We all know that the Democratic Representative from the Automakers Michigan, John Dingell, is a foe of state-based regulations over the auto industry. Back in February, he tried to revive an excised portion of the energy bill that would have made federal CO₂ limits take precedence over state rules. In an editorial in Automotive News (subs req'd), Edward Lapham writes that it's Dingell who will be of very few lawmakers who "get" why America needs a national fuel economy law instead of allowing states to set their own rules. The three major presidential candidates, Lapham writes, don't get it and neither do many other in Congress. Lapham even equates states setting their own fuel economy rules "would be akin to letting them print their own money." For Lapham and Dingell, the protracted wait between federal increases in the CAFE standard must have looked pretty good. If all the power sits in Washington, then you can slow laws down there and be all set. I mean, if the feds retain control, then Dave McCurdy might be able to stay home more.

[Source: Edward Lapham / Automotive News (subs req'd)]

As TalkingPointsMemo put it, "no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah." Why would TPM say something like this? Well, do you remember the Supreme Court's decision that the EPA would, indeed, need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? It happened exactly one year ago today. Since that time, the EPA has found ways to slow down the process and Johnson has now come up with an unhelpful scheme to delay any action. Seriously delay.

WardsAuto reports that by opening up the decision to public comments, Johnson "could delay regulation until as late as 2009." Two years to take action on cleaner air? That's a Bush Administration official for ya. U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who's no fan of regulating automakers, said, "I recognize that the current Clean Air Act may not be the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases. But it is puzzling and disappointing that the Bush Admin. hasn't offered an alternative or joined the effort to design and enact comprehensive climate-change legislation." When the Dingellsaurus is on your case for not taking action on climate change, you're a rare breed.

[Source: WardsAuto, TalkingPointsMemo]

During the debate last fall over the new energy bill one of the amendments that some members of the Congress unsuccessfully tried to get into the final bill was wording that federal CO₂ limits would take precedence over state rules. California and other states have been trying to implement CO₂ limits that would effectively create fuel economy standards that are tougher than the federal rules.

Now Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) is now reviving that effort. Dingell chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House, a body that is about to release a report on roles of different levels of government in regulating greenhouse gases. Dingell wants federal rules to establish a limit on CO₂ emissions. The report states that allowing a mish-mash of different rules would be too hard on the states' economies that rely on the auto industry. The Bush administration turned down a waiver request that would have allowed California to enforce their own rules and California is now suing the EPA to overturn the decision.

[Source: Automotive News - Sub. req'd]

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) reached a deal late Friday night with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA MI) on a compromise bill to raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks to 25 35 mpg 2020. As reported earlier this week, the same threshold would be maintained that was in the Senate bill passed last June. The biggest differences from the earlier Senate bill are the retention of separate standards for cars and trucks as well as calculating import and domestic fleet averages separately.

The last remaining issue that Dingell was pushing for was to clarify the responsibilities of EPA and NHTSA to ensure that the rules they establish are not in conflict with each other. Apparently this was intended to prevent the EPA from allowing California to set CO₂ limits that would in effect create mileage standards higher than those set by congress and NHTSA. Pelosi refused to give in on that issue and it was ultimately left out of the bill.

Biofuels did make it into the 1,000-page bill however. Car-makers will continue to get credit for building and selling flex-fuel vehicles even though availability and use of such fuels is still very limited. Biofuel producers also got a break with a provision that would require at least 20.5 billion gallons of biofuel (ethanol or diesel) to be blended into other fuels by 2015. A quarter of that amount will be required to come from non-food sources such as cellulosic ethanol or algae biodiesel. Beyond 2015 the biofuel requirement would be indexed based on increased production capacity.

The plan now is to put the bill to a vote in the House by Wednesday of next week. Senate negotiators were also involved in the discussions and the identical bill will be voted on in the Senate after the House passes it. This will avoid additional delays to get the bills matched up in conference committee afterward. Democratic leaders hope to send the bill to the President before the end of the year.

[Source: Detroit News, Automotive News - Sub. req'd]

US Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) is saying that a deal is very close on a compromise fuel economy bill in the US Congress. As we reported the other day, the 35 mpg by 2020 standard from the previous Senate bill will be retained with separate averages being calculated for cars and trucks. The primary remaining stumbling block appears to be over clarifying which agencies have responsibility for what.

Currently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has responsibility for writing and enforcing fuel economy rules while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees emissions regulations. The actual testing of vehicle fuel economy is done by the EPA as part of their emissions test process. Dingell wants to ensure that the precise rules written by the agencies are consistent and don't give conflicting guidance to automakers. Presumably this means that he doesn't want the EPA to establish CO₂ limits that are tougher than the the fuel economy rules written by NHTSA.

[Source: Detroit News]