California Preps Formal Response in Gas War, Calls MPG Rollback 'Unlawful'
California and 18 other states plan to formally vent their grievances over the Trump administration’s proposal to freeze fuel economy standards at 2020 levels on Friday. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have called for public comments on the matter, with the deadline taking place at the end of this week. Apparently, California wants its voice to be the last one heard.
“They are grossly derelict in not trying to move the dial forward in cleaning the air and the environment,” California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. “The situation continues to get worse and requires action now, and not for us to stand pat.”
According to Bloomberg, Becerra called the administration’s proposal “unlawful” since it sets out to revoke California’s ability to self regulate economy standards and set quotas for electric car sales within the state. He also said the plan violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires extensive documentation before any existing regulations can be overturned, as well as the EPA’s statutory obligation to reduce harmful pollution.
The subplot of this narrative includes a preexisting lawsuit with the EPA over its decision to support the rollback; something California deemed capricious in nature.
Both the EPA and NHTSA have supported the capping of federal fuel economy requirements at a fleet average of 37 mpg starting in 2020. Under the previous rules, which California and 18 other states support, the fleet average would have risen to around 47 mpg by 2025. However, the current administration has deemed that unsustainable for consumers, manufacturers, and the overall economy. Regardless, 13 states and the District of Columbia have vowed to follow California’s lead by attempting to adhere to the Obama-era targets.
“The administration proposal will lead to dirtier air, cause people to pay higher prices at the pump, and increase the cost of climate change,” Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who is backing Becerra said. She claims the pollution would be concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods with heavy traffic, all because Trump backs the rollback “solely for the purpose of taking billions of dollars out of the pockets of consumers, and giving it to Big Oil.”
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
I understand that the 47 mpg CAFE standard was one of those delayed 'bombs' left at the end of the outgoing administrations reign to trip up the new guy. Anyway, what will happen if everyone magically starts driving 47 mpg hatchbacks will be a decline in revenue for both the oil companies & government. You can bet your bottom dollar that both will jack up the price & taxes to make up for the lost revenue. The honorable MS Madigans argument that by not implementing this onerous standard will hurt the poor is complete BS. I can also foresee the price of the car increasing, and the routine maintenance costs increasing also. By the way, Europe does of course have emissions standards but not a target mpg. They tax vehicles that emit more at a higher rate, this naturally encourages folks to buy smaller, more economical vehicles. To me, setting an arbitrary mpg target isn't the best way of going about things. And before anyone gets their panties wadded, I like economical vehicles (have a strange hankering for a CT200h), renewable energy, the environment and trucks/steaks/boats/planes & The Constitution as written & intended, go figure!
Can we not call it an "MPG rollback"? The proposal is to freeze the requirements at the 2020 levels. In other words, still make it more stringent than it is now.