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.

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.

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.

The DOT says that the fine — the maximum allowable — is the largest civil penalty the NHTSC has ever assessed against a car maker for failing to report defects until long after they were allegedly discovered. Still, it’s irresistible to mention that the fine would represent $7.12 per car recalled.

“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.

For example, the Department should consider implementing a policy providing that all properly submitted vouchers will be reimbursed within five business days, and continue adding staff and devoting resources as needed to meet this timeline. By adopting such a guideline, dealers will be more willing to place their capital at risk to carry the cost of CARS vouchers until reimbursement, and more dealers will continue participating in the program, thereby maximizing the program’s objectives.

On Wednesday, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters that the agency is adding employees to process the voucher submissions, adding that, “There will be no car dealers that won’t be reimbursed.” Earlier in the week, the department revealed that dealers have already submitted more than 435,000 vouchers, worth roughly $1.8 billion, under the $3 billion program (though it’s still refusing to release the details of those sales.)

Although there will surely be political pressure to extend the program further next month, particularly from Michigan’s powerful delegation, reports this week indicate that the administration is already planning its exit strategy.

The Department of Transportation released figures Wednesday indicating that, as of yesterday morning, more than 316,000 new vehicles have been sold under the program, at a cost of $1.33 billion. The DOT has also released occasional top-10 lists of the best-selling models. But requests for more detailed information have been met with silence.

DOT spokeswoman Patricia Swift-Oladeinde said Wednesday that the agency simply hasn’t crunched those numbers.

Yet Lena Pons, policy analyst at Public Citizen, doubts that claim. “They have the information,” Pons said. “They have to have it to reimburse the dealers.”

Indeed, if the DOT has the data to compile top-10 lists, it surely knows also which models fill slots 11 through the rest. But, despite several Freedom of Information Act requests seeking the data (including one from Public Citizen), the administration is refusing to give up the details.

Those details could have significant consequences. When the Senate last week passed a $2 billion extension of the program, several powerful lawmakers threatened to fight the additional funding unless the guidelines were altered in favor of stricter mileage standards. But Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — the three who led the push for better fuel efficiency rules — were convinced those changes were unnecessary after the DOT released summary data claiming that drivers were buying up small, highly efficient cars.

“What we’ve learned is that American consumers are choosing vehicles with much higher fuel efficiency than is required,” Feinstein said in a statement announcing her change of heart.

Yet there are indications that the program isn’t promoting the vehicle sales the DOT has claimed. Indeed, although the agency says the 10 best-selling vehicles under cash for clunkers are all small cars, a separate study by Edmunds.com, an auto analysis group, found that both the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado trucks have crept onto that list. The New York Times this week quoted an anonymous White House aide conceding that the program is one “in which you trade old clunkers for new clunkers.” Dealerships are reporting sales of Cadillac SRXs and Hummer H3Ts. And even Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said that, given the chance, he’d use the program to scoop up a Ford Explorer SUV, the 4WD version of which gets just 15 miles per gallon.

Considering the popularity of the program — both with consumers and the auto industry — there’s certain to be pressure on Congress to extend the program yet again if the extra $2 billion runs out quickly. Some lawmakers have hinged their support for additional funds on first getting a better understanding of what the program is doing. They can’t know the answer, however, if the administration continues to withhold the trade-in figures.

Even as House lawmakers are celebrating their remarkably swift move to infuse the popular cash for clunkers program with additional funds, some lawmakers and environmentalists are warning that extending the program is premature without knowing what it even does.

Of the $1 billion committed under the initiative — which offers drivers up to $4,500 to trade their gas-guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles — the Obama administration has released data on the trades surrounding less than $69 million. Without further information about what models are being scrapped, what models are being sold, and the environmental benefits of the swaps, critics worry that the program might be failing in its stated goals of reducing emissions and a reliance on foreign oil.

“A billion dollars has been spent on a program that could conceivably be a disaster for the environment, and without even waiting to see where that money went, they’re throwing more money into the pot,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, which advocates for better fuel efficiency. “This whole thing is a blind experiment. Congress is making fact-free decisions.”

Launched just this week, the cash for clunkers program has already blown through its initial $1 billion in funding — money that was projected to last though October. House lawmakers rallied with rare speed Friday to pump an additional $2 billion into the program, just hours before they departed for a five-week recess.

Supporters of the program, lining up behind Michigan’s powerful delegation, argue that it offers a slew of economic and environmental benefits befitting both the recession and the threat of climate change. On the House floor before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the extension “a very positive, bipartisan initiative to help our auto industry, to help consumers, to grow our economy, to do it in an environmentally sound way.”

The House vote was 316 to 109, with 77 Republicans favoring the bill and 14 Democrats opposing it.

Among those 14 Democrats was Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), who said afterward that he felt “uncomfortable” voting to extend a young program around which so little is known. “We don’t know actually what we’ve been getting,” Blumenauer said in a phone interview. “We want to see the data.”

He’s not alone with that request. On Friday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) sent a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging the administration to release more data to inform Congress’ next move on cash for clunkers. While the program has proven itself to be an effective catalyst for vehicle sales, the lawmakers wrote, “Congress needs this data in order to determine if the fleet modernization program delivered significant fuel economy gains and oil savings.”

The skeptics have some reason to be wary. The latest official DOT figures indicate that, through Tuesday, less than $69 million of the initial $1 billion had been spent to facilitate roughly 16,350 vehicle sales. About 62 percent of those purchases were for new cars — a good sign in the eyes of environmentalists interested in minimizing the number of trucks and SUVs on the road. But until further analysis reveals what trades were encouraged by the subsequent $931 million, some lawmakers and public interest groups oppose the additional funding.

Lena Pons, policy analyst at Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division, said the popularity of the program comes as little surprise. Who, after all, wouldn’t want a $4,500 gift from Washington? But popularity is no indication that the program is meeting its stated goals. “Before appropriating any additional funds,” Pons said in a statement, “Congress should study whether the program is working.”

The Senate is expected to take up the cash for clunkers extension next week, and already a small, bipartisan contingency is threatening to block the proposal. On Thursday, Feinstein and Collins issued a statement arguing that any renewal of the program “must go further in advancing the goals of better fuel efficiency and greater emissions reductions.”

“We will not support any bill that does not meet these goals,” the senators said.

On Friday, they got some more backing when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced his intention to filibuster the bill.

There are also concerns, both on and off Capitol Hill, about the source of the funding. The $2 billion was siphoned from stimulus funds earmarked for a federal loan program encouraging the use of environmentally friendly technologies.

After the House vote, President Obama gave a short speech vowing to work with Congress to replace that funding sometime “down the road.”

Under the current program, drivers can get between $3,500 and $4,500 when they trade in their gas-guzzling cars, trucks and SUVs for new vehicles with better fuel efficiences. Yet the efficiency thresholds were set so low that consumers can trade in their old clunker for a brand new clunker — a boon for the automakers and dealers, but hardly a way to reduce the greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming.

“They weren’t set very high,” Blumenauer said of the mileage guidelines, “so it wasn’t getting the worst of the worst off the roads.”

Feinstein and Collins, along with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), have sponsored a competing bill that sets stricter fuel efficiency thresholds for the newly purchased vehicles. The lawmakers say their proposal would result in oil savings that trump the existing program by more than 30 percent.

When the initial $1 billion program passed the Senate in June, Feinstein told reporters that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had given her “absolute assurance” that any extension would be altered so that the fuel efficiency requirements were more stringent. With the House leaving town, however, Reid’s office indicated Friday there’s little chance that Senate leaders will alter the House-passed bill, particularly with Obama urging quick passage of the existing extension.

That’s bad news in the eyes of environmentalists, who worry that the program is following the path of a similar initiative in Germany, which went from a 1.5-billion-euro program to a 5-billion-euro program in just six months.

“This is turning into a methadone program for addicted automakers,” Becker said. “They have no incentive to turn it off.”