By Margaret Kriz Hobson, CQ Staff

A White House proposal to boost vehicle fuel-economy standards is too aggressive and may go beyond what is technologically feasible, members of Michigan’s congressional delegation said in a letter to President Obama.

The 16 lawmakers said that the targets could set back the auto industry’s recovery. “With the Michigan unemployment rate standing at 10.5 percent, we are unanimous in our concern about the consequences of an excessive proposal,” reads the letter, which was released July 22.

The state delegation includes three powerful congressional chairmen: Republican Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Democrat Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee; and Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The entire delegation except Rep. John Conyers Jr. signed the letter.

The group also includes former House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell, a Democrat who is the longest-serving House member ever.

The administration and the auto industry are engaged in closed-door negotiations to develop a single mileage standard for new cars and trucks that would meet the Transportation Department’s fuel-economy standards and the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standard for car and trucks. The joint EPA-Transportation proposal is expected to be released in September, with the final mandate due in July 2012.

In their letter, the Michigan lawmakers described the administration’s opening proposal to raise mileage standards to 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 as “overly aggressive and not reasonably feasible.” Current regulations require makers of car and light trucks to meet a 34.1-miles-per-gallon target for model year 2016, averaged out across their entire fleets.

Car industry officials insist that the increased mileage requirements could be met only if the public were to buy significantly more electric and hybrid vehicles. According to A. Bailey Wood Jr., legislative director for the National Automobile Dealers Association, half of the new cars purchased would have to be electric to meet the White House proposal — a significant increase from the 3 percent of the hybrids or electric vehicles sold today.

The Michigan delegation challenged the administration’s proposal to increase the efficiency requirements for light-duty trucks, including SUVs, by 3.5 percent each year from 2017 through 2021 and to set less stringent goals for working trucks. That plan — which would allow the companies to earn credits by selling smaller, more efficient cars — would discriminate against American automakers that sell far more trucks and light-duty vehicles than their foreign competitors, the letter said.

The group objected to the White House efforts to set fuel standards through 2025, which they described as “unprecedented in the history of fuel economy rulemaking.” The letter said such long-term goals should be applied only if the EPA and the Transportation Department conduct a midterm study of the industry, including the cost of technology, the cost of fuel and consumer acceptance of the more efficient cars.

The Michigan lawmakers also protested the administration’s inclusion of California state officials in the negotiations, claiming that “allowing California to be able to wield undue influence is simply not acceptable.”

Under the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549), California is allowed to set tougher pollution-control standards than those applied nationally by the EPA. Once California embraces stricter controls, other states can follow. Currently, 13 states have joined California in setting greenhouse gas emissions controls on new cars.

Domestic automakers embraced the last round of fuel-economy-standard increases in 2009. But at the time, General Motors and Chrysler had accepted billions of dollars in a government bailout and had lost much of their political leverage.

http://www.cq.com/doc/news-3914428?wr=U2ZyOGV0Ymg1TTNkcFVoU0tXUDhvUQ