Congress thought the unthinkable on vehicle mileage

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Just a few years ago, the prospects of Congress boosting fuel-economy rules for vehicles could have been summed up by one word: unimaginable.

But the unimaginable has become political necessity in an era of $3-plus-per-gallon gasoline, with Democratic leaders under pressure to deliver on their promise to pass an energy bill aimed at reducing global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

A measure providing for a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020, for a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon, appears certain to win the support of majorities in the House and Senate, especially with Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), perhaps Detroit's staunchest ally on Capitol Hill, supporting it.

"A 35-mpg standard is something that just a year and a half ago most people in Washington thought would never see the light of day," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has pushed for higher standards for years.

But though an agreement was reached on tougher miles-per-gallon rules, congressional negotiators labored over the weekend to try to complete work on other aspects of the energy bill.

The bill is expected to include a requirement, popular among farm-state lawmakers, that greater amounts of homegrown fuel such as ethanol be added to the nation's gasoline supply. It also is likely to include a measure, which earlier ran into trouble in the Senate, requiring utilities to generate more electricity from cleaner sources such as the sun and wind.

Still, Democratic leaders were optimistic that they could get a bill to the president's desk before the end of the year.

The tougher fuel-economy standards are the centerpiece of the bill, expected to come before the House for a vote this week.

Whether President Bush will sign the bill is uncertain. Many Republicans have complained that the bill does not do enough to increase domestic production of oil.

Sierra Club lobbyist Melinda Pierce said that it would be difficult for Bush not to sign a bill that includes tougher fuel-economy standards after he set, in his State of the Union address, a goal of reducing the nation's gasoline consumption by 20% over 10 years.

"I can't imagine that President Bush can veto a bill that Congress has passed, the automobile makers have signed off on, and the American public is clamoring for," she said Saturday.

A White House spokeswoman said the administration had yet to see details of the agreement. Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Saturday that if the bill clears Congress, he will recommend that Bush veto it.

Under a 1975 law passed after the Arab oil embargo, each automaker's fleet of cars must average 27.5 mpg and its light trucks, including SUVs, pickups and minivans, 22.2 mpg.

For years, a coalition of Republicans wary of regulation and Democrats from vehicle-producing states -- with fierce lobbying by U.S. auto companies and auto unions -- has opposed tougher standards, contending that they would lead to lighter, less safe vehicles, threaten auto industry jobs and limit consumer choice. Just two years ago, during consideration of the last big energy bill, a proposal to increase the standard to 40 mpg by 2016 drew just 28 votes in the 100-member Senate.

A lot has changed since then. "Between $3-a-gallon gasoline and a growing understanding of global-warming pollution, Americans are demanding that we do something," said David Friedman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean-vehicles program. "They're also demanding we improve our national security. Our oil addiction is about our national security."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-center

[pedroh 21]

let them buy a gas guzzler, but charge them a special tax for being so inconsiderate of others.. thats my opinion.. sure, let them have hummers that run 8 miles per gallon, but charge them a special tax when buying them, surely if they can afford the gas for such behemots, they can afford the tax

[Jasman0717 9]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

My opinion is force the manufacturers to make a certain percentage of affordable alternative fueled vehicles and give more tax breaks to those that purchase them. Don't punish, reward.

[pedroh 21]

My opinion is force the manufacturers to make a certain percentage of affordable alternative fueled vehicles and give more tax breaks to those that purchase them. Don't punish, reward.

that sounds good..

i put gas in my car last sat, let it run almost empty to see what was a 'full tank'... 8.5 gallons!!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm for it.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

precisely why i'd never buy a dodge.

[Jasman0717 9]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

precisely why i'd never buy a dodge.

I looked at all the other vehicles that I was interested in and none of them get very good mileage. The Dodge is nice and big and comfortable so guess I will stay with it. My friend has the PT and it gets pretty good mileage but is just too small for my likes.

[~krakatoa~ 27]

My opinion is force the manufacturers to make a certain percentage of affordable alternative fueled vehicles and give more tax breaks to those that purchase them. Don't punish, reward.

I agree.

[JenAlex 0]

My opinion is force the manufacturers to make a certain percentage of affordable alternative fueled vehicles and give more tax breaks to those that purchase them. Don't punish, reward.

To bad we can't get the government to agree with that statement.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

car makers test them in ideal track conditions. not real world.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if I don't care about mileage and just want more power?

Would I still be able to buy a 600hp, 5mpg muscle car?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

precisely why i'd never buy a dodge.

Eh, doesn't the WORD ("dodge") itself tell plenty? :lol:

What if I don't care about mileage and just want more power?

Would I still be able to buy a 600hp, 5mpg muscle car?

Yes, but you may only be able to drive it optimally at Daytona or Talladega.

[Jasman0717 9]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

precisely why i'd never buy a dodge.

Eh, doesn't the WORD ("dodge") itself tell plenty?

What if I don't care about mileage and just want more power?

Would I still be able to buy a 600hp, 5mpg muscle car?

Yes, but you may only be able to drive it optimally at Daytona or Talladega.

Ok, go a head and pick on my Dodge....I am going to go eat some worms now

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

The mileage ratings are always way off, at least from my experience. My Dodge was supposed to get 15 in down but is lucky to get 10

precisely why i'd never buy a dodge.

Eh, doesn't the WORD ("dodge") itself tell plenty?

What if I don't care about mileage and just want more power?

Would I still be able to buy a 600hp, 5mpg muscle car?

Yes, but you may only be able to drive it optimally at Daytona or Talladega.

Ok, go a head and pick on my Dodge....I am going to go eat some worms now

what kinda dodge is this vehicle?

for the record, i've always gone with chevy trucks as they get the best gas mileage outta chevy, ford, and dodge.