Representatives from the Republican Party have asked President Obama to delay pushing through strict new automotive fuel economy regulations. The trio of top GOP legislators consists of auto dealer Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Jim Jordan (also of PA) and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa of California (pictured). The three legislators are calling for further review of the 2017-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy targets. According to a report by The Detroit News, Issa says "Higher fuel efficiency standards is a goal I share – but not at the expense of consumer safety."

As the report notes, a deal was struck last summer that would actually lower fuel economy increases from 2017-2021 of 3.5 percent annually for light trucks and five percent every year for cars. Part of this pact stipulated a mid-term review to confirm that reaching these goals was even possible.

The National High Traffic Safety Administration, along with the Environmental Protection Agency decided not to meet a self-imposed Wednesday deadline for finalization of the new rules. NHTSA head David Strickland has said that the new regulations will be announced in "days, not weeks," while one House Republican has suggested that the White House may be having misgivings about pushing the legislation through now.

It is said that the new standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion, but could eventually result in $1.7 trillion in savings for consumers on fuel expenditures. Unfortunately, the new standards could also mean an additional $2,000 to the price of the average automobile by 2025. According to Representative Kelly, "the new CAFE standards will limit choice, compromise safety, and increase costs to millions of Americans..."

The issue may be out of their control, however, as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood noted in a recent interview that the legislation is "... coming soon. We're working with the White House and the EPA to roll it out."


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 136 Comments
      Avinash Machado
      • 2 Years Ago
      Most of America's oil comes from Canada not Saudi.
      P
      • 2 Years Ago
      "GOP Congress resists progress. Nation shocked. Shocked I say!" Tell us something new. These clowns are *literally* against ANYTHING a Dem is for, without concern for what the topic is. They don't even care! Fuel standards are one of the absolute best things this nation could do for our domestic auto industry's global competitiveness (to put us in line with the rest of the world) AND for our national security (being free of the Mid-East is good, right?). But nope, this no-brainer of a policy is opposed. As a fiscal economic conservative (NOT a Republican), I could not be more against today's Republican Party. I might disagree with Dem policies but at least their party aren't 100% morons. Sigh...
        • 2 Years Ago
        @P
        [blocked]
        SatinSheetMetal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @P
        Ray Lahood is a Republican, and you are an idiot. Hence your throwaway account.
      Black Dynamite
      • 2 Years Ago
      The GOP being in Big Corporate and Big Oil's pocket has nothing to do with it..... BD
        Walt
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Black Dynamite
        The Democrats being socialists and in the unions pocket has everything to do with four years of a bum economy.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Walt
          [blocked]
          MAX
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Walt
          I'm still waiting for the Bush tax cuts to kick in!
          design eye
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Walt
          No, the repubs suck, the dems inhale.
      IBx27
      • 2 Years Ago
      Those evil Republicans, trying to keep already-efficient cars affordable for us and trying to keep the government out of deciding what we ultimately can and can't buy. They've got it all wrong, we should be told by the government what color our $50,000 Spark or Yaris comes in!
        • 2 Years Ago
        @IBx27
        [blocked]
          Chris
          • 2 Years Ago
          I don't get some of you people. On the one hand, you claim to be so concerned about well being of those less fortunate and the diminishing middle class, and then on the other, you throw your support behind such legislation that makes cars, among other goods, that much more expensive/less attainable. Do you not see the irony here? Buying a car is becoming more and more like buying a house these days. Car prices are getting insane as it is. The average person pays around $30k for a new car.
          Walter Heisenberg Wh
          • 2 Years Ago
          Bravo!
          Hal Jordan
          • 2 Years Ago
          Chris, you can buy a used Honda Fit for around 15k. You can buy a new Mazda3 Skyactiv for around 20k. These cars have good size and get great MPG. My point is it's entirely possible to be for stringent standards, and also care about the less fortunate.
          Chris
          • 2 Years Ago
          Hal, I was not talking about used cars, I was talking about new ones. The less who can afford a new car, the less options there will be out there. That would eventually trickle down to the used car market as well.
        SatinSheetMetal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @IBx27
        To reply to your idiocy... "Representatives from the Republican Party have asked President Obama to delay pushing through strict new automotive fuel economy regulations." "The issue may be out of their control, however, as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood noted in a recent interview that the legislation is "... coming soon. We're working with the White House and the EPA to roll it out." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_LaHood The house Republicans (only 3, not all of them) are urging that the legislation be DELAYED, but it may be out of their control because Ray Lahood (A REPUBLICAN) Transportation Secretary is working to push it through. Not all Republicans and Democrats agree on the same issues. The world isn't that black and white.
      Ian D.
      • 2 Years Ago
      If the government didn't require Dual Airbags on automobiles, most companies would've dragged their asses in advancing the technology needed to make them both safe and affordable. The Gubment is not the enemy in every single issue guys. A civilize and successful society set standards. If it causes a few companies to kick rocks over the expense of making the products we buy more efficient and safer, then so be it... .......you are now free to vote me down :-)
        tylermars.design
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ian D.
        The government usually mandates safety technology that has been created by a car company already, and has proven to be a big help with safety; airbags, FPA's/RPA's, back up cameras, ped pro laws, etc. They don't invent safety features car companies do, and it takes a while to develop reliable tech., otherwise recalls are made and then you'll bitch about that.
        Hal Jordan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ian D.
        So true, Ian. Many people are really just thinly disguised barbarians who want to do whatever they like regardless of who is affected. In this scenario, this goes for the companies that make cars, and most certainly the people who buy cars.
          Proghog
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Hal Jordan
          Corporations are people don't forget that.
      Ducman69
      • 2 Years Ago
      I have a much better idea. Tax the 20% worst gas guzzling vehicles and an subsidize the 20% most fuel economic vehicles (regardless of technology used) by an equal amount. This creates zero additional tax income or burden, is easy to implement, and combined with steady $3.50+ fuel prices will naturally drive the market to demand more fuel economic vehicles.
        lasertekk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ducman69
        Too logical. Someone would find fault with that proposal.
        Proghog
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ducman69
        Would that tax affect vehicles that carry goods around the country ie tractor trailers because if it does watch the prices of things you buy go up as well.
        design eye
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ducman69
        Italy has had a tax penalty on 2+ liter gas engines for years. That has driven the industry to develop extremely efficient engines up to 2 liters, but we wouldn't want to follow any European examples....no!
      Michael
      • 2 Years Ago
      Three Republicans - an auto dealer, a nobody and Issa ... Two thieves and a slime by association and they claim safety is the reason. That's a good one.
        Jason Krumvieda
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Michael
        Calling somebody a slime ball or a thief has to be backed up or it doesn't count. I heard from somebody, I am not saying who, anyway they told me that you like to collect toenails. From all friends and family members. Take that.
          MAX
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jason Krumvieda
          Just Google Darryl Issa and criminal records. A true scumbag that should should be jail.
      sick of stupidity
      • 2 Years Ago
      We'll let the big US firms become obsolete again...especially when the fuel/energy concerns continue to increase. In the mean time Europe and Japan will continue to move forward with high MPG technology and the US can start buying Hummer Lites. Stupid republicans and their silly theories that the sky is always falling...it's hard to believe this country once got great with all this concern that we don't have the great minds to make things work for the best interest of everyone. (oh did that sound socialist!?!?! eek panic everyone).
      carguy1701
      • 2 Years Ago
      >Republicans doing something good Maybe the Mayans were right after all... Anyway, these new fuel economy standards are retarded. You can't expect a truck to get 54 mpg without expensive tech, and most truck buyers don't wan't said tech. Hell, do away with CAFE altogether.
        Hal Jordan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @carguy1701
        Let's be brutally honest. Most truck buyers don't need a truck for anything. They drive it as some sort of manly cod piece. Whatever, though. Trucks are fine. Diesel is great. But can we make them about half the size of what they are right now? You can get a trailer to pull if you have more cargo. It's really no big deal.
          design eye
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Hal Jordan
          you are soooo right on, Hal Jordan!
        P
        • 2 Years Ago
        @carguy1701
        There's this thing called "diesel". Ever heard of it? Doesn't matter what people "want." Our national competitiveness will decline unless our products can compete globally, where they DO care about fuel economy (and their products are outpacing our tech development as a result). As long as we're stuck on oil, we're as good as done.
        TrueDat
        • 2 Years Ago
        @carguy1701
        that's 54 mpg CAFE.. this is not equal to 54 mpg EPA that gets printed on the window sticker. 54 CAFE is roughly 38 EPA, which is easily attainable within the next 12 years.. remember, that's fleet average. Automakers like Ford, Toyota, and Chevrolet are getting closer and closer to that every year they introduce a new car. Also, electric vehicles will boost that average immensely, especially when we're talking about 90+ mpge..
      robespierex
      • 2 Years Ago
      These regulations don't really bother me. The regs that really irk me are the pedestrian protection laws that stretch new cars in all directions and drastically affect the styling. How many pedestrians actually get hit by cars, anyways? I mean, I've only hit 2 or 3 myself. But seriously, new car styling is messed up.
        Indubitably
        • 2 Years Ago
        @robespierex
        I wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for the laugh as well.
        design eye
        • 2 Years Ago
        @robespierex
        Ped Pro is a European regulation ONLY, where people actually live in urban areas and walk to the shops, and cross roads. If you see someone walking in America, you immediately think they're a criminal. From a styling point of view, its just another parameter to work around, and the "glass half full" attitude is that it creates a new aesthetic that progresses the art of car design into new territory.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        radioshark
        • 2 Years Ago
        A resounding huzzah! At least I have great representation in Oregon and am in frequent contact with them. Also going 3rd party in the Presidential.
          Bill
          • 2 Years Ago
          @radioshark
          Yeah ask the Nadar voters how that worked out.
      ForTehNguyen
      • 2 Years Ago
      going to neuter the hell out of sports cars and make older cars more desireable. Those who support this, dont bitch when the cars decrease in quality in order to meet these unrealistic standards. What the hell do politicians know about designing vehicles, these morons can barely mail a letter to you profitably. Yet you trust them with all the answers regarding fuel efficiency
        tump
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ForTehNguyen
        Two things: You can of course run for office. Second, the USPS is a service and not a business -- just like health care, *it's purpose is not to make profit.*
          WillieD
          • 2 Years Ago
          @tump
          Sure, but the USPS loses billions per year. Not exactly a good way to run anything.
    • Load More Comments