The U.S. House of Representatives has approved the Energy Independence and Security Act today by a margin of 235 to 181. The new energy bill was crafted on a compromise reached last week between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), and calls for an increase of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard to 35 mpg by 2020. Though the compromises contained in the bill, like keeping standards for cars and trucks separate, assured it a win in the House, it seems there's little chance of it surviving elsewhere. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) came right out and said the bill "clearly has no chance of becoming law." That's because the White House has already said it will veto the bill, which contains additional green policy that affects more than just CAFE standards. The bill heads to the Senate next, where it will likely lose much of its teeth before being sent off to the President's desk for a possible veto. A number of automakers that have rallied against various forms of this bill have already made public statements that they'll put their best efforts forth to comply with whatever changes are made into law (read GM's statement here and Ford's after the jump), which means they sense the fight is ending and it's time start working on technologies to raise their fleet-wide fuel economy average.
[Source: Houston Chronicle]
PRESS RELEASE:
STATEMENT: FORD COMMENT ON HOUSE ENERGY BILL
The following is a statement from Ford Motor Company on the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 by the House of Representatives:
WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 6, 2007 -- "The House energy bill is an important step towards increasing the national fuel economy standard. It accomplishes our shared goal of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases.
While the new standards are aggressive, Ford is committed to providing our customers with the fuel efficient, clean, safe, high quality products they want and value.
It is a substantial improvement over the Senate energy bill passed in June, because it maintains the separation of cars and trucks, provides flexibility to manufacturers and encourages the production of flex fuel vehicles."
Paris Preview: Officially Official, Honda's new hybrid is the Insight!
Mazda Kiyora city car concept, MX-5 facelift head to Paris
Leaked: Official updated Mazda MX-5 image
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
By the Numbers - August 2008: New Digs Edition
In the Autoblog Garage: KITT Shelby GT500 KR
First Drive: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Dodge Journey R/T
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Farris @ Dec 6th 2007 5:05PM
I just saw this news story on CNN a few minutes ago while eating lunch with my mom.
She couldn't understand why I was yelling "NO! NO! NO!" at the screen.
ambientFLIER @ Dec 6th 2007 7:11PM
I understand why. It's because you're an idiot, right?
David @ Dec 6th 2007 5:15PM
The same UAW workers that elected these democrats will face more job losses as the domestics play catch up to the imports on fuel efficiency. Your vote really counted.
rem83 @ Dec 6th 2007 5:30PM
While I understand the perception that domestics get lousy fuel economy, its really no longer true as imports get bigger. Domestic fleet averages may be lower due to the larger number of trucks and SUVS they sell, but among similarly priced models you'll find a few percent difference at most. For example (the following are all 2008 models)
Malibu 4cyl auto:
22/30
Accord 4cyl auto:
21/31
Camry 4cyl auto:
21/31
Altima 4cyl auto:
23/31
Fusion 4cyl auto:
20/28
Sebring 4cyl auto:
21/30
Generally, domestics are within about 10% of their imort (japanese) rivals and rapidly closing the gap
Guenther @ Dec 6th 2007 5:39PM
Rem- its not about the fact that all the mid-size cars get the same fuel economy. Its about the fact that the Big 3 rely so heavily on truck sales to make ends meet. Sure, toyota LOVES money made on trucks, but their cars make plenty of cash.
compy386 @ Dec 6th 2007 5:15PM
This bill either:
1. Has so many loop holes that the 35 MPG figure is largely irrelevant.
2. Will instate a fuel economy figure that is not achievable even by Toyota (whose new models are actually losing MPG).
tekdemon @ Dec 6th 2007 5:20PM
I hope you're kidding, because the bill would give everyone until 2020 to achieve 35MPG...that's 12 years from now.
And while Toyota's US average is in the mid-twenties, the entirety of Japan has a fuel economy average of over 46MPG so I don't imagine it would be very hard for Toyota to simply bring over more Japanese models by 2020.
Farris @ Dec 6th 2007 5:56PM
@ tekdemon:
You bring up a valid point about the Japanese Toyotas having higher MPG averages. This is probably because they factor in the Kei-class cars.
I think the problem with the American system of automotive regulations is that we want our cars to be super safe AND super fuel efficient. Safe usually means more things inside, like airbags (or other SRS systems), large crumple zones, etc, which all lead to weight.
If we could reduce some of the safety, we could reduce the weight, which would reduce the necessary engine size (because getting to 60 in a heartbeat is another weird requirement that we have in the US) and bring fuel mileage up.
Not only that, but lightweight cars tend to perform better (see Lotus, etc.).
But then again, people just love the idea of "walking away from a crash," so my idea will never happen.
Temple @ Dec 6th 2007 6:05PM
35mpg should be easy. The EU is planning on making a 130g/km rule by 2012, which would equate to an average mpg of 5.4L/100km (43.4 mpg US) for gasoline and 4.8L/100km (48.9 mpg US) for diesel vehicles.
Japan's current average is 45mpg, and are set to get much higher.
While the driving conditions are different in the US, and Americans love SUVs and trucks. 35mpg by 2020 should be nothing to complain about.
raz @ Dec 6th 2007 5:16PM
Bush needs to ask himself a question, what will he be remembered for….he did nothing for well being of the nation, did not fix social security, 40 million uninsured, war, debt, at the very least he try to clean air and make USA oil free……………..but I really do not think he cares.
I personally voted for Bush, 2 times. Bush basically turned me into a Democrat, I never was one, but now I feel many Republicans will if not swich…..then just seat at home on Nov 2nd.
tankd0g @ Dec 6th 2007 5:32PM
He obviously plans to be rememebered for solving the Palistilian conflict. I'm sure they will go as planed...
raz @ Dec 6th 2007 5:18PM
Look i am sure automakers will find loopholes to avoid 35 MPG, but if the law passes they will have to make more fuel effecient cars than they make now. Overall they will not get 35....but they will get 30, now the law is 27 mpg but overall economy is at 22 or 23.
This CAFE law is a great thing.
AZ @ Dec 6th 2007 5:31PM
Could someone tell me why there are separate standards for cars and trucks, please?
Thank you.
Polly Prissy Pants @ Dec 6th 2007 6:02PM
Because businesses use trucks and if they had to pay for pollution controls then they would systematically be put out of business, the US economy would crumble into oblivion and baby Jesus would cry. Same goes for airplanes, 18 wheelers, etc. Don't worry though, it's OK if businesses poison our environment just so long as you regular civilan types don't.
CastleCharles @ Dec 6th 2007 6:05PM
I think if the manufacturer calls it a truck, it is a truck. At least that is how it has been. Not sure if this new legislation changes that and gives the say to the Fed. I think I read something about cars / truck in the Constitution......
Daniel @ Dec 6th 2007 5:31PM
The domestics need to start leading in powertrain tech instead of following and maybe these higher mpg regs wouldn't be so out of reach. GM is finally bringing variable valve engines online, but how long has Honda had vtec? Ford and GM are finally bringing 6 sp autos online but Toyota(Lexus) already has 8 and Benz has 7. Hybrids? Diesel?
sheth @ Dec 7th 2007 8:59AM
people are so uninformed. No automaker is close to these numbers, not even Toyota and Honda. Right now Toyota and Honda have one vehicle each that could meet these standards using 2008 EPA numbers. What world do you guys live in? You say the domestics need to get up on powertrain tech but Honda still doesnt have a 6 speed auto. Neither does Nissan. Hyundai only has one. GM and Chrysler are using cylinder deactivation, not Toyota.
The idea that only the domestics will be challenged to meet these goals is a JOKE. And anyone comparing the mileage of cars in Japan to the US fleets of Toyota and Honda is crazy. They dont drive pickups and SUVs over there. Gas is very expensive and space is tight in Japan and thus small cars are far more popular than in the US. You cannot simply transplant Japanese Toyotas and Hondas to the US and expect them to sell.
Daniel @ Dec 7th 2007 4:48PM
First of all you made the incorrect assumption that I was supporting the 35 mpg fleet average. If you review my post you'll see I never said that. What I am saying is if the domestics led instead of followed in powertrain tech they could make significant gains on their own and this debate would largely be moot. Look how the car market was largely forgotton by the domestics until gas starting skyrocketing, and now they're playing catch up. BTW Honda and Nissan have award winning efficient engines that don't need the extra gear which is largely another OD. And for the record I drive a Ford so I'm not a domestic hater, I just hate to see them rest on their laurels.
tankd0g @ Dec 6th 2007 5:32PM
"And while Toyota's US average is in the mid-twenties, the entirety of Japan has a fuel economy average of over 46MPG so I don't imagine it would be very hard for Toyota to simply bring over more Japanese models by 2020."
People actually need to buy them for them to count against CAFE goals. And most of the micro cars people say already get 40mpg, would never pass crash testing in the USA.
Daniel @ Dec 6th 2007 5:33PM
That allows them to keep making 10-12 mpg 3 ton trucks without them bringing down the mpg average for the entire fleet.