Gas War: EPA Head Suggests Fuel Rollback May Have Some Wiggle Room

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler weighed in on the gas war this week, issuing some firm language on the matter during a visit to Chattanooga, Tennessee. His words were softer upon returning to Washington, where he reminded everyone that the EPA has made no formal decisions on the matter and suggested there could still be room for compromise.

Unfortunately, locating that happy middle ground has been a bit of a problem. Despite the fuel economy rollback’s status as a proposal, hard lines have been drawn in the sand between the Trump administration and California’s regulatory bodies. The Golden State’s compromise was to delay the Obama-era targets by one year. California also recruited municipalities, U.S. states, and automotive manufacturers to pledge their support of the plan, resulting in a handful of carmakers finding themselves on the business end of an antitrust probe.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s compromise has been nonexistent. Wheeler’s words suggest that might be because everyone is still making up their minds… but not before he gently razzed the West Coast for being shortsighted an singleminded.

“We have to have one national standard for automobiles,” he said during an EPA visit to a Superfund site in Chattanooga on Monday. “The standard we proposed last year will produce less expensive cars for the consumer and will save lives. We can’t have one state dictating what the standards are for the entire country, particularly when they are only looking at one policy and that is greenhouse gas emissions.”

Presently, that national standard aims to increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by the 2025 model year. The proposed rollback suggests freezing those targets in 2020 but Californian leadership has refused to entertain the possibility. Before issuing its modest compromise earlier this year, the state was gathering support to maintain the old standards regardless of what the federal government decided.

According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Wheeler stipulated that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) lacked authority to set its own fuel economy standards in conjunction with automakers. While the state has been able to set its own standards in the past, roping in manufactures was a step over the line — hence the antitrust probe. He also claimed California was missing the bigger picture.

People are keeping cars longer than ever before and the current administration is fearful that more regulation will raise vehicle transaction prices to a point that will make them less palatable to consumers. There are also concerns that overzealous efficiency rules could result in people not being able to have the kind of vehicles they want to buy. While there’s little hard data to back that up in this country, we do know that American’s like bigger cars and sales-weighted mpg averages haven’t improved in years — even though economy standards have risen. Forcing a glut hyper-efficient autos onto the U.S. market could hurt the economy and maybe the environment by keeping more people in older models. At least, that’s the theory the EPA is operating under.

“We want to encourage people to buy new cars,” Wheeler said. “Older cars are worse for the environment and for public safety.”

Unfortunately, if you actually break things down, maintaining an older car typically works out to be better for Mother Earth than buying a new one — even if you’re purchasing an brand-new electric. Shopping your way out of an environmental problem is often far less effective than conservation. Of course, California’s plan also hinges on people buying newer vehicles with superior fuel economy so we’ll have to call this one a wash.

On Tuesday, Wheeler was back in Washington and announced the Trump administration is still evaluating aspects of its plan to ease the Obama-era fueling requirements. While that isn’t a guarantee that they will be more stringent than initially proposed, it would be almost impossible to imagine it going in the opposite direction.

Wheeler told reporters that he is still committed to easing the standards but added that it was “safe to say our final [version] will not look exactly like the way we proposed it.”

Bloomberg also reported that he claimed the administration hasn’t decided whether to separately advance a plan revoking California’s authority to set its own automotive efficiency requirements, stating “we are looking at that, it is certainly an option.”

Sadly, none of this gets us any closer toward deciding which side has taken the “correct” approach in saving the planet. But it’s nice to see the EPA’s leadership suggesting this might be a more complicated issue than it seems at first blush. Maybe if everyone starts thinking that way and begins talking constructively, this mess can finally be over.

[Image: Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock]

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
2 of 49 comments
  • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Sep 12, 2019

    I can't believe that guy is serious with that suit. Did he just arrive here from the 80s?

  • Luke42 Luke42 on Sep 12, 2019

    "Sadly, none of this gets us any closer toward deciding which side has taken the “correct” approach in saving the planet. But it’s nice to see the EPA’s leadership suggesting this might be a more complicated issue than it seems at first blush." Bwahahaha. You think the Trump EPA is trying to save the environment? LOL No, they've rolled back every environmental protection they can, from the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Water act. The only reason they would do this is if they don't value environmental protection. Exactly why they're trying to undo decades of environmental progress is up for debate, I suppose. But the fact that they're moving in the direction of removing environmental protections is crystal clear from their public acts.

  • 3SpeedAutomatic At the time, a necessary evil. Development costs were minimal since the FOX body was ready amortized. The green house was the same, just change the front and rear end clips. Biggest news was TBI fuel injection (across the Ford range) and intro of V6 (cylinder head teething issues). Also, allowed Ford to test the waters for an aero look which was handed off to the T-Bird with success. SUVs were just coming on to the scene, so many a LTD wagon was the family hauler and the salesman's means of contacting customers. IIRC, the LTD's model year was purposely extended thru '86 just in case the Tarsus was a flop. Consider the LTD as a sacrifice fly so that the Tarsus could make the home run. 🚗🚗🚗
  • Ty I have truly loved each Olds, Buick, and Cadillac I've owned. Well, except for that stupid 1990 STS with a bad brake booster I was too poor to repair. I digress... My love is primarily for the 1895-90 98, Electra/Park, 1986-91 & 92-late 90s 88 (better with the word Delta before it), LeSabre, Bonneville, 1989-93 , 97-99 DeVille. But I have true respect for the Calais/ Skylark (& Somerset)/ Grand Am from that era. They were the work horses. I would buy a brand new Olds if they hadn't executed the brand in 2004.
  • MaintenanceCosts What is the actual out-the-door price? Is it lower or higher than that of a G580?
  • ToolGuy Supercharger > Turbocharger. (Who said this? Me, because it is the Truth.)I have been thinking of obtaining a newer truck to save on fuel expenses, so this one might be perfect.
  • Zerofoo Calling Fisker a "small automaker" is a stretch. Fisker designed the car - Magna actually builds the thing.It would be more accurate to call Fisker a design house.
Next