Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 24, 1991 TAG: 9103240247
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BY JOHN A. MacDONALD/ THE HARTFORD COURANT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
Will they unite behind those who believe that raising gasoline efficiency standards for automobiles will relieve the United States' increasing dependence on foreign oil?
Or will they continue the pattern of past years and show a continuing hunger for bigger, more powerful cars that gulp cheap gasoline?
How Americans sort out those conflicting options will say a great deal not just about the future design of cars but also about a national security issue at the heart of the gulf war.
The lines for a long, lively debate have been drawn.
On one side are the Environmental Protection Agency, environmentalists and conservationists and others who worry that the United States is consuming too much foreign oil.
"This legislation will begin the process of changing the conditions that make us so dependent on the unstable Middle East and on the oil that we know ultimately is a finite resource," said Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., leader of the congressional drive to require autos to be 40 percent more fuel efficient by 2001, for an industry average of 40.2 miles per gallon.
On the other side are President Bush and the Department of Transportation, the auto and insurance industries and those who question the wisdom of raising efficiency standards. Referring to the Bryan bill, Secretary of Transportation Samuel Skinner has said, "It should be called the highway fatality bill" because it would lead to smaller cars and more traffic deaths.
The argument promises to be difficult because, with so much at stake, both sides have amassed what they believe is compelling evidence to support their positions. How it is resolved, some contend, could determine whether U.S. motorists continue to have a wide choice of models and sizes or are forced into much smaller cars within a decade.
In January, the United States consumed 16.7 million barrels of oil; about 40 percent of that was consumed by cars and light trucks. Bryan's bill also would require light trucks to improve fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2001.
What may emerge, some analysts say, is a classic Washington compromise: The president will allow an increase in fuel efficiency standards, but not as much as Bryan is seeking. In return, Congress will approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as Bush's national energy strategy proposes.
Fuel efficiency standards date from 1973, when Saudi Arabia led the first Arab oil embargo against the United States. In response, Congress imposed standards, and average car fuel economy rose from 18 mpg in 1978 to 27.5 in 1985.
In the past two years, however, some cars that exceeded the minimum standard of 27.5 mpg slipped a bit, prompting Bryan last year to begin calling for the new round of efficiency improvements. That came as U.S. dependence on foreign oil approached 50 percent of overall consumption.
Although the war gave the proposal a new urgency, it did not diminish the controversy surrounding the Bryan legislation. On several key points, the two sides have yawning differences.
The most important is whether car makers can build cars that are more fuel efficient without having to make them considerably smaller.
Auto industry officials say that they cannot. "Looking forward, the truth is that it will not be possible to achieve the sorts of increases [that Bryan seeks] without substantial changes in the mix, size or utility of vehicles offered to customers," George Eads, a General Motors vice president, told a Senate Commerce subcommittee recently.
Most industry witnesses refused to be specific about future fuel economy. One exception was Thomas Elliott, a Honda vice president, who told the subcommittee his company could achieve only a 4 percent fuel economy gain without having to reduce car sizes.
That is a crucial point because many experts say there is greater risk of injury and death with small cars, a view supported by the Department of Transportation and the insurance industry.
But is the auto industry's assertion correct? Some experts argue that there are many new technologies partially in use that could improve performance without compelling manufacturers to resort to smaller cars. Those include smaller, more efficient engines, better transmissions, improved aerodynamics, fuel injection and front-wheel drive.
Industry officials contend that they are using those technologies to the maximum, but K.G. Duleep, director of engineering at Energy and Environmental Analysis of Arlington, Va., which has studied the issue for the EPA, disagrees.
Last June, Energy and Environmental Analysis reported that the industry could improve its fleet average to more than 38 mpg in 2001 and more than 45 mpg in 2010 using technologies that do not require developmental breakthroughs.
In May 1989, experts at the EPA's Control Technology and Applications Branch in Ann Arbor, Mich., said that fleet fuel economy in the 30-34 mpg range was possible by 2001 with today's most efficient cars.
And Donald Bischoff, associate director at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said that the industry probably could achieve 20 percent greater fuel economy without risking safety.
Agency officials have testified that there is a greater risk of death or injury in crashes involving smaller, lighter cars than heavier ones. Bischoff said that the agency was concerned that cars that achieve 40 mpg might be smaller, but that did not mean it opposed improved efficiency.
by CNB