Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-22-2007, 07:02 AM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Chrome383Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 2,043
Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards

Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards
POSTED: 12:10 a.m. EDT, June 22, 2007

Story Highlights
• Senate votes to raise fuel efficiency standards to average of 35 mpg
• New standards apply to SUVs, must be reached by 2020
• Bill also includes laws against price-gouging, increases in ethanol production
• House still debating its version of the standard


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed an energy bill late Thursday that includes an increase in automobile fuel economy, new laws against energy price-gouging and a requirement for huge increases in the production of ethanol.

In an eleventh-hour compromise fashioned after two days of closed-door meetings, an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020.

But the fuel economy issue threatened to topple the legislation up to the last minute. Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the vote until late into the evening so several senators could be called back to Capitol Hill to provide the 60-vote margin needed to overcome a threatened filibuster from pro-auto industry senators.

Shortly before midnight, senators voted 62-32 to cut off debate, and followed by passing the bill 65-27. The measure now awaits action by the House, which is expected to take it up next week. But attempts to combine the two bills and send legislation to President Bush probably won't be possible until later this year.

It would be the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency since the current 22.7 mpg for cars was put in place in 1989 and the first time Congress has imposed a new auto efficiency mandate in 32 years.

Supporters said the new requirement would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, when large numbers of the more fuel-stingy cars will be on the road.

Republicans complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production.

But its supporters said it reflects a shift to new energy priorities, away from promoting fossil fuels to supporting other energy sources such wind and biomass to make electricity and ethanol to power cars and trucks.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.

But Democrats didn't get all that they wanted.

Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it.

Democrats also were unable to include in the bill a requirement for electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels such as wind and biomass. Senators from the South objected, saying the region couldn't meet such a standard, and Republicans refused to let the measure come up for a vote.

But the legislation provides a bonanza to farmers and the ethanol industry. It requires ethanol production to grow to at least 36 billion gallon a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase of the amount of ethanol processed last year.

The legislation also calls for:

• Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Don't know how to feel about this, we all knew it was coming. But I for one don't believe they should "FORCE" the auto industry to meet a certain level. Hell, they could say OK and just create mini's and then look where we'd be... No Trucks, No Pony Cars, No Fullsize Cars. Granted this is extreme, but is it where it's heading when the govt keeps stepping in?!?!

I'm reserving a Stable for my future GM Horse n Buggy.
Chrome383Z is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 07:17 AM
  #2  
Registered User
 
Z28Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.
I'm sure this is what they said the last time they increased CAFE. And here we are, still struggling to do the same thing. Heck, our consumption of fossil fuels has no doubt increased since then. What they and the environmentalists don't seem to get is that you cannot manipulate the supply side and get the desired effect. Real change will only come when WE decide to buy alternative fuel vehicles in mass quantities. The automakers are only building the cars we demand, just as they should.

I wonder if the technology will even be developed for a 1/2 ton truck to get 35 MPG by 2020? Unless every truck on the road features an advanced hybrid system....
Z28Wilson is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 07:25 AM
  #3  
Registered User
 
Chuck!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,612
So they're increasing mileage standards but also increasing ethanol output, which gets less miles to the gallon?

Or will the 35 mpg rule not apply to vehicles running on ethanol?
Chuck! is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 07:31 AM
  #4  
Registered User
 
Jim the Nomad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ********.com
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Chuck!
So they're increasing mileage standards but also increasing ethanol output, which gets less miles to the gallon?

Or will the 35 mpg rule not apply to vehicles running on ethanol?
I believe ethanol-compatable vehicles get bonus points where mpg and CAFE is concerned... despite the tendency of flexfuel cars to get crummy mileage while using ethanol.

mini rant/

Of course, you'd be getting great ethanol mileage if you had ridiculously high compression... like 13:1 or higher, but that would make regular fuel a bit useless.

/mini rant
Jim the Nomad is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 07:53 AM
  #5  
Registered User
 
Z28x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it.
Great, the oil companies get to keep there tax cuts at the expense of American made renewable fuel.

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z
Don't know how to feel about this, we all knew it was coming. But I for one don't believe they should "FORCE" the auto industry to meet a certain level.
The only other option is for the gov't to stop subsidizing big oil and watch the price shoot up. Of course no politician want to be the one behind gas going from $3 to $5. Plus the oil industry can afford better lobbyist than the auto industry.

Last edited by Z28x; 06-22-2007 at 07:56 AM.
Z28x is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 08:50 AM
  #6  
Registered User
 
bossco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
• Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.
I dont care if its seen as a necessity or not, but this is pure stupid. Why don't they just speed things up and follow the Hugo Chavez model. Apprently thats what America wants, socialism.

And what about nuclear, how many windmills, solar farms and biomass acreage will it take in conjunction to the 35mpg standard to move the US from fossil fuel based energy dependance to something else.

Last edited by bossco; 06-22-2007 at 08:57 AM.
bossco is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 08:53 AM
  #7  
Registered User
 
routesixtysixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arcadia, OK
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by Gloveperson
I imagine more and more 1/2 tons will come with diesels to meet that. But remember, the 1/2 ton does not need to get 35 MPG if I am not mistaken, only the average for the fleet of cars so if they sell one pick up that gets 30 MPG, they then need one car to get 40 MPG to average it out.
Wrong. Trucks must obtain 35 mpg average as well as cars. How? Even the 1.5 liter Honda Fit doesn't make 35 mpg composite.
routesixtysixer is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 09:47 AM
  #8  
Registered User
 
Z28Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally Posted by routesixtysixer
Wrong. Trucks must obtain 35 mpg average as well as cars. How? Even the 1.5 liter Honda Fit doesn't make 35 mpg composite.
The article doesn't make it clear if trucks/SUVs and cars will be split into separate groups like they are now or if it will be a fleet-wide 35 MPG mandate. I'm assuming the Big 3 would rather see a combined fleet 35 MPG mandate, as they could keep producing 20 MPG trucks alongside 50 MPG hybrids/alternative fuel vehicles. Then again, they could also get around a 35 MPG standard for trucks alone by building hybrid HHR/PT Cruiser-type vehicles and classifying them as trucks, like they do now....unless the Government closes that loophole.

Sounds like one big bureaucratic cluster****.
Z28Wilson is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 10:13 AM
  #9  
Registered User
 
Aaron91RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 163
What a bunch of crap. At least maybe they'll find a loop hole like making everything technically a FFV and then making it eligibile for a lower MPG.

Or like someone said on here, the volt runs on electric so it gets infinite MPG.
Infinite divided my anything is still infinite, so the CAFE average just went up to infinite
Aaron91RS is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 10:15 AM
  #10  
Registered User
 
cmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 121
huh?

The only other option is for the gov't to stop subsidizing big oil and watch the price shoot up. Of course no politician want to be the one behind gas going from $3 to $5. Plus the oil industry can afford better lobbyist than the auto industry.
Huh? The US govt gave billions in subsidies to big oil -- who made trillions last year. Not trillions as in sales $$, but trillions as in profit $$. Gas going from $3 to $5 would be simply out of greed - not because they are struggling to make a profit.

As for the CAFE regulations, I'm for it for one reason alone: national security. The US is the largest consumer in a market that is dominated by nations who have significant populations that hate our guts and are out to kill us. If you were going to war against the US, wouldn't your primary objective be to cut off our oil supply? Not only would you cripple the US citizenry, you'd significantly hinder our war machines. Sure we have the strategic oil reserve, but you'd just out-wait that supply. Look no further than Iraq: they seem to have no problem stringing a conflict out. I think the CAFE regulations force the US to address one of our biggest security risks -- and for that reason alone, I'm actually in favor of this piece of legislation.
cmutt is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 11:12 AM
  #11  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Chrome383Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by cmutt
As for the CAFE regulations, I'm for it for one reason alone: national security. The US is the largest consumer in a market that is dominated by nations who have significant populations that hate our guts and are out to kill us. If you were going to war against the US, wouldn't your primary objective be to cut off our oil supply? Not only would you cripple the US citizenry, you'd significantly hinder our war machines. Sure we have the strategic oil reserve, but you'd just out-wait that supply. Look no further than Iraq: they seem to have no problem stringing a conflict out. I think the CAFE regulations force the US to address one of our biggest security risks -- and for that reason alone, I'm actually in favor of this piece of legislation.

But forcing an industry to create a product without offering scientific know how or money is wrong in my book... 35mpg may not be really terrible...

But look at the case if they raised it to 60mpg?!?! or higher?

They are essentially going to force automotive companies to say screw the US market. I wouldn't be suprised to see some auto mfgs leave the NA Market totally when they can sell vehicles in other nations without all the stupid legislation.

Hell I would?! Force me to try to create something out of nothing and I'll send my products elsewhere. How would you like to see the Camaro only being sold in Australia or the Middle East...

Think about it.
Chrome383Z is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 11:18 AM
  #12  
Registered User
 
Eric77TA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,958
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson
Then again, they could also get around a 35 MPG standard for trucks alone by building hybrid HHR/PT Cruiser-type vehicles and classifying them as trucks, like they do now....unless the Government closes that loophole.
The loophole is being closed. The PT/HHR and their ilk will no longer qualify as trucks under the new standards:

http://wardsauto.com/ar/cafe_changes_debate/
Eric77TA is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 11:30 AM
  #13  
Registered User
 
cjmatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Motor City
Posts: 983
the big three should just sell every car with a 3 cylinder that gets 50mpg, yet swaps to an lsx crate motor in a few hours...plug and play
cjmatt is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 12:35 PM
  #14  
Registered User
 
Z28x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Originally Posted by cjmatt
the big three should just sell every car with a 3 cylinder that gets 50mpg, yet swaps to an lsx crate motor in a few hours...plug and play
I like that idea. LS3 dealer installed options
Z28x is offline  
Old 06-22-2007, 02:02 PM
  #15  
Registered User
 
mastrdrver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: O-Town
Posts: 1,817
So, do you think we will see diesels in smaller pickups like the Ranger/Colorado/Dakota?

One thing for sure, we will see more engines come faster with DI and maybe more having some kind of variable valve lift.
mastrdrver is offline  


Quick Reply: Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.