In Washington, legislators and White House officials continue to debate reform of the federal standard for vehicle fuel efficiency. Democrats and Republicans have questioned Bush administration officials on the president's proposal to alter the fuel economy standard for passenger vehicles. Members in both chambers of Congress have also proposed bills that would change the standard.

In 1975, in response to national oil shortages, Congress enacted corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The CAFE program sets a mandatory fuel efficiency rate (measured in miles per gallon) and fines manufacturers who are not in compliance. Manufacturers are evaluated based upon the fuel economy of their entire fleet as opposed to individual vehicles. CAFE standards were widely credited with improving automotive fuel economy in the years immediately following enactment, but progress has since leveled off.

Neither Congress nor the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency charged with setting standards, has raised the standard of 27.5 miles per gallon since the program's inception more than 30 years ago. A recent study by the Civil Society Institute claims that Americans face fewer fuel efficient car choices and support higher federally mandated fuel economy standards. Now, politicians are jockeying for position to lead the charge toward higher standards and improved fuel efficiency.

Despite calls throughout the 2006 campaign for a more responsible energy policy, Democrats were not the first to act on CAFE in 2007. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 23, President Bush called for CAFE reform. In a more detailed plan for his initiatives, Bush called on Congress to allow NHTSA to continue to set standards at its discretion, not by legislative mandate.

Bush followed up his rhetoric in early February by submitting draft legislation to Congress. Bush's bill would allow NHTSA to set different fuel economy standards for each class (such as mid-size, full-size, etc.) of vehicles. The legislation also proposes a cap-and-trade system similar to that utilized for sulfur dioxide. Manufacturers producing exceptionally fuel-efficient vehicles would be credited the difference between the mile per gallon ratio of their vehicles and the ratio of the minimum standard. These credits could then be sold to other manufacturers.

Bush's proposal would not allow changes in the standard unless the benefits of such a change could be proven to outweigh the costs. Presumably, this would supersede the current statutory language, which calls only for the consideration of "economic practicability." This potential for a cost-benefit analysis to stifle higher standards would not be in conflict with other provisions of the bill, as the legislation does not require any kind of measurable increase over time.

On Feb. 28, the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing to review Bush's proposed legislation. Both Democrats and Republicans criticized the bill. Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) warned against the class provision's "perverse incentive" for manufacturers to produce larger vehicles. Ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX) called the cap-and-trade provision "problematic to say the least."

Committee Chair John Dingell (D-MI) appeared dissatisfied by the limited extent of the administration's research in preparing the bill. Dingell asked NHTSA administrator Nicole Nason if the administration had studied how this bill might effect "overall fuel consumption in the United States." Nason responded: "I don't know if studied would be the right word. Again, we have some rough analyses." Dingell asked the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, "Has the administration conducted any independent analysis on CAFE credit-trading proposals?" The answer was no.

Critiquing the absence of a measurable goal for improved fuel economy, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) said, "There is nothing in this proposal that requires NHTSA to make significant meaningful steps that will truly make a difference in our fuel economy standard. In fact, there's nothing here before us to require NHTSA to act at all."

Congressional Republicans also moved more quickly than Democrats on CAFE reform. On Jan. 24, Rep. David Reichert (R-WA), along with 12 other Republicans, introduced their own legislation. The bill is similar to the Bush proposal in two ways: it would grant standard-setting control to NHTSA and establish a cap-and-trade system. The legislation exceeds the presidential bill by calling for a minimum CAFE standard of 33 miles per gallon by 2017. Since then, four additional Republicans and two Democrats have signed on as cosponsors.

The Senate has been considering CAFE reform as well. On Jan. 4, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) surprised pundits by introducing a bill that would mandate a minimum CAFE standard of 40 miles per gallon by 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a more broadly supported but less ambitious CAFE reform bill. The bill would set a goal of 35 miles per gallon by 2019. It also includes other related provisions such as improved automotive safety standards and mandatory fuel-efficiency gauges on dashboards so drivers can monitor their fuel consumption while driving.

On Mar. 5, a bipartisan group of seven senators reintroduced the "Fuel Economy Reform Act," which stalled in committee in the 109th Congress. The bill would have NHTSA raise the CAFE standard by four percent each year and, like the Bush proposal, allow NHTSA to set standards by class. The proposed legislation also includes tax incentives for domestic manufacturers. The sponsors claim the tax breaks will help defray the cost of new technologies automakers would have to employ to significantly improve a vehicle's fuel economy.

None of the proposed legislation has cleared the appropriate committee. As a result, no lawmaker has been forced to go on record as supporting or opposing specific reform efforts. A Democratically controlled Congress is unlikely to pass President Bush's proposal in its current form. It is unclear which proposed legislation, and in what final form, will move the farthest down the legislative pipeline. For now, Americans will have to continue to live with a fuel economy standard set in a bygone era.