Congress steps on the gas

Tougher fuel-economy rules, blocked for years by Detroit automakers, now stand their best chance of clearing Congress amid heightened concern about gas prices and global warming.

“It will happen,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Monday.

But that’s not to say the fight is over.

Environmental groups hope to strengthen the legislation, which would create higher miles-per-gallon standards, as it moves through Congress. The auto industry and United Auto Workers contend that the measure is too drastic and warn it could deny consumers the sport utility vehicles and pickups they want, damaging an important sector of the economy.

The measure would boost fleetwide average fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020, up from 25 mpg. It would increase standards by 4% a year from 2021 to 2030. If passed, it would be the first increase in standards for passenger cars in about 18 years. The first increase could come in model year 2011.

Tougher regulations are the centerpiece of energy legislation that the Senate began debating Monday. The bill, which is expected to draw bipartisan support, is the Democratic majority’s first major legislative effort to address global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“Achieving the increases in this bill is doable with present technology,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of the bill’s chief sponsors. “And I believe it has a realistic chance to pass the United States Senate and hopefully be enacted into law.”

The bill would also ramp up domestic production of alternative fuels, from about 7 billion gallons projected this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. It would authorize funding for projects to capture greenhouse gases emitted by power plants and other polluters. It would promote energy efficiency in such products as light bulbs and big-screen TVs. And it would make gasoline price-gouging a federal offense during a president-declared emergency; a recently passed House measure contains a similar provision.

Lawmakers are expected to seek to add to the bill a requirement that by 2020, utilities produce 15% of their electricity from alternative sources, such as solar and wind power.

Other legislation to address global warming, such as a contentious proposal for a mandatory cap on emissions, is to be considered later this year.

The provision calling for tougher fuel-economy standards reflects a significant political shift in Congress. As recently as two years ago, a proposal to tighten vehicle fuel-efficiency rules drew just 28 Senate votes.

A number of lawmakers who previously opposed a fuel-economy increase -- Republicans and Democrats -- now support it.

And unlike 2005, when climate change garnered scant attention in the 1,724-page Republican-drafted energy bill that President Bush signed into law, the subject seems to be on just about everybody’s lips, even Bush’s.

“So much has changed over the last couple of years,” said Anna Aurelio, an environmental lobbyist for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, citing efforts by California and other states to pass their own laws to regulate tailpipe emissions in the absence of federal action.

Additionally, gasoline prices -- averaging $3.076 nationally on Monday for self-serve regular, down from a record $3.218 on May 21 -- have caused anxiety among members of both parties on Capitol Hill.

Detroit’s clout on the issue also may be declining.

Reid, who met with the chief executives of the Big Three automakers last week, said in a speech at the Center for American Progress on Monday: “Perhaps if they had joined us, instead of fighting us these last 20 years, they might not be in the financial mess they’re in today.”

Environmentalists have called tougher fuel-economy rules a key step that Congress could take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil imports.

Cars and light trucks, including SUVs, pickups and vans, account for about a fifth of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

Currently, an automaker’s car fleet must average 27.5 mpg. Light trucks, including SUVs, minivans and pickups, must average 22.2 mpg, a standard that is scheduled to increase to 24 mpg by 2011.

Environmental groups, however, complain that the Senate bill includes loopholes that do not guarantee an increase, contending that it gives federal regulators too much latitude. The bill allows the Department of Transportation to weigh factors, such as whether higher standards are “technologically achievable” and can be realized without compromising safety.

“The best thing about the Senate bill is it begins the process in the right direction,” said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s global warming program. “The worst thing is that it doesn’t achieve what it promises to achieve.”

Environmental groups prefer a bill by Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Todd R. Platts (R-Pa.), expected to come before the House this summer, that would mandate a 35-mpg standard by 2018.

Becker said he thought the chances of passing strong fuel-efficiency requirements in the House were the best they had been since 1975, even with Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), an auto industry ally, as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“My hope is that at the end of the process, the House will be able to strengthen the Senate bill and we will have a real provision that will help save consumers at the pump, cut global warming and slash our oil addiction,” Becker said. “But it’s too soon to tell you whether we’re going to win.”

Lawmakers from auto-making states are expected to propose a less drastic alternative.

“We would like to see a fuel-economy standard that is realistic, that increases the fuel economy of automobiles while also preserving our ability to offer consumers the type of vehicles they demand,” said Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Bush has called for tougher standards but has not taken a position on the Senate bill. He has previously opposed a congressionally mandated standard.

Becker said he doubted Bush would veto a bill. “Does he want to veto an energy bill,” he asked, “when people are paying really high gas prices?”

richard.simon@latimes.com