Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFE Up to Standards?

Robert Bamberger

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Updated August 3, 2001

CONTENTS

SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

One of the least controversial provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163) established corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for new passenger cars. As oil prices rose, there was little expectation that manufacturers would have any difficulty complying with the standards. However, oil prices softened and the demand for small cars diminished. In response to petitions from manufacturers facing stiff civil penalties for noncompliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-tration (NHTSA) relaxed the standard for model years 1986-1989. The current standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles and 20.7 mpg for light trucks, a classification that also includes sports utility vehicles (SUVs). Amidst the renewed sense of urgency about growing U.S. dependence upon im-ported oil, proposals to boost CAFE received close attention in the early nineties. An attempt in the 102 nd Congress to raise CAFE proved too controversial and was dropped from omni-bus energy policy legislation before it could secure passage (Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486)

. The Clinton Administration supported greater fuel efficiency, but indicated in 1993 that an increase in the CAFE standards was not the option likeliest to be embraced first. In September 1993, the Administration announced the Partnership for a New Genera-tion of Vehicles (PNGV), an alliance between federal labs and agencies, and the domestic automotive industry to develop a new gen-eration of vehicles that, among other goals, would seek to triple fuel efficiency. In 1994, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to explore raising the CAFE standard for light-duty trucks. Congress included language in the FY1996-FY2001 DOT Authorizations (P.L. 104-50, P.L. 104-205, P.L. 105-66, P.L. 106- 69, and P.L. 106-346). However, the Senate instructed their conferees to accept the House language in the FY2001 appropriations subject to agreement to authorize a study of CAFE by the National Academy of Science (NAS). That study, released on July 30, 2001, con-cluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40% improvement in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of ownership.

On May 1, 2001, Senator Diane Feinstein, joined by three co-sponsors, intro-duced legislation (S. 804) that would raise the CAFE standard for light duty trucks and SUVs to 27.5 mpg – the same standard as for pas-senger automobiles – by MY (model year) 2007. On July 12, 2001, the House Subcom-mittee on Energy and Air Quality adopted an amendment in markup to H.R. 2587 that called for a reduction of 5 billion gallons in light-duty truck fuel consumption over the period of MYs 2004-2010. This proposal came to the House floor on August 1, 2001, as part of H.R. 4, the Securing America’s Future Energy Act. An amendment to establish a combined passenger car and truck CAFE of 27.5 mpg by MY2007 was defeated 160-269. The NAS study, released two days earlier, figured prom-inently in the debate, on both sides..    

On July 12, 2001, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality adopted an amendment in markup on an energy conservation bill that calls for a reduction of 5 billion gallons in light-duty truck fuel consumption over the period of MYs 2004-2010. The provision would also require NHTSA to develop a weight-based system for establishing fuel-efficiency standards. The amendment (to H.R. 2587), introduced by Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Representative Richard Burr (R-N.C.), passed by a vote of 29-3, and the language was included in H.R. 4, the Securing America’s Future Energy Act, debated by the House on August 1, 2001. An amendment to establish a combined passenger car and truck CAFE of 27.5 mpg by MY2007 was defeated 160-269.

The conclusions of a CAFE study by the National Academy of Science (NAS), required by the FY2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations (P.L. 106-346) and released on July 30, 2001, figured in the debate. That study concludes that it is possible to achieve a more than 40% improvement in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of ownership. The NAS study also recommends dropping the separate CAFE calculations made for both domestic and imported vehicles, and also recommend elimination of the CAFE credits that accrue to manufacturers of dual-fueled vehicles. These vehicles are rarely operated on anything but conventional gasoline, but allow their manufacturers to sell less efficient vehicles overall while still remaining in compliance with the CAFE requirements. Some estimate that the dual-fueled vehicle credit has resulted in an overall reduction of five-tenths to nine-tenths of a gallon in the average efficiency of vehicles sold.

In the Senate, on May 1, 2001, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced legislation (S. 804) to raise the CAFE standard for light duty trucks and SUVs to 27.5 mpg – the same standard as for passenger automobiles – by MY2007. Applicability of the standards would also be raised from 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) to include vehicles up to 10,000 GVW.

The Arab embargo of 1973-1974 and the tripling in the price of crude oil brought into sharp focus the fuel inefficiency of U.S. automobiles. New car fleet fuel economy had declined from 14.8 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year 1967 to 12.9 mpg in 1974. In the search for ways to reduce dependence on imported oil, automobiles were an obvious target. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) established corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars for model years 1978-1980 and 1985 and thereafter. The CAFE standards called for essentially a doubling in new car fleet fuel economy, establishing a standard of 18 mpg in model year (MY) 1978 and rising to 27.5 by MY1985. (Interim standards for model years 1981-1984 were announced by the Secretary of Transportation in June of 1977.) EPCA also established fuel economy standards for light duty trucks, beginning at 17.2 mpg in MY1979, and currently 20.7 mpg. (The CAFE standards are summarized in Table 1.)    

Compliance with the standards is measured by calculating a sales-weighted mean of the fuel economies of a given manufacturer’s product line, with domestically produced and imported vehicles measured separately. As originally enacted, the penalty for non-compliance was $5 for every 0.1 mpg below the standard, multiplied by the number of cars in the manufacturer’s new car fleet for that year. Civil penalties collected from 1983-1995 have totaled over $400 million.

Table 1. Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Model Years 1978 Through 1999
(in MPG)

When oil prices rose sharply in the early 1980s, smaller cars were selling well, and it was expected that manufacturers would have no difficulty complying with the standards. However, oil prices had declined by 1985. Sales of smaller cars tapered as consumers began to place less value on fuel economy and gasoline cost as an input in the overall costs of vehicle ownership. In response to petitions from manufacturers facing stiff civil penalties for noncompliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) relaxed the standard for model years 1986-1989, but it was restored to 27.5 in MY1991. The Persian Gulf War in 1990 caused a brief spike in oil prices, but it also demonstrated that it was unlikely that the United States or many of the producing nations would tolerate a prolonged disruption in international petroleum commerce. As a consequence, U.S. dependence upon imported petroleum, from a policy perspective, was considered less of a vulnerability. It was also becoming apparent that reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil would be extremely difficult without imposing a large price increase on gasoline, or restricting consumer choice in passenger vehicles. Many argued that the impacts of such actions upon the economy or the automotive industry would be unacceptable. Meanwhile, gasoline consumption, which fell to 6.5 million barrels per day (mbd) in 1982, averaged nearly 8.4 mbd in 1999, and were peaking at 8.6-8.8 during the summer of 2000 despite the surge in prices. There were highly controversial attempts to significantly raise the CAFE standards on passenger cars in the early 1990s. One proposal included in omnibus energy legislation was so controversial that it contributed to the Senate’s inability in 1991 to bring the bill up for debate on the floor.

NHTSA typically established truck CAFE standards 18 months prior to the beginning of each model year, as EPA allows. However, such a narrow window permitted NHTSA to little more than ratify manufacturers’ projections for the model year in question. In April 1994, the agency proposed to abandon this practice and issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inviting comment on what level that standards might be established for trucks for MY1998-MY2006. The following year, however, after a change in congressional leadership, Congress included language in the FY1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations to prohibit expenditures for any rulemaking that would make any adjustment to the CAFE standards. Identical language was included in the appropriations and spending bills for FY1997-FY2000. It was also in the FY2001 DOT Appropriations (H.R. 4475) approved by the House Committee on Appropriations, May 16, 2000, and approved by the House, May 19, 2000. There had been some expectation that there would be some challenge on the House floor to the rider, but none was proposed when it became apparent that support for such an initiative had waned. A previous effort to pass a sense of the Senate amendment that conferees on the FY2000 DOT Appropriations should not agree to the House-passed rider for FY2000 was defeated in the Senate on September 15, 1999 (55-40). Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) were the sponsors.

Recent developments have focused fresh attention on the CAFE standards and fuel economy in general. The sharp increase in crude oil and gasoline prices that began in 1999 has brought into higher relief the continuing loss of market share of passenger cars continued to lose market share to the larger, multi-purpose sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that are subject to the less stringent light-truck fuel economy standard. A 1996 study conducted for the Department of Transportation found that consumers valued the larger vehicles for their versatility and roominess, and the availability of four-wheel drive. The increasing market share of these vehicles, combined with their lower average fuel economy, has contributed to a lowering in overall average fuel economy since the mid-1980s.

Table 2. Domestic and Import Passenger Car and Light Truck Fuel Economy Averages for Model Years 1978-1998
(in MPG)

Another development had less to do with energy security and more to do with environmental objectives. The Kyoto Agreement would require the United States to achieve a 7% reduction in 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions, which implied a significant reduction in gasoline consumption, among other elements. Preferring to forestall any state or federal regulation, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota announced on February 4, 1998 that they would produce cars in MY1999 with engine and catalytic converter technologies that would achieve lower emissions. In early November 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to reclassify SUVs as passenger cars and hold those vehicles to California emission standards. Ford Motor announced in late July 2000 that it would improve the fuel economy of its SUV model line by 25% over a five-year period. Other manufacturers echoed similar intentions.

In mid-April 2000, the industry indicated its support for one proposal in the 106 th Congress, H.R. 4270, the Advanced Technology Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Act of 2000, which would, among other provisions, have provided tax credits for hybrid vehicles with rechargeable energy storage systems. It would also have required a study to research the potential for increasing fuel efficiency through the use of lean burn technology. There was no action on the bill.

During the Clinton Administration, the Congress was chary of committing the United States to this agreement pending further decisions about the participation of developing nations, and how the agreement would be enforced. However, on March 27, 2001, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman indicated that the Bush Administration had "no interest" in any further negotiations on implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The Administration later indicated its commitment to improving air quality through some other means.

Months prior to the midterm elections in 1994, NHTSA published a notice of possible adjustment to the fuel economy standards for trucks before the end of the decade. The following year, however, the House-passed version of H.R. 2002, the FY1996 Department of Transportation Appropriation, prohibited the use of authorized funds to promulgate any CAFE rules; the Senate version did not include the language, but it was restored in conference. The House and Senate approved the conference report, and the bill became law (P.L. 104-50) on Nov. 15, 1995. Much the same scenario occurred in the second session of the 104 th and the first session of the 105th : A similar rider was passed by the House and not by the Senate, but included by the conferees and enacted. This scenario occurred again in the second session. The prohibition was included in the version of the FY1999 appropriations passed by the House (H.R. 4328) in July 1998, but not in the Senate version (S. 2307); it was finally included in the omnibus spending bill at the end of the 105 th Congress (P.L. 105-277). The prohibition was reported from the House Appropriations Committee in the FY2000 DOT Appropriations (H.R. 2084) and passed by the House on June 23, 1999. However, the growth in gasoline consumption and the size of the light-duty truck fleet were concerns cited behind introduction in the Senate of an amendment to the bill expressing the sense of the Senate that the conferees should not agree to the House-passed rider for FY2000. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), was defeated in the Senate on September 15, 1999 (55-40) and the prohibition was once again enacted into law (P.L. 106-69).

On May 16, 2000, the House Committee on Appropriations voted to include the rider in the FY2001 DOT Appropriations (H.R. 4475). An effort to strip the language was expected when the bill reached the House floor; however, there was none, and the bill, with the rider, passed the House on May 19, 2000 (395-13). Following its passage in the Senate,       CRS-6

Senator Gorton introduced a motion to instruct the Senate conferees to not accept the House rider. After debate, the motion was altered to instruct the conferees to accept the House rider in return for agreement to authorize a study by the National Academy of Science (NAS), in conjunction with DOT, "to recommend, but not to promulgate without approval by a Joint Resolution of Congress, appropriate corporate average fuel efficiency standards." In addition to the factors required by statute to be weighed in determining maximum feasible CAFE levels, the motion would require the study to consider the impacts of any proposed CAFE on vehicle safety and on effects on employment in the automotive sector and to analyze potentially disparate effects of revised standards across the sector. The motion was agreed to, followed by clarification that the motion applies only to the FY2001 appropriation. The conferees were successful, and the language was included in the appropriations bill signed into law on October 23, 2000 (P.L. 106-346). The required completion date for the study is July 1, 2001. The conclusions of the study cannot be predicted.

Legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R. 2200), the 105 th Congress (S. 286, H.R. 880), and the 106 th Congress (S. 147) that would freeze the current CAFE standards. Unlike the annual prohibition on rulemaking that has been included in the FY1996- FY2001 appropriations, these bills would have maintained the CAFE standards at the level in force at the time of enactment unless superseded by a subsequent act of Congress.

A second summer of high gasoline prices, coupled with a heightened awareness that the nation is experiencing problems with many fuels and on many fronts, has built support for reconsideration of the CAFE standards in the 107 th Congress. For the first time since FY1996, the House DOT appropriations bill does not include a rider prohibiting expenditures on CAFE rules, and legislation (H.R. 2587) has been reported out of committee that would require the automotive industry and NHTSA to achieve fuel savings.

Past Role of CAFE Standards. The effectiveness of the CAFE standards themselves has been controversial. Since 1974, domestic new car fuel economy has roughly doubled; the fuel economy of imports has increased by roughly one-third. Some argue that these improvements would have happened as a consequence of rising oil prices during the 1970s and 1980s. Some studies suggest that the majority of the gains in passenger car fuel economy during the 1970s and 1980s were technical achievements, rather than the consequence of consumers’ favoring smaller cars. Between 1976 and 1989, roughly 70% of the improvement in fuel economy was the result of weight reduction, improvements in transmissions and aerodynamics, wider use of front-wheel drive, and use of fuel-injection. The fact that overall passenger car fleet fuel economy remained comparatively flat during a period of declining real prices for gasoline also suggested that the CAFE regulations have contributed to placing some sort of floor under new-car fuel economy.

General criticisms of raising the CAFE standards have been that, owing to the significant lead times manufacturers need to change model lines and because of the time needed for the vehicle fleet to turn over, increasing CAFE is a slow and inefficient means of achieving reductions in fuel consumption. Further, it is argued that the standards risk interfering with consumer choice and jeopardizing the health of a recovered domestic automotive industry.    

Proponents of a CAFE increase have argued that boosting the standards might bring about the introduction of technological improvements that do not compromise features that consumers value, but which would otherwise not be added because these improvements do add to the cost of a new vehicle.

Growth of Light-Duty Trucks and SUVs. What appears to be the initial focus of any CAFE initiative in the 107 th Congress is the growing percentage of the fleet made up of light-duty trucks and SUVs which are subject to a less stringent CAFE standard than are passenger automobiles. In 1988, passenger cars constituted nearly 75% of the vehicle fleet. By 1994, this figure had dropped to 68% and it continues to drop. The percentage of pickup trucks did not change during this period; the overall change is attributable to the burgeoning popularity of mini-vans and sports utility vehicles (SUVs). The number of these vehicles in the fleet grew by 42% from 1988 to 1994. Minivans and SUVs grew from being 5% of the total vehicle stock in 1988 to 11% in 1994. During this same period, vehicle miles traveled (vmt) by light trucks grew at a rate of 7.8% annually. Expressed as a percentage of overall fuel consumption in the transportation sector, gasoline consumption by light trucks has grown at an annual rate of 4.5% from 1985 to 1995 while automobile fuel consumption fell fractionally during the same period. As a consequence, attention has increasingly focused upon the contribution of this portion of the fleet to growing gasoline consumption. (See also CRS Report RS20298, Sport Utility Vehicles, Mini-Vans and Light Trucks: An Overview of Fuel Economy and Emissions Standards.)

On May 1, 2001, Senator Feinstein, joined by three co-sponsors, introduced S. 804. The legislation would raise the CAFE standard for light duty trucks and SUVs to 27.5 mpg – the same standard as for passenger automobiles – by MY2007. Applicability of the standards would also be raised from 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) to include vehicles up to 10,000 GVW. The legislation would also require that the fuel economy of new vehicles acquired by the federal government exceed the baseline for a particular vehicle class by 3 mpg at the end of FY2003, and 6 mpg by the end of FY2005.

Once fully implemented and depending upon the growth in the size of the light truck fleet, it is possible that requiring these vehicles to meet the higher standard could save roughly 1.0 million barrels of oil daily. However, these savings could take nearly 20 years to fully capture; once the 27.5 standard were in effect for MY2007, it would still take an additional 10 years or more before the fleet of older, less efficient trucks and SUVs would be retired.

On July 12, 2001, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality adopted an amendment in markup on an energy conservation bill that calls for a reduction of 5 billion gallons in light-duty truck fuel consumption over the period of MYs 2004-2010. The provision would also require NHTSA to develop a weight-based system for establishing fuel-efficiency standards. The amendment, introduced by Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Representative Richard Burr (R-N.C.), passed by a vote of 29-3. An amendment by Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass) that would have established a CAFE of 37.5 for passenger cars and 29.0 mpg for light-duty trucks by MY2011 was withdrawn. Some members of the subcommittee criticized the provision that was adopted as saving very little fuel; however, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) suggested that it was as stringent as he could support, and Chairman Barton emphasized the importance of achieving consensus       CRS-8 within the committee on the language. The Chairman referred to the amendment as an "excellent first step."

Critics of the proposal suggested it would require a relatively insignificant improvement in fuel efficiency to achieve these savings, with estimates ranging between 1-3 mpg over the period. Additional criticism was expressed after the appearance, on July 17, 2001, of a report in the New York Times that a draft summary of the much-anticipated NAS study would conclude that a very significant increase in CAFE was feasible in 6-10 years. (A subsequent Times story on July 27, 2001, suggested that the conclusions had since been softened, as proved to be the case.)

The fuel economy provisions of H.R. 2587 were included in H.R. 4, debated by the House on August 1, 2001. An amendment to establish a combined CAFE fleet standard of 27.5 mpg by MY2007 was defeated, 160-269.

The NAS study, released on July 30, was cited by opponents as well as supporters of the amendment. The study concludes that it is possible to achieve a more than 40% improvement in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of ownership. The study does suggest that there may be safety consequences if manufacturers opt to meet higher standards by reduced vehicle weight. However, this position is disputed by some, who argue that heavier vehicles may be safer for their occupants, but may be responsible for fatalities when they strike lighter vehicles; that a lightening of vehicles could reduce fatalities in certain incidents. The study also recommends that any redesign of the CAFE program include a program for trading fuel economy credits among manufacturers, and that CAFE standards should be based on vehicle "attributes," such as weight, rather than basing CAFE standards on whether a vehicle is a car or a truck. The NAS study also recommends eliminating the CAFE credits that accrue to manufacturers of dual-fueled vehicles. These vehicles are rarely operated on anything but conventional gasoline, but allow their manufacturers to sell less efficient vehicles overall while still remaining in compliance with the CAFE requirements. Some estimate that the dual-fueled vehicle credit has resulted in an overall reduction of five-tenths to nine-tenths of a gallon in the average efficiency of vehicles sold. H.R. 4, as passed by the House, would extend the credit through MY2008. The bill also includes provisions requiring federal purchase of alternative-fueled vehicles and hybrids, and would require an additional study by the NAS on the "feasibility and effects" of reducing "by a significant percentage" fuel use by automobiles by MY2010.

As a practical matter, reducing gasoline consumption can be achieved by raising the price of gasoline through taxation or other means to a level that induces some conservation, as well as by increasing the efficiency of the automobile fleet in use. Of course, a combination of these two broad approaches can be used as well.    

Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). In late September 1993, President Clinton announced establishment of a government and industry research program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), that had among its goals development of an environmentally friendly "Supercar" that would as much as triple the fuel efficiency of today’s mid-size cars without sacrificing performance, affordability, and safety. The PNGV is an effort to combine the resources and expertise of federal agencies and laboratories with the private sector to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and maintain competitiveness without intervening to alter the market price of fuel.

Production prototypes of the Supercar were projected to be ready by 2004. By early 1998, the PNGV completed its selection of technologies judged to hold the most promise for development of the Supercar. Research and development was to be focused on hybrid electric vehicle drive, direct-injection engines, fuel cells, and greater use of lightweight materials.

Price of Gasoline. Owing to higher taxation of gasoline in other nations, Americans enjoy one of the lowest prices for gasoline. As a consequence, the higher prices since 1999 – especially during the summer driving seasons – are experienced in the United States as a much greater increase, in percentage terms, than elsewhere.

Past proposals to raise the price of gasoline to leverage consumers into more efficient vehicles have garnered little support. Owing to the relative price inelasticity of gasoline demand, many believe that the size of the price increase it would take to curb gasoline consumption to any degree would have a damaging effect on the economy of several times greater magnitude. Indeed, analysis of recent research (Plotkin, Greene, 1997, cited in References) suggested that an increase in gasoline taxes would be one-third as effective in achieving a reduction in demand as studies of the 1980s once projected. This is a significant reflection of the place that personal transportation and inexpensive gasoline has assumed in our economy and value system.

Price, however, could be used to at least keep some floor under the cost of gasoline to motorists. For example, some argued during past episodes of high prices that, when prices softened again, the federal government should step in and capture the difference as a tax, and possibly devote the proceeds to developing public transportation infrastructure and incentives. This tax could be adjusted periodically to see that gasoline would not become less expensive than a certain level in real (inflation adjusted) dollars.

Owing to the unpopularity of raising gasoline prices, raising the CAFE standard is more comfortable for some; however, it is a long-term response. Depending upon the magnitude of an increase in gasoline prices, no matter what the cause, a price-induced conservation response is nearly immediate and may grow as consumers initially drive less, and eventually seek out more efficient vehicles.

CAFE and Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Vehicles account for one-fifth of U.S. production of CO2 emissions. Some argue that raising the CAFE standards would be an ineffective or marginal way to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. On one hand, improvements in fuel economy should enable the same vehicle to burn less fuel to travel a given distance. However, to the extent that technologies to improve fuel economy add cost to new vehicles, it has been argued that consumers will tend to retain older, less efficient cars longer. It has also been suggested that there is a correlation between improved fuel economy and an increase in miles driven and vehicle emissions. However, vehicle miles traveled have continued to increase in recent years when fuel economy improved only slightly, suggesting that the broader factor is the overall cost of driving, which is tied as well to the price of gasoline. The relationship between where people live and where they work is also a factor. The Clinton Administration proposed a five-year, $6.3 billion package of tax credits, and reliance on voluntary efforts by individuals and industry, to meet the proposed targets of the Kyoto agreement. Many believed that the Administration plan would fall well short, largely because carbon emissions are forecast by the Department of Energy to be 34% above 1990 levels by the year 2010. Some urged that Congress disapprove the treaty and sought renegotiation of the targets, arguing that meeting the proposed targets would require possibly crippling taxes and regulations. Others suggested that a significant increase in CAFE requirements would help meet the Kyoto targets and that an increase in CAFE should not wait final dispensation of the agreement. However, as noted earlier, the Bush Administration has removed the U.S. from the Kyoto process in favor of, for example, voluntary commitments on the part of industry.

Historical Note on the CAFE Debate in the 102nd Congress. As an historical note, legislation to boost the CAFE standards last received major attention in the 102nd Congress. One proposal (S. 279) would have abandoned uniform standards but otherwise left the historic infrastructure of the CAFE standards intact. Under S. 279, each manufacturer would have been required to achieve a 20% improvement in passenger car fuel economy by 1996 and 40% by 2001 over its 1988 baseline. The same standard of improvement would have been required of light trucks.

In that same Congress, legislation was being developed to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for exploration. Proponents of higher CAFE standards predicted that there would be no support for exploration of ANWR without some increase in CAFE. S. 341, omnibus energy legislation reported from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in May 1991, would have extended discretion to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to set "maximum feasible" CAFE targets for each manufacturer for MY1996 and MY2002. The DOT would have taken into account application of known fuel-saving technologies, MY1990 as a baseline for performance, sales mix, vehicle interior size, and safety standards. Credits earned could have been traded or held by the manufacturer. When it appeared that the ANWR provisions would almost certainly not survive unless the CAFE provisions were strengthened, Senator Johnston proposed an amendment in markup that would have had the effect of embracing the goals of S. 279, but over a longer time frame. The amendment was defeated in markup, as was an attempt to append to the omnibus bill the specific targets in S. 279.

The proposal appeared to fail at the combined hands of those who either thought they went too far or not far enough. But the omnibus bill failed to reach the floor; a cloture vote on whether to proceed with it (it became S. 1220) was defeated Nov. 1, 1991. Both CAFE and ANWR provisions were stripped from modified legislation introduced in the second session of the 102 nd Congress, and there have not been any further attempts to raise the CAFE standards.  

Securing America’s Future Energy Act. Includes fuel economy provisions summarized in H.R. 2587 below. Introduced July 27, 2001. H.R. 2587 (Tauzin)

Enhances energy conservation, provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe fuel economy standards that would require the light-duty truck portion of the new vehicle fleet to achieve an aggregate savings of 5 billion gallons during the period of MYs2004-2010 from the base level of consumption were the standards left unchanged. Introduced July 23, 2001. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.Rept. 107-162, Part I. S. 804 (Feinstein, et al.)

Amends title 49, United States Code, to require phased increases in the fuel efficiency standards applicable to light trucks; to require fuel economy standards for automobiles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; to raise the fuel economy of the federal fleet of vehicles, and for other purposes. Introduced May 1, 2001; referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

National Research Council. Committee on Fuel Economy of Automobiles and Light Trucks. Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992. 254 p.

Plotkin, Steve. Greene, David. "Prospects for Improving the Fuel Economy of Light Duty Vehicles." Energy Policy, vol. 25, no. 14-15. December 1997. P. 1179-1188.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Automotive Fuel Efficiency. Hearing, 101st Congress, 1st session. July 13, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989. 73 p. Serial No. 101-73. 73 p.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Improving Automobile Fuel Economy: New Standards, New Approaches. Summary. October 1991. OTA-E-508. 15 p.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act. Hearing on S. 279. Feb. 21, 1991. Washington, U.S. Govt., Print. Off., 1991. 175 p. S.Hrng. 102-19

—— Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act; report to accompany S. 279. (102nd Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 102-48: 39 p.)

—— Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act of 1990; report on S. 1224. June 11, 1990. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. 29 p. (101st Congress, 2nd session. S.Rept. 101-329.)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Subcommittee on the Consumer. Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act of 1989. Hearing on S. 1224. 101st Congress, 1st session. September 7, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989. 341 p. S.Hrng. 101-347

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy Regulation and Conservation. Automobile Fuel Efficiency Standards. Hear-ing, 101st Congress, 1st session. Apr. 4, 1989. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989. 352 p. S.Hrng. 101-44

U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Automotive Fuel Economy Program. [Twenty-Third Annual] Report to the Congress. May 1997, appearing in: U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 82, April 29, 1999: p. 23149-23161.

U.S. Federal Register. Department of Transportation., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards; Model Years 1996- 1997. Vol. 59, No. 66. Wednesday, Apr. 6, 1994, p. 16312.

—— Light Truck Fuel Economy Standards, Model Years 1998-2006. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Vol. 59, No. 66. Wednesday, Apr. 6, 1994, p. 16324-16332.

____ Light Truck Fuel Economy Standards, Model Year 2002. Final rule. Vol. 65, No. 66. April 5, 2000, p. 17776-17778.