backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Mar 7 at 11:06 AM


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) found that White House advisers had a great deal to do with the writing of the rules

Last week, 30 U.S. senators (29 of which were Democrats) gave President Barack Obama their support for the 54.5 mpg fuel standard by 2025. However, House Republicans still had a bone to pick with these new rules.

The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal, which was introduced by the Obama administration, the state of California and major automakers, aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025 in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the U.S.' dependency on foreign oil.

When the new rules were initially proposed last year, major automakers like Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Chrysler backed it. However, the standard had some strong opposition from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), who said the new rules would tack an extra $5,000 to the sticker price of new vehicles in 2025, as well as Republicans who worked to block the standard last fall because they believed that it would regulate many new vehicles that sell for under $15,000 entirely out of existence.

Now, despite the rules getting the green light from 30 U.S. senators, House Republicans still have beef with the new rules. More specifically, GOP has been looking into how involved Obama's advisers were in the development of the new 2017-2025 fuel efficiency standards.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he investigated Obama's advisers' involvement last August when speaking to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler.

"Your response seemed to imply that the Executive Office of the President was not significantly involved in the development of these fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards," Issa wrote to Ruemmler.

As it turns out, Issa's investigation discovered that there was indeed substantial participation in the development of the new standards by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council and Council of Economic Quality.

Ron Bloom, a White House adviser under the Obama administration, spent weeks trying to negotiate with automakers for support regarding the 54.5 mpg by 2025 standard. Bloom also spoke with lobbyists daily in July 2011, ad former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley met with Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

A finalized version of the rules is due this summer.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Want to save some money?
By thurston2 on 3/1/2012 11:30:09 PM , Rating: 1
Once again it appears the facts don't jive with your bullshit. Gas lowered after the oil embargo of the 70's when Reagan took office and STAYED low through out the Clinton administration and then skyrocketed when Bush took office.


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Where you pulling those numbers from to create that BS argument?

In December of '99, Natl average was $1.35. By Oct of 2001, avg dropped to $1.27. It wasn't until March of 2007 (Post Bush 1st term) where averages exceeded $3. Then prices varied between $3 and $4 through July of 2008. That's ONE YEAR of prices above $3 (and please do remember this). =It then nose-dived to $1.67 by the end of his term.

OBAMA "inherited" $1.67 and it jumped to $2.09 just 4 months into his term. Its been above $3 since Jan 2011. THAT'S 3 YEARS of "Skyrocketing" prices by your definition, no! It's OK, that's why I'm here!

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?...


RE: Want to save some money?
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/2/2012 9:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Also as a friendly reminder, Dems took over the Senate in 2006. Coincidence to see gas prices rise after that event? I think not... not when you have whack-jobs like this running the show!

http://news.investors.com/article/602761/201202291...


RE: Want to save some money?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/12, Rating: 0
RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


RE: Want to save some money?
By mindless1 on 3/2/2012 11:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
False. Existing tech for processing shale oil can be profitable if crude oil is above roughly $30/barrel. Take a look at this PDF, especially the chart on pg 34:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr...

However I do agree that natural gas will b e an important energy source in the future - IF politics doesn't warp the public's mind and trick them into more stupidity like subsidizing electric vehicles and trying to raise gas prices intentionally.

Oil WILL BE AND IS plentiful. There is no shortage at all nor will there be for many decades into the future if not hundreds of years. We do not need any "gigantic new source of oil", only to make people accountable for their questionable agendas so the price isn't artificially high.

The FACT is we could produce oil for less than we are paying for it. Apparently all the falsehoods you've heard are making you ignore this reality. We do not need some "new" thing at all, just to throw out all the BS nonsense we're being told and demand to keep more US dollars in the US.


RE: Want to save some money?
By nick2000 on 3/2/2012 9:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
This guy hates democrats so much that he cannot use his brain. The "easy" oil is gone. Anything left is hard and costly to extract which means that it would not lower the cost on any way.

The only real solution is to add alternate sources of energy. This is why the Chinese make oil out of coal. Not a very good solution but it works and there is plenty of coal. Algae look good too. Natural gas is not bad either. What is for sure is that there is no perfect solution and claiming that oil will be plentiful is comparable to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you". It is funny but very childish and shortsighted. The best of all this is that even if tomorrow we find a gigantic new source of oil, we will have alternate sources anyway just in case.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki