Automakers Ask New EPA Chief Pruitt To Withdraw 2025 Emissions Targets

7 months ago by Steven Loveday 53

Scott Pruitt took over EPA administration in 2017

As we previously reported, automakers drafted a letter to President Trump asking him to revisit the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent decision to lock in 2025 emissions targets. Now that new EPA head Scott Pruitt was officially confirmed, an automakers’ trade association is asking him to move forward with the request.

President Obama In 2017 Chevrolet Bolt At 2016 NAIAS: The original Obama plan was set to not only help the environment, but also to save drivers $1.7 trillion in fuel costs over the life of their vehicles.

The EPA provided a 500-page document explaining its decision, which was drafted in the final days of the Obama administration. The agency could have waited until April 2018 to revisit previous decisions, but in an attempt to lock in regulations prior to the new party leadership, efforts were hastened.

CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mitch Bainwol, told Pruitt in a letter:

The decision was “the product of egregious procedural and substantive defects … riddled with indefensible assumptions, inadequate analysis and a failure to engage with contrary evidence.” 

Former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, disagrees, claiming that the agency’s ruling was:

“Feasible, practical and appropriate … in the best interests of the auto industry.”

Automakers are arguing that there could come a loss of around one million jobs if consumers aren’t interested in purchasing fuel efficient vehicles. The group insists that people don’t care about electric vehicles, especially if they cost more. They argue that people are buying more light trucks now, so the original targets of 54.5 mpg will not be reasonably attainable, and they anticipate 50.8 to 52.6 by 2025.

If people buy EVs instead of ICE vehicles, won’t the jobs just transfer? Someone needs to build these fuel-efficient vehicles. There is a slim chance that people will just refuse to buy vehicles completely, if efficiency remains paramount.

The original Obama plan was set to not only help the environment, but also to save drivers $1.7 trillion in fuel costs over the life of their vehicles. However, this comes at a cost of $200 billion, split between all automakers over 13 years. Obviously, the financial and environmental  gains vastly supersede the minimal costs when spread out and broken down.

Pruitt and the administration are said to be reviewing the letters, but no statement has been publicized.

Source: Autonews

Tags: , , ,

53 responses to "Automakers Ask New EPA Chief Pruitt To Withdraw 2025 Emissions Targets"

  1. ffbj says:

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive, and the auto industry has had lots of practice.

  2. Spider-Dan says:

    Elections have consequences.

    1. mx says:

      When FORD next goes bankrupt, from not having an Electric Pickup, or a Plugin hybrid pickup, and getting destroyed by poor MPG, No Government Bailout.

      No Reward for Incompetence.

      1. MikeM says:

        It’ll clearly be Obama’s fault. So full speed ahead!

  3. Pat C says:

    Ask yourself. Are you going to just read this article or are you going to take 6 minutes and write your own letter to your representative, Pruitt and the President?

    And beyond that, buy an EV!

    1. Omar Sultan says:

      Except we know from the his released emails that, unless you are in the dead dinosaur juice industry, Pruitt doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ was you think.

  4. Bill Lakatos says:

    With many less parts & complexity, EV’s do require less workers to build & maintain (good-bye tune-up shops) but automation is what took most factory jobs anyway.

    1. speculawyer says:

      Well, there will be some growth in electric motor repair shops, controller board repair, battery reconditioning by swapping out dead cells, etc.

      But yeah . . . people won’t need tune-ups, muffler repair, transmission repair, oil changes, ICE engine repairs, smog checks, etc.

      But technology marches on.

      1. james says:

        Let us all mourn the decline of the buggy carriage makers and how they all starved and died out, or found other work perhaps?

        Oh and VHS tape player makers… last I looking there were still electronic device makers still. Adapt or die, just a question of how long.

  5. Daniel says:

    Well the only thing that’ll happen is we’ll just fall behind the rest of the world because I’m sure places like China are not going to relax their emissions requirements and if are auto manufacturers are going to do business globally and want to sell cars outside the United States they’ll have to comply

  6. James says:

    Rather than focusing on how to build a better, more equitable, more interesting, and clean future, our leaders seem stuck in a late 19th, early 20th century mindset. Factory jobs are not coming back. Coal is not coming back. As Musk suggested, we need to find a way to fund a universal income, but more than that, we need to find a way for people to live meaningful lives, and not one person in Washington is talking about this. Instead Washington is all about wrecking public education, and now with Jerry Falwell in charge of a commission on higher ed, probably wrecking our university system, as well.

    We are headed into very stupid times.

    And by the way Chevy, I was thinking about buying a Bolt, but now, no.

    1. Brian says:

      “And by the way Chevy, I was thinking about buying a Bolt, but now, no.”

      Certainly makes you think about who you support with your wallet, doesn’t it.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        You supported Nissan which is among those automakers alliance…

        It makes me think about those people who say one thing but do another… =)

        1. TeV says:

          ExCept that you’re totally wrong. Nissan is not part of the Alliance.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Automobile_Manufacturers

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Except you should learn some facts before you make accusation.

            Nissan isn’t part of this alliance but it is among the automakers that had request the administration to loosen the mpg rules.

            And that story was covered here at inside ev.

    2. Dave86 says:

      James –

      I’m with you: GM had really generated a lot of ‘Goodwill’ with me with the Volt, Bolt, ELR, etc. But this kind of thing really loses me.

      I’ve always bought brand new cars – bought 5 so far – but never paid more than $20K for one. Next car is going to be pure EV, I’m willing to go over $30K for it. It will hard to buy it from a company that fights against higher fuel economy standards, especially when the rules are the same for all car companies.

      Timing on the Model Y just might be perfect.

      Dave

    3. mx says:

      Leadership requires putting Money At Risk.
      These Gutless CEO’s are Terrified to actually do that.

    4. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “And by the way Chevy, I was thinking about buying a Bolt, but now, no.”

      What you should do is really avoid buying their ICE cars or any ICE cars and ONLY buy EVs.

      That way, they will get the message that it is EV or no sales so they would switch to building only EVs.

      Tesla can’t do this alone.

      The whole “my way or nothing” approach is how the Democrats or liberals lost the election or at least contributed to the fact that some people voted out of anger.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        +1

      2. WadeTyhon says:

        I think the election was far more complicated than that. (Though I see you point.)

        Otherwise, I agree with your post 100%. If EVs were the dominate force in the car industry, then a boycott can actually work.

        But as is, boycotting even those putting out good efforts will just bolster the anti-EV haters. It will prove to them there is no mass market appeal to electrics.

        That will not get us what we want. It will be far more effective towards the end goal if we support all EVs. Not just those made by Tesla.

        GM is making a car that you want? Show them they have done a good thing by BUYING that car that you want.

  7. hanc says:

    Off-topic:
    I think InsideEVs.com should run encryptions. Not that we have anything to hide.

    My 2 cents of course

  8. William says:

    Shouldn’t the automakers say who is behind their reluctance to adopt the non-polluting EV propulsion systems in the 2025. The consumer vehicle market is entrenched in the existing ICE infrastructure. Change is coming and the status quo legacy automakers will fight any emissions mandates that they can lobby into oblivion.

    1. mx says:

      It’s interesting because this change will add NO SALES to their bottom lines.

      Regulations just require engineers. So, fewer engineers.
      But, ALL Manufacturers have to meet All Regulations. So, it’s a level playing field. If the requirements drop they drop for all, so no increase in sales.

      Just the Opposite.
      It gives any one manufacturer the ability to release a high MPG Pickup and Take Sales from No-Investment-Ford.

  9. Jean Charles Jacquemin says:

    Shame on those automakers ! The industry must reform itself. It is for this reason that Tesla is to be supported.

  10. speculawyer says:

    Here we go:
    1) Reduce CAFE standards
    2) Build gas guzzlers.
    3) Oil prices inevitably spike
    4) Gas guzzler sales crash
    5) Bankruptcy
    6) ?????
    7) Profit!

    (Actually, the profit is at stage 2 but you need to make sure you lock in enough profit so you have an F U nest egg ready when the later steps happen.)

    1. HVACman says:

      Exactly. Basing long-term national strategic plans on two years of a business cycle is not strategic planning at all.

      1. speculawyer says:

        Oil prices are volatile and we are still very heavily dependent on foreign oil despite the fracking increase.

        Remaining dependent on cheap oil is just a REALLY BAD idea for the environment, for trade imbalance, and for national security.

        Doesn’t oil make up the largest chunk of of trade imbalance? If the Trumpkins really wanted to address trade issues then would work furiously to reduce our usage of oil. (And no, the problem cannot be solve by drilling for more of it at home.)

        1. Nix says:

          That’s why oil has been called the greatest single transfer of wealth in human history.

        2. Kevin C. says:

          Drunk, stupid and high on petroleum is no way to go thru life.
          Welcome to the United States of Amnesia.
          Inhale the exhaust, and exhale the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.

  11. speculawyer says:

    Is it just me or does Pruitt have a very punchable face?

    1. GeorgeS says:

      Lol spec,
      Its that **** eating grin

    2. pjwood1 says:

      Would love to see a couple cream pies go whistling past his bodyguards.
      http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060050315

  12. CLIVE says:

    Vote with your wallet !

  13. bjrosen says:

    It won’t matter, by 2025 the move to EVs will be well underway and after that year it will accelerate. VW’s prediction is that 2025 is the year that EV costs and ICE costs meet, once that happens ICE cars are as dead as rotary phones. Once the battery costs and power density problems are solved, and by 2025 they will be, EVs are better than ICE cars in every respect. The acceleration is better, EVs are much much quieter, they are smooth (i.e. no transmission jerks, this wasn’t much of a problem on old 3 speed transmissions but it’s awful on modern 8 speed transmissions), they are more reliable, require almost no maintenance, and are simpler. Eventually EVs will be cheaper than ICE cars because electric motors are dead simple, fuel injected, turbo charged, 8 speed ICE drivetrains are vastly more complicated.

    For anyone who doesn’t believe me try this experiment. Goto a Chevy dealer and test drive a Volt or Bolt and then drive a Cruze. The Volt and Cruze are on the same platform so it’s an apples to apples comparison. The difference will be night and day. The Cruze is slow and jerky at low speeds (where it is hunting between gears), the Volt is snappy, smooth and silent. Today there is a huge price difference between the two, but if you assume that at some future date, 2025 likely, the price is the same for a Bolt or son of a Bolt and an ICE equivalent, which would you choose.

  14. Mister G says:

    Saving $1.7 trillion in fuel costs is un-American…fossil fuel industry is entitled to that $1.7 trillion lol. Now we know why Tillerson and Pruitt are on Trump’s cabinet…make America great again by giving fossil fuel industry their money at the expense of clean air, clean water, clean soil lol

    1. ffbj says:

      Streams: once again available for dumping of coal waste. Thanks for helping to make ‘Merica great agin.

      1. mx says:

        Name Change: ECA: Environmental Cancer Agency.

        Because you’re going to see a Cancer Spike, in Repub counties that allow fracking, and across America with More Pollution.

        Cancer is a Growth Industry for Repubs.

        1. philip d says:

          This is our current President.

          The g****** Department of Environmental. The DEP? What kind of idiot spell were those that voted for Trump under?

          1. speculawyer says:

            And the Birther in chief placed a guy who couldn’t even remember the name of the DoE in charge of the DoE. And it turned out that he didn’t even realize what the DoE does! (Largely nuclear weapons)

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Not only that, the DOE was one of the agencies the guy (Rick Perry) wanted to get rid of… he just forgot which one it was, during a debate.

              It’s like the script to a badly written farce, one which would never get made because it’s too unbelievable!

              Sometimes I think El Trumpo is just punking us. It’s like the Trumpster administration is an incredibly badly written farce.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Oops… editing FAIL. 😉

              2. WadeTyhon says:

                Yeah I preferred the original – Idiocracy. It was a great farce. The reboot, Trumpocracy, just isn’t doing it for me.

                Lost a lot of the charm.

  15. TNT says:

    If is all they do is roll these cafe requirements back, I will be happy. My fear is they will kill CARB and cafe requirements entirely. They have already delayed the high speed rail grants and will probably kill them outright, thus putting the whole project in jeopardy. Drill baby drill has taken hold at every position with this administration. And from what I have heard, they are not nice people at all.

  16. Nelson says:

    “Automakers are arguing that there could come a loss of around one million jobs if consumers aren’t interested in purchasing fuel efficient vehicles.”

    If they only made “fuel efficient vehicles” guess what consumers are going to buy.

    NPNS! SBF!
    Volt#671

  17. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Don’t just get mad, join your local chapter of the Resistance movement.

    https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

    https://www.facebook.com/indivisibleguide/

  18. David Murray says:

    I think it’s too late now.. Tesla is about to come out with the Model 3 and eventually a pickup truck. If other auto makers want to stay in business, they’ll have to compete. People didn’t switch from CRT to LCD monitors because they were more energy efficient. That was just a bonus. People switched because they were better.

  19. TM says:

    With the stipulation that there will be NO BAILOUTS next time around. Regulations are there because they are too stupid to prepare for the future. Go ahead, make my day – eliminate the targets. Let them crash and burn.

  20. offib says:

    smh Oh ffs sake, lads…

  21. a-kindred-soul says:

    Europe is already there with these emission targets and China is running towards EVs. Trump taking the US back to the 19th century will just mean the US will soon be finished as a superpower. It’s so strange: he always screams about wanting to be the best and the biggest, but what he does is throwing back his country. And he screams about wanting more jobs, but he offers the car industry jobs to other countries who will innovate and get cleaner.

    I still cannot believe you voted for this clown.

  22. a-kindred-soul says:

    I think we should not just vote with our wallet by simply buying an EV, whatever company makes it. It counts what a company stands for. Every company asking to lower these emission targets simply isn’t serious about a cleaner future and their EV is just greenwashing.

    The only way to go is buying an EV from a company which is not on this list.

  23. Ron M says:

    These auto companies were crying for 20 years that they couldn’t make energy efficient cars and trucks. As soon as the CAFE laws were passed energy efficient cars and pickups were sold and at record levels. People like saving money.

  24. Jeronimo says:

    The Cabal government will do this and all that corporations order. I will laugh on my couch in 4 years seen how well the people that voted for this cartel is doing.