Hi -
Energy is becoming the new weather. You remember the way we used to think of weather, right? "Everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it?" Now that it looks like we're doing far too much about the weather, however, energy policy may fill the old slot.
Take fuel efficiency.
- America's most trusted brand name in automobiles -- the Car Guys, of course -- are raving about the need to increase fuel efficiency.
- As we reach nosebleed oil prices, a new opinion poll shows strong, across-the-board support for stricter mileage standards.
- The White House recently boasted about how much the administration supports increased fuel efficiency.
- The courts just told the administration that its failure to set sensible fuel economy standards was "arbitrary and capricious."
- Meanwhile, leaders in both chambers of Congress have said they want an energy bill that includes higher CAFE... if they can work out the process, of course.
In fact, legislation could hit the floors of House and Senate starting in the middle of the second week of December. And one indication may be that the warhorse from Detroit, Rep. John Dingell, is finally talking about a CAFE compromise -- albeit one that could undermine the existing Senate compromise language, of course.
Stay tuned.
Congress and the public shouldn’t buy Detroit’s argument that it’s impossible to meet the stricter standards contained in the Senate bill, according to the Car Guys, aka Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the Peabody Award-winning hosts of Car Talk on National Public Radio..
"The onslaught of 'we can’t… it’ll ruin us … you’re denying the American people a choice in vehicles' begins every time we the people, through our elected representatives, try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming, into the modern era."
The list Tom and Ray provide of ways car makers could produce vehicles that achieve significantly better fuel mileage is exhaustive. And then they remind us that how we use oil and gasoline, and how we set our priorities, is also matter of national security.
“Do we really want to send our kids off to fight and die in the desert so we can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten? ... “It’s the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it’s the job of Congress to set our national priorities.” (Car Guys, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, Letter to the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Oct. 25, 2007) http://smnr.us/cartalk/
Oil is flirting with $100-per-barrel prices. And if it were up to the American public, higher fuel economy standards already would be law. A recent opinion poll showed strong, across-the-board support for stricter fuel mileage standards, notably the Senate provision to close the SUV loophole and boost the average gas mileage of the American car and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
"Voters aren't buying the arguments Detroit automakers are using against tougher fuel economy standards in Congress, with 69% supporting a 35 mile-per-gallon rule by 2020 in a nationwide poll released Friday…"
"The pollsters said national security worries, such as depending on terrorism-linked regimes for oil, were overwhelming every argument automakers had made against tougher standards.” (“Give us more m.p.g., voters say” Detroit Free Press, November 10, 2007)
You can view more detail about this poll at http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/nationalsecurity-briefing.html
And it seems rising gasoline prices at the pump and record-setting oil prices on international markets aren’t sitting well with the public either.
"'There’s a general perception outside of Washington that we haven’t done near what we could to move the country to a more acceptable energy mix,' said Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “ 'Congress has been slow to act, and the administration has been slow to act, and the public is way ahead of us on these issues.' ” (Voter Anger May Free Up Energy Bills” New York Times, November 12, 2007)
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released the last of its current series of reports, you'd have thought from an administration press briefing that the White House was the biggest fan of all, when it came to vehicle fuel efficiency and a progressive energy policy.
"[Council on Environmental Quality] CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: President Bush has backed mandatory fuel economy requirements. President Bush has backed mandatory renewable fuel requirements. President Bush has backed a whole new suite of mandatory appliance efficiency requirements at the federal level...
"The President has called -- clearly there's a piece that's pending and ready to go, and that's the fuel economy piece and the alternative fuels piece. The President called for that more than 10 months ago. And there's a lot of public support for it. So there's a piece of legislation that could occur right away..." (White House press briefing on IPCC report, November 16, 2007)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just slammed the administration, through withering criticism aimed at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTSA). But although the agency's failure to monetize the benefits of reducing carbon emissions had gathered the most ink, what the court said about the treatment of fuel economy regulations might be even more important.
"NHTSA's failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions..., failure to set a backstop [minimum average fuel economy], failure to revise the passenger automobile/light truck classifications, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 lb. GVWR class, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the EPCA [Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975]. We therefore remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards consistent with this opinion as expeditiously as possible and for the earliest model year practicable."(Center for Biological Diversity vs. NHTSA decision (PDF), November 15, 2007) page 89
Meanwhile, Congress seems to need a jump start. And the process has become positively Byzantine.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are still trying to work out a leadership agreement in lieu of a conference to reconcile the House and Senate energy bills."
"'With a little bit of luck, we could complete it prior to the Christmas recess,' Reid told reporters Nov. 6 after a weekly caucus meeting..."
"Reid said he believes he now has 60 votes to defeat a filibuster against a renewable electricity standard and 60 votes to pass a fuel economy increase."
"'But it's not the same 60, and it makes it very, very difficult,' Reid said."
"'Everyone agrees there must be an extension of the tax credits [for renewable energy], but there's a disagreement as to how they should be paid for,' Reid said... "
"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) told reporters that he planned to meet Nov. 6 with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to discuss how to proceed with a tax component to the energy bill..."
"A $32 billion energy tax package was blocked in the Senate in June and the Senate energy bill (H.R. 6) has no tax component..."
"Meanwhile, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) spoke on the Senate floor Nov. 6 concerning his intention to offer an amendment to the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) based on the renewable fuels mandate in the Senate-passed energy bill..."
"Democrats such as Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) consider Domenici's amendment to be a ploy to take away a popular program from the stalled energy bill and make it even less likely that an energy conference agreement will pass before adjournment..."
"A few Republican senators are still objecting to proceeding to an energy bill conference, including Texas Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn."
"Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) told BNA he also has a 'hold' on a motion to proceed to a conference because he objects to the lack of support for clean coal technology, which is desired by the coal industry." ("Energy: Reid Says Work on Energy Bill Could Wrap Up By Christmas, But Disagreements Continue" BNA, No. 215, Wednesday, November 7, 2007)"
Of course, if you ask the auto manufacturers, they tell the public they're peddling as fast as they can -- at the same time they throw roadblocks in front of Congress
"The decision comes at a time when American auto companies, in particular, have been trying to paint themselves as more environmentally conscious and interested in developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. At this week’s auto show in Los Angeles, for example, several automakers introduced a number of new hybrid-electric car and trucks."
"But Detroit and some foreign automakers have continued to lobby against the most stringent Congressional proposals to raise fuel-economy standards, supporting more modest proposals instead." ("Court Rejects Fuel Standards on Trucks." New York Times, November 16, 2007)
And Detroit loves to worry about work trucks.
"Under the original fuel economy law in 1975, trucks were required to meet lower standards than cars because they were considered work vehicles, used mostly for towing and hauling large loads. But automakers quickly discovered -- mostly by accident -- that while cars had to shrink under the rules, SUVs did not and could be remade from farm tools into family haulers. ("Court moves to raise fuel rules for trucks." Detroit Free Press, November 16, 2007)
But as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted, studies have shown how far that is from today's usage.
"A pickup truck usage study conducted by R.L. Polk & Co. showed that 73% of light pickup users use their trucks to carry passengers on a daily or weekly basis, 68% use them for personal trips on a daily or weekly basis, 58% use them for commuting on a daily or weekly basis, 59% never use them for towing, and 69% never use them for driving off-road ... 64% never use them for driving off-road ... Even among heavy pickup users, 76% use them for carrying passengers on a daily or weekly basis, and 52% never use them for driving off-road..." (Center for Biological Diversity vs. NHTSA decision, op. cit., page 58)
And anyway, talk of every car and truck needing to reach 35 mpg is simply deceptive.
"Detroit automakers maintain that SUVs and pickups should not be measured under the fuel economy rules that apply to cars, as the Senate's plan to raise standards to an average 35 m.p.g. by 2020 for all vehicles would require." (Detroit Free Press, op. cit.)
In reality, the 35 mpg is a fleetwide average, with allowances made based on vehicle attributes like size. Foreign manufacturers producing smaller vehicles will have to reach higher average fuel economy than U.S. car makers, who produce more SUVs and trucks. For a more thorough explanation, check out the slide show from the Pew Campaign for Fuel Economy that explains the flexibility built into the Senate compromise legislation (PDF).
Is fuel economy finally moving? Rep. John Dingell just posted on his committee Web site a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In it, he says that reforming and increasing CAFE may be the least difficult obstacle to passing the energy bill. (No, this isn't his comedy routine for "The Funniest Person In Washington" contest.)
"Upon careful evaluation, and after many discussions, it is my view that a compromise can be reached using the language passed by the Senate." (letter from John Dingell to Nancy Pelosi (PDF), Nov. 13, 2007)
And then he goes on to propose undermining the details of the Senate bill, which, as you remember, was a bipartisan compromise carefully crafted from the even stronger original CAFE legislation introduced in the Commerce Committee by Sens. Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens.
But this isn't Jimmy Carter's fuel efficiency. This is a reformed system that sets a fleetwide average rather than a corporate average, builds in flexibility, creates targets that the National Academy of Sciences called achievable and makes it much more difficult for the auto manufacturers to game the system. And speaking of games, enough of them, already.