WASHINGTON — President Bush's proposals to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years include more specific and ambitious new goals than in previous White House statements, but they also appear to rely on assumptions about energy markets, politics and technology that some experts say are debatable, and include some apparent contradictions.
In general, Bush's proposal to boost alternative fuels such as ethanol was greeted with conditional enthusiasm by many scientists, environmentalists and members of Congress. His plan would require suppliers to include 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels in the nation's vehicle fuel supply by 2017, up from the current 5 billion gallons.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Thursday January 25, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 0 inches; 14 words Type of Material: Correction
A graphic in Wednesday's Section A included an incorrect scale. Here's the correct version: [Correct version linked to this story.]
"It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- and the way forward is through technology," Bush said. " ... We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes."
Bush also called for Congress to give him new authority to set vehicle fuel-economy rules. His plan would overhaul the decades-old vehicle fuel-economy program established after the Arab oil embargo, contending that technology can be deployed to "significantly improve fuel economy" without compromising vehicle safety.
But he rejected bipartisan calls for Congress to set new fuel economy rules, preferring to have the U.S. Department of Transportation set the standard. Under current law, the DOT can only set mileage standards for light trucks; raising the standard for passenger cars requires an act by Congress. The administration is expected to press Congress to allow DOT to set car standards using a vehicle size method rather than an overall fleet average.
Given the negative reaction Bush received from some Democrats on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, that possibility appears remote.
Environmentalists were skeptical that Bush's proposal would lead to any significant increase in fuel economy rules.
Indeed, some aspects of the overall plan seemed to contradict each other. For one, Bush's proposal to save gasoline by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards could be undermined by his call for greater use of alternative fuels. Ethanol, for example, gets less mileage than gasoline and, without a major technological breakthrough, requiring more of it could make it harder to increase fuel efficiency.
