House Puts Off CAFE Standards

[tarabell]

Pelosi: "The American people, in every region of the country, overwhelmingly support stronger fuel-efficiency standards"

Gordon Trowbridge – Detroit News – August 2, 2007

WASHINGTON -- House leaders decided Wednesday to put off a potentially divisive fight over auto fuel-economy rules, leaving until September the debate over how high a hurdle they'll set for the embattled domestic carmakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said late Wednesday that the House will not consider competing proposals to change Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards when the House takes up a comprehensive energy bill this week. The House is expected to vote on the package this week.

The decision means the Big 3 automakers have dodged, for now, passage of a tough set of CAFE standards proposed by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., which would have boosted vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. It has wide support among House Democrats, including Pelosi.

Markey agreed to withdraw his proposal, offered as an amendment to the energy bill, as did Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., who had offered a weaker set of mileage standards favored by the auto industry.

Despite the reprieve, it is unclear whether Wednesday's decision to delay the debate is good news, in the long run, for the Big 3. It's possible the issue won't be resolved until a House-Senate conference committee meets to iron out differences between the competing versions of the bill. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who generally favor tougher standards, will appoint members of the conference committee.

House Democrats also avoided what could have been a difficult intra-party battle. Pelosi and many other House Democrats favor higher standards than the auto industry supports. But Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, powerful chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and perhaps the Big 3's biggest advocate in Washington, has sparred with Pelosi over CAFE.

Car companies, including the domestic carmakers and some foreign firms, have opposed high mileage standards such as those in the Markey plan, calling them unachievable.

Environmental groups have kept up the pressure for higher standards, saying they are vital to fight global climate change. Supporters of higher standards won a victory earlier this year in the Senate, which approved a set of CAFE proposals opposed by the industry and by Michigan lawmakers.
[Read More]

[Chuck]

Tempting at this point to abolish CAFE and see if Detroit thinks that one thru...no incentive for domestics to improve their FE, while Honda/Toyota continue to improve their fleet mpg and market share - sucide.

[brick]

Thanks, Nancy. It's great to know that the House's ability to avoid difficult decision making is still going strong. Please enjoy your peace and quiet while Detroit rots and the nation continues to burn, burn, burn away.

[Earthling]

Last time I checked, the approval rating of Congress was 14 percent, even lower than for Bush.

This latest failure to act amply illustrates why it is so low.

Harry

[aca2983]

I'm not pretty much against legislating fuel economy standards. If consumers want higher fuel economy, they can put their money where their mouth is by buying fuel efficient vehicles.

The marketplace has responded. Witness earlier postings about foreign automakers 50% share.

I'm of the opinion that most of the public is so stupid that they think that by having congress pass FE legislation, that will magically allow them to buy SUVs that are just like they have now, but will get 40mpg instead of 15mpg without any compromises.

The change needs to happen at the demand side.

[antrey]

Higher fuel taxes would help...

[Earthling]

Higher fuel taxes would not only damp down demand for gasoline, it would also fund new bridges, ones that won't collapse under you.

Harry

[c0da]

I guess it's left up to the consumers to direct MPG now.

[leanAztek]

Don't forget removing the fuel subsidies

[tarabell]

I was really sad to see the CAFE standards taken out of the bill. I know it looks like Pelosi wimped out. But I do think she had her reasons, and believe she is sincere about the issue and would have forced it if she felt the chances were realistic. Dingell is clearly the bottleneck here and wields a lot of power. Markey believed he had the votes to make it go through but possibly they didn’t want to chance it. Anyway the issue will come back in September and given just what oil prices and OPEC attitudes are doing this week, the CAFE proponents’ position if anything, should be that much stronger then.

I know several of you have mentioned writing to your state representatives, as I did, and I plan to remind you all when this comes up for a vote again and hold your feet to the fire. They need to hear from us, and we can make a difference. We can’t complain how they vote if we don’t make our opinions known to them. When they don’t listen to that, then we vote. End of story.

I see it as kind of like giving fortified breakfast cereal to your kids who are picky eaters. Billybob and Lulubell (no relation) will go out and buy any shiny object as long as it has 4 wheels and goes voom. But if they are provided the choice – between shiny object A at 45mpg and shiny object B at 25mpg, I think they can collect enough brain cells to choose A. But a 45mpg car needs to be on the lot and available.