The 2007 energy law requires EPA and DOT to develop new fuel economy labels. The agencies released a proposal in September laying out two label options. The first rates vehicles based on a letter-grade. The second focuses more on a vehicle’s gas mileage.
The lawmakers, in the letter, call on the administration to choose the second label proposal. “Label 1 marginalizes the most important piece of information on the fuel economy sticker, namely the fuel economy of the vehicle,” the letter says. “Moreover, Label 1 unfairly promotes certain vehicles over others.”
Here’s the full text of the letter:
December 8, 2010
Lisa Jackson, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Ray LaHood, Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Administrator Jackson and Secretary LaHood:
We are writing regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s and the Department of Transportation’s proposed redesign of fuel economy labels, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.
As you know, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandated that the DOT issue a rulemaking implementing this law. On September 23, both EPA and DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The proposed rule presents two primary label options. Label 1 minimizes miles per gallon (mpg), an objective measure of the fuel economy performance of a vehicle, in favor of a prominently displayed subjective “letter grade”. In contrast, Label 2 focuses on the mpg metric and implements the other information Congress required under EISA. Consumers are very familiar with the mpg metric and rely on it when purchasing a new motor vehicle.
Additionally, unlike the mpg metric, the proposed grading system is biased in favor of certain types of vehicles. The “A” and “A+” categories are reserved for a very narrow range of vehicles, i.e., battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. However, a fuel efficient, clean diesel vehicle would be penalized with a low or mediocre grade. Similarly, most fuel efficient SUVs and pickup trucks would rate no higher than a “C+”.
We hope you will agree that it is essential for consumers to have clear and concise information about the fuel economy performance of their vehicle. However, Label 1 marginalizes the most important piece of information on the fuel economy sticker, namely the fuel economy of the vehicle. Moreover, Label 1 unfairly promotes certain vehicles over others.
We believe that Label 2 better serves the needs of the consumer by continuing to prominently display the mpg of the vehicle, and is consistent with the statutory intent of EISA. Although the deadline for public comment has passed, we appreciate your agencies allowing us to submit this letter for the public record.
Sincerely,
Rep. Dale E. Kildee and Rep. Steve LaTourette
Others on the letter: Rep. Ed Whitfield, Rep. G.K. Butterfield, Rep. Spencer Bachus, Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Rep. Gary Peters, Rep. Betty Sutton, Rep. John D. Dingell, Rep. Donald Manzullo, Rep. John Campbell, Rep. Todd Akin, Rep. John Barrow, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Mike Simpson, Rep. Geoff Davis, Rep. Lee Terry, Rep. Mike Rogers, Rep. Candice S. Miller, Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez, Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi, Rep. Brett Guthrie, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Rep. John Sullivan, Rep. Scott Garrett, Rep. Elton Gallegly, Rep. Jim Matheson, Rep. Tim Holden, Rep. Sam Graves, Rep. Mike Ross, Rep. Robert Aderholt, Rep. Greg Walden, Rep. Mary Bono Mack, Rep. Andre Carson, Rep. Tim Ryan, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Rep. Cliff Stearns, Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Rep. Dave Camp, Rep. Steve Scalise, Rep. Bob Latta, Rep. Ralph Hall, Rep. Tim Murphy, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. Dan Lungren, Rep. Dan Burton, Rep. Judy Biggert, Rep. Dave Loebsack, Rep. Mark Schauer, and Rep. Bruce Braley.