Senator Feinstein Calls for Increased Fuel Efficiency
As Way to Improve Energy Security
December 6, 2001

Washington, DC - In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said greater energy security can be achieved by raising the fuel economy of sport utility vehicles and light trucks to that of all other passenger cars.

The following is Senator Feinstein's statement:

"The events of the last few months and particularly the ongoing war in Afghanistan really highlight the importance of energy security to our national security. And one of the most important things we can do, and we can do pretty easily, is minimize our dependence on foreign oil.

With minimal effort, our country can become much more energy independent right away. With a lot more effort our country can possibly even become energy independent.

Here's what it would take: 1) An energy policy that commits to renewable and alternative energy supplies; 2) A commitment to energy efficiency; 3) A commitment to increasing energy supplies, particularly natural gas, which is fast becoming the fuel of choice for new power plants; 4) And it takes a commitment to a policy that has mostly been ignored for about the last 15 years, a policy of higher fuel economy standards in the transportation sector. And this is something that we can do right now.

At the time of the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) legislation in 1975, people didn't drive SUVs. When the automotive companies began to manufacture SUVs, they built them to meet truck specifications; as a result, the vehicles were not held to the more stringent fuel economy standards of regular passenger vehicles. Today almost half of all new passenger vehicles sold in America are SUVs or light duty trucks. Since SUVs are used today as passenger vehicles, it has obviously become a big deal.

The Feinstein-Snowe legislation simply brings SUVs and light duty trucks which average 20.7 miles per gallon, up to the same fuel economy levels as other passenger vehicles like sedans and station wagons, which average 27.5 miles per gallon. Why do I think the Feinstein-Snowe legislation is so timely and so important? The U.S. contains only 3% of the world's oil reserves while Americans consume 25% of the oil produced worldwide. We use about 19 million barrels of oil a day, about 10 million of which is imported. Forty percent of the oil we use in the U.S. goes into our motor vehicles.

The Feinstein-Snowe legislation would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 10% right off the bat. There is no bigger bang for the buck than that. The fuel economy for automobiles has not improved since 1987. Meanwhile, SUVs and light trucks are even worse; they have not improved since 1981. Since as I already pointed out, almost half of all new vehicles sold today are SUVS or light duty trucks, fuel economy has reached its lowest overall level in 20 years. So that's where we are.

I really believe that the Feinstein-Snowe legislation, which would phase in an increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and light duty trucks and also increase the fuel economy of our government fleet, may be the single most important energy policy we can implement today. Additionally, closing the SUV loophole would prevent about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide -- the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming -- from entering the atmosphere each year, so it is also one of the best steps we can take to help combat global warming.

So why have we not raised CAFÉ Standards? The short answer is because of the automotive industry. The industry opposed fuel economy standards in 1975, and they have recycled the same arguments to oppose any new standards.

What does the automotive industry say? 1) They argue that improving fuel economy will cost jobs; 2) They argue that improving fuel economy will jeopardize safety; 3) And they say that we don't have the technology to improve fuel economy.

Let me try and quickly respond: First, there is no evidence that improving fuel economy will result in the loss of a single job in the U.S. The National Academy of Sciences was directed to assess whether higher fuel economy would cost jobs. They found that it didn't.

In fact, I believe that the biggest threat to jobs in the United States will be the continuing loss of market share by the Big Three to Toyota and Honda and other foreign manufacturers who are producing more efficient vehicles.

Second, the automotive industry's argument that the only way to improve fuel economy would be to make vehicles lighter and thus, less safe is simply not true. The NAS report points out that there are lots of other ways to improve fuel economy and safety at the same time. For instance, we can encourage weight reduction using advanced light-weight materials that will not only keep light duty trucks safe but also improve the safety of all vehicles on the road.

The NAS report also points out that improvements in drive train and engine technologies can greatly increase fuel economy without changing a vehicle's weight. So the issues of fuel economy and safety can easily be separated. If we want to debate safety we should be talking about the SUV rollover and roof-crush standards, not the SUV CAFÉ loophole.

Lastly, the automotive companies argue that they don't have the technology to do this. The NAS Report says that substantial fuel economy gains can be made in 10-15 years.

The summary of the draft report which was leaked to the press, was even more ambitious. So perhaps Senator Snowe and I and the NAS give the automotive industry more credit than they give themselves. I have said all along that if the automotive companies can't close the SUV loophole in 6 years they should tell us how much time they need. But the automotive companies oppose higher CAFÉ standards regardless of how long they have. I believe they can do it.

In Europe, where regulations and the threat of regulations are much stronger, the European automotive manufacturers which includes Ford, GM and Chrysler, have promised to decrease Carbon Dioxide emissions of ALL their new vehicles by 25% by 2005. Ford has pledged a 25% improvement in fuel economy of its domestic SUVs by 2005 and the other automotive companies have pledged to follow suit. So it seems that the technology is there.

I testified in front of this committee last year on the issue of the importance of higher CAFÉ standards to combat global warming so I won't go into this as much here. But I strongly believe that global warming is real and may well be the greatest environmental threat facing us in our lifetime. And the single most effective action our nation can take to limit reliance on foreign oil and reduce global warming is to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles. I thank the Committee for its attention.

# # #