White House Plan Virtually Eliminates Funding for EPA Emissions Testing

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The Trump administration’s current plan for the Environmental Protection Agency budget removes nearly all funding for vehicle emissions testing. Proposed cuts to the EPA’s budget would eliminate 99 percent of the agency’s $48 million in funding for vehicle testing, shouldering automakers with increased fees to split the difference.

However, former head of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality Margo Oge is claiming that such a large cut would force the agency into “pretty much shutting down the testing lab” regardless of corporate contributions.

EPA spokesman John Konkus was unwilling to say how the cuts might affect vehicle testing. “We know we can effectively serve the taxpayers and protect the environment. While many in Washington insist on greater spending, EPA is focused on greater value and real results,” Konkus stated.

We already knew that the proposal would also eliminate roughly 168 of EPA’s 304 full-time emission jobs through budgetary constraints. A document released online by the Washington Post in late March outlined specific cuts to the agency’s federal funding and has since been verified by unnamed EPA officials speaking with Reuters.

While the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers pushed for a review of the current emission guidelines, the possibility of the EPA’s certification program’s elimination has the lobby group feeling less enthused. Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance, said automakers were extremely concerned that the cuts could delay certification of new vehicles “and getting products to consumers.”

There’s also the matter of catching companies that attempt to deceive environmental regulations. In 2015, Volkswagen Group was busted for emissions cheating after getting away with it for years. While the initial discovery came from a smaller lab in West Virginia, the EPA was tasked with extensive testing to verify claims and build a case for its enforcement arm to come after VW.

Janet McCabe, a former EPA official under the Obama administration, said that companies that adhere to the rules will be at a disadvantage without an effective testing program. Furthermore, there is no way to enforce those rules if the EPA cannot conduct research via testing — giving business less incentives to comply. “We know that a little bit of cheating can mean a lot of air pollution,” McCabe said.

EPA officials have recently investigated Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Daimler AG over similar diesel emission concerns. As well, there are numerous examples of the agency stopping automakers from overstating fuel efficiency on window stickers in the past decade.

The White House’s budget plan would also cut $44 million — or 87 percent — of air, climate, and energy research from the Office of Research and Development. Roughly 224 additional employees would be dismissed due to defunding of the EPA’s Climate Protection Program. Research partnerships aimed to reduce fuel costs, alternative fuel source testing, and even a Great Lakes infrastructure initiative are also on the chopping block. In total, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his team propose to trim $2.5 billion from the agency’s spending next year and lay off around 25 percent of its current employees.

The administration plans to release a fully detailed budget plan in May.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 91 comments
  • Voyager Voyager on Apr 06, 2017

    Remember Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now? "The Horrorr. The Horrorrr" Replace that exclamation for "The Irony. The Irony". Just when the EPA had an 'interesting business model" in fining Volkswagen multi-billions of dollars, Trump decides to cut short the EPA.

    • See 1 previous
    • Johnster Johnster on Apr 06, 2017

      @mason If only the timing had been a little bit better, Volkswagen could have gotten away with it.

  • Art Vandelay Art Vandelay on Apr 09, 2017

    Shove it

  • Rna65689660 For such a flat surface, why not get smoke tint, Rtint or Rvynil. Starts at $8. I used to use a company called Lamin-x, but I think they are gone. Has held up great.
  • Cprescott A cheaper golf cart will not make me more inclined to screw up my life. I can go 500 plus miles on a tank of gas with my 2016 ICE car that is paid off. I get two weeks out of a tank that takes from start to finish less than 10 minutes to refill. At no point with golf cart technology as we know it can they match what my ICE vehicle can do. Hell no. Absolutely never.
  • Cprescott People do silly things to their cars.
  • Jeff This is a step in the right direction with the Murano gaining a 9 speed automatic. Nissan could go a little further and offer a compact pickup and offer hybrids. VoGhost--Nissan has  laid out a new plan to electrify 16 of the 30 vehicles it produces by 2026, with the rest using internal combustion instead. For those of us in North America, the company says it plans to release seven new vehicles in the US and Canada, although it’s not clear how many of those will be some type of EV.Nissan says the US is getting “e-POWER and plug-in hybrid models” — each of those uses a mix of electricity and fuel for power. At the moment, the only all-electric EVs Nissan is producing are the  Ariya SUV and the  perhaps endangered (or  maybe not) Leaf.In 2021, Nissan said it would  make 23 electrified vehicles by 2030, and that 15 of those would be fully electric, rather than some form of hybrid vehicle. It’s hard to say if any of this is a step forward from that plan, because yes, 16 is bigger than 15, but Nissan doesn’t explicitly say how many of those 16 are all-battery, or indeed if any of them are.  https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111963/nissan-ev-plan-2026-solid-state-batteries
  • Jkross22 Sure, but it depends on the price. All EVs cost too much and I'm talking about all costs. Depreciation, lack of public/available/reliable charging, concerns about repairability (H/K). Look at the battering the Mercedes and Ford EV's are taking on depreciation. As another site mentioned in the last few days, cars aren't supposed to depreciate by 40-50% in a year or 2.
Next