States' Rights: EPA Seeks '50-State Solution' for Fuel Rules, California Happy to Settle for 16
Andrew Wheeler, the acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the United States needs a single standard for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks on Tuesday. It’s a sentiment shared by Mary Nichols, head of California Air Resources Board, but it’s likely to put the two at odds. Wheeler said the pair shared that singular goal based off a meeting held last week, but California isn’t seeking the same benchmarks as the current administration.
The state objects to the EPA’s plan to weaken Obama-era efficiency targets, and is currently in the midst of a political and legal battle with the agency. However, Wheeler confirmed that, under his watch, the group would continue seeking a “50-state solution.”
While plenty of automotive regulations will likely vary between states, corporate average fuel economy rules aren’t likely to be among them. Fine by us. It’s one thing to force automakers to step up their game but it’s another to put the burden on consumers and taxpayers. Vehicle inspection laws and mandatory emission testing are great way to waste an afternoon while someone ineffectually checks to make sure your ride is “safe.” But cheating is rampant and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims only a tiny fraction of traffic accidents are attributable to mechanical failure, anyway.
If you’re from a state that doesn’t mandate annual inspections, then you’re probably happy to keep it that way. It’s a separate issue, for the most part, but does call into question the notion of states’ rights. California has a strict environmental policy and a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own standards. Revoking it is a gentle affront to conservative principles — ironic, considering there’s a Republican in the White House.
The EPA has stated in the past that ambitious fueling regulations aren’t realistic. Consumers aren’t buying more fuel efficient vehicles and automakers are spending a bundle preparing to adhere to benchmarks the average person doesn’t care about (until you start talking about cleaner air and the environment). Then, everyone says regulations are good and goes out to purchases a new SUV anyway.
To some extent, automakers will still have to adhere to global standards. And it’s more important to them that everyone agrees, since accounting for disparities can be costly. But they’ve also been lobbying for softer fuel economy targets for the past two years. President Trump seems to think that cutting them a break might result in more investment, which could mean more jobs. However, the industry isn’t famous for always doing the right thing. As businesses, their primary goal is to make money. It just so happens that sometimes coincides with opening up a new factory in the United States.
Regardless of the nuisances of doing business, Trump seems dead set on revoking California’s fuel waiver to impose softer limits. We knew that was likely to be the case, but Bloomberg released details confirming the administration’s plan on Tuesday. The proposal, kept under wraps for quite some time, should be released any day now. It would cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which results in a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average under federal law, rather than the 50-ish mpg average (by 2025) envisioned during the Obama administration.
This will be followed by a formal proposal from the EPA officially seeking the revocation of the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California. Without it, the state can’t regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell a minimum number of electric vehicles in the state. The NHTSA will similarly assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements. The state’s waiver saw EPA approval in 2009.
California was joined by 16 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to roll back the standards. Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board, claims more states will join once they see the Trump administration attack the idea of states’ rights — even though the group would love if the rest of the nation adhered to its rules.
“We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” Sperling said.
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
Goody gumdrops. Another clickbait article to bring the tards a runnin. And run the did. "Some people shouldnt be allowed to post because it goes against what I believe! Someone get me a tissue and a safe space" :(
It's interesting how people forget facts. The higher standards were set in two tiers. The second set of standards was due to be reviewed by the EPA and brought into effect after the presidential election. Instead following the non desired election result the Omaa admin and EPA suddenly acclerated the "review" date and brought the higher standards into law between the election and inauguration. That's what others might call and illegitimate result. Then we have the footprint rules. Even under the Cali/epa mandates Trucks SUvs and other large vehicles would get a more or less free pass, but as others have pointed out fuel efficient cars, which few are buying would be required to meet much stricter standards. To me this would make pollution worse, even less people would buy expensive small fuel efficient cars and more heavy trucks and suvs would be sold through the Obama created loophole. Seems to me if states want to have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road they should incentivise those. There are two ways to do this. One is to raise the gas tax thereby affecting consumer buying habbits. The other is to invcentivise electric cars(not into real enviromental costs of electric cars) In fact a gas tax could be used for the electric incentive. That way states would acheive the result and be directly taxing their voters for the result voters want. Theres a reason states dont do this, and thats because its easy to promise Things your voters think they want if they dont have to pay for. Or sometimes the cost is delayed untill after the desired election, like for example the cadillac tax on meidcal insurance which would have effected union votes so was delayed under Ocare untill after Hilalry was to be elected. If youre talking states rights the states have ample tools to effect the change they desire as pointed out above, but that requires political honesty. Also had the prior admin not suddenly decided to accelerate the new EPA studies to deny the new administration the rigth to decide this would all be moot. Its politcs just like the refusal of repubs to consdder Obamas superme court nominee. A pox on both their houses. What should emerge is a compromise. Higher standards than currently, but realistic ones. Still the best would be a state gas tax and incentives paid for by the gas tax to get consumers to buy the desired vehicles and money from the tax to accelerate electric and hybrid cars consumption. Probably some electric incentive will be proposed to california, and both sides will decalre a victory.