Copyright 1999 Journal Sentinel Inc.
Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel
August 17, 1999 Tuesday Final
SECTION: News Pg. 1
LENGTH:
1123 words
HEADLINE: New debate lies ahead on fuel
economy
Some senators want tougher federal rules for car mileage
BYLINE: FRANK A. AUKOFER
SOURCE: Journal Sentinel staff
DATELINE: Washington
BODY:
In an era of plentiful, cheap gasoline, Congress is poised to reopen the
bitter debate over government-imposed fuel economy standards for automobiles and
light trucks.
Thirty-one senators want the government to impose tougher
standards. The debate is expected to play out soon after Congress returns in
September from its summer recess.
The government's corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards have been locked
in place since 1995. They were enacted in 1975, right after the Arab oil
embargo, which caused shortages, long lines at service stations and public alarm
about America's dependence on foreign oil.
The original CAFE required
cars to achieve a fleet average of 18 miles a gallon in 1978 and gradually rose
to the 27.5 in 1985, where it has remained since.
Standards were lower
for light trucks, and there were separate requirements for two-wheel drive and
four-wheel drive vehicles through 1992, when they were combined. The requirement
started at 15.8 miles a gallon for a four-wheel drive truck in 1979 and rose to
the current 20.7 in 1995.
The truck standards are receiving increased
attention because of the explosive growth in sales of sport utility vehicles,
minivans, pickups and other light trucks. They now account for almost half of
all motor vehicles sold in the United States.
The United Auto Workers
union has expressed a fear that higher CAFE standards could depress light truck
sales and cause the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
That
argument resonates at the General Motors truck assembly plant in Janesville,
which employs about 5,000 people, who build GM's big sport utility vehicles --
the Chevrolet and GMC Suburbans, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon.
Last
year, according to Dan Flores, a GM truck spokesman, the plant produced 248,183
trucks, including some medium-duty trucks as well as the big SUVs.
Starting in 1995, and continuing since, Congress has prohibited the U.S.
Transportation Department from spending any money to raise the CAFE standards.
This year, as usual, the ban is contained in the House-passed
transportation appropriations bill. The Senate has not yet acted.
But
some senators have vowed to eliminate the ban and allow the department to
toughen the standards. Others, particularly from car-manufacturing states like
Michigan, have threatened just as strongly to do whatever it takes to stymie any
CAFE increase.
Thirty-one senators, including Wisconsin Democrat Russ
Feingold, wrote to President Clinton, urging him to jump in on the pro-CAFE
side. The letter was initiated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
"The
program is critical to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cutting air and
carbon dioxide pollution, and saving consumers money at the gas pump," the
letter says. "Because of the increasing number of light trucks, the average fuel
economy of all new passenger vehicles is now at its lowest point since 1980,
while fuel consumption is at its highest."
Feingold said he signed the
letter because he was concerned that Congress had blocked the Transportation
Department from meeting its legal requirements to evaluate the need for CAFE
increases.
"We should be having a full and informed debate about CAFE
standards," he said. "I haven't come to a final decision about what the CAFE
levels should be, but I feel we shouldn't prevent the Department of
Transportation from doing its job."
However, Feingold's Wisconsin
colleague, Democrat Herb Kohl, did not sign the letter, saying he did not
support an increase in current fuel economy standards right now.
He said
that CAFE had helped promote fuel economy -- an environmental goal he supports
-- and said he was committed to reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
"However, I am concerned about the safety and economic implications of
increasing the standards further," he said.
Kohl pointed to studies that
had shown people were more likely to be killed or injured in traffic accidents
involving smaller, lighter vehicles. He said tighter CAFE standards would
promote vehicle downsizing.
Moreover, he said, "since CAFE standards are
fleet-wide averages, American manufacturers who traditionally control a greater
share of the large-vehicle market would be put at an unfair disadvantage when
compared to foreign competitors."
"If people want to buy larger
vehicles, they will continue to do so with or without an increase in CAFE
standards," he said. "The share of that market will simply shift to foreign
manufacturers."
A similar argument came from the United Auto Workers,
whose members build most of the domestic cars and trucks.
In a letter to
senators, the union said any increase in the CAFE standards would have a
disproportionately negative impact on U.S. manufacturers because their fleets
contain a higher percentage of sport utility vehicles and other light trucks.
But Ann Mesnikoff of the Sierra Club's global warming program said those
opposed to higher CAFE standards were singing the same old song.
"Back
in 1975 the Ford Motor Company, in testimony before Congress, said the CAFE law
would result in a product line of all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some mix
ranging from sub-subcompact to perhaps a Maverick," she said. "Anybody who goes
out to buy a car today knows that isn't true. When the auto industry had to step
up to the plate and make cars more efficient, they put technology to work and
did the job. There's no reason why they can't do that again."
Samuel A.
Leonard, director of GM's Public Policy Center on Mobile Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency, said it could be argued that the CAFE standards were part of the
reason for the sales growth of sport utility vehicles.
To achieve the
standards, he said, manufacturers had to reduce the weight of vehicles and
convert to front-wheel drive to provide passenger space in lighter automobiles.
Among the results, he said, were the elimination of towing capability
and the demise of big station wagons. That drove people to sport utility
vehicles, he said.
Leonard said automakers were awaiting the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision on new vehicle emissions standards.
As now proposed, he said, they would require expensive technologies and lower
weight to improve fuel economy.
That, he said, would make the big SUVs
more expensive and drive down sales. He said the auto industry preferred the
status quo.
Part of the motive, he said, was profit. SUVs and light
trucks deliver the highest profits of all vehicles; economy cars the lowest.
"Let the market dictate where we're going, and if social policy says it
should be different, do it with market incentives rather than command and
control," Leonard said.
LOAD-DATE: August 18,
1999 
