Energy bill back on track?

Pelosi says bill up for vote next week will contain CAFE, RFS, and RES

Posted by David Roberts at 1:19 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Read more about: politics | legislation | climate | energy | Nancy Pelosi

For days I've been hearing that some kind of deal is imminent on the energy bill. There was talk that the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) was going to get dropped, perhaps to be attached to some other bill, and that the production tax credit (PTC) for wind and solar was going overboard, along with rescinding subsidies to oil and gas companies. That would have left a pretty sad bill, notable mainly for a boost in CAFE and enormous subsidies to ethanol.

Anyway, some qualified good news. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has a brief statement on her site alluding a deal that's been reached:

CAFE will serve as the cornerstone of the energy legislation that will be on the House floor next week. We will achieve the major goal of increasing vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020 ...

...

This comprehensive package will also include an increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard and a Renewable Electricity Standard, among other key provisions.

There's no word on the PTC, but I hear a minimal PTC (rather than the 10-year extension the industry sought) will be part of the bill. It looks like reversing subsidies to oil and gas has been dropped -- it was one of the biggest points of contention and the focus of Bush's veto threat. (Also gone, from what I can see, are the odious nuclear loan guarantees.)

This is not an ideal energy bill by any stretch of the imagination, but (assuming it passes and gets by Bush) it's a big, positive step, one worth celebrating. Three points I'd make:

Love him or hate him, this bill is possible because Dingell hashed out a CAFE compromise he could accept, and brought a whole passel of lawmakers with him.
Everyone I've talked to that's in or around the process says the same thing: Nancy Pelosi is a hero on this bill. She gets this stuff in her gut. It's in large part her work and persistence that have made it happen.
When the Republicans had the presidency and both houses of Congress, it took them three tries to pass an energy bill, the result was a pork-bloated monstrosity, and even then they didn't get everything they wanted. Passing a huge bill like this is difficult work. If the Dems pull it off in one session, with slim majorities, they deserve some credit.

We'll see what happens next week. Sing it, Biz.

For story: Energy bill back on track?
29 Comments | Post a Comment

CAFE = The Big Lie

Let us hope that the auto companies and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be not allowed to propagate their big lies in reporting real world mileage. Take a look at some of the annual reports and you will quickly see that the numbers generated are totally bogus:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/updates.htm

If this kind of bullshit is allowed by Congress under their new rules then the CAFE standards will be totally meaningless.

It is also interesting to note that the new 2020 standards are lower than the current standard of 40 mpg in Europe and equals the current standard in China:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/washington/01energy.htm ...
(This is assuming that Europe and China are not pulling the same monkey shine as the US).

Not only will we be shooting for lower standards than we should be, but the standards will actually be lower than the stated goal if we keep allowing car companies to lie about their fleet performance.

U.S. = Under Standard or "Mediocrity is good enough". And we have to cheat to get a freaking C.

by justlou at 4:56 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Added Note to Above

The implications of my earlier comment is that the auto companies have been permitted by NHTSA to avoid paying billions of dollars in civil penalities by facilitating and enabling the overreporting of their fleet performances.

Can we trust anything coming out of Washington? This is just utterly corrupt! No doubt that the NHTSA is an agent of the auto companies!

Hope I made your day.

by justlou at 5:10 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Bad bill worse than no bill

David, if as you predict, the package will include an increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard but will NOT reverse subsidies to oil and gas, what's there to like? A 35-mph CAFE standard by 2020 will do nothing to spur technology: the industry elsewhere is already achieving that kind of gas mileage. And while it is welcome that "the odious nuclear loan guarantees" are gone from the bill, they would not exist in any case if there were no bill.

So, no, I'm not cheering.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 5:29 AM on 01 Dec 2007

More CAFE than you asked for:

"Don't take CAFE ratings as an outright average for the gas mileage of all the vehicles in a carmaker's lineup. The system offers incentives for models that run on ethanol-based E85, so for those vehicles automakers calculate mileage based on the small fraction -- 15 percent -- of regular gas that's used when running on E85. That means SUVs like the Chevrolet Suburban or Dodge Durango could register gas mileage similar to an economy car. Also, mileage figures are averaged across a range of engines and transmissions per vehicle, which can lead to misleading data for a car that has a particularly high- or low-mileage variant. Heavy-duty models, like the Ford F-Series Super Duty and Chevrolet Silverado HD, are exempt from the calculations."
From: http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel& ...

Nice "little" deal there on FFVs, eh? In addition to this huge giveaway, the auto companies also get credits from their FFVs to apply to their other shitty MPG vehicles.

Tell me that the auto companies did not write this into the standards and our elected officials did not look the other way in allowing this BS.
Government of the people? No freaking way.

by justlou at 5:31 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Er, I meant "mpg" not "mph"

Well, the "g" and "h" are next to each other on the keyboard.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 5:34 AM on 01 Dec 2007

This struggle will continue for years

Dingell won't be here that much longer, so he tries to lock in the best deal he can now.

whatever

in my view, the flip side is probably more important. not regulating cars. Instead, build subways and light rail etc. Build a new "normal" pattern of getting around

tough. no established lobby for it. need to build one

by ce1907 at 7:38 AM on 01 Dec 2007

It's 35mpg

It's 35mpg, BUT not for Trucks.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/us-house-reache.h ...

by GreyFlcn at 8:15 AM on 01 Dec 2007

WRONG !!!!

"marking an historic advancement in our efforts in the Congress to address our energy security and laying strong groundwork for climate legislation next year. We are confident that this final product will win the support of the environmental, labor and manufacturing communities." Pelosi's web statement

Pathetic!

by justlou at 8:30 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Not so worried...

I'm more worried about the renewables than I am the CAFE standards. People will pretty much force the industry to drive the CAFE standards up on their own as fuel prices increase.

But if the renewables standards pass at 15%, it could be a big boost.

Now if we can just get this past Bush (or get enough votes to override a veto).

by Tasermons Partner at 8:46 AM on 01 Dec 2007

indigntation

I think that if I was not drained of indignation on this issue, I'd be saying much the same things Justlou is above.

But it's not exactly news that we have no guts, as a nation, on this. If there was ever a case of wanting your cake and eating it too!

On renewables ... I'm not sure ... not sure if I should view that with the same resigned cynicism that I feel this morning toward CAFE, or if there is actually a chance in the "ethanol backlash" etc.

by odograph at 8:54 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Thank you Bush

With all due respect to Pelosi, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that $100/bbl oil makes it much harder for pols to oppose CAFE increases. Scuttlebutt that I've been hearing is that this played a big role - the impressive lift here, should it succeed will be keeping the RES in, which - notwithstanding the fact that our fossil fuel use has alot more to do with electric generation than passenger cars - doesn't have the same external political support right now.

by Sean Casten at 8:54 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Yep , invade Iran next

That will push gas prices to 10 bucks per gallon. Sure a million more people (all terrorist harboring heathens, big deal)may die, but isn't it worth it to get that 35 mpg by 2020? maybe it will even be boosted to 40 mpg by 2030! Naw, too much to hope for. Invade Saudi Arabia too and it might be possible.

It's a great way to make energy policy. Surely lobbyists won't reverse that 35 mpg standard in 2010 when the legislative branch turns republican. Nope, it's set in stone!

Yes, thank you Mr Bush, you have shown the way on energy policy. Dingle surely is an eco-hero too.

Who are the bigger saviours of the environment here? The wise "contribution" loving legislators who sell these policies to the public, or those who tout them as actual progress. I guess it's a toss up, but the legislators generally make more money than the commentators. They get to become lobbyists and consultants.

The commentators only get think tank jobs, if they seem influential enough. Think tankery is lower on the jetset status graph than lobbyist/consultant. But keep doing what you can to get that first class air travel you all. That's the main thing. You can't go back to coach now.

Trucks? Well of course trucks are immune to CAFE standards. SUVs too, right?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:04 AM on 01 Dec 2007

Answers about Trucks, SUVs

From CAFE Overview, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

"Who classifies vehicles for the purposes of CAFE and how is it done?
Authority to establish vehicle classifications for the purposes of calculating CAFE was delegated to NHTSA. Specifically, the definitions are as follows:

Passenger Car - any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less.
Truck - a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.

Are any vehicles exempted from CAFE standards?

Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

A study prepared for the Department of Energy, in February 2002, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that 521,000 trucks with GVWR from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs were sold in calendar year 1999. The vast majority (82%) of these trucks are pickups and a significant number (24%) were diesel. At the end of 1999, there were 5.8 million of these trucks on the road accounting for 8% of the annual miles driven by light trucks, and 9% of light truck fuel use."

I expect that most of the loopholes will be retained or expanded upon in the new energy bill.

* The point I tried making earlier is that the fleets ARE NOT meeting the current standard and the industry is masking their deviations by crafting rules that allow them to significantly over represent their true fleet mileages.

by justlou at 10:29 AM on 01 Dec 2007

I'm with Tasermons Partner...

....Keeping in the RES for now is a much bigger deal in the long run than CAFE.

Renewable energy needs a bigger foothold -- 20 states have recognized this, and if we can align all the different state mandates with a federal requirement, it should spur that much more investment.

Is efficiency part of the RES definition in the bill? Sean, do you know?

Anyway, CAFE is important, but high oil prices are bringing up consumer demand for better mpg and the industry can't keep its head in the sand forever, right? [Toyota...GM...anyone...I want my hybrid minivan!]

by GreenMom at 2:09 PM on 01 Dec 2007

Pretty much

CAFE sucks as a mechanism for change.
http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png

Frankly though, a strong RPS standard is more important than a strong CAFE standard!

by GreyFlcn at 2:43 PM on 01 Dec 2007

Yes, BUT

With the Renewable (electric) Portfolio Standard comes a five-fold increase in the Renewable Fuels (i.e., ethanol and biodiesel) Standard, and meanwhile the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry remain untouched. Sounds like a Faustian bargain to me!

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 3:53 PM on 01 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Lose money even with tax breaks?...

But it the renewable fuels standards goes into effect (not that I would want it to), and RES standards also go into effect (and thus, we rely more on wind, solar, etc. than on oil and coal fired energy plants), then wouldn't they lose a great deal of money, even with the tax breaks?

Also, I thought the bill required an increase in royalty payments?

Anyway, even if that doesn't make much of a dent, I think Bush would be far less likely to sign it if it had revoked the tax breaks. And, as much as I would love to have an even stronger bill than this, there wouldn't be much point if it didn't get signed (or have enough votes to override a veto).

Unfortunately, there's not much of a point in havin' a perfect bill if it isn't passable. I think this is a good compromise for now. We'll just haveta hit 'em up on the weaker issues at a later date.

by Tasermons Partner at 4:07 PM on 01 Dec 2007

UCS urges support of the energy bill

From an e-mail the Union of Concerned Scientists is sending out:

"Thanks to almost a year of your emails and calls in support of an Energy Bill that promotes fuel economy and renewable electricity, we are on the cusp of passing a strong, comprehensive energy package that protects consumers and reduces the threat of global warming.

Last night the Speaker of the House announced that they will vote this week on an Energy Bill that includes strong standards on fuel economy and renewable electricity. This historic bill will raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years, require electric utilities to obtain more power from clean, renewable sources--such as the wind and sun, and will help reduce America's global warming pollution.

Please urge your representative today to support the energy bill. This is your last chance to contact your representatives about this bill!"

by josullivan58 at 4:49 PM on 01 Dec 2007

NRDC likes it too

The NRDC's Switchboard has some info on the new bill, and they quote David Roberts.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/house_dems_stri ...

by josullivan58 at 9:45 PM on 01 Dec 2007

Lifecycle emissions thresholds...

Huh, that NRDC article linked by josullivan58 states that the bill includes lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for renewable fuels.

Maybe the Renwewable Fuels Standards won't be a complete concession after all.

by Tasermons Partner at 10:38 PM on 01 Dec 2007

Once passed, reversal of RFS will be impossible

Tasermons Partner writes:

Unfortunately, there's not much of a point in havin' a perfect bill if it isn't passable. I think this is a good compromise for now. We'll just haveta hit 'em up on the weaker issues at a later date. [My emphasis]

I understand the argument of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. But the energy bill contains a poison pill: a doubling of the so-called Renewable Fuels Standard to 15 billion gallons per year by 2015.

Once such a mandated use level has been established, it will be next to impossible to reverse. Investors in ethanol and biodiesel plants would legitimately be able to claim that they made those investments on the assumption that the mandate would continue, and demand billions in compensation.

Think that there are problems enough -- billions of dollars in subsidies, billions of dollars in increased food costs, environmental pollution and habitat destruction -- already at a rate of production of ethanol less than half of what the expanded RFS calls for? Just imagine a world with twice the biodiesel and (mainly) ethanol production and use.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 1:52 AM on 02 Dec 2007

Need more info on RFS thresholds for GHGs...

I don't like the RFS either, but I doubt many of the Republicans (especially those from the farm states) would support the bill without it.

Maybe this lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for renewable fuels requirement will help a little.

Anyone have some more detailed info. on that please? I wish to know if it'll actually do somethin', or if it's basically a greenwash?

by Tasermons Partner at 10:27 AM on 02 Dec 2007

Union of Concerned Scientists

I've argued with them, on their blog, about the stupidity of their CAFE support.

The fact is that our real fleet economy has always exceeded the CAFE requirement. We've never passed a law that "forced" us to do more than we were already doing.

I'm sure this will be the same. The new CAFE is mild enough that we'll be doing it anyway, for reasons of gasoline price and economy.

All the UCS ended up convincing me of was that scientists are not always as smart as they think they are. Imagine thinking this is a "a strong, comprehensive energy package!"

Or, maybe it is the nature of the lobbying apparatus, that after a bill everyone must congratulate themselves, pretend success, and begin again ... look forward to another UCS membership appeal!

by odograph at 7:04 AM on 03 Dec 2007

Correction ODO

"The fact is that our real fleet economy has always exceeded the CAFE requirement."

Odo, the real fact is that our fleet averages about 5 mpg below what CAFE reports for any given year.

But, I agree, oil and gas prices are driving improvements more than any government standard is doing. But, if there was a real standard in force with real civil penalties imposed that might be a different story.

by justlou at 7:20 AM on 03 Dec 2007

follow the link

There is fleet, fleet car, and fleet truck.

The CAFE standard is most strongly associated with cars, but fleet car mileage has always been higher than the requirement. (except perhaps for a moment around 1985).

If the standard were "forcing" people we'd expect compliance to that level and no further.

(I don't think the graph at that link is in error, it just addresses the "domain" that CAFE regulates.)

by odograph at 7:45 AM on 03 Dec 2007

oh!

Sorry I didn't give this link in the article above. Two conversations at once.

by odograph at 7:48 AM on 03 Dec 2007

ODO

The real world fleet average for cars and light trucks (which includes a shitload of SUVs) is about 5 mpg below the average fleet mileage for cars and light trucks reported by CAFE.

This is what I have been ranting about. The NHTSA numbers in their reports are bogus! And the auto companies are rewarded for the permitted lieing. The standard is a big lie!

by justlou at 7:59 AM on 03 Dec 2007

right

We are talking about parallel things.

The total fleet mileage is ridiculously low:

"This report confirms that average fuel economy rose in both 2005 and 2006, the first consecutive annual increases since the mid-1980s. The 20.2 mpg value for 2006 and 2007 is 0.9 mpg higher than that in 2004, reversing a long-term trend of slightly declining fuel economy since a 1987 peak."

At the same time politicians (and apparently scientists) pride themselves on regulating this segment called "cars."

Cars must have a fleet mpg of 35 by 2020. Big deal, according to that previous graph they are at about 30 mpg right now ... and the "ethanol loophole" bridges the gap to 35 mpg pretty easily:

"But a senior congressional staffer close to the behind-the-scenes negotiations said the only significant concession to the Detroit 3 will be temporary continuation of CAFE credits for building vehicles capable of burning alternative fuels. The main one is E85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline."

At the same time, yes, people can retreat to the segment called "light trucks" (including SUVs). There is no limit to how many people can buy trucks/SUVs, so effectively the light truck requirement defines the total fleet requirement.

The new light truck requirement is 22 mpg by 2020.

Our total fleet mileage is now 20.2 ... so this is effectively a legislated increase of 2 mpg.

by odograph at 8:13 AM on 03 Dec 2007

Revised CAFE standards...

I still think high fuelk prices will push the mpgs up on their own above the standards set.

But even so, the CAFE standards are bein' revised so that they are more accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Econo ...

by Tasermons Partner at 8:16 AM on 03 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.