MSRP Vs. MPG: Consumer Groups Plead With Trump to Ignore Automakers, Keep Fuel Economy Standards

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Every automotive manufacturer currently selling cars within the United States has incessantly requested that the government dial back federal fuel economy standards ever since Donald Trump took office. Now, two advocacy groups — Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America — have sent a letter to Trump making a case to maintain Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the good of average Americans.

Automakers have claimed that higher efficiency targets will increase vehicle cost, making this a battle between two camps, each focused on U.S. wallets: MSRP and MPG.

The letter, shared with us by Consumer Reports (which is published by Consumers Union), states that “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards” and that the current regulatory norms support job creation, innovation, and improve air quality while also lowering fuel costs for middle-class families.

While the White House has not officially stated that it wishes to re-open and review fuel economy and emission standards through 2025, there are reasons to believe that it might happen. Donald Trump’s second day in office saw requests to reconsider efficiency and emissions targets for 2022 through 2025. A month ago, eighteen executives from the world’s biggest automakers requested that the president revisit the Obama-era fuel efficiency rules.

Much to the chagrin of automakers, the Obama administration’s EPA hurried a final determination for the 2025 emission standards prior to their April 2018 deadline. Many carmakers expressed their disapproval and fears; Ford CEO Mark Fields even claimed the decision could cost over a million U.S. jobs.

President Trump has shown himself to be open to deregulation and even encouraged in a January meeting with automakers where he said, “We’re bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. big league.”

The letter from Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America thoroughly disagrees with the notion that deregulation is the way to encourage employment or boost the economy:

“Rolling back fuel economy standards would hurt hard-working, middle-class Americans and small businesses that rely on a car or truck for their livelihood. Even at today’s lower prices, gasoline is a major expense for a majority of American families. Fuel economy standards are a cost-effective way to save consumers money on fuel. In fact, Consumers Union’s research shows that consumers would enjoy net savings of $3,200 per car and $4,800 per truck, over the life of a vehicle that meet the 2025 standards, even at today’s low gas prices. If gas prices rise, which we expect they will, the savings would be significantly higher. And when consumers save money, they spend it on local goods and services, helping to further boost the economy and encourage more job growth.”

Interestingly, the majority of the automakers now contesting the standards had initially agreed to them during the recession.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. 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, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 122 comments
  • TomLU86 TomLU86 on Feb 27, 2017

    Yes, 80% want higher standards...only 20% buy smaller cars (if that many). Everybody wants everybody ELSE to do the right thing. If conserving oil is such a benefit to society (and I think it is--less fuel burned means less air pollution, less C02, and the oil we have will last longer for future generations), instead of these idiotic standards, TAX GASOLINE and use the money to FIX the roads, and IMPROVE THEM, further reducing congestion and pollution. $5 gasoline will "help" people make the right choice. And the truth is, our roads ARE crumbling...so the tax revenue can be used constructively (pun intended) to rebuild them. Or should we raise income taxes to fix the roads? Or cut state aid to schools? Maybe cut defense spending (that would be good). Or how about cutting Social Security (it won't be there for me, so maybe we should...) Fat chance that our leaders will raise gas taxes, and end these silly rules. In the future, I think gasoline could spike up or rise anyway...

  • Drzhivago138 Drzhivago138 on Feb 27, 2017

    Another garbage fire of a comments section that I'm not sorry I wasn't here for.

  • EBFlex Lower cost just means advocating for more tax payer dollars to offset the high cost of these appliances nobody wants.
  • Carson D Stroll has secured Honda and Newey. All he still needs is Max Verstappen, and championships will roll in.
  • Kwi65728132 Inviting private equity to invest in your business is a sure fire way to find yourself out of business and unemployed, all those vultures do is take the cash, dump a bunch of debt on the business entity and walk away with a tidy profit while everyone else gets the shaft. Does Sears ring a bell, K-Mart, Chrysler after Daimler-Chrysler, YRC Freight...
  • Tassos on top of being a poorly phrased question, it also ASSUMES, ERRONEOUSLY, that we USED to be willing to get a BEV and you are asking if we "STILL" are. If you had any knowledge of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and you READ THE SURVEYS on the subject, you'd know that less than 1/3 of buyers were even willing to CONSIDER, let alone BUY, a BEV back then. So your "still" is UTTERLY WRONG. Got it, Tim? Sure...
  • MaintenanceCosts They desperately need a mainstream (i.e., not a Cybertruck or Roadster) product that is new enough that people call it "the new Tesla" and give it renewed attention. At this point all four of their mainstream models feel like old news because the look hasn't changed inside or out, despite the updates under the skin.
Next