limited tax provisions aimed at ensuring extensions of tax credits and incentives for renewable fuels development would be included.

[standlee5]

Long overdo we should have cars getting double that. You have to wonder what the whole SUV 5MPG thing was really all about. We had gas guzzlers shoved down our throats and nobody stood up for the people.

[danstoned]

standlee5, I bought a new 2000 Ford V-8 pickup that got 8mpg in town, 15 mpg highway. I was shocked that mfgs didnt take the social responsibility in year 2000 to produce 25 mpg pickups. The mid 70''s Arab Embargo made the need to change our disgusting energy habits so clear to see. Then Ronald Reagan was elected president, and Big Oil took control of US energy policy. I have a flat in Ukraine mostly because their public transportation is cheap, and efficient, no car needed in the cities anyway, same as New York City. Then the 1994 GOP Congress eliminated all fuel economy standards, mfg. social responsibility was overlooked, thus the hugely profitable SUV. How sick is that for an energy policy since 1981?

[mtracy9]

You get what you vote for. Keep electing moron Republicans to office and you will keep getting an energy policy that is beholden to big oil and big coal.

[ontheleft]

"But Pelosi has said its aim is to turn away from fossil fuels toward development of renewable fuels and place greater emphasis on spurring energy efficiency and conservation."

Pelosi hit the nail right on the head. That is what we need to do. Oil will not be powering us in 100 years. By then the Middle East will go back to being the sand pit it was before oil was discovered and we''ll no longer have to sacrifice lives and trillions of dollars staking out territory there.

[rowdytexan2]

I drove a VW Beetle for years because I commuted 100 miles round trip to work. They were wonderful little cars, easily maintained. I don''t know where we got the idea that we have to have huge vehicles that guzzle gas.

I had plenty of room for my two kids and even the dog, and we even managed to go on camping trips in that car. You just have to plan well. And even when they became teenagers and we were taking everybody''s kids with us, we graduated to an MPV that got great mileage.

We need to get the idea out of our heads that vehicles are some kind of status symbol and are simply a means to get us from one place to another. Buying a supercab eight cylinder truck is ludicrous when you''re living in the city.

Frankly, I think they should outlaw gasoline engines in the city and make every body drive golf carts. The freeways are so congested you can''t drive over 30 MPH anyway. And if everybody couldn''t drive so fast among hundreds of cars, you wouldn''t need to drive a tank in defense.

If you''re not working a farm, you don''t need more than a small pick up truck to haul things anyway.

We''re going to have to get cheap and tough if our dollar is going to mean anything again.

[kevboom]

Sadly this bill doesn''t go far enough. Sadder yet, the Republicans will see to it the bill never passes. With record warmth and unending drought in the south that could make Katrina look like a FEMA internship, one would think politicians could stop selling out the people to energy lobbies for five minutes. It''s insulting that Republicans would trash a bill promoting the smallest of renewable energy. As if our national energy policy needs more reliance on oil, foreign or domestic, or coal (the energy so nice it pollutes us twice, mined and burned). Even ethanol is a weak alternative, inefficient and costly to produce, compared to sugar cane which Brazil has used to ween itself from oil. Every energy policy made in this country has a tie-in to some lobbyist greasing the pocket of a politician (the latest, big corn). As for the $16 billion in tax breaks for oil, raking in record profits off the backs of Americans, would it be too much for Congress to require these companies document how they''re really spending this extra income on developing renewable energy sources? I know we don''t require any accountability for Bush''s famous no-bid contractors in Iraq, just for all the overworked and underpaid teachers through NCLB. There''s a bill you''ll never see in Congress, "No Corporate Handout Left Uninvested in the People." I think the Nash equilibrium is playing out in Congress--politicians acting in their own self interest and not that of the people or globe. Big surprise.

[neobrian-2009]

BIG OIL & GOP ,Partners in Crime!
Friends don`t let friends vote republicon !

[pepperp1]

35 that is an underperforming target it should be 60 easily.

[cyberus-2009]

Ever notice that all these *green* deals are set 12-25 year in the future?
In the meantime all the bigwigs will be chauffeured about town in their gas guzzling limos.
And another thing .. whats with this *industry wide average* BS?
Create a 75mpg tonka toy that nobody will buy and SELL a million 15mpg SUVs does NOT in my book help matters.
What we really need with the mpg standards is a MPG MINIMUM, 35mpg average is a good *target industry average* number IMHO, as long as the minimum for all cars and light (non-commercial) trucks is 20mpg.

[blancadebree]

How will increasing fuel economy do anything about the price of oil? That''s like saying reducing your caloric intake will decrease weight, or exercise builds muscle, or dropping a ball will cause it to fall to the ground. Geez, these Democrats with all their crazy thinking and voodoo science!

http://blancadebree.blogspot.com

[speakinup]

The single best thing that would give our economy a huge boost would be getting gasoline down to 70 cents a gallon again. And it can be done with insitu mining of shale oil.

What''s more - that prospect scares the hell out of hugo chavez!

Shale oil can be mined insitu: (A) Put a frozen ring around the area you want to mine using drilling rigs. (B) Heat the Shale to 750 degrees - extract gas and oil until it no longer flows -unlike with liquid oil this means you have the VAST majority if it. (C) let rock cool - as it does it traps the remaining oil and gas. (D) stop freezing around target shale.

This yields a three and 1/2 to one energy output. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF SHALE OIL THAT SAUDI ARABIA HAS IN LIQUID OIL. IT CAN BE PRODUCED AT $30 A BARREL. With over 1,500 barrels for a plot of land 20 X 35 feet!!!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html

And Shale oil is in the middle of NO WHERE in NE UTAH and SW Wyoming.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/maps/index.cfm

Ask your Representative WHY we haven''t been doing it!
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

[geezer62]

RowdyTexan2
In the late 70''s I lived in L.A. and I vividly remember the gas lines and the odd/even system. I thought that people would get the idea and start demanding better fuel efficiency. Boy, was I wrong. After making a laughing stock out of Carter because of his pleas for conservation of oil along came Regan and here came the guzzlers. It has gone downhill since then. We can develop super computers, working space craft, and all sorts of electronic devices but we can''t develop an efficient engine. Doesn''t make sense does it? Generally speaking I think people are so easily led by Madison Avenue that if they told us that Sherman tanks were "cool" everyone would have to have one. Look at the Hummer demand. Until we get our heads out of our azzes and start to think nothing will change. It''s all smoke and mirrors brought to you by big oil and the current administration.

[geezer62]

speakinup.....
Usually I disagree with you but your last post is very right on. Just goes to show that there are always issues we can agree on no mater what our politics are. They have known for years about extracting oil from shale but the excuse was always that it was to expensive. If your numbers are correct they have been lying their azzes off. Maybe the thinking was that as long as they could basically steal oil from the arabs they could sit on our supply here until the arabs wised up. And did they factor in China and India as becoming large consumers. Whatever the reason, we must find a way to free ourselves from foreign oil and we must do it soon. Hang in there and keep posting.

[michaelt302]

A roundup of Gallup health polls over the past four years finds that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to report having excellent mental health.
The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx
The study concluded it was unclear why there was such a strong correlation, but the relationship between party affiliation and mental health was virtually constant even within categories of income, age, gender and other factors.
"The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican," the study said.
The study speculated that the fact that Republicans have on average higher incomes than members of others parties could play a factor. But in the study, even Republicans making less than $50,000 a year reported having excellent health far more than Democrats earning the same.
The study was based on interviews with 4,014 American adults who were at least 18 years old, conducted from November 2004 through 2007. The margin of error was 2 percent. (we''ve all known that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder for years now)

[j-whitman]

MichaelT302,,,,, Tie a wind generator to your backside, you can power the state of Texas

[robertkjjj]

MichaetT302, thanks for that great post where you show that Republicans are more mentally healthy than Democrats. I went to that clearly impartial link%u2026
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx
and read it all.
It reveals what I suspected for years. Democrats are unhappy, bitter, angry, and chronically mentally unstable. Mental illness is rampant among liberals. And, because they are mentally ill, they don%u2019t even know it. They have no idea how they appear to the rest of us. It%u2019s sad that most of them do not seek the help they so desperately need.

[sparks224]

"How will increasing fuel economy do anything about the price of oil?..."
Posted by blancadebree

How could reducing demand possibly affect price? Those crazy Dems.

We should have stopped using gasoline 20 years ago.

[sparks224]

MichaelT302
robertkjjj

The key to that Gallup poll you refer to is that these people REPORTED having excellent mental health. Most delusional people feel they have excellent mental health.

Since you have to be somewhat delusional to be a Republican nowadays, the poll makes perfect sense.

[jowand]

"How will increasing fuel economy do anything about the price of oil?..."
Posted by blancadebree

How could reducing demand possibly affect price? Those crazy Dems.

We should have stopped using gasoline 20 years ago.
Posted by sparks224 at 02:46 PM : Dec 01, 2007

There is no oil shortage, it''s faked, only a shortage of drilling in the US. Which party prevents more drilling where we know there is a lot of oil? We couldn''t stop using gasoline 20 years ago for the same reasons we can''t stop using it now, no AFFORDABLE alternatives.

[sparks224]

MichaelT302
robertkjjj

Did any of the respondents to that poll also report that they were the Queen of England? You didn''t mention that.

[sparks224]

"...We couldn''''t stop using gasoline 20 years ago for the same reasons we can''''t stop using it now, no AFFORDABLE alternatives."
Posted by jowand

You%u2019re right, but if we had chosen to pursue a different energy source 30 years ago and invested in the infrastructure, it probably would have been affordable.

It%u2019s a matter of choice, but %u201Cwe%u201D (and by we I mean Big Oil) didn%u2019t choose a different direction.

[sparks224]

jowand''

Look at Brazil; they use alcohol from sugar cane for fuel. I don%u2019t think they import any oil.

For the U.S., we could switch to electric/hybrid vehicles. The best way to fight gas prices is to stop buying gasoline.

[j-whitman]

jowand,,,,, "There is no oil shortage" - LOL -- And Intelligent Design is a science

[usayesterday]

No matter what compromises are made in the Senate or House...

...I''m quite sure that Bush will veto the bill.

For the next 12 months, the House and Senate Democrats will need to ensure at least 60% of the votes in their favor in order to have a veto override majority on any bill they try to pass. To fight Bush effectively, a simple majority passage... of ANY bill, is clearly not enough these days.

Thankfully there were enough clear thinking Republicans to help override Bush''s veto of the water resources bill in October. The Democrats will need the votes of those moderate Republicans on this bill as well to ensure a veto-proof majority.

[denn034]

It''s time for an increase but, can the auto industry afford it or not? Such has to be asked during this time of high prices.

[idlepugilist]

12 years to improve mileage to the minimum standard. We''ve known about this problem for at least 4 decades, and what did we come up with: Hummers and 10 mpg Dodges. The obvious rebuttal from the President will be a 40% increase in stumping for tearing up Alaska to suck out any remaining oil reserves. Yes, rather than set expectations, let''s treat the symptom. Just the kind of thinking that put America into debt so deeply with China in order to finance a conjectured war.

[idlepugilist]

Can the auto industry afford the change/transition? Let''s see, what happened to AT&T in the 80''s when they broke anti-trust laws? Just because you''re big and unethical, this doesn''t mean you can simply do whatever you want to do when it flies in the face of America''s need. Several vehicles already meet/exceed 35 mpg, and we''ve had cars like those for over 20 years. What''s really happening here is that people who like to drive bus-sized vehicles may have to consider a more reasonable sized vehicle, and that''s going to anger many people who rather enjoy looking down their noses at everyone else.

[ontheleft]

The fuel economy issue came up a few years ago and was never passed because congress didn''t want to "micromanage" the auto industry. That is an exact quote from a politician who helped kill the bill.

On another note, NOTHING is being done to address the high oil prices and the public seems to be remarkably apathetic towards the situation. During Clinton''s presidency there was an uproar when he tried to raise the gas tax and there were also massive truck driver protests against high diesel prices. Where are these complainers now that the Republicans have presided over the biggest fuel price increases ever?

As we''ve seen, high prices do not deter consumption as energy is not a luxury but a necessity in the advanced society we live in. All the high prices are doing is lining the pockets of the rich while hurting the poor who live on very tight budgets.

There is NO shortage of oil. $100 a barrel oil is propped up by speculation and money pouring into the commodities market. Nobody seems to remember (or never experienced) the gas lines and rationing that accompanied true shortages in the 1970s and early 1980s. Gas stations have yet to run out of $3 a gallon gas.

[usayesterday]

It''''s time for an increase but, can the auto industry afford it or not? Such has to be asked during this time of high prices.

Posted by denn034 at 05:28 PM : Dec 01, 2007
...............

The Japanese automakers have been steadily increasing their average fuel efficiency for decades! The Japanese are not THAT much more technologically advanced than we are... or are they?

The U.S. auto industry balks at any attempt to improve fuel efficiency because that requires investment in RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which ultimately cuts into the profit margins. Unless, the U.S. auto industry truly does not have the technological know how like the Japanese do, to increase fuel efficiency.

THE U.S. AUTO INDUSTRY IS ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC!

[usayesterday]

The U.S. car makers continuously make gas guzzling pieces of ******. The U.S. consumers have spoken and they have been speaking with their wallets. Year after year, Toyota and Honda''s sales numbers blow away anything from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. The U.S. car makers can **** and moan for eternity about the gas mileage requirements, while the U.S. consumers pass them by on their way to the Japanese (or even Korean) car dealerships.

We, as Americans, have to ask... when will the executives at the U.S. automakers get a clue...

...after they build their LAST car?

...after they close their LAST manufacturing plant?

...after they accept their LAST multi-million dollar bonus check?

[usayesterday]

This is a case where I prefer the free-market economic forces to work. Why bother regulating a U.S. industry that lacks any kind of foresight and market planning?!

For decades, the U.S. automakers continuously made gas guzzling pieces of ******. They simply went from making large station-wagons with fake wood siding, to large "sport utility vehicles".

Thankfully, more and more consumers are getting a clue, as they are buying more cross-over vehicles, hybrids, and other more fuel-efficient cars. All the while... Ford, Chrysler, and GM have introduced newly redesigned models of their largest SUVs within the past year.

Sooner or later, the employees at Ford, GM, and Chrysler will eventually have to look for jobs at the Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, and other foreign auto plants in America. And that''s just fine. Sure, the foreign auto makers don''t have unions at their plants (boo hoo hoo), but it''s better than being employed at Walmart!

Ford, GM, Chrysler:

Keep making your krapp. Your cars (and company brands) will join the historical ranks of car companies like Nash and Studebaker!

[usayesterday]

In the past 10 years, I have purchased:

THREE brand new GM cars (1 Chevy, 1 Saturn, 1 Pontiac)...

...and then one brand new Honda (Accord).

I have realized that the fourth time is a charm.

[mcv57]

USAyesterday,

We had the technology to overhaul the transportation industry since after the WWII(alternative power plants for engines). But the rich and famous is not going to let you or any President have there wealth. Heck man, who do you think gave Hilter his blessing as dictator. Yes, the RICH!

[sparks224]

Dems Reach Deal On Fuel Economy Rules

Too little.
Too late.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by neoconism at 09:13 PM : Dec 01, 2007
+ report abuse

*******************

So do you still buy gasoline??????? your right..the ''dumbing of america'' did WORK ON YOU.