Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE): A Comparison of Selected Legislation in the 110th Congress

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
A Comparison of Selected Legislation in
th
the 110 Congress
Updated August 16, 2007
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Robert Bamberger
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
A Comparison of Selected Legislation in
the 110th Congress
Summary
The rise in crude oil and gasoline prices since the winter of 2006 has renewed
the focus on U.S. fuel consumption in the transportation sector. Wider concerns over
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have contributed to interest in reducing
fossil fuel consumption and improving the efficiency of the U.S. transportation
sector. Possible changes to the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards are one policy option to address the issue.
CAFE standards are fleetwide fuel economy averages that manufacturers must
meet each model year. Currently, separate CAFE standards are established for
passenger cars and light trucks, which include sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans,th
and pickup trucks. Several bills have been introduced in the 110 Congress to
modify the CAFE program. Senate energy legislation, H.R. 6, passed that body on
June 21, 2007; the bill includes language on CAFE. On August 3, 2007, the House
passed energy legislation — H.R. 3221 (241-170) and H.R. 2776 (221-189) — but
these bills did not include CAFE provisions. Two House bills addressing CAFE
(H.R. 1506, H.R. 2729) were circulated as possible amendments, but neither were
debated on the House floor.
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of these and other bills in the
110th Congress addressing passenger vehicle fuel economy in general and the CAFE
program specifically. The bills are compared on various policy options including, but
not limited to, the types of provisions identified above. The report also compares
provisions in bills that would establish greenhouse gas emissions standards for
passenger cars outside of the CAFE structure. Such emissions standards would likely
also have the effect of increasing fuel economy.
One issue in the CAFE debate over the years has been whether Congress should
set CAFE standards or delegate that authority exclusively to NHTSA. For passenger
cars, the original EPCA legislation established specific targets for model year (MY)
1978 and MY1985, and required that the Secretary of Transportation set standards
for the interim years. Some of the current proposals would also set specific targets
in the future; others would require annual improvements in CAFE by some specified
percentage. In some instances, both approaches are used. Those proposals would
establish a mandated CAFE by a certain date and require subsequent annual
percentage increases. Some bills would also require NHTSA to set the maximum
feasible interim standards.
Another key question is the form CAFE standards should take. One bill would
require that the CAFE standard be expressed in grams per mile of carbon dioxide
emissions (CO2), in addition to miles per gallon. States are pre-empted from
establishing their own CAFE standards but are permitted to set clean air
requirements. This has generated controversy, and some believe a requirement to
report fuel economy as a function of CO2 emissions is intended to have some bearing
on the differing treatment of the states between CAFE and emissions standards.



Contents
Background: Establishment of the CAFE Standards.......................1
Recent CAFE Regulations...........................................2
Policy Options....................................................2
Policy Options Within CAFE....................................2
Combined Passenger Car/Light Truck Standards.................3
Definition of “Automobile” and “Light Truck”...................3
Mandated Numeric Increase in CAFE Standards.................3
Mandated Percentage Increase in CAFE Standards................3
Regulatory Flexibility/Authority..............................4
Expanded Considerations for Maximum Feasible Fuel Economy.....4
Attribute-Based Standards...................................4
Credit Trading............................................4
Carbon Dioxide Standards...................................5
Bush Administration Proposal....................................5
Non-CAFE Policy Options......................................5
Comparison of Legislation...........................................6
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Senate CAFE Bills in the 110th Congress...........7
Table 2. Comparison of House CAFE Bills in the 110th Congress...........13
Table 3. Comparison of Bills To Establish Automobile Greenhouse Gas
Standards in the 110th Congress..................................17



Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
A Comparison of Selected Legislation
th
in the 110 Congress
The rise in crude oil and gasoline prices since the winter of 2006 has renewed
the focus on U.S. fuel consumption in the transportation sector. Wider concerns over
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have contributed to interest in reducing
fossil fuel consumption and improving the efficiency of the U.S. transportation
sector. Among the various policy options to address the issue are changes to the
federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.1 CAFE refers to the
average miles per gallon used by a manufacturer’s entire fleet of cars or light trucks
in a given model year.
Various bills in the 110th Congress would modify the CAFE program to increase
fuel economy standards for all vehicles, heighten the stringency of testing procedures,
and/or grant the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) broader
authority to implement the program. In the Senate, S. 357 was reported, as amended,
from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 8, 2007.
Some of its provisions were inserted, along with other energy initiatives reported
from committee, into S.Amdt. 1502 to H.R. 6. H.R. 6 passed the Senate June 21,

2007 and includes CAFE language.


On August 3, 2007, the House passed energy legislation — H.R. 3221 (241-170)
and H.R. 2776 (221-189) — but these bills did not include CAFE provisions. Two
House bills addressing CAFE (H.R. 1506, H.R. 2729) were circulated as possible
amendments, but neither were debated on the House floor. Some argued that it would
strengthen House negotiations with the Senate in conference if the House bill had
also included CAFE provisions. An effort to add CAFE language to House energy
legislation was defeated on June 28th in a House Committee on Energy and
Commerce markup (26-31). It is possible that provisions of H.R. 1506 and H.R. 2927
may figure in discussions should an energy bill reach conference.
Background: Establishment of the CAFE Standards
The Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974 and the subsequent 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
(MY) 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


1 For more information on CAFE, see CRS Report RL33413, Automobile and Light Truck
Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards, by Brent D. Yacobucci and Robert Bamberger.

Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163) established CAFE standards for passenger
cars for MY1978. The CAFE standards called for an eventual doubling in new car
fleet fuel economy. EPCA also granted NHTSA the authority to establish CAFE
standards for other classes of vehicles, including light-duty trucks.2 NHTSA
established fuel economy standards for light trucks, beginning in MY1979. For
passenger cars, the current standard is 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for MY2007. For
light trucks, the standard is 22.2 mpg for MY2007.
Under EPCA, the Secretary of Transportation has the discretion to adjust the
passenger car standard within a range from 26.0 to 27.5 mpg. Any increase above
27.5 mpg or below 26.0 mpg requires the Secretary to issue an amendment to the
standards. That amendment would be in force unless either chamber of Congress
disapproves. However, this one-House veto could be judged to be unconstitutional.3
The Secretary has much broader discretion with respect to setting light truck fuel
economy standards (referred to in the regulations as “non-passenger automobiles”).
This includes the authority to establish different standards for different classifications
of these vehicles.
Recent CAFE Regulations
In April 2006, NHTSA promulgated new CAFE rules for light trucks. After
MY2007, light truck manufacturers may voluntarily comply with a new “reformed”
standard based on the size of each specific manufacturer’s vehicles. Starting in
MY2011, all light truck makers will be subject to the reformed standards, which
NHTSA estimates will be equivalent to about 24.0 mpg under the old system. EPCA
gives NHTSA the authority to modify the light truck standards as it sees fit, including
setting standards based on vehicle attributes (in this case, size). EPCA does not grant
similar flexibility in application of the passenger car standard.
Policy Options
Policy Options Within CAFE
Several bills would amend the current CAFE program to increase CAFE
standards, change testing procedures, and/or grant NHTSA broader regulatory
discretion. CRS analyzed 12 CAFE-related bills with regard to several key policy
options:
!combined passenger car/light truck standards,
!definition of “automobile” and “light truck,”
!mandated numeric increase in CAFE standards,
!mandated percentage increase in CAFE standards,


2 Light-duty trucks include most sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and pickups.
3 For more information see CRS Report RS22132, Legislative Vetoes After Chadha, by
Louis Fisher.

!regulatory flexibility/authority,
!expanded considerations for maximum feasible fuel economy,
!attribute-based standards,
!credit trading,
!carbon dioxide emissions, and
!other key provisions.
None of these policy options is mutually exclusive, and any or all options could be
adopted together. Each of these options is discussed below.
Combined Passenger Car/Light Truck Standards. One criticism of the
current CAFE program is its separate treatment of light trucks and passenger cars.
When EPCA was first enacted, most light trucks were used solely as work vehicles,
and they constituted a relatively small percentage of the light-duty vehicle fleet.
Since that time, light trucks, which include sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans,
are used more and more as passenger vehicles. Currently, light trucks make up
roughly half of the new light-duty vehicle market. As a consequence, some argue
that the distinction between the two fleets should be eliminated. Critics also allege
that specifications for some car-like vehicle models may have been designed
purposefully to qualify those vehicles for the lower mpg standard that applies to the
light truck fleet.
Definition of “Automobile” and “Light Truck”. Passenger car and light
truck standards could be combined by simply expanding the definition of “passenger
automobile” to include light trucks up to 8,500 pounds. Some proponents of tighter
standards argue that light trucks should be treated as passenger vehicles.
Further, some light trucks are too heavy to be included under the current CAFE
standard. Therefore, some proposals would expand the definition of “automobile”
or “light truck” to include all vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross weight (current
standards cover vehicles up to 8,500 pounds gross weight). Other proposals would
expand CAFE standards to some heavier vehicles (e.g. SUVs and passenger vans) but
would exclude “work trucks” (e.g. pickups and cargo vans).
Mandated Numeric Increase in CAFE Standards. Some analysts argue
that price volatility in oil markets sends inconsistent signals to prospective new car
purchasers, and that the only way to avoid these mixed signals would be to mandate
higher CAFE standards. Some legislative proposals would require NHTSA to
establish new CAFE standards set at a fixed mpg target in a given year. Various
proposals would mandate increased standards for passenger cars, light trucks, or
both.
Mandated Percentage Increase in CAFE Standards. While some bills
would mandate an increase in the CAFE standards to specified levels, others would
require NHTSA to set rules to increase fuel economy by a set percentage every year.
In most cases, the bills mandate an annual CAFE increase of 4% from the previous
year. The bills vary on whether the increase would cover passenger cars, light trucks,
or both.



Regulatory Flexibility/Authority. As was mentioned above, NHTSA
currently has limited authority to modify the specific mpg target or the general design
of passenger car CAFE standards. Some legislative proposals would significantly
broaden NHTSA’s authority to amend the program, including allowing NHTSA to
set higher passenger car standards than EPCA currently allows. Currently, any
increase above 27.5 mpg or below 26.0 mpg requires the Secretary to issue an
amendment to the standards. That amendment is to be in force unless either chamber
of Congress disapproves.
Other proposals would allow NHTSA to extend the current single-year
compliance period to multiyear periods. Such a proposal, for example, might allow
NHTSA to require manufacturers to meet a set CAFE average for MY2011 through
MY2013, instead of requiring that the CAFE average be achieved in each model year.
Expanded Considerations for Maximum Feasible Fuel Economy.
Current law requires NHTSA to consider various factors in determining “maximum
feasible average fuel economy.” NHTSA must consider “technological feasibility,
economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the4
government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.”
Some of the bills would add a further dimension, “cost-effectiveness,” and stipulate
weighing of several factors in assessing the cost-effectiveness of any proposed
changes in the standards. Among these factors are value to consumers, economic
security, national security, foreign policy, and the impact of oil use on various other
national policy concerns.
Attribute-Based Standards. As noted above, NHTSA has established size-
based CAFE standards for light trucks but does not have similar authority for
passenger cars. Some proposals would allow NHTSA to establish multiple levels of
passenger car CAFE standards for a given model year. The levels could be based on
a variety of vehicle attributes, including size and/or weight. The Senate-passed H.R.
6 would require attribute-based standards. H.R. 6 would also require that, after
enactment, the Secretary of Transportation would initiate a study toward developing
a fuel economy program to raise the vehicle fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-
duty trucks.
Credit Trading. For each model year, automakers must meet separate CAFE
targets for three new vehicle fleets: domestically produced passenger cars, imported
passenger cars, and light trucks. In any year that a manufacturer exceeds the CAFE
standard for one of these given fleets, that manufacturer may “bank” credits for use
in meeting future year requirements. Conversely, in any year that the manufacturer
comes up short, it may “borrow” credits from an anticipated surplus in future years.
Under the current CAFE program, banked or borrowed credits may be used only for
the fleet in which they originated. For example, if an automaker generates credits for
its fleet of imported passenger cars, those credits may not be applied to its fleets of
domestic cars or light trucks. Similarly, automakers may not trade credits with other
automakers. However, some of the legislative proposals would allow a manufacturer
to move credits between fleets and/or trade credits with another manufacturer.


4 49 U.S.C. 32902(f)

Carbon Dioxide Standards. One bill, H.R. 2927, would require that new
CAFE standards be expressed in grams per mile of carbon dioxide (CO2), in addition
to miles per gallon. Under EPCA, states are pre-empted from establishing their own
CAFE standards. But the Clean Air Act permits states to set their own clean air
requirements. This has generated controversy, and some believe a requirement to
report fuel economy as a function of CO2 emissions is intended to have some bearing
on the differing treatment of the states between CAFE and emissions standards.
Some of these matters are currently being litigated.
Bush Administration Proposal
In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush outlined a goal of
reducing gasoline5 consumption by 20% from projected levels in 2017. Of that 20%
reduction, the President proposed that 15% come from the increased use of renewable
and alternative fuels, and that 5% come from increased vehicle fuel efficiency. It has
been estimated that an annual 4% increase in CAFE standards would lead to a 5%
reduction in projected gasoline consumption in 2017. The Bush Administration has
not proposed legislation that would mandate an increase in CAFE standards.
On February 6, 2007, NHTSA submitted draft legislation to the House Energy
and Commerce Committee on the Bush Administration’s CAFE proposal.6 The
Administration’s proposal would not require an increase in fuel economy standards
but would grant NHTSA broader regulatory authority. The draft would allow
NHTSA to establish attribute-based standards for passenger cars and would allow for
CAFE credit trading.
Non-CAFE Policy Options
In addition to bills modifying the CAFE program, several other bills have been
introduced that would likely increase vehicle fuel economy through other measures.
For example, several bills requiring reductions in carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions have been introduced. Of those bills, two would require
per-mile emissions reductions from passenger vehicles. While such emissions
standards would not technically constitute a change in fuel economy standards,
automakers and others contend that there is no way other than fuel economy increases
to reduce automobile greenhouse gas emissions.7


5 Gasoline is only one part of oil consumption (albeit the largest), and thus a 20% reduction
in gasoline consumption translates to a smaller reduction in overall petroleum consumption.
6 As of February 22, 2007, no Member has sponsored and introduced the Administration’s
proposal.
7 For more information on climate change bills, see CRS Report RL33846, Climate Change:
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bills in the 110th Congress, by Larry Parker and Brent D.
Yacobucci.

Comparison of Legislation
Of the 14 CAFE bills compared, the eight Senate bills are compared in Table
1 and the four House bills are compared in Table 2. The two bills to control
greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars are compared in Table 3.



CRS-7
Table 1. Comparison of Senate CAFE Bills in the 110th Congress
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
leImproved PassengerTen-in-Ten FuelFuel Economy ReformSecurity and FuelFuel EfficiencyTen-in-Ten Fuel
Automobile FuelEconomy ActActEfficiency (SAFE)Energy Act of 2007Economy Act
Economy Act of 2007 Energy Act of 2007
mbinedNo provision.Passenger car and lightPassenger car and lightNo provision.No provision.Passenger car and light
ssengertruck standardstruck standardstruck standards
r/Light Truckcombined starting incombined starting incombined starting in
andardsMY2013. [Sec. 2]MY2013. [Sec. 4]MY2011. [Sec. 502]
ange inNo provisionExpands light truckExpands definition ofEstablishes that 4-Establishes that 4-Includes light trucks
iki/CRS-RL33982finition ofutomobile” ordefinition to includevehicles betweenpassengerautomobile” to includewheel drive is neithernecessary norwheel drive is neithernecessary norbetween 8,500 and10,000 pounds that are
g/wight Truck8,500 and 10,000all vehicles of up tosufficient to qualifysufficient to qualifynot “work trucks”
s.orpounds that are not10,000 poundsvehicle as a light-dutyvehicle as a light-dutyi.e. not heavier
leak“work trucks” i.e.designed to carry lesstruck. [Sec. 2] truck. [Sec. 2] pickups and vans.
://wikinot heavier pickupsand vans [Sec. 5]than 10 passengers.[Sec. 3][Sec. 504]
http
andated40 mpg for passenger35 mpg for combined27.5 mpg forNo provision.No provision.35 mpg for combined
eric Increasecars only by MY2017.fleets by MY2019.combined fleets byautomobile and light
During interim, the[Sec. 2]MY2013. [Sec. 4]truck fleets by
andardsSecretary ofMY2020. [Sec. 502]


Transportation mustInterim MY2010
set standards for eachstandards of 29.5 mpg
individualfor passenger cars and
manufacturer at25.5 mpg for light
maximum feasibletrucks. [Sec. 2]
level. [Sec. 101]

CRS-8
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
andatedAn annual, fixedNo provision.For MY2010 throughFor MY2013 throughStarting in MY2013,Requires the Secretary
percentage increase isMY2012, requires aMY2030, requires arequires that CAFEof Transportation to
crease in CAFEspecifically prohibited.4% annual increase inmandatory annual fuelstandard for each classestablish procedures to
andards[Sec. 101] passenger car fueleconomy increases ofof vehicles beensure the maximum
economy. [Sec.4% for each class ofincreased by 4% overfeasible increase in
106(a)(3)]vehicles. [Sec. 102]the previous modelfuel efficiency for
year’s standard. [Sec.medium- and heavy-
Starting in MY2013,3] duty commercial
establishes avehicles. [Sec. 502]
mandatory annual fuel
economy increase of
4% for passenger cars
iki/CRS-RL33982and light truckscombined. [Sec.
g/w 106(a)(3)]
s.or
leakproving FuelNo comparableNo comparableNo comparableThe Secretary shallSame as S. 875.Would require the
ficiency ofprovisionprovision.provision.establish average fuelSecretary of
://wikiedium andeconomy standards forTransportation, 18
httputymedium-duty trucksmonths after
ucksthat are consistent withenactment, to initiate a
the projected benefitsstudy that could lead
of hybridization. Into the establishment of
this section, the termfuel economy
medium-duty truckstandards, or other
means a truck (aspolicies, to improve
defined in sectionthe fuel efficiency of
30127) with a grossmedium- and heavy-
vehicle weightduty on-highway
between 10,000 andtrucks. Any program
26,000 pounds.would provide a lead
time of 4 model years
and make no changes
in any targets at less
than three-year



CRS-9
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
inter vals.
ulatoryNHTSA is authorizedNHTSA is givenNHTSA may set lowerNHTSA may set lowerNHTSA may set lowerNHTSA is given
ibility/to establish multiyearbroader authority tostandards for a modelstandards for a modelstandards for a modelbroader authority to
ritycompliance periodsincrease passenger caryear if the targets areyear if the targets areyear if the targets areincrease passenger car
instead of the currentfuel economy withoutnot technologicallynot technologicallynot technologicallyfuel economy without
single-yearcongressionalachievable, would leadachievable, would leadachievable, would leadcongressional
compliance period.approval. [Sec. 3]to reductions into reductions into reductions inapproval. [Sec. 502]
[Sec. 101]vehicle safety, or arevehicle safety, or arevehicle safety, or are
NHTSA may setnot cost-effective.not cost-effective.not cost-effective.Secretary may set a
Standards may be setdifferent CAFE targets[Sec. 4][Sec. 102][Sec. 3] standard that is lower
individually forfor differentthan the “maximum
iki/CRS-RL33982different classes of amanufacturer’s fleet ofmanufacturers, but inany given year eachNHTSA may establishmultiyear compliancefeasible” level if thereisclear and
g/wpassengermanufacturer mustperiods (up to fourconvincing evidence”
s.orautomobiles. [Sec.achieve a minimumyears). [Sec. 5]that this level can be
leak101]average of 92% of thedemonstrated to not be
industry-wide CAFENHTSA may setcost-effective.” [Sec.
://wikitarget. [Sec. 2]different CAFE targets503]
httpfor different
manufacturers, but in
any given year each
manufacturer must
achieve a minimum
average of 92% of the
industry-wide target.
[Sec. 4]
ndedNo provision.No provision.Cost-effectiveness isSubstantially similar toSubstantially similar to Substantially similar
iderationsadded to the list ofS. 767/768.S. 767/768.to S. 767/768.


aximumfactors for NHTSA to
sible Fuelconsider in
onomydetermining maximum
feasible fuel economy.

CRS-10
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
Co st-e ffectiveness
would be measured
relative to several
criteria, including
value to consumers,
economic security,
national security,
foreign policy, and the
impact of oil use on
various other national
policy concerns. [Sec.
4]
iki/CRS-RL33982tribute-BasedNHTSA is givenNo provision.Starting in MY2013,No provision.No provision.NHTSA is required to
g/wandardsauthority to establishNHTSA is givenestablish attribute-
s.orattribute-basedauthority to establishbased standards. [Sec.
leakstandards. [Sec. 101]attribute-based502]


standards. [Sec. 4]
://wiki
http

CRS-11
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
TradingGreenhouse gas creditsManufacturers mayBefore MY2013,No provision.No provision.Substantially similar to
registered with atrade credits betweenmanufacturers areS. 357. [Sec. 506]
national registry mayfleets and with otherallowed to trade
be purchased bymanufacturers. [Sec.credits with other
manufacturers and9]manufacturers for the
applied to fleet fuelsame fleet (e.g.
economy results afterdomestic passenger
MY2010. However,cars). Starting in
credits purchasedMY2013,
through the registrymanufacturers may
cannot offset moretrade credits with other
than 10% of the fuelmanufacturers across
iki/CRS-RL33982economy standard.[Sec. 102, 201]all fleets. However, inthe absence of such
g/wcredits, each fleet must
s.orachieve at least 92% of
leakthe overall CAFE
target. [Sec. 5]
://wiki
httprbon DioxideNo provision.No provision.No provision.No provision.No provision.No provision.
a nda rds
er Key CAFE-The Secretary ofStarting in MY2014,No provision.Existing incentivesBroadens authority ofNHTSA must develop
tedTransportation mayautomakers mustwithin the CAFENHTSA to establisha “motor vehicle
sionsnot set standards thatinstall devices toprogram for thestandards for a broadersafety standard to
impose “marginalprovide real-time andproduction of dual-population of vehicles,reduce death and
costs that exceedcumulative fuelfuel and flexible fuelincluding vehiclesinjury by improving
marginal benefits.”economy data that willvehicles arewith gross vehiclecompatibility of large
[Sec. 101]enable drivers toeliminated. [Sec.weight of 10,000-and small vehicles in
operate their vehicles102(b)]26,000 pounds. [Sec.frontal- and side-
Anational registryto use fuel more2] impacts. [Sec. 505]
system” for voluntaryefficiently. [Sec. 7]Requires NHTSA to
greenhouse gas tradingset fuel economyBeginning in The National
would be established.In order to reduce thestandards for medium-MY2012, existingAcademy of Sciences
The Secretary oflikelihood of death orduty vehicles (vehiclesincentives within the(NAS) will conduct a



CRS-12
S. 183S. 357 (Feinstein)S. 767 / S. 768S. 875S. 1118H.R. 6 - Senate
(Stevens)[as introduced](Obama) (Lugar) (Dorgan)Version (Reid)
Transportation,injury from accidents,with a gross weightCAFE program for thestudy of current and
working with theNHTSA is required tobetween 10,000 andproduction of dual-potential technologies
Department ofdevelop vehicle26,000 pounds). [Sec.fuel and flexible fuelthat might contribute
Commerce, willratings and standards102(a)]vehicles areto meeting CAFE
determine theto reduce damage byeliminated. [Sec.3]standards. [Sec. 509]
equivalency betweenimproving
fuel economycompatibility of largeRequires establishment
improvements andand small vehicles inof a tire fuel efficiency
greenhouse gas frontal- and side-consumer information
reductions. [Sec. 201]impacts. [Sec. 6]program.[Sec. 513]
er Key Non-No provision.Requires theS. 768 also modifiesThis is a broad bill thatFrom MY2012-2022,Among a number of
iki/CRS-RL33982FE ProvisionsEnvironmentalProtection Agency toexisting tax credits forhybrid vehicles andalso: modifies theexisting hybrid vehiclemanufacturers mustproduce not less thanadditional provisions,would require
g/westablish a program toestablishes apurchase tax credit and10% more dual-fueledestablishment of an
s.orlabel new vehiclesmanufacturer taxestablishes a tax creditvehicles than in theAdvanced Battery
leakexpected lifetimecredit for advancedfor fuel-efficientpreceding model year.Initiative to award
greenhouse gastechnology vehicles.vehicles; establishes a[Sec. 3]grants and identify
://wikiemissions. [Sec. 11]manufacturer’s taxtechnological needs;
httpcredit for advancedpromulgation of
technology vehicles;standards for biodiesel
modifies the existingfuel; and establishment
mandate for renewableof a credit-trading
fuels; promotesprogram; and sets
renewable fuelrequirements for
infrastructure;manufacture of
mandates theflexible-fuel vehicles
production ofand raising consumer
alternative fuelawareness about
vehicles; limits oilavailability of these
exploration in certainvehicles.


areas.

CRS-13
Table 2. Comparison of House CAFE Bills in the 110th Congress
H.R. 656 (Reichert)H.R. 1133 (Berkley)H.R. 1500 (DeFazio)H.R. 1506 (Markey)H.R. 2927
( H ill)
le orTo require higher standardsFreedom throughGasoline Price StabilizationFuel Economy Reform ActTo increase the corporate
rposeof automobile fuelRenewable EnergyAct of 2007average fuel economy
efficiency with the goal ofExpansion (FREE) Actstandards for auto-mobiles,
reducing the amount of oilto promote the domestic
used for fuel bydevelopment and
automobiles in the Unitedproduction of advanced
States by 10 percenttechnology vehicles, and
beginning in 2017, and forfor other purposes.
other purposes.
iki/CRS-RL33982mbinedNo provision.No provision.No provision.Passenger car and lightNo provision.
g/wssengertruck standards combined
s.orr/Light Truckstarting in MY2011. [Sec.
leaka nda rds 4]
://wikiange infinition ofNo provision.No provision.No provision.Expands definition ofautomobile” to include allNo provision.
httputomobile” orvehicles of up to 10,000
ight Truckpounds. [Sec. 3]
andated33 mpg by MY2017;33 mpg by MY2016;37 mpg by MY2018 and 40Mandatesa projected levelProjected fuel economy for
eric Increaseinterim standards would beinterim standards would bempg by MY2023; interimof average fuel economypassenger and non-
set by Secretary ofset by Secretary ofstandards would be set byof at least 27.5 mpg forpassenger automobiles
andardsTransportation beginning inTransportation beginning inSecretary of Transportationvehicles up to 10,000would be not less than 32
MY2010 to reach theMY2010 to reach thebeginning in MY2010 topounds beginning inmpg or greater than 35 mpg
mandated target. [Sec. 1]mandated target. [Sec. 8]reach the mandated target.MY2012, and 35 mpg inin MY2022. [Sec. 1]


[Sec. 9]MY2018.

CRS-14
H.R. 656 (Reichert)H.R. 1133 (Berkley)H.R. 1500 (DeFazio)H.R. 1506 (Markey)H.R. 2927
( H ill)
andatedNo provision.No provision. No provision.Requires that current 27.5No provision.
mpg standard for passenger
crease in CAFEautomobiles be increased
andards4% annually beginning in
MY2009. [Sec. 4]
ulatoryNo provision.No provision.No provision.National Highway TrafficNo comparable provision.
ibility/Safety Administration
rity(NHTSA) may set lower
standards for a
manufacturer for a model
year if the targets are not
iki/CRS-RL33982technologically achievable,or are not cost-effective;
g/wand if a lower standard
s.orduring MY2012-MY2017
leakwould not result in a failure
://wikito attain 35 mpg inMY2018. [Sec. 4]
http
ndedNo provision.No provision.No provision.Cost-effectiveness is addedNo provision.


siderations forto the list of factors for
aximum FeasibleNHTSA to consider in
el Economydetermining maximum
feasible fuel economy.
Cost-effectiveness would
be measured relative to
several criteria, including
value to consumers,
economic security, national
security, foreign policy, and
the impact of oil use on
various other national
policy concerns. [Sec.
4(a)(3)]

CRS-15
H.R. 656 (Reichert)H.R. 1133 (Berkley)H.R. 1500 (DeFazio)H.R. 1506 (Markey)H.R. 2927
( H ill)
tribute-BasedAuthorizes Secretary toNo provision.Authorizes Secretary toExtends flexibility toExtends flexibility to
andardsestablish size-basedestablish size-basedSecretary to establishSecretary to establish
standards for differentstandards for differentattribute-based standardsattribute-based standards
classes of vehicles. [Sec. 1]classes of vehicles. [Sec. 9](including size) for(including size) for
different classes ofdifferent classes of
vehicles, or in the form of avehicles, or in the form of a
mathematical function.mathematical function.
[Sec. 4][Sec. 1]
iki/CRS-RL33982anges in TestNo provision.No provision.No provision.Requires joint report fromNo provision; however,
g/wthe Departments ofwould require that annual
s.orTransportation and Energy,standards also be expressed
leakand the Environmentalin the equivalent of
Protection Agency that, inaverage grams per mile of
://wikipart, assesses the accuracycarbon dioxide emissions.
httpof CAFE test procedures
used to measure fuel
economy, and to “identify
any additional factors or
methods that” would
contribute to the tests’ more
accurately reflecting in-use
fuel economy. [Sec. 4]
TradingAuthorizes Secretary toNo provision.No provision.No provision.Authorizes Secretary to
establish a credit tradingestablish a credit trading
program. [Sec. 2]program. [Sec. 1]



CRS-16
H.R. 656 (Reichert)H.R. 1133 (Berkley)H.R. 1500 (DeFazio)H.R. 1506 (Markey)H.R. 2927
( H ill)
rbon DioxideNo provision.No provision.No provision.No provision.Requires Secretary to
andardsestablish fuel economy
standards both in terms of
miles per gallon and grams
per mile of carbon dioxide.
[Sec. 1]
er Key CAFE-Preamble states that theAdvises Secretary thatAdvises Secretary thatAct is not intended toEstablishes fund for
lated Provisionsbill’s intention is to de factointerim standards not onlyinterim standards not onlylimit, constrain, supersede,domestic
reduce the amount of oilreach mandated 33 mpg byreach mandated goals, butor expand” authorities forcommercialization and
used in automobiles byMY2016, but maximizemaximize retention of jobsprescribing motor vehicleproduction of advanced
10% beginning in 2017.retention of jobs in thein the sector, and notsafety standards. [Sec. 5]technology vehicles and
iki/CRS-RL33982Advises Secretary thatsector, and not degradesafety of automobiles. [Sec.degrade safety ofautomobiles. [Sec. 9]components. Fund will befinanced by civil penalties
g/winterim standards not only8]collected for non-
s.orreach mandated 33 mpg byRequires Executive Branchcompliance with fuel
leakMY2016, but also mustagencies to improve theeconomy standards. [Sec.
maximize retention of jobsaverage fuel economy of1]
://wikiin the sector, and notnew vehicles in each
httpdegrade safety ofvehicle class by 3 mph byRequires establishment of a
automobiles. [Sec. 1]MY2011, and 6 mpg bytire fuel efficiency
MY2014 over a baselineconsumer information
calculated for all vehicles inprogram.
the MY2008 fleet for each[Sec. 2]
vehicle class. [Sec. 10]
Requires establishment of a
fuel conservation education
program.
[Sec.3]
Extends credit for
production of alternative-
fueled automobiles. [Sec. 4]
er Key Non-No provision.This is a broad bill that alsoThis is a broad bill that alsoNo provision.No provision.



CRS-17
H.R. 656 (Reichert)H.R. 1133 (Berkley)H.R. 1500 (DeFazio)H.R. 1506 (Markey)H.R. 2927
( H ill)
FE Provisionsincludes provisions relatingincludes provisions on
to nuclear energy, offshoreseveral matters such as
leases, repeal of certain taxpetroleum industry
subsidies and extension ofconcentration, the Strategic
certain tax credits,Petroleum Reserve,
renewable portfoliominimum inventory levels.
standard, and other matters.
Table 3. Comparison of Bills To Establish Automobile Greenhouse Gas Standards in the 110th Congress
iki/CRS-RL33982S. 309 (Sanders)S. 485 (Kerry)
g/w
s.orleGlobal Warming Pollution Reduction ActGlobal Warming Reduction Act of 2007
leak
://wikiuse GasHG) EmissionThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator is requiredto establish regulations starting in MY2016 requiring the average fleetThe EPA Administrator is required to establish regulations for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles at least as stringent as
httpandardgreenhouse gas emissions be less than 205 grams per mile for passengerthose adopted by the California Air Resources board on September 23-
cars and 332 grams per mile for light trucks. [Sec. 707] (This greenhouse24, 2004. Those regulations cap greenhouse gas emissions at 205 grams
gas standard is roughly equivalent to an MY2016 CAFE standard of 42per mile for passenger cars and 332 grams per mile for light trucks by
mpg for passenger cars and 26 mpg for light trucks.)2016. [Sec. 704] (This is roughly equivalent to an MY2016 CAFE
standard of 42 mpg for passenger cars and 26 mpg for light trucks.)
er Key CAFE-Requires greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium- and heavy-No provision.
lated Provisionsduty trucks.
er Key Non-Caps greenhouse gas emissions on an economy-wide basis beginning inCaps greenhouse gas emissions on an economy-wide basis beginning in
FE Provisions2010. Emissions are capped at 20% of their 1990 levels in the year2010. Emissions are capped at 38% of their 1990 levels in 2050. The
2050. The EPA has the discretion to employ a market-based allowanceallowance trading system includes an allocation scheme that requires an
trading program or any combination of cost-effective emission reductionunspecified percentage of allowances to be auctioned. The bill also
strategies. The bill also includes mandatory greenhouse gas emissionincludes a new energy efficiency performance standard. The bill would
standards for new powerplants, along with a new energy efficiencyestablish a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), increase biofuel
performance standard. The bill would establish a renewable portfoliomandates under the Renewable Fuels Standard, and mandate new



CRS-18
S. 309 (Sanders)S. 485 (Kerry)
standard (RPS) and a new low-carbon generation requirement andinfrastructure for biofuels. Finally, the bill expands and extends existing
trading program.tax incentives for alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles,
and establishes a manufacturer tax credit for advanced technology
vehicle investment.


iki/CRS-RL33982
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http