Proposed Legislation Would Make It Easier for Automakers to Meet Efficiency Requirements

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

A bipartisan pair of congressional representatives from Michigan are proposing a new bill, the Fuel Economy Harmonization Act, that would aid automakers in complying with federal fuel efficiency requirements. Introduced on Wednesday, the bill would extend the life of fuel economy credits that are set to expire in five years and raise the ceiling on transferrable credits between car and truck fleets. Under the proposal, manufacturers could also be given additional credits for lowering fleet-wide emissions under new metrics.

Penning the bill, congresspersons Fred Upton (Republican) and Debbie Dingell (Democrat) said they believed the automotive industry would benefit from having a single set of fuel rules. The bill suggests rolling the NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and the EPA’s light-duty vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions mandates into one cohesive program.

While economy mandates have been growing, nationwide fuel consumption has still gone up. Likewise, the average mpg of cars sold in the United States hasn’t changed much over the last three years. With pump prices remaining low, consumers have flocked to less-efficient models like crossovers and SUVs.

According to Reuters, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers lauded the bill for “recognizing the consumer benefits that can come from better alignment of government programs.”

Not everyone is thrilled with the proposal, however. The Union of Concerned Scientists suggested the proposal, and a similar bill introduced by Republican Senator Roy Blunt, would allow manufacturers to make vehicles that are on average 3 miles a gallon less efficient by 2021. The union has also been critical of the Trump administration’s current review of efficiency standards. It believes that, once the assessment period ends, the president will press for a rollback — even though there has already been one.

The Obama’s administration finalized fuel standards in 2012 to double the average fuel economy of manufacturer fleets to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. However, the EPA later revised that target to 51.4 mpg due to rising truck sales.

Metrics aside, the new harmonization bill would address conflicts between the NHTSA and EPA’s individual programs. Established under the Obama administration, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions program was intended to be managed in tandem with CAFE. But the EPA currently has more punitive power than the Department of Transportation — giving its rules the higher priority.

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
9 of 42 comments
  • Slavuta Slavuta on Oct 14, 2017

    "Union of Concerned Scientists" - surely a phony "union" containing a few house-moms with online university degrees, who read an article or two.

    • See 3 previous
    • Slavuta Slavuta on Oct 18, 2017

      @HotPotato "The scariest goddamned thing in America today is..." marching socialism. These "scientists" already got caught on making up numbers.

  • DenverMike DenverMike on Oct 16, 2017

    To all the snivelers, whiners and the idiots suggesting raising the fuel tax, suck on it, this is America. The majority rules here. Yes with all the consequences related. Think of the 2nd Amendment. Freedom of Speech and various other. Except there's specific limits, balances to all these rights. But if you want to commute to your office desk job in a Peterbilt, and have the "deep pockets" necessary, nothing is preventing you. Most every new "car" sold today is a "truck", cute CUV to the mighty F-450 pickup. Yes partly "the consequences" of CAFE, "blah-blah-blah". Although if you want absolutely nothing to do with guns and hate "trucks" and truck owners altogether, please do us all a HUGE favor and invoke your right to remain silent. And again, suck on it.

    • See 2 previous
    • DenverMike DenverMike on Oct 16, 2017

      @Lorenzo Yes I'm OK with my taxes at the pump staying the same. If you don't, chances are you're calling from Europe or moving there soon. If so, enjoy. Paying more, doesn't guarantee we'll get more, just more crap on where the money all go diverted to instead. Urban sprawl and lack of meaningful "public transportation" was sponsored by the *promise* of cheap fuel, early in the 20th century. Yet anyone can own a tiny 1.2 liter car or EV if they wish. I'm squarely in the BAFO Camp when it comes to "choices", or some would say "freedoms". If you want to live in a McMansion, the biggest one in your subdivision, just you, your wife and 3 dogs, go for it, I won't judge. OK just a little.

  • FreedMike Meanwhile...Tesla's market share and YTD sales continue to decline, in an EV market that just set yet another quarterly sales record. Earth to Musk: stop with the political blather, stop with the pie-in-the-sky product promises, and start figuring out how to do a better job growing your business with good solid product that people want. Instead of a $30,000 self driving taxi that depends on all kinds of tech that isn't anywhere near ready for prime time, how about a $30,000 basic EV that depends on tech you already perfected? That will build your business; showing up at Trump rallies won't.
  • 28-Cars-Later "Here in Washington state they want to pass a law dictating what tires you can buy or not." Uh, waht?
  • Tassos NEVER. All season tires are perfectly adequate here in the Snowbelt MI. EVEN if none of my cars have FWD or AWD or 4WD but the most challenging of all, RWD, as all REAL cars should.
  • Gray Here in Washington state they want to pass a law dictating what tires you can buy or not. They want to push economy tires in a northern state full of rain and snow. Everything in my driveway wears all terrains. I'm not giving that up for an up to 3 percent difference.
  • 1995 SC I remember when Elon could do no wrong. Then we learned his politics and he can now do no right. And we is SpaceX always left out of his list of companies?
Next