By on July 29, 2020

Following requests from Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) for a formal investigation into whether the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rules proposed by the Trump administration violates the Clean Air Act (or some currently undetermined regulatory requirement that might stop it from coming to fruition), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General said it will indeed evaluate the emissions rollback.

As the ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Carper’s opposition to the fuel rollback is to be expected. With politicians unwilling to find common ground and engage in good-faith discussions that might result in some amount of compromise in service to the people, opposition tactics have devolved into partisan lawsuits and trying to halt the new rules over technicalities.

Funnily enough, SAFE was already compromised once already to include more stringent regulatory measures designed to appease environmentalists. That move didn’t prove very successful, highlighting the fractured nature of modern politics.

Leadership in some states continue to demand retention of the Obama-era rules (despite that administration’s own EPA saying they would be unmanageable). More than a few have gone so far as to suggest they’ll abide by stricter Californian regulations, regardless of what happens with the rollback  the political equivalent of covering your ears and saying “I can’t year you, la la la la.”

But the Trump administration isn’t going into this without a few blemishes of its own. Some have refuted claims that the rollback would encourage cheaper automobiles by discouraging the industry from pushing electric vehicles, citing the administration’s own cost-of-ownership analysis and taking a broader scope of view. Still, that presumes heaps of people default into buying EVs  which probably won’t happen until the cars become cheaper to buy, as well as superior (or at least equal) to gas-powered autos in all respects. We already harped on this when assessing Joe Biden’s surprise endorsement of Cash for Clunkers 2.o.

Then there’s the EPA, which has been blasted in the media after staffers claimed the science behind some of the rollback decisions were junk. This outlet certainly found some of the rationale behind the current administration’s claim that staying with the higher efficiency standard would result in less-safe automobiles to be mildly suspect. But any valid concerns have been undermined by political infighting within the organization itself and news outlets writing articles calling the fossil fuel industry mass murderers. Like nearly every issue raised since 2016, the rollback has been politicized to a point where it’s nearing self-parody.

Meanwhile, nobody seems capable of determining how much trash was actually shoveled around in service of those politics at the EPA. Assuming the Inspector General can set any biases aside to determine what aspects of the proposal are legitimate and clear up any concerns about bunk data, we’re eager to see the watchdog enter into the fray.

[Image: Marc Bruxelle/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

9 Comments on “Gas War: Inspector General to Investigate Fuel Rollback...”

  • avatar

    Less regulation is always better.

    • 0 avatar

      Yep, those automakers just lined up to make their products cleaner and safer just to be altruistic – heck, they beat the regulations just to put the government in its place.

  • avatar

    Interesting that there were 40 + MPG cars for a while but apparently no one wanted them so bigger and faster ones replaced them .

    I’d be shickled titless if I could get 30 MPG out of my old Mercedes Diesels but only my ’59 VW Beetle with tiny 36HP engine gets 32 + MPG’s, I guess to mist here it’s a hair shirt, certainly it’s a death trap .


  • avatar

    I don’t worry about vehicle emissions much anymore – a bandana wrapped around the tailpipe and secured with a zip tie reduces vehicle emissions by a surprising amount.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m sorry, this is not exactly correct. Please let me clarify the exact procedure:
      a) Upon entering the vehicle, I read a posted reminder that tailpipe coverings are required.
      b) 30% of the time, I take no action upon seeing this notice.
      c) 20% of the time, I secure a bandana in the general vicinity of the tailpipe, but not covering the tailpipe.
      d) 40% of the time, I secure a bandana so it partially obstructs the tailpipe opening, but is left free to swing out of the way when blown by exhaust gases.
      e) 10% of the time I install the zip tie, completely covering the tailpipe opening.

      Overall, it is an extremely effective plan (I am convinced).

  • avatar

    What rollback? Not moving forward is not the same as rolling back.

    • 0 avatar

      Logic will get you nowhere in Washington DC. Fuel economy is not emissions. Sure, the number of gallons burned has an effect on total emissions, but emissions are measured at the individual tailpipe.

      Does the guvmint even HAVE the power to regulate fuel economy? If it does, it can regulate how many miles we drive too. The politicians don’t want to touch that one, so they bedevil automakers on fuel economy.

      Given that we now have several governors ruling by executive order, unencumbered by their legislatures, telling citizens to stay home, wear masks, shutting down restaurants, gyms, barber shops, and telling us how many people can attend church, can limiting how many miles we drive be far behind?

  • avatar

    ROFL, ToolGuy!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: Yup. The Freedumb Occupation dimwitts are finding out in court that their hodgepodge of Twitter and Facebook...
  • Lou_BC: Most people who are fully vaccinated experience mild symptoms. I’ve known a few people with moderate...
  • Lou_BC: @jkross22 – an idiot with a pulpit isn’t an expert. It looks like all you are doing is sourcing...
  • dal20402: The CVT with a V6 is a fine CUV powertrain. I will die on this hill. In non-sport applications, the...
  • ToolGuy: So a lot of it is due to the “participation rate” – i.e., how many Seniors take the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber