Statement of Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee
Chairman Boucher
"A Review of the Administration's Energy Proposal for
the Transportation Sector"
February 28, 2007
This
morning we continue our focus on an appropriate Congressional response to
climate change with the first of what will be a series of hearings on the
transportation sector.
Our subject today is the proposal by
the Administration for statutory authority to raise the corporate average fuel
economy standard for passenger cars above the standard of 27.5 miles per
gallon.
The Administration's proposal would
also for the first time empower NHTSA to establish different fuel economy
standards for different classes of passenger cars and for the first time
establish fuel economy credit trading among auto manufacturers.
In the
Administration's view, as expressed by the President in the State of the Union
address, these far reaching CAFÉ changes would serve to reduce fuel consumption
by the motoring public and also address the challenge of climate change.
The Administration's proposal has
now been submitted to the Committee as draft legislation. It raises fundamental questions which we will
explore with our witnesses this morning.
One obvious question is whether
different fuel economy standards for different classes of passenger cars might
create a perverse incentive for manufacturers to build more of the larger less
fuel efficient vehicles and correspondingly fewer of the smaller more efficient
cars.
The draft asks for the authority to
distinguish categories of passenger cars for fuel economy purposes based on
"attributes." But the term "attributes" is not defined. Characteristics of cars that can affect fuel
economy can vary widely. What does the
term attributes mean?
The draft bill proposes a trading
system for fuel economy credits, presumably akin to the trading system now in
place for SO2 emissions.
But there are major differences
between electric utilities that largely do not compete with each other and the
highly competitive auto industry, where depending on the circumstances,
manufacturers might prefer to pay penalties for CAFÉ non-compliance than to
purchase credits from a competitor.
And we must ask whether there is any
analysis that tradable fuel economy credits would actually save fuel.
I am also interested in the
Administration's view of how its CAFÉ proposal for passenger cars fits within a
framework of greenhouse gas control.
Later this year our subcommittee
will process control program legislation to address the climate change
challenge. I am interested in the views
of the witnesses about whether the CAFÉ changes now before us would compliment
that effort, whether other kinds of CAFÉ changes would better achieve
greenhouse gas reductions, or whether an entirely different approach would be
preferable for the transportation sector component of the greenhouse gas
program.
I don't anticipate that the
witnesses will have complete answers to the climate change questions this
morning. But in outlining the questions,
I want to demonstrate our concern that we must view this CAFÉ proposal within
that larger context.
I welcome today's witnesses.
|