Congress Bill HR6 - fuel economy bill

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush has signaled he will accept the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40% to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate's approved last week.

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for non-fossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

"This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow" on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was closely involved in crafting the legislation. "It's groundbreaking in what it will do."

While some GOP lawmakers criticized the bill for failing to address the need for more domestic oil and natural gas production, 95 GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in support of the bill.

"This legislation is a historic turning point in energy policy," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland because it will cut demand for foreign oil and promote non-fossil fuels that will cut greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

It increases energy efficiency "from light bulbs to light trucks," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry who was key to a compromise on vehicle efficiency increases.

Many Republicans denounced the Democratic-crafted bill for failing to push for more domestic production of fossil fuels and for mandates some GOP lawmakers warned will not be possible.

"What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Democrats disagreed. The legislation takes measured and concrete steps that are achievable, said Dingell.

The Senate passed the bill last week after discarding billions of dollars in higher taxes on oil companies and a solar and wind power mandate that opponents said would raise electric rates in the Southeast. President Bush and Senate Republicans opposed those measures.

The centerpiece of the bill remained the requirement for automakers to increase their industrywide vehicle fuel efficiency by 40% to an industry average of 35 mpg by 2020 compared to today's 25 mpg when including passenger cars as well as SUVs and small trucks.

Congress has not changed the auto mileage requirement since it was first enacted in 1975.

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements eventually — when the fleet of gas-miser vehicles are widely on the road — will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. They maintain the overall bill, including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will reduce U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf.

The automakers have repeatedly fought an increase in the federal fuel standard, known as CAFE, maintaining it would limit the range of vehicles consumers will have available in showrooms and threaten auto industry jobs. Bush also has argued against an arbitrary, numerical increase in the fuel efficiency requirement, preferring instead legislation to streamline the federal requirements and market incentives to get rid of gas guzzling vehicles.

But the automakers have accepted the political shift toward a tougher requirement. After the Senate approved the legislation last week, the White House immediately said Bush would sign it once it reaches his desk.

The bill requires a massive increase in the production of ethanol for motor fuels, outlining a rampup of ethanol use from the roughly 6 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. After 2015, the emphasis would be on expanded use of cellulosic ethanol, made from such feedstock as switchgrass and wood chips, with two thirds of the ethanol — 21 billion gallons a year — from such non-corn sources.

However, commercially viable production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to be proven and some Republicans have argued that the new requirements could be impossible to meet and may raise corn prices and food supplies.

The bill requires improved efficiency standards for lighting, commercial and government buildings, and appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers and freezers. It also tells the Energy Department to issue efficiency standards more quickly.

Democrats failed to get through a broad tax package that they had designed to pay for incentives aimed at spurring the development of wind, solar and alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation programs.

The package would have rolled back $13.5 billion in tax breaks enjoyed by the country's five largest oil companies. The tax package passed the House earlier this month, but was rejected in the Senate as Democrats failed by one vote to overcome a GOP filibuster. The White House said Bush opposed singling out the oil industry for higher taxes and that if the taxes were included, he would veto the bill.

The bill is HR 6.
 
By and large a good thing, but too late to head off most of the problems.
If this had happened 15 years ago and the higher mileage numbers were coming into play now....
 
cant bitch about this. the American auto industry has lost some of their power. That is not necessarily a bad thing for our environment.
 
I may have to get back into the hybrid battery stock.
I think its great.
Some posters here would shit on a winning lottery ticket.
 
I need to lay off cypress I see from his pictures why groveling is his technique.
Cobasys is the company.
 
No, its a very risky stock.
Couple years ago I made a few thousand trading in and out only to quickly lose half the next.
If I buy it again it will more likely be due to their solar panels taking off.
This one needs daily watching and has no profits so far.
 
No, its a very risky stock.
Couple years ago I made a few thousand trading in and out only to quickly lose half the next.
If I buy it again it will more likely be due to their solar panels taking off.
This one needs daily watching and has no profits so far.

How old is the company? They seem to have a pretty high market cap for their revenue. 10X sales for a company with a 22% decline on their EBITD? And why isn't amortization factored in?
 
it's about 40yrs old with still no profits!!! when you stop laughing....

The ex-owner was an inventor not a business man.
He came up with the Hybrid battery, flexible solar shingles for roofs, hydrogen storage for next gen cars, and wait phase change memory for computer data storage.
they now have business people trying to commercialize these intellectual assets. When the R&D goes way down may be a good indication the suites have wrested control from the scientist and could mean time to get in.
 
Back
Top