Senate Members Offer 'Clunkers' Measure They Say is Greener than House Version

Unhappy with a compromise "cash for clunkers" measure hashed out by the House of Representatives, a group of key U.S. senators has introduced an alternative  they say would substantially increase the environmental benefits of the program.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, the California Democrat who co-authored the counter-proposal, said the Senate version represents a 32 percent improvement in fuel economy gains and greenhouse gas reduction over the House bill, which has been attached to climate change legislation now moving though Congress.

Critics of the House measure also have said that it doesn't offer enough incentive to persuade many people to take the plunge and buy a new car, truck or SUV in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. That criticism would apply to the Senate measure as well, as it doesn't increase the incentive.

The Senate counter-proposal would permit consumers to obtain cash vouchers for the purchase of new vehicles if they trade-in cars or trucks that have EPA fuel economy ratings of no more than 17 miles per gallon.

Cars

A new car to be purchased would have to carry an EPA rating of at least 24 miles per gallon (combined city and highway mileage), and trade-in vouchers would vary based on the overall fuel economy improvement.

An eligible consumer would receive a $2,500 voucher for a new car that gets 7 -9 miles per gallon more than the scrapped car; $3,500 for a 10-12 MPG improvement and $4,500 for improvements of 13 miles per gallon or more.

The measure also would authorize a $1,000 trade-in voucher for purchase of a used car that has an EPA combined rating of at least 24 MPG.

Trucks

Vouchers for new trucks, vans and SUVs also would be based on mileage improvements, but the increases required would be smaller and would be weight-based.

A new truck in the sub-6,000-pound class would have to be rated at a minimum of 20 MPG. Trucks that met that mileage floor and achieved a 3-4 MPG improvement over the vehicle traded-in would be eligible for a $2,500 subsidy; a 5- to 6-miles-per-gallon improvement would be worth $3,500 and improvement of 7 miles a gallon or more would fetch a $4,500 voucher.

Trading in an older, sub -18 MPG truck for a used model with an EPA rating of at least 20 miles a gallon would earn a $1,000 voucher.

For large trucks (including vans and SUVs) in the 6,000- to 8,500-pound class, the new vehicle would not have a minimum mileage requirement but would have to be rated at least 3 MPG better than the vehicle traded-in. Trucks getting 3-4 miles more per gallon would be eligible for a $2,500 voucher; those with 5-6 MPG improvements would earn a $3,500 subsidy and an improvement of 7 miles a gallon or more would be worth $4,500.

A $1,000 voucher for the purchase of a used large truck could be earned if the vehicle to be purchased had a minimum rating of 17 mpg and achieved at least 3 miles per gallon more than the vehicle being traded-in.

The measure also would cover heavier work trucks, in the 8,500-10,000 pounds category, that aren't rated for fuel economy by the EPA.  A business or individual trading in a 1998 or older work truck for a new truck in the same or a smaller weight class would receive a $2,500 voucher to help with the purchase of the new truck.

The measure envisions that the vehicles that are traded in would be taken off the road and scrapped.

A spokesman in Feinstein's Los Angeles office said the measure also would permit consumers who traded-in a car to buy a new truck, van or SUV, and those who traded-in trucks to buy new cars, so long as the minimum mileage improvement requirements for each class was met. 

Long Way to Go 

"Federal support for purchasing new cars must also promote greater fuel efficiency as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," co-author Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said of the counter-proposal bill.

"The House agreement announced last week does not achieve that goal. Our alternative proposal, which would save up to 38 percent more oil than the House agreement, offers both economic and environmental benefits," she said.

Now the dickering, and bickering, begins as the Senate considers the counter proposal and then tries to get the House to accept it in lieu of its own measure.

It is not looking like any cash for clunkers program is going to get off the ground any time soon.

Posted by

John O'Dell May 22, 2009, 2:45 AM

Permalink

Categories:

Fuel Economy, Legislation

Technorati Tags:

Cash For Clunkers