EPA Rushes Affirmation Of 2025 Fuel Economy Standards, Automakers/NADA Not Happy

2 months ago by Jay Cole 55

EPA says automakers can hit 2025 emission standards...looks to lock down 2022-2025 regulations before Trump administration takes office in January

EPA says automakers can hit 2025 emission standards…looks to lock down 2022-2025 regulations before Trump administration takes office in January

Nothing like a change in the administration to get things moving at the EPA, at least when it comes to filing its proposal to leave 2025 fleet emission standards of 54.5 mpg in place.

While the current Obama government had been very favorable to more stringent future fuel emission standards, the new Trump administration…well, not so much.  In fact, the fear was that currently planned standards would be rolled back.

Today's automakers can hit the numbers - EPA (2017 Ford Fusion window sticker)

Today’s automakers can hit the numbers – EPA (2017 Ford Fusion window sticker)

Thus, fearing it would lose its grip on the 2025 benchmark, the EPA unexpectedly filed its review early stating automakers could technically hit the requirements of the program, leaving many in the industry unhappy with the development.

“Given the auto industry’s importance to American jobs and communities and the industry’s need for certainty well into the future, EPA has reanalyzed these clean car standards and sought further input,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

“It’s clear from the extensive technical record that this program will remain affordable and effective. This proposed decision reconfirms our confidence in the auto industry’s capacity to drive innovation and strengthen the American economy while saving drivers money at the pump and safeguarding our health, climate and environment.”  

While CAFE requirements were already locked in through 2022, we are currently in a mid-term review period for 2022-2025 time-frame, of which the EPA determination today looks to close before the Obama administration leaves office on January 20th.

Originally, the CAFE was open to review until April 2018, however EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has sped up the timeline, looking for final approval on the 2025 numbers after a 30 days comment period expires on December 30th…and before President-Elect Donald Trump takes office.

Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, for her part said the change in the administration had nothing to do with the early report:

“The April 2018 deadline was a ‘no later than’ set forth in the 2012 rule.  There is no required precise date on which the final determination needs to be done.”  McCabe said the decision was based solely on substantial analysis and a “rigorous” technical record, and not on what the future Trump government made have designs on, “That’s really not what’s on our minds”.

NADA - not so thrilled, issues fighting words in response

NADA – not so thrilled, issues fighting words in response

Naturally, the groups like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which is really shell entity for many of the major automakers), who recently sent out a letter encouraging the EPA to not release any reports/make any moves ahead of the administration change, and NADA (National Automotive Dealer’s Association), are less than thrilled:

“The two pillars of this important fuel economy program since day one have been the concept of One National Program and the equally important commitment to a rigorous, fact-based midterm review. Now, it seems, both pillars have been compromised. There is neither One National Program nor a credible midterm review.” – Alliance

While NADA President Peter Welch on Wednesday issued the following statement:

“Washington today decided to make new cars and trucks more expensive for America’s working men and women. The outgoing administration has chosen to halt progress on fuel economy by enacting a policy that will delay the introduction of safer and cleaner vehicles by making them more expensive. 

“Consumers deserve access to affordable new cars and trucks, but Washington’s midnight regulation will increase costs and force many working families into older, less safe and less efficient used cars. 

“NADA looks forward to working with the Trump Administration to ensure that working families can choose the cleaner new cars and trucks they need at prices they can afford.”

2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is a good example of how OEMs can now electrify larger, utility vehicles in the future

2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is a good example of how OEMs can now electrify larger, utility vehicles in the future

The efforts by the EPA today do not lock the future CAFE standards in place, as the mandate could still be altered by the Trump administration, which force the EPA to take such an action.  However, as Automotive News explains, that isn’t such an easy process.

“But that (rolling back 2025 EPA regulations) would be a protracted process, subject to the full complement of notice and comment requirements. And it would mean overturning thousands of pages of agency science underpinning the current standards and surviving an inevitable court challenge from environmental groups.”

EPA release:

Robust Technical Analysis Supports Leaving Carbon Pollution Standards for Cars and Light Trucks in Place Through 2025, EPA Administrator Finds

Automakers on track to meet standards at lower than expected cost

WASHINGTON — Based on extensive technical analysis that shows automakers are well positioned to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for model years 2022-2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy today proposed leaving the standards in place, so the program that was established in 2012 will stay on track to nearly double fuel economy, dramatically cut carbon pollution, maintain regulatory certainty for a global industry, and save American drivers billions of dollars at the pump.

“Given the auto industry’s importance to American jobs and communities and the industry’s need for certainty well into the future, EPA has reanalyzed these clean car standards and sought further input,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “It’s clear from the extensive technical record that this program will remain affordable and effective. This proposed decision reconfirms our confidence in the auto industry’s capacity to drive innovation and strengthen the American economy while saving drivers money at the pump and safeguarding our health, climate and environment.”  

Today’s proposed determination is based on years of technical work, including an exhaustive technical report released earlier this year, and the agency’s thorough review and consideration of comments received on that report. This extensive body of analysis shows that manufacturers can meet the standards at similar or even a lower cost than what was anticipated in the 2012 rulemaking, and that the standards will deliver significant fuel savings for American consumers, as well as benefits to public health and welfare from reducing the pollution that contributes to climate change. Full implementation of the standards will cut about 6 billion metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetimes of the vehicles sold in model years 2012-2025. Cars and light trucks are the largest source of GHG emissions in the U.S. transportation sector.

Although EPA’s technical analysis indicates that the standards could be strengthened for model years 2022-2025, proposing to leave the current standards in place provides greater certainty to the auto industry for product planning and engineering. This will enable long-term planning in the auto industry, while also benefiting consumers and the environment.

Today’s announcement builds on years of success under EPA’s vehicle emission standards. Auto manufacturers are innovating and adopting fuel economy technologies at unprecedented rates. Car makers have developed more technologies to reduce GHG emissions, and these technologies are entering the fleet faster than expected. These technologies include gasoline direct injection, more sophisticated transmissions, and stop-start systems that reduce idling fuel consumption. At the end of 2015, all large automakers were in compliance with the standards. In fact, automakers on average out-performed the model year 2015 standards by seven grams per mile. These gains are happening at a time when the car industry is thriving, and domestic vehicle sales have increased for six consecutive years, while maintaining consumer choice across a full range of vehicle sizes and types.

As part of the rulemaking establishing the model year 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, EPA committed to conduct a Midterm Evaluation of standards for model years 2022-2025. The public comment period for this action begins today and will end on December 30, 2016. After the comment period has ended and consideration of the input, the Administrator will decide whether she has enough information to make a final determination on the model year 2022-2025 standards.

For more information on today’s announcement, go to: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-ghg.

To provide comment on today’s proposed determination, go to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827 at https://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, Automotive News

 

Tags: , , , , ,

55 responses to "EPA Rushes Affirmation Of 2025 Fuel Economy Standards, Automakers/NADA Not Happy"

  1. mx says:

    The perfect example of Capitalism not being able to respond to anything but money. The only incentive is money.

    And that’s why GOVERNMENT must always Govern Industry.

    Just like Privatizing Prisons. Oh, you’ve incentivized throwing people in jail and with longer jail terms.

    The auto industry has only one motivation, time and time again they show they cannot lead in a crisis.

    1. SparkEV says:

      It’s not the private companies throwing people in jail. It’s the government. If you think government doesn’t work to make money, you’re seriously deluded. There’s a reason why unemployable Bernie is able to afford $600 summer home, something most lowly carpenters can’t afford.

      All these magical thinking of the government as some sort of deity savior is something 5 year olds hold.

      1. Paul Stoller says:

        Yeah, it’s not like the private prison industry lobbies for more BS laws to fill up their prisons. Oh, wait, they do exactly that.

        The problem with have with government is not too much regulation, but regulatory capture by industry. The money from industry is what corrupts government, government is not inherently corrupt.

        Nobody is asking for government to be a savior, that’s a BS strawman argument, we are just asking that government does it job.

        1. SparkEV says:

          No matter how much lobbying the industry does, if there’s nothing for the government to sell, there’d be no corruption. Corruption’s only possible, because the government is selling (like only 6% of donations to Clinton foundation went to charity).

          Government’s job is unlimited, so to claim that you only look for them to do their job is nonsense. Just look at the regulations that’s popped up since the founding of the country. That happened in large parts because people look to the government as the savior, especially starting with FDR.

          Indeed, if you look at most of those who want big government, it’s to save something or another, government as the savior model.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            SparkEV claimed:

            “…only 6% of donations to Clinton foundation went to charity”

            I see you’re getting your “facts” from the hard-right echo chamber again, Sparky. That’s so far from the truth that it is, as they say, “not even wrong”.

            If this is an example of the “facts” in your posts, then no one need bother wasting his or her time reading them.

            As to actual real-world facts, Snopes.com says:

            [quote]
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            CharityWatch gave the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation an “A” rating by CharityWatch in April 2016, while by contrast they assigned an “A-” grade to the American Red Cross of August 2016. While the Red Cross achieved a higher “Program Percentage” (share of monies allocated to services) than the Clinton Foundation at 90% percent vs. 88%, the Red Cross was less efficient because they spent more money to raise money ($30 per $100) than the Clinton Foundation ($3 per $100) did, according to CharityWatch.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            http://www.snopes.com/clinton-foundation-scores-higher-as-a-charity-than-the-red-cross/

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              Yeah, but Clinton the reason why Clinton Foundation didn’t spend as much to make money as the Red Cross, is because of the “Pay to Play” politics she was orchestrating, which isn’t in question.

              The rest of this thread aside, of course. 😉

              1. Razzmatazz says:

                “which isn’t in question.” – That *IS* in question. There is no evidence that there was any quid pro quo for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Saying so is just not accurate, please do not state as fact assertions which have not been proven.

                (I personally believe there probably was some amount of pressure to make donations, but there is no hard evidence — and certainly far less clear cut than our future president elect.)

        2. Rightofthepeople says:

          Paul said “The money from industry is what corrupts government”

          Exactly. And why does industry funnel money to government? Because government has the power to give them something. So if you want to reduce industry money flowing to government for corrupt purposes you do that by DECREASING the power of government. The call for more government with more power only increases the amount of money flowing from industry and thus increases the corruption of government.

          1. philip d says:

            So what your saying is give less power to government thus reducing regulation and the automakers will do the right thing by adding catalytic converters and airbags to their cars on their own free will out of a sense of civic duty?

            1. x says:

              +1

              Of course they won’t add airbags unless they really had to, let alone reduce the emissions on their free will.

              A beetter approach than mandating max emission levels and thus EVs would be to stop ALL subsidies. Just mandate safer , cleaner cars, don’t subsidy oil producers/pipelines/refineries .

              The people concerned with environment , like I am , should vote with their wallet , i.e. buy EVs not just do “online protesting”

      2. Alonso Perez says:

        Not only does the prison business (I hate to call it an “industry”) lobby for longer prison terms for lesser offenses, but it also literally has bribed judges to impose maximum terms with no justification, to turn misdemeanors into felonies, and so on.

        If you put a monetary incentive on something, you will get more of it.

        1. floydboy says:

          That’s easy to accomplish, if you consider the bulk of the detainees’ ancestry.

      3. Mister G says:

        Spark, look in the mirror…you are the government, we are the government lol

        1. floydboy says:

          There is no reflection in the BUBBLE!

        2. SparkEV says:

          We are the government, yet it’s illegal to do things to my body as I desire? FDA prevents buying most drugs without “doctor’s note”, not to mention potential for DEA hauling my ass to prison for Marijuana that’s legal in many states. It’s long past “we are the government” when we don’t even own our own bodies.

          1. Nick says:

            You decided that’s the case.

            I think we should legalize all hard drugs and fund treatment programs. Are you in?

          2. bws says:

            SparkEV: What is your position regarding abortion?

            At the most basic level, government exists to help find the balance between your rights and my rights.

            I really don’t care how you harm your body, but if you smoke a cigarette in my presence, then you are harming me as well, and I do care about that.

            Many things we do have costs which we ourselves do not bear, but instead others must pay. It is the part of regulations to ensure as much as we can that you pay the costs that you are creating.

            When a coal plant spews mercury and radioactive dust into the air, that creates health problems for the people who live down wind. Those health costs must be paid by someone. Government is the way we decide who should pay.

            If we are friends and like to visit each other, then it would be convenient if there was a road between us. We could start a kickstarter for people who travel that route, to fund a road, but the normal way to pay for such things is to use government.

            Central planning and funding is a great way to achieve efficiencies which allow you to do a lot more with less money. Government is often the way to do this.

            Once you decide what you don’t want people to do in your society (such as take other people’s stuff or kill other people), then you need to have a way to enforce the rules, and government is usually the way to do that.

            There is growing evidence that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth, meaning that in its most unchecked form, it leads to most people getting poorer while the rich get richer. Government is the thing that can stand as a check to this tendency, and instead broaden the middle class, as occurred in the USA in the 40s to 70s when there was a large healthy middle class.

            The right wing propaganda machine has turned ‘government’ into a boogie-man in the USA but the reality is that most people want a good functioning government, and the majority of people who have been lead to believe that ‘government is bad’ are actually very dependent on the government and would be very upset if it stopped doing its job. It is only the very very very very wealthy (lets say over $1m/year income) who benefit from ‘less government’.

    2. Sublime says:

      …because the level of government control over industry today doesn’t breed enough corruption.

      1. floydboy says:

        You got that EXACTLY backward!

    3. Rightofthepeople says:

      I like your example of private prisons and agree that certain things (like transportation infrastructure) are simply best performed by government.

      On the other hand, many things government is currently doing are best handled in the private sector, such as charity work. Government charities (think welfare, food stamps, etc) have the same perverted incentive as your private prisons example; the more people they can sign up and keep dependent upon their charity, the larger their budget grows and more powerful they become. Whereas generally, private charities work hard to actually help people improve their position in life so that one day they don’t need the charity. And private charities that do a poor job with the money they are given risk having their donations dry up once people realize they are doing a poor job. This compared to government which has a seemingly unlimited ability to simply raise taxes and take more money with zero accountability.

      1. Mister G says:

        Right of the people, no American government can simply raise taxes it is very difficult to raise taxes lol. Why do you think our national debt is so high? Because Americans don’t like paying taxes for infrastructure, military, education, health care, etc… We want nice things but don’t want to pay for them lol. So our politicians just borrow and spend borrow and spend to keep us happy.

  2. TurboFroggy says:

    “Washington today decided to make new cars and trucks more expensive for America’s working men and women.” This is a lie. TCO for a vehicle that gets better MPG (or doesn’t burn gas at all) is much lower with higher CAFE standards. Problem is education and the ADA is playing right into the low educated public who has no idea how to calculate TCO.

    1. G2 says:

      NADA’s Orwellian double speak at it’s best.

      1. SJC says:

        When tRump stole the office, the car makers were first to say no 2025 goals.

        1. Rightofthepeople says:

          Stole the office? Unless you have some facts to back up this assertion you should stop using this line, it just makes you sound like a cry baby who didn’t get his way.

          For the record, I didn’t vote for Trump. But, much like Obama who I also didn’t vote for, I am willing to give him a chance before passing judgement on his administration. Our country will be much better off if everyone takes that approach.

          1. Anon says:

            There is a disturbing statistical irregularity of a pro-Trump bias in election results of 7%, whenever electronic voting machines were used- regardless of geographic location. This uniquitious and consistent value indicates tampering, as it does nott conform to an expecteted natural statistical variation.

            There are many links for demonstrating how easy it is to hack such machines. And since the Gore Voting Machine Incident, I’m sure advancements in this area by motivated individuals / states, have continued…

    2. Raymond J Ramirez says:

      NADA is also against higher MPG and EVs because those vehicles will have less maintenance, and thus reducing incomes for servicing those oil-burning engines. Their object is more money for them, not to make new cars and trucks less expensive for America’s working men and women. And even if you spend an extra $2,000 for an EV, the long term savings will be greater because the EV will last longer. That is a second level of income loss: less buying of new cars every few years.

  3. ffbj says:

    If you really want to give them fits raise standards on big trucks, (never gonna happen).

    There are just whining. If you make so little on the units then just quit making them, or make them in Mexico, where people get $20 a day instead of $20 an hour. Prices will go up, maybe even as much will be added to the price of a vehicle as the current dealership model does.

  4. pjwood1 says:

    If I get the legal right, this becomes a “finding” by the EPA, not unlike the 2009 endangerment finding (in the case of CO2). Clean Air Act requires marrying what is $$ achievable to what is defined as environmentally bad. Costing out an affordable link, just like SCOTUS required further costing for mercury, is what will set up the 1,000 page obstacle for people like Myron Ebell to disprove.

    I’ll go on a limb and guess that Automotive News may be wrong about this EPA move, and that it may indeed cement the 2022-2025 period. I don’t think they’d be first to say it did, but I also know there’s a big handicap on Trump having any success at reversing other “findings”. Never say never.

    I’m also so warmed that NADA would like to negotiate more affordable car prices, on our behalf. What else might these noble fellows bring Little Red Riding Hood?

    1. Georges says:

      Yep. Trump and his puppets have a big fight on their hands. Democrats are good lawyers. This will go on for years.

      1. Kdawg says:

        No more than 4, but maybe less 🙂

        1. floydboy says:

          HA! Excellent!

        2. AlanSqB says:

          As much as I relish the idea of seeing the Cheeto impeached, he has filled up all the CoG seats with truly horrible people who will do more real damage than he ever could.

          A painful and embarrassing 4-and-out is probably the best we can hope for.

          1. Raymond J Ramirez says:

            Don’t post that! You have insulted the Cheeto!!

  5. DonC says:

    Nothing like figuring out that once you lose you might was well put a happy face on it. LOL No, these fools want to go down fighting. Apparently unaware that Clinton was supported by millions more voters and that her support represents 65% of the economy, these losers have devised a clever strategy for alienating they’re future customers. Well done Peter Welch.

    Hopefully the auto companies will decide to fire the attorneys and lobbyists and hire some engineers to address the challenge.

    1. Billy Bob says:

      *their.

      If you’re going to act all high and mighty, at least perform a grammar check.

      1. Kdawg says:

        *spelling error, not grammatical error, as I don’t think he meant to say “they are”.

        More importantly, does it really matter for a comment on a blog, if you understand what their saying?

        (haha.. I did that purpose)

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          It certainly does matter to some people. And at best, using poor grammar never helps you persuade someone you know what you’re talking about.

          Not quite the same point, but related:

          “If you’ve nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn’t get it then, let it not be your fault.” — Larry Niven, “Niven’s Laws”

      2. Koenigsegg says:

        Lol boo hoo. Get over it, A digital letter mispelled. Whoopie

  6. Mark C says:

    I am just short of amazed at all the political whining.

    But to the topic, the traditional American auto manufacturers always cry about destroying the economy by having to make small non-cosmetic changes. Then, they go back to selling their $40k+ pickups and SUVs with 6 or more year financing contracts.

    1. Trollnonymous says:

      +1

    2. AlanSqB says:

      The political whining is because this is a political problem. Left to their own devices, these manufacturers and dealers would have us all driving around in big block cars with carbs and 25 gallon gas tanks.

      Obviously consumer choice would have us in that same boat. Sometimes regulations and standards are needed to push thing forward and away from the things that are easy and cheap today, but have a high future cost.

      1. Mister G says:

        And burning leaded fuel without seat belts, airbags etc..

        1. philip d says:

          I don’t like seat belts cause I think it’s better to get “thrown clear”.

          I remember hearing that argument more than once as a child when mandatory seat belt laws were looming.

          My parents also owned a drive through car wash/gas station and I remember as a kid going to work with my parents and standing around unintentionally second-hand huffing leaded gas fumes all day.

          What I don’t remember is people standing around and bitching that car companies won’t put catalytic converters and airbags in their car.

          It certainly wasn’t going to happen on it’s own in a free-market under zero customer demand.

          1. Raymond J Ramirez says:

            You have NEVER been in any accident! I was in one in a Chevy CAmaro in 1974 and the seat belt protected me. Same goes for air bags: My wife had a frontal accident in her Volvo, and the air bag protected her.

            Without government regulations, millions of lives would be lost!

  7. Jay D. says:

    NADA Spokesmen. Call and tell ’em what you think.

    Jared Allen
    Sr. Director, Media & Public Relations
    Public Affairs
    703.734.3957 (office)
    202.412.3881 (mobile)

    Charles Cyrill
    Director, Media & Public Relations
    Public Affairs
    703.821.7121 (office)
    216.870.8837 (mobile)

    1. Raymond J Ramirez says:

      I have nothing to say to them., but maybe someone will take a “dump” and ship it to them..

  8. Nix says:

    Partial list of items the auto industry also whined endlessly about, claiming Armageddon if they didn’t get their way:

    Seatbelts, safety glass, side impact standards, soft dashes, any emissions testing, every CAFE requirement starting with the first mandate, headlight standards, bumper standards, air bags, reporting MPG to consumers, catalytic converters, rollover standards, etc.

    Meanwhile the fatal accident rate has been cut in HALF since 1970’s highs, and MPG has doubled since the 1970’s, and emissions are orders of magnitude lower than the 1970’s.

    All of us have benefited from the cleaner air, the savings in buying less gas, and our collective reduced death rates.

    All while cars are faster, handle better, accelerate better, have more features, and have more luxuries than ever before.

    History tells us to ignore the bleating and crying from the automotive industry. They have repeatedly proven themselves wrong over and over.

    1. jaymac says:

      Thank you Nix. Well put !

    2. philip d says:

      That basically sums it up.

    3. TomArt says:

      +10 Excellent!

    4. Raymond J Ramirez says:

      All of that is very true! and many here are alive thanks to those government regulations, including myself.

  9. Brian says:

    Thanks for the info

  10. Thanks for the informations…

Leave a Reply