For people like me who follow the C.A.F.E. debate closely, this week has been a veritable Easter – a holy week of gas mileage face time. Our glorious leader G.W. Bush has asked Congress to grant the president authority to ‘reform’ the CAFÉ standard, though the bill doesn’t actually call for any specific improvement. As we know, BushCo is nothing if not cynical. The Karl Rove modus operandi for this administration means that “appearing” to be doing good is the same as actually doing good. It’s important to remember that since it’s so tough to get any movement on the C.A.F.E. standards except during these crisis moments, calling Bush on his bluff might actually move the efficiency football forward. However, unless efficiency hawks get something in return, namely an end to the “light truck” category, I would actually prefer no boost in the car standard.

The reason for the understandable reticence to give extra power to the power grabbing Decider In Cheif lies in the recent “reformed C.A.F.E.” standards just put in place for light trucks at the end of March 2006. They’ve employed a new size based continuous curve (NOT, as some have reported “size categories”) that decreases the mpg requirements as “footprint” (or wheelbase X tread width) increases. This new system is far from perfect, but it has the advantage of forcing makers to improve gas mileage of such “ringer” light trucks as Subaru station wagons and unit body or car chassis “crossover” SUVs like the Ford Escape. By boosting the requirement for small SUVs it discourages makers from slightly modifying “car” platforms just so they can be sold as “trucks” with the dismal truck standard. Read my previous blog entry “Light truck CAFÉ boost reason to celebrate ‘Liberally’” to get all the particulars in more detail. Suffice it to say that the move was a glass half full measure. Any improvement in truck mileage is welcome, and the size based system boosts mileage “targets” for the mega sized SUVs as well – just not as much as smaller “footprint” models.

It’s an improvement, but far from ideal and it's more a silver lining than a rainbow leading to a pot ‘o gold. There were many opportunities to actually make the problem worse that were narrowly avoided. For example, GM and Ford wanted NHTSA to exempt trucks with characteristics like “towing ability.” Since just about every full size truck can tow at least 5000lbs, automakers could’ve slapped a hitch and wiring harness to the back of every SUV and pickup they sell. Thankfully that didn’t happen. NHTSA also could have enshrined weight in the system rather than size. This means that there is an incentive to decrease the weight of vehicles with a large “footprint” to maintain size but increase gas mileage.

If you read the March 29th 2006 rule, NHTSA practically launches into a poetic soliloquy regarding the subject of life saving weight. Since automakers dragged their heels for a good 20 years on airbags (Amazing Fact: you could buy a ’74 Buick with air bags but they were cancelled in later models when the auto lobby got Washington to back off on safety regulation) it’s hard not to think the Automaker’s Alliance isn’t shedding crocodile tears when it weeps and wails about the perils of downsizing, and preaches the miraculous virtues of life saving weight. In any case the silver lining is that size, rather than weight was enshrined as a determinant of gas mileage targets.

The remaining empty space in the half full C.A.F.E. glass could be filled if G.O.P. New York Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, (along with co-sponsor Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey) gets his way. He is proposing a 33mpg C.A.F.E. standard for both cars and light trucks that the National Academy of Sciences (N.A.S.) says is feasible using today’s technology, and without harming crash safety. To your good KingElvis, however, the best part of the Boehlert plan isn’t just a boost in the standard, it lies in getting rid of the illegitimate, unjust and irrational category of “light truck.” For more on that topic, see “Pickups keep on light truckin’” in KingElvis' TPM reader blog.

To get some C.A.F.E. traction, liberals must tirelessly hammer away on a simple truth: jettisoning the light truck category turns market conservatives into honest men. The reason is that the loophole “picks winners” a practice that every conservative from George Will to Pat Buchannan is supposed to abhor. The law unfairly curses “cars” and blesses “light trucks.” Any conservative who sings the praises of the perfection of market rationality has to accede to the fact that treating the two differently distorts the market and skews it toward “trucks.”

Taking the opportunity of this crisis moment in energy policy, the rhetoric could form a perfect pincer move. You attack the truck loophole from the right as a fly in the ointment of market rationality, then from the left you ask for a reasonable boost in mileage standards across the board. Voila, now trucks move from 21.6mpg in 2006 to 33mpg by 2015.

Even if the continuous size curve is used in reforming the car standard, as long as economists or other market conservatives can continue to make the point that the light truck loophole is unnecessary and unjust, the result could be that a small boost in ‘car’ standards then becomes a massive boost in truck standards. While Bush’s C.A.F.E. proposal would likely boost car gas mileage by only 2.75mpg, or 10% (if it matches the ‘truck’ standard improvement of 21.6mpg to 24mpg in 2011) this great argument about ending auto market distortion is lost unless it also applies to trucks, and at least some support from moderate Republicans like Boehlert might also go away. I consider myself quite an energy hawk, but I wouldn't suppport an even wider gulf in gas mileage standards between "cars" and "light trucks."

If I was horse-trading in this art of the possible, I would gladly allow the “car” standard to become size based if I got an end to the “truck” category in return. “Trucks” now compose a majority of the market since they can be anything from a soccer mom’s minivan to a military Humvee to a Dodge Caliber – the newest compact “crossover” SUV from Dodge that has replaced the Dodge Neon compact “car.” In fact a Dodge Magnum “truck” had replaced the Dodge Intrepid “car” and it was only because dealers demanded some sort of large sedan that Daimler Chrysler grudgingly introduced the Charger sedan. The increasingly rapid truck-ification of America will continue apace if there are two different standards - one "hard" and one "easy." Even a big boost in “car” mileage won’t matter if “cars” only represent a sliver of the market. Already "cars" compose a minority of new vehicle sales.

So I say, call Bush’s bluff – let NHTSA “reform” car C.A.F.E. but only on the condition that this new standard will also replace the current “truck” standard. Market conservatives and liberal energy hawks can finally join hands and sing from the same songbook.