Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a single national fuel economy standard.

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) a single national fuel economy standard is necessary to achieve the national policy goals of reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions without further exacerbating unemployment; and (2) the California Air Resources Board's regulation to implement California law AB 1493 undermines and conflicts with national policy established by the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975.

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 106

 Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a single national fuel 
                           economy standard.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2009

    Mr. Bright (for himself and Mr. Terry) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 
                              and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
 Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a single national fuel 
                           economy standard.

Whereas Congress mandated a new, higher single national fuel economy standard as 
        part the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which was 
        enacted into law on December 19, 2007;
Whereas EISA will raise the fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks by 
        at least 40 percent and will decrease the carbon dioxide tailpipe 
        emissions of passenger cars and light trucks by at least 30 percent by 
        2020;
Whereas the single national fuel economy standard promulgated, pursuant to the 
        EISA, will provide the regulatory stability and certainty that is 
        required to produce the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow;
Whereas the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 explicitly states that 
        ``a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce 
        a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards'';
Whereas the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has promulgated a regulation 
        implementing a 2002 California law (AB 1493) that would have the direct 
        effect of regulating fuel economy;
Whereas if a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act is granted to CARB by 
        the Environmental Protection Agency for its regulation implementing AB 
        1493, California, 13 other States, and the District of Columbia that 
        have adopted the CARB regulation will seek to enforce it;
Whereas CARB petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency on January 21, 2009, 
        seeking, among other things, retroactive enforcement of its regulation, 
        which would include the regulation of vehicles already sold;
Whereas the granting of such a waiver would result in a patchwork of State fuel 
        economy regulatory regimes in the States and District of Columbia 
        (except Pennsylvania) that have adopted CARB's regulation, as each 
        automaker must separately conform the fleet each automaker delivers for 
        sale in that State to each State's rule;
Whereas CARB's regulation conflicts with the restructured Corporate Average Fuel 
        Economy (CAFE) program because CARB adopted a ``flat'' standard of 
        regulation, an approach Congress rejected in favor of an ``attribute-
        based'' standard under EISA;
Whereas Congress rejected the ``flat standard'' method of regulation CARB 
        adopted because of its negative impact on passenger safety, it limits 
        consumer choice, and its inherent bias against full-line manufacturers;
Whereas the attribute-based system of regulation Congress mandated in EISA will, 
        by design, always save more fuel and reduce more greenhouse gases than a 
        comparable flat standard;
Whereas the National Academy of Sciences stated in a 2002 study on fuel economy 
        that ``if an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that 
        encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of more small 
        cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.'';
Whereas CARB's method of regulation encourages downweighting and the production 
        and sale of more small cars in ``California'' States, thereby negatively 
        impacting passenger safety;
Whereas CARB did not consider job loss, consumer choice, consumer affordability, 
        passenger safety, or the health of the United States auto industry 
        outside of California when promulgating its regulation;
Whereas the design of CARB's regulation will distort the retail auto market by 
        forcing automakers to deliver for sale certain vehicles in the States 
        which have adopted its regulation, irrespective of whether consumer 
        demand exists for such vehicles;
Whereas CARB's regulation will create a ``cross border sales loophole'' and a 
        ``SUV loophole'' that will conflict with the goals of EISA and distort 
        the auto market;
Whereas CARB's regulation will exempt over a dozen global automakers from 
        regulation, which will further distort the retail auto market and reduce 
        the competitiveness of the automakers that are subject to CARB's 
        regulation;
Whereas CARB's regulation potentially exempts vehicles sold by Chinese and 
        Indian automakers from its regulation, which will give a regulatory 
        advantage to Chinese and Indian automakers at the expense of the 
        automakers that are subject to CARB's regulation;
Whereas domestic and international automakers are experiencing the worst 
        economic downturn in a generation;
Whereas it makes no economic sense to burden consumers, dealers, and automakers, 
        in the midst of a recession with a State-based fuel economy regime that 
        is redundant to the goals of CAFE, but contrary to its structure;
Whereas CARB's regulation will affect 34 percent of the Nation's fleet, yet the 
        cost to consumers nationally in 2009 is unknown, as well as the 
        passenger safety impact, environmental impact, and cost to automakers; 
        and
Whereas it is the responsibility of Congress, and not of a State agency, to set 
        national energy and environmental policy: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) a single national fuel economy standard is necessary to 
        achieve the national policy goals of reducing fuel consumption 
        and greenhouse gas emissions while not further exacerbating 
        unemployment; and
            (2) the California Air Resources Board's regulation to 
        implement AB 1493 undermines and conflicts with the national 
        policy established by Congress in the Energy Policy 
        Conservation Act of 1975 and its subsequent amendments.
                                 <all>