Bush to Veto New Mileage Bill

When we start to talk about government on a car blog, you know it’s about to get boring and/or confusing. To simplify matters and catch everyone up, there are two proposals in Congress being considered to increase fuel economy standards. The Senate has passed an energy bill that combines car and truck fuel economy and demands that the combined number to rise to 35 mpg by 2020.

Currently car and truck fuel economy standards are separate because truck owners use their vehicles differently. A second bill being looked at in the House sticks with the two-fleet system and raises the car mileage standards to the same levels as the Senate’s by 2022, while truck mileage would increase at a slower rate. The House bill is backed by GM, Ford, Chrysler and Toyota, as well as the United Auto Workers.

Guess which one the White House said today that the president would veto?

We’re wondering if the veto threat will help or hurt the corporate- and union-backed bill. We don’t comment on politics much, but we’d rather see a realistic bill — one with the carmakers’ support — pass, even if its goals aren’t as lofty. Who knows, with the way consumer demand is driving the market, fuel efficiency could blow past both bills over the next 15 years.

White House: Keep Car, Truck Fuel Standards Separate (The Detroit News)

Comments

Not all "truck owners use their vehicles differently"... it depends on what these bills consider to be a "truck". SUVs and lots of pickups are used like cars and are marketed to compete with cars. Those vehicles should also be treated like cars when it comes to efficiency requirements.

Since the trucks /suvs are usually classified by the type of frame I don't mind the classification quite as much since there is usually a hard and fast rule for which ones are exempt. The Big suv sales of the 1990s however are over so while many people still buy big SUVs for every day use it's not as widespread as in the prime.

I think overall it will be the price of gas, public perception and the economy that will really get the mileage #s to come up. After everyone saw how a dud of a car like the Prius could sell on its greenness alone the industry paid attention. It'll be interesting to see how much changes and if things like the Chevy Volt actually go into production.

How is the Prius a "dud"?

in a purely driving sense it's a dud. Otherwise (fuel economy, interior room) it obviously is a winner.

I agree on the point that there needs to be some differentiation as to what constitutes a "truck". An F-150, sure. A Tahoe, nope.

I understand that people who drive pickups and the like may use their vehicles for work, but i very much doubt that ANY Tahoe or Expedition drivers use their cars any differently than a Land Rover or Freestyle driver. Therefore, they should have the same economy standards.

Of course, if that happened everyone would simply move to luxury crew cab trucks...

Land rover? well that's not really good mileage there is it?

And I'd bet it wouldn't be very hard to get a Tahoe (which gets pretty good mileage for what it is) to top a Freestyle either. It's just below the car based V-6 engine GM crossovers.

The new hybrid Tahoe will get better mileage than those V-6s too. But remember all these figures are based on sales. And I think sales of the Tahoe/Explorer/Durango crowd will lessen like they already have from their 1990s highs. The question is where do these crossovers fall and how are they going to increase fuel economy? Or Minivans!

Those voting to make pickup truck mileage the same as car mileage must be very stupid and have no logic about their way of thinking. Naturally a truck has to be built heavier if it is going ot be used to tow trailers and stuff. Heavier weight naturally is going ot require more fuel to get it the same distance as a lighter vehicle.

I tell you,as time goes by it seems people are getting less intelligent by the minute.

All this BS about mileage is garbage, where is W on trying to help wean us off of Saudi-terror oil? Oh right, he isn't trying to help anyone.

LM, please refrain from including a whole nation, which did NOT invade another country like W did, as "Saudi-terror." your statement has nothing to do with cars, and it shows the pathetic ignorance that still grips America today. do you talk about white-terror after Timothy McVay bombed the federal buiding? can the moderator please remove this person's comment?

Sorry DL. No need to try and remove my very accurate comment. Sure it was short, and I'll explain it here:

We buy oil. Saudi Arabia ships us oil. Saudi Arabia suppresses rights and funds religious fanatic schools that teach the hating of America. These students go on to hate America and join Al Queda.

How many 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? 15/19. yes 79% came from Saudi Arabia.

I'm not hating on an entire nation or particular particular citizens. I'm hating on our dependence and support of a government that supports terrorism, and that blame lies mostly with us.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it go away. Our oil addiction and dependence on foreign oil is directly related to the beast-like cars we drive and it relevant to this discussion on how our lack of leadership continues the U.S. down this fateful path.

Considering the largest imports of oil into the US come from Canada, the Saudi-terror is a joke.

tommy blackston-
The senate bill doesn't require trucks to get the same mileage as cars. What it does require is that the AVERAGE for the entire company's fleet is 35mpg. That means that cars may get more and trucks less but overall the average is 35mpg. Be careful that you understand what you're talking about before you start throwing insults.

I have to disagree with the conclusion of the article. The truth is that, according to the National Academy of Sciences we have the technology and ability to get our overall car fleets to easily reach 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Not only will the Senate's version halp us reduce our dependence on foreign oil it will help Detroit create new jobs and become increasingly competitive.

I am working with a coalition to help make sure a strong energy bill is passed. Check out http://www.energybill2007.us to learn more and sign our petition.

to Woogie,

Before you say something is a joke check your facts. Saudi Arabia is our #3 supplier of Crude Oil (tied with Mexico) and #3 supplier of Petroleum (very close behind Mexico). The top 5 are Canada, Mexico, SAUDI ARABIA, VENEZUELA and NIGERIA.

If W really wanted to take action against terror (S.A.) and other nefarious leaders (Chavez) he would be a huge proponent of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Quit defending him and Haliburton-Cheney. The argument fails every time.

LM, your utter ignorance and xenophobia makes me sick. Americans are dependent on oil because they are too lazy to walk the 15 minutes and to get on public transportation, etc etc. blaming the suppliers of oil for that is like someone blaming R J Reynolds for making their products widely available, just because he/she can't quit smoking.

if you hate that stupid monkey and his clowns for the poor job they're doing, then say so; don't drag other countries into this. and what is this cliche "dependence on foreign oil" that people toss around? if americans are suckers for instant gratification and cheap oil, then no policy will change this nasty habit. i mean, it's sad how we all complained so bitterly about $3/gallon gas but now we are driving around more than ever and big fat gas guzzlers are still selling like hot cakes (just because they're called by different names doesn't make their portly grossness go away).

and back on topic...

if an SUV that can hold 7 people and that gets an average of, say, 15 mpg carries on average 5 people to work on a daily basis, then each person in the SUV would have "used" 4 gallons of gas over a span of 300 miles. on the other hand, a hybrid that gets 50 mpg carrying a single driver would use up 6 gallons per person over that same 300 miles.

my point is strategies such as carpooling and public transportation would make a much much more significant impact. too bad.