Agreement Reached on New Automotive Regulations

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:01 p.m. ET, Sept 19

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers negotiating a broad energy bill agreed on a modest measure Thursday that supporters said would reduce the amount of gasoline used by sport utility
vehicles and small trucks.

    But advocates
of tougher fuel economy efforts said the requirements were so modest and
contained so many loopholes that they are likely to produce little if any
fuel savings and have virtually no impact on U.S. dependence on foreign
oil.

    “The
compromise does virtually nothing,” complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.,
who had argued for stronger measures, but acknowledged most lawmakers were
in no mood to go along.

    The compromise,
agreed to by Senate and House negotiators, would require that minivans,
sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks in models years 2006 though 2012
use at least 5 billion gallons less gasoline than the 2002 model year fleet.

    It is
essentially what the House had approved in its energy bill passed more
than a year ago.

    The fuel
economy measure is part of broad energy legislation that House and Senate
negotiators are trying to agree on and to give final approval. Prospects
for passage remains uncertain as major issues from expansion of ethanol
use to drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge remain to be worked out.

    Rep.
Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House-Senate conference on energy
legislation, called the measure a significant step in curtailing fuel use
and characterized it as “a chance for the country to tell Saddam Hussein
`We don’t need your oil’.”

    But opponents
said the 5 billion gallons amounts to only about a 1 mile per gallon
increase in fuel economy for sport utility vehicles, minivans and light
trucks, which currently are required to meet less stringent fuel economy
standards than other passenger cars.

    The
gas savings amounts to about 20 million barrels, or as Markey said, just
a little more than one day’s consumption of oil in the United States.

    Rep.
Henry Waxman, D-Calif., argued that even those oil savings could disappear
because of a provision that continues to give automakers fuel economy credits
for making vehicles that can use corn-based ethanol. Waxman said only a
handful of those vehicles actually use ethanol, while most run on gas.

    But
Congress appeared in no mood for tougher requirements to curtail fuel use
in transportation, although motor vehicles are by far the biggest consumer
of oil.

    Both
the House and Senate had rejected more ambitious attempts to require automakers
to improve fuel economy when it passed their separate energy bills. The
House rejected a requirement for sport utility vehicles to achieve a fleet
average of 27.5 miles per gallon, the same as cars, when it passed its
bill in August, 2001..

    Last
summer, the Senate refused to go along with a proposal by Sen. John Kerrey,
D-Mass., to increase overall motor vehicle fuel economy to 35 mpg. Kerrey
called Thursday’s deal “a reasonable compromise” considering what both
chambers had approved previously.

    Senate
Democrats turned back efforts to include in the legislation requirements
that would have made it harder for the Transportation Department to develop
stricter fuel economy measures. Senate and House Republicans had wanted
the department to specifically take into account potential job losses and
overall safety in establishing fuel economy standards.

    Critics
of the government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program have frequently
argued that more stringent fuel economy requirements would force automakers
to produce smaller, less safe vehicles, and would force elimination of
some product lines, jeopardizing jobs.

    But supporters
of tougher standards argue that fuel economy improvements can be made through
technology, without making vehicles smaller, eliminating larger models
or closing manufacturing plants.