May 24, 1999

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to urge you to work with Congress to implement the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law.
The law has already been implemented -- and often with adverse effects on the public. Congress forced higher CAFE standards in the late 1970's and early 1980's. In 1995, Congress decided to re-examine the program rather than keep raising the standards. That makes sense.
The program is critical to reducing US dependence on foreign oil, cutting air and carbon dioxide pollution, and saving consumers money at the gas pump.
The CAFE program has been proven completely ineffective in reducing gas consumption and oil imports. CAFE has done nothing to reduce air pollution, since harmful emissions are not related to gas mileage. The reduction in auto-related pollution comes from tailpipe standards (not CAFE standards) and anti-pollution technology. CAFE standards have cost consumers far more than they have saved -- not only in higher vehicle prices and reduced utility, but also in reduced safety.
We want to work with you to ensure that the American people can benefit from improved CAFE standards.
The past 20 years have shown that higher CAFE standards hurt more than they help.

Since 1995, the CAFE-freeze rider has been inserted in the House version of the Transportation Appropriations bills and the Senate has agreed to this language in conference.
Yes, that's a fact! Congress has approved the provision each year, because of the ongoing threat by DOT to impose higher standards.
The rider prohibits the Department of Transportation from examining the need to raise CAFE standards.
DOT already decided in 1994 that it wanted to impose higher standards, despite the effect on consumers. But Congress reviewed the issue, and found no need to raise standards.
Current CAFE standards have stagnated for nearly a decade.
CAFE standards haven't "stagnated". In fact, DOT raised standards on light trucks five times since 1990, and threatened even more, before Congress finally stepped in.
While the standard for cars is set at 27.5 miles per gallon,
Yes, that's a fact! Congress set a fixed CAFE standard for passenger cars, so agencies can't arbitrarily make changes in that regulation. But DOT keeps trying to increase the standards for light trucks.
the standard for heavily polluting sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks lags behind at 20.7 miles per gallon.
Current SUV's and other light trucks are clean vehicles, meeting strict tailpipe emissions standards. There's no "lag"; gas mileage for light trucks is naturally different than passenger cars, because of the extra work that trucks do. That's why the CAFE law has always allowed a separate standard for trucks.

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.
In fact, new-vehicle fuel economy has increased dramatically since the mid-1970's, and remains at high levels despite low gasoline prices and growing consumer demand for larger, more useful vehicles. The small increase in total fuel use results from a larger population, growing travel, and a strong economy -- not from low gas mileage.

The freeze rider denies the purchasers of SUVs and other light trucks the benefits of existing fuel saving technologies.
The current freeze doesn't deny anything to anyone. Consumers currently have a wide range of vehicles and features available, to meet individvual needs. Instead, the freeze protects availability of larger vehicles for those who need them. And the fact is that many fuel-saving technologies have already been incorporated into light trucks, which is why they get 50% better mileage today than 20 years ago.

The current standards save more than three million barrels of oil per day, and save the owner of an average new car $3,000 at the gas pump.
The fuel saving of CAFE standards is little more than wishful thinking. The small savings in fuel use from smaller cars has been offset by consumers who drive more (due to lower per-mile driving costs), or who switched to light trucks because of CAFE restrictions on cars and station wagons. CAFE standards have increased new-vehicle costs more than any savings in fuel.
However, we still use about 17 million barrels a day, contributing about $50 billion to our merchandise trade deficit. Improved standards will reduce oil consumption, benefitting the economy and our nation's energy security.
History shows that America's oil imports depend on world oil prices, not U.S. CAFE standards. We import a higher percentage of oil today than 25 years ago, despite CAFE standards and a more fuel-efficient fleet. Further increases would be equally ineffective.

Higher standards also will translate into additional dollar savings for consumers.
On the contrary, the landmark 1992 study on CAFE by the National Academy of Sciences showed that large increases in fuel economy would increase car and truck prices up to $2750 per vehicle, far beyond any savings at the pump.
A substantial increase in CAFE standards would result in a net increase of 244,000 jobs nationwide, with 47,000 in the auto industry, according to a study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
It's not surprising that a pro-CAFE lobbying group would issue that type of "study". But the results are illogical on their face. If CAFE standards are raised, forcing automakers to produce more unpopular small vehicles and fewer cars and trucks that consumer want, how could that possibly increase jobs -- in the auto industry, or anywhere else? Economists who study the issue agree that higher CAFE would cost U.S. jobs, not add them.

Finally, improved standards will reduce pollution, including cancer-causing hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons (HC) aren't linked to cancer, but they do contribute to ground-level ozone ("smog"). But higher CAFE standards simply don't affect HC emissions one way or the other. Current cars and light trucks have very low HC emissions, which meet strict EPA standards set on a "grams per mile traveled" basis -- regardless of the vehicle's fuel economy.
America's cars and light trucks are responsible for 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, which causes global warming.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant; it's a harmless gas found in nature that's part of the life cycle. There's major disagreement among scientists as to whether changes in global CO2 emissions may have some impact on global climate. But there's no disagreement that U.S. cars and light trucks account for only a tiny share of worldwide man-made CO2, so that changes in U.S. fuel economy would have no discernable effect on climate.

Compared to an average 27.5 mile per gallon car, whose tailpipe emits 38 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, a 14 mile per gallon sport utility vehicle will emit 70 tons of carbon dioxide.
Most SUV's are compact or mid-size, with fuel economy ratings of 16-20 mpg city and 20-24 mpg highway, similar to other light trucks (pickups, vans and mini-vans). Only 1/5 of new SUV's are "full-size" models with lower mileage ratings -- and of course, those vehicles are able to haul more and tow heavier loads.
Now that sport utility vehicles command such a huge market share and contribute a disproportionate amount of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, we could dramatically reduce these emissions by raising CAFE standards.
SUV's currently account for about 18% of new-vehicle sales. That's larger than it used to be, but still a modest share of the market. And it's in large part a reaction to CAFE standards which forced full-size cars and station wagons off the market. But in any event, neither SUV's nor any other group of cars or light trucks produce "disproportionate" levels of CO2 (which is harmless) or of the regulated auto pollutants. And raising CAFE would do nothing to reduce emissions.

Again, we urge you to work with Congress to ensure that the American people can benefit from improved CAFE standards.
In recent years, it's Congress that has been responsive to the public, by protecting consumers from arbitrary increases in CAFE.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)	Slade Gorton (R-WA)
Richard Bryan (D-NV)	Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)	Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)	Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
Patty Murray (D-WA)	Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
John Kerry (D-MA)	Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Daniel Moynihan (D-NY)	Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)	Max Cleland (D-GA)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)	Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Jim Jeffords (R-VT)	Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
John Edwards (D-NC)	Bob Graham (D-FL)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)	Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)	Harry Reid (D-NV)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)	John Chafee (R-RI)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)	Chuck Robb (D-VA)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Did either of your U.S. Senators sign the pro-CAFE letter? If so, why not send 'em a message on how you feel about their efforts to limit consumer choices of light trucks and cars. And if your Senator didn't sign the letter, you can send him or her a message to say "thank you!" And wait, there's more . . . the Senate letter also left a few things out. Find out what's missing, by using the again.

---

CVC home page

Back to last page

Top of this page

This page last updated: 6/7/99