The rules start with model year 2014 heavy-duty trucks and buses and require up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for 2018 vehicles. The specific emissions reduction requirements vary depending on the type of vehicle.

On a conference call with reporters today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the move is the latest in a series of incremental steps by the Obama administration to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The rules gain new meaning now that it appears the Senate will be unable to pass significant climate change legislation anytime soon.

“This is a transition to more energy efficiency, a transition to lower pollution, a transition to less carbon in our atmosphere,” Jackson said. She also warned that any effort in Congress to curtail the EPA’s power to address greenhouse gas emissions could affect the rules.

Here are some statistics about the program, from an Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Transportation statement (the numbers refer to cumulative effects over the lives of vehicles from model years 2014-2018):

• The program is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 250 million metric tons.
• It is projected to save 500 million barrels of oil.
• It will also result in $41 million in net benefits over the lifetime of model year 2014-2018 vehicles.

If you want to get specific, here are the emission reduction requirements for each class of vehicle, according to a statement on the proposal:

For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage).  Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018 model year.

According to the Center, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) “wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in February, urging his cabinet agency to give ‘full and fair consideration’ to the city’s request for $81 million in stimulus money, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Center for Public Integrity. Ironically, his letter suggested the project would create jobs, undercutting the very public argument he has made against the stimulus. ‘Carrollton’s project will create jobs, stimulate the economy, improve regional mobility and reduce pollution,’ the lawmaker wrote.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), too, wrote a letter asking for Department of Transportation funds for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: “These funds are for a specific purpose that will usher into our community a much more tightly knit transit system alternative to the private automobile. … The TIGER discretionary grant deserves your consideration within existing rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines,” he wrote.

Even Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.), founder of the Tea Party Caucus, wrote “more than a half dozen letters to federal agencies on behalf of proposed stimulus grants, including one to the Transportation Department for the St. Croix River Crossing Project that she argued ‘would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year – a total of 2,970 jobs each year after the project’s completion.’”

The list goes on and on.

Correction: This post initially identified the lawmaker who wrote to Secretary LaHood as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). In fact, it was Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). We apologize for the error and urge the Republican caucus to diversify its nomenclature.

The notice of intent (NOI) proposes increasing fuel economy by between 3 and 6 percent per year. Such an increase could bring fuel economy to as much as 62 miles per gallon by 2025, according to Reuters.

The proposal is a response to a May 21, 2010, presidential memorandum instructing the federal agencies to increase fuel economy in passenger cars and light-duty trucks made in those years. The agencies had previously put forth a proposal to increase fuel economy in the vehicles to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

But the plan is not yet set in stone and likely won’t be finalized until 2012.

In a statement, Boxer said:

The tragic explosion in San Bruno shows why we must increase inspections of our nation’s pipelines. This legislation will put more inspectors on the job protecting our communities while increasing penalties for safety violations.

And Feinstein added:

We are going over the legislation proposed today by Secretary LaHood very carefully, will retain the best parts, and introduce it as quickly as possible.

A natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, Calif., Sept. 9. (Xinhua/ZUMApress.com)

Today, the Obama administration sent Congress draft legislation strengthening pipeline oversight. The proposal comes as pipeline safety is in the national spotlight. In July, a cracked pipe in Michigan leaked more than a million gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River — an event environmentalists describe as disastrous. And, just days ago, the explosion of a natural gas pipeline in California killed four and damaged dozens of homes. But, lawmakers are already raising questions about the proposal for failing to address key issues of concern identified by pipeline safety experts. Moreover, they argue that passing the pipeline legislation this year might be impossible, as there are so few days left on the legislative calendar.

[Environment1] The Department of Transportation proposal increases the maximum fine on companies responsible for pipeline breaks that result in death, injury or environmental damage from $1 million to $2.5 million. It also sets aside money for 40 additional pipeline inspectors, to be hired over the next four years. Most significantly, the proposal requires that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — PHMSA, responsible for overseeing the country’s 2.3 million miles of pipelines — review and revise its current inspection policies.

As The Washington Independent reported in a three-part series on pipeline safety, federal law requires only seven percent of natural gas pipelines and 44 percent of liquid pipelines to be inspected. These pipelines fall within so-called “high consequence areas,” near dense populations of people or vulnerable ecosystems. Under the proposed legislation, PHMSA would reassess, and determine whether more or all pipelines should receive mandatory safety inspections.

The proposal also instructs the transportation secretary to review exemptions some companies currently get from safety regulations — and tells DOT to avoid giving exemptions, or special permits, to companies with poor safety records. Special permits have become commonplace at PHMSA over the last decade. Under the Bush administration, for instance, one company was awarded an waiver to use thinner steel in a pipeline, a move environmentalists say might make it more dangerous. A TWI review showed that PHMSA has granted 16 special permits since Jan. 2009, though it has granted only one since Cynthia Quarterman, Obama’s choice to lead PHMSA, took charge in Nov. 2009.

At a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing today on the Michigan oil spill, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) said Congress has a “very limited time” to take up the administration’s proposal before the mid-term elections. As of now, the House is in session until Oct. 8. An aide at the House Democratic Cloakroom said there is no set schedule for the rest of the year beyond that date.

Oberstar said he would like to work with PHMSA, the Environmental Protection Agency and lawmakers on the committee in the coming weeks to review the proposal. He hopes  to “fashion a draft bill” before the House breaks in October that takes into account “lessons” from the BP oil spill in the Gulf, the natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif., last week, and the Michigan oil spill.

Republicans on the committee criticized DOT for taking so long to send its legislative proposal. “It’s stunning to me that the White House was unable to get a proposal” until now, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) pressed DOT Deputy Secretary John Porcari, who testified at the hearing, on the timing of the proposal. Porcari said the administration wanted to make sure to incorporate “lessons learned” from the Michigan oil spill into the proposal.

Porcari also acknowledged, during Miller’s questioning, that PHMSA, though it is authorized to employ 137 inspectors, only currently has 110. “We’re running short,” he said. The revelation is significant because pipeline safety experts say PHMSA does not have an adequate number of inspectors to oversee the nation’s pipelines. Because it lacks resources, PHMSA relies on industry’s records to ensure that pipelines are being inspected properly.

In his remarks, Porcari admitted as much, saying, “given the staff that we have, we rely on our state partners and the record keeping” of oil and gas companies for oversight.

Congress must reauthorize PHMSA’s funding every five years. The 2006 Pipeline Inspection Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act granted the agency funds through the end of the month.

Oberstar also raised questions about the thoroughness of the DOT proposal. He noted that it does not address a number of key issues, including mandating the improvement of leak protection systems. He also wants PHMSA to have more authority over oil and gas companies’ integrity-management plans, wherein they test the safety of their own lines.

Porcari said the proposal is a “good starting point,” but added that there are five issues that were not addressed in the proposal. They include whether PHMSA should retain copies of integrity-management plans (as it stands now, they do not); whether there should be new requirements about how pipeline control centers respond to spills; what threshold PHMSA should have for requiring that damage to a pipeline be fixed; whether there should be new leak protection requirements; and whether PHMSA should do more pipeline safety research.

A note on the committee’s website suggests that the hearing will also focus on the recent natural gas pipeline burst in San Bruno, Calif. According to the note:

Members are advised that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will be able to answer questions at the hearing related to the September 9, 2010 Enbridge release of crude oil on Line 6A in Romeoville, Illinois, and the deadly September 9, 2010 Pacific Gas & Electric natural gas explosion in San Bruno, California, as well as Federal oversight of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety.

For a little light reading, here is the 42-page backgrounder on the Michigan spill. And here is a series I wrote on pipeline safety this summer.

Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation are expected to testify at the hearing.

While this may not seem too exciting, it’s actually quite a big deal. In a statement today, the agencies called the move the “most dramatic overhaul in the label’s 30-year history,” and environmentalists and renewable energy advocates are banking on these new labels to change the way consumers buy vehicles. If the environmental impacts of a vehicle are in plain view, the logic goes, consumers will choose more fuel efficient cars. This change is certain to rankle some in the auto industry, who stand to lose a lot of money if consumers buying habits change quickly.

According to a joint EPA-DOT statement, here’s what the new labels will include:

EPA and DOT are proposing two new label designs for comment. One label design prominently features a letter grade to communicate the vehicle’s overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. The new design will also provide consumers with an estimate of the expected fuel cost savings over five years compared to an average gasoline-powered vehicle of the same model year.

The second proposed label retains the current label’s focus on miles per gallon (MPG) and annual fuel costs, while updating the overall design and adding the required new comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

In the statement, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said:

New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market.  We want to help buyers find vehicles that meet their needs, keep the air clean and save them money at the pump.

The proposal has not yet been finalized and the agencies are currently accepting public input.

Mary Kerr, a spokesperson for Obserstar, said there are no hearings scheduled on Enbridge Energy and the Michigan oil spill. But she said the information request is “the first step” in any effort to look at the issue more deeply. The lawmakers gave Enbridge and the agencies until Aug. 13 to provide the requested information.

The committee is currently in the process of reauthorizing PHMSA. The committee has held hearings on the agency, most recently on July 15 when lawmakers looked at its oversight of the methods companies use to ensure pipelines are sound. “That hearing was part of our normal reauthorization process, and not a result of the MI or any other specific spill,” Kerr wrote in an e-mail.

“Pursuant to the legislation, the DOT had only 30 days after the date the legislation was enacted into law to engage contractors and stand up the Program before the first rebates were issued,” Grassley wrote Tuesday in a letter to Ray LaHood, secretary of the Department of Transportation.

It is my understanding that the original legislation provided $50 million to cover the costs of these contracts, but no specific funding provision for the contractors was included with the additional $2 billion that was provided for the Program. To date the Administration has not provided an accurate accounting of the administrative costs related to the Cash for Clunkers program and I believe that the American taxpayer deserves more information, not less, and that information needs to come sooner rather than later.

The numbers aren’t insignificant. In August, Autoblog reported that the administrative costs to process the 690,000 transactions hit $100 million — or about $145 per vehicle. Among the contractors/agencies who received some of that pie, Grassley says, are Citibank, Vangent and the IRS. The response should be interesting.

The official said the DOT has reviewed “just under 170,000″ of the 457,000 dealer submissions, but incomplete forms and other technical complications have slowed outgoing payments.

A large number of those [applications] are incomplete or have inaccurate information, and so the process when that happens is that the application is turned back to the dealer, and the Department of Transportation gives the dealer an opportunity to correct for those incomplete or inaccurate components, after which point they resubmit.

The delay is problematic to dealers, who effectively have to front the cash rebate (between $3,500 and $4,500) when they accept a clunker and let the customer drive off in a new vehicle. And it’s the dealer who’s on the line for that money if the trade for some reason doesn’t qualify for the federal rebate.

The Washington Post reported this morning that some dealers, growing impatient with the agency, have stopped participating in the program altogether.