Advanced BioFuels USA – Biden-Harris Administration Proposes Strongest-Ever Pollution Standards for Cars and Trucks to Accelerate Transition to a Clean-Transportation Future Hearing May 2-3, 2023; Public Comment DEADLINE TBD

(Environmental Protection Agency) Building on rapid advancements and investments in clean vehicle manufacturing, including investments in domestic manufacturing in the Inflation Reduction Act, EPA’s proposed standards would deliver on President Biden’s agenda to tackle the climate crisis

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new proposed federal vehicle emissions standards that will accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis. The proposed standards would improve air quality for communities across the nation, especially communities that have borne the burden of polluted air. Together, these proposals would avoid nearly 10 billion tons of CO₂ emissions, equivalent to more than twice the total U.S. CO₂ emissions in 2022, while saving thousands of dollars over the lives of the vehicles meeting these new standards and reduce America’s reliance on approximately 20 billion barrels of oil imports.

“By proposing the most ambitious pollution standards ever for cars and trucks, we are delivering on the Biden-Harris Administration’s promise to protect people and the planet, securing critical reductions in dangerous air and climate pollution and ensuring significant economic benefits like lower fuel and maintenance costs for families,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “These ambitious standards are readily achievable thanks to President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, which is already driving historic progress to build more American-made electric cars and secure America’s global competitiveness.”

Since President Biden took office, the number of EV sales has tripled while the number of available models has doubled. There are over 130,000 public chargers across the country – a 40% increase over 2020. The private sector has also committed more than $120 billion in domestic EV and battery investments since President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. The new standards proposed today reflect the advancements and investments in clean vehicle manufacturing, which have been accelerated by President Biden’s Investing in America agenda and complement the ongoing transition in the market towards cleaner vehicles.

The new proposed emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles for model year (MY) 2027 and beyond would significantly reduce climate and other harmful air pollution, unlocking significant benefits for public health, especially in communities that have borne the greatest burden of poor air quality. At the same time, the proposed standards would lower maintenance costs and deliver significant fuel savings for drivers and truck operators.

The first set of proposed standards announced today, the “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium Duty Vehicles,” builds on EPA’s existing emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2023 through 2026. The proposal retains the proven regulatory design of previous EPA standards for light-duty vehicles, but leverages advances in clean car technology to further reduce both climate pollution and smog- and soot-forming emissions.

Between 2027 and 2055, the total projected net benefits of the light- and medium-duty proposal range from $850 billion to $1.6 trillion. The proposal is expected to avoid 7.3 billion tons of CO₂ emissions through 2055, equivalent to eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the entire current U.S. transportation sector for four years and would also deliver significant health benefits by reducing fine particulate matter that can cause premature death, heart attacks, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, aggravated asthma, and decreased lung function. EPA analysis shows that severe health impacts related to particulate matter exposure will also be reduced – including lung disorders (including cancer), heart disease, and premature mortality.

EPA’s proposal considers a broad suite of available emission control technologies, and the standards are designed to allow manufacturers to meet the performance-based standards however works best for their vehicle fleets. EPA projects that for the industry as a whole, the standards are expected to drive widespread use of filters to reduce gasoline particulate matter emissions and spur greater deployment of CO₂-reducing technologies for gasoline-powered vehicles.

The proposed standards are also projected to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. Depending on the compliance pathways manufacturers select to meet the standards, EPA projects that EVs could account for 67% of new light-duty vehicle sales and 46% of new medium-duty vehicle sales in MY 2032. The proposed MY 2032 light-duty standards are projected to result in a 56% reduction in projected fleet average greenhouse gas emissions target levels compared to the existing MY 2026 standards. The proposed MY 2032 medium-duty vehicle standards would result in a 44% reduction compared to MY 2026 standards.

The second set of proposed standards announced today, the “Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3,” would apply to heavy-duty vocational vehicles (such as delivery trucks, refuse haulers or dump trucks, public utility trucks, transit, shuttle, school buses) and trucks typically used to haul freight. These standards would complement the criteria pollutant standards for MY 2027 and beyond heavy-duty vehicles that EPA finalized in December 2022 and represent the third phase of EPA’s Clean Trucks Plan.

These “Phase 3” greenhouse gas standards maintain the flexible structure that EPA previously designed through a robust stakeholder engagement process to reflect the diverse nature of the heavy-duty industry. Like the light- and medium-duty proposal, the heavy-duty proposal uses performance-based standards that enable manufacturers to achieve compliance efficiently based on the composition of their fleets.

The projected net benefits of the heavy-duty proposal range from $180 billion to $320 billion. The proposal is projected to avoid 1.8 billion tons of CO₂ through 2055, equivalent to eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the entire current U.S. transportation sector for an entire year, and deliver additional health benefits by reducing other pollutants from these vehicles. The standards would result in improved air quality nationwide, and those who live near major roadways and are disproportionately exposed to vehicle pollution and heavy-duty activity, which often includes low-income populations and communities of color, would benefit most directly.

The proposed standards align with commitments made by automakers and U.S. states as they plan to accelerate clean vehicle technologies in the light- and medium-duty fleets in the next 10 to 15 years. Car and truck companies are moving to include electric vehicles as an integral and growing part of current and future product lines, leading to an increasing diversity of clean vehicles for consumers.

These developments are bolstered by President Biden’s investments in America, which provide unprecedented resources to support the development and market for clean vehicle technologies and associated infrastructure and represent significant investment in expanding the manufacture, sale, and use of zero-emission vehicles. As these technologies advance, battery costs continue to decline and consumer interest in electric vehicles continues to grow. President Biden’s legislative accomplishments are also supporting critical generation of clean electricity and production of clean hydrogen needed to decarbonize transportation. EPA considered this rapid innovation in its assessment that tighter emissions standards are feasible.

EPA’s proposals are informed by robust and inclusive stakeholder engagement with industry, labor, advocates, and community leaders. EPA’s proposals will be published in the Federal Register and available for public review and comment, and the agency will continue to engage with the public and all interested stakeholders as part of the regulatory development process.

EPA plans to hold a virtual public hearing for this proposed rule, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 3.

The hearing is scheduled to occur on May 2 and 3, 2023. An additional session may be held on May 4, if necessary to accommodate the number of testifiers that sign up to testify. Please check this web page for updates about the dates and times of the hearings.

Registration will be open through the last day of the hearing, however, we ask that you pre-register by April 26 if you intend to testify or are requesting special accommodations. To the extent possible, EPA will work to accommodate late requests. All attendees (including those who will not be presenting verbal testimony) must register. Please submit a separate registration form for each person attending the hearing. More information on how to join the hearing will be sent to the email address that you provide for registration.

Excerpt from Associated Press/Washington Post: John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing most automakers, called the EPA proposal “aggressive by any measure” and wrote in a statement that it exceeds the Biden administration’s 50% electric vehicle sales target for 2030 announced less than two years ago.

Reaching half was always a “stretch goal,” contingent on manufacturing incentives and tax credits to make EVs more affordable, he wrote. It remains to be seen whether those provisions are enough to support electric vehicle sales at the level the EPA has proposed, he wrote.

...

With electric vehicles accounting for just 7.2% of U.S. vehicle sales in the first quarter of this year, the industry has a long way to go to even approach the Biden administration’s targets. However, the percentage of EV sales is growing. Last year it was 5.8% of new vehicles sales.

Many auto industry analysts say it will be difficult for automakers to meet the projected sales percentage. The consulting firm LMC Automotive, for instance, said new EV sales could reach 49% in 2032 but are unlikely to go above that, citing high prices for EVs compared with gas-powered cars.

A new poll released Tuesday shows that many Americans aren’t yet sold on going electric for their next cars, with high prices and too few charging stations the main deterrents. Only 19% of U.S. adults say it’s “very” or “extremely” likely they will purchase an EV the next time they buy a car, while 22% say it’s somewhat likely. About half, 47%, say they are unlikely to go electric, according to the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. READ MORE

Excerpt from Renewable Fuels Association: By blatantly tipping the scales in favor of battery electric vehicles, the proposed tailpipe emissions standards for 2027 and beyond released today by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overlook an obvious near-term opportunity to achieve significant vehicle efficiency improvements and carbon emissions reductions through increased use of high-octane, low-carbon ethanol fuel blends.

“While we certainly share the Biden administration’s goals of increasing vehicle efficiency and reducing carbon emissions from transportation, we strongly disagree with policy approaches that arbitrarily pick technology winners and losers with no clear scientific basis,” said Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “Today’s EPA proposal would effectively force automakers to produce more battery electric vehicles and strongly discourage them from pursuing other vehicle technologies that could achieve the same—or better—environmental performance at a lower cost to the U.S. economy and American families. We urge EPA to reconsider its proposal and instead adopt a technology-neutral approach that treats all low-carbon transportation options fairly and equally.”

Cooper continued, “As this administration’s own research shows, high-octane, low-carbon renewable fuels like ethanol can immediately deliver dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency and carbon performance when paired with the right engine technologies. But today’s EPA proposal unfortunately ignores the ethanol opportunity and instead declares EVs as the winner, despite mounting evidence that a headlong rush into electrification could lead to a host of unintended environmental and economic consequences.”

RFA has pointed out that a flex fuel vehicle (FFV) running on E85 made from certain forms of ethanol available in the marketplace today would provide similar or even lower carbon emissions at a far lower cost. But today’s EPA proposal disregards the upstream carbon impacts of fuel production—including electricity made from coal or natural gas—and provides no incentive or encouragement for automakers to continue manufacturing FFVs or other liquid-fueled vehicles that can benefit from high-octane, low-carbon ethanol blends. RFA also debuted a plug-in hybrid FFV at the recent National Ethanol Conference, demonstrating that a battery/liquid fuel combination provides the greatest range, lowest cost, and most flexibility for consumers.

“All we are asking for is a level playing field,” said Cooper, who noted that RFA will continue to provide EPA with formal comments and input on the proposal. “If given the same opportunity and an equitable regulatory framework, we are confident that higher ethanol blends—and the vehicles designed to use them—can play an instrumental role in affordable decarbonization of the nation’s light-duty auto fleet.” READ MORE

Excerpt from Energy.AgWired.com: It was one year ago today that President Joe Biden visited an Iowa ethanol plant to announce an emergency waiver to allow 15% ethanol fuel to be sold across the United States during the summer months.

“(W)ith this waiver, on June 1, you’re not going to show up at your local gas station and see a bag over the pump that has the cheapest gas. You’re going to be able to keep filling up with E15. And it’s going to solve a whole problem,” said Biden on April 12, 2022. “Even if it’s an extra buck or two in the pockets when they fill up, it’ll make a difference in people’s lives.”

Despite the fact that EPA has proposed a permanent waiver to allow at least eight states to sell E15 year round, that rule would become effective until next year, leaving this summer driving season in E15 limbo.

Instead of taking action to make E15 available this summer, the Biden Administration today proposed tough new car emissions standards pushing the adoption of electric vehicles nationwide.

In the first year of his Administration, President Biden set a goal that at least 50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in 2030 be zero-emission vehicles, ultimately reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. A year ago in Iowa he said, “And you simply can’t get to net zero by 2050 without biofuels.” READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro: But by pushing the industry to make the transition faster, Biden could risk a backlash from unwilling consumers, complicate questions about China’s dominance of electric vehicle supplies, and escalate his administration’s legal fight with the oil industry and GOP governors who oppose his efforts to phase out internal combustion engines. READ MORE

Car companies could have trouble complying with the competing demands of the EPA proposals and the EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law that President Biden signed last summer, analysts say.

The overarching goal of the EPA proposals is decarbonization, or cutting carbon emissions to combat climate change.
But an underlying aim of the tax credits is deglobalization, or reducing America’s reliance on foreign countries for EV battery components.

Those two terms — decarbonization and deglobalization — might sound similar, but they have inspired very different mandates for automakers to meet.

The EPA proposals will require such steep emissions reductions that the only way to comply is to sell large percentages of EVs.
Yet far fewer EV models will qualify for the tax credits of up to $7,500 under the climate law, which imposed new requirements that EV batteries contain certain percentages of materials originating in North America.

...

2. Will the U.S. follow the E.U.?

Automakers might take solace in the fact that the EPA proposal for passenger cars will resemble rules in Europe, the biggest auto market after China.

...

3. Will consumers embrace EVs?

The new rules come despite two big obstacles to greater consumer acceptance of EVs: worries about high prices and sparse charging infrastructure.

The average new car sold for $49,507 in the United States at the end of last year, but the average EV sold for $61,448, according to Kelley Blue Book.
As of last year, there were about 46,000 charging stations in the country, compared to about 150,000 gas stations. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro: President Joe Biden’s attempt to force automobile companies to supercharge the supply of electric vehicles could spur a huge fight with the oil and gas industry — and provoke a partisan feeding frenzy from Republicans looking for their next gas-stoves-style culture war.

The automakers themselves — the industry most directly affected — expressed wary resignation about Wednesday's proposed pollution standards, despite cautioning that the swift transition Biden is envisioning may not be practical.

But elements of the oil industry, which has a lot to lose if gasoline-fueled cars fade from the nation’s highways, are already suing to block a previous Biden-era auto pollution rule. The ethanol industry, whose product is blended into gasoline, joined that lawsuit. So did several Republican-led states, who argued that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the authority to order such a sweeping change in how Americans get around.

People in the oil industry were surprised at how ambitious EPA’s newest rule is, multiple oil industry lobbyists said, complaining that Biden’s regulators had skipped the Obama administration’s practice of meeting with outside groups while prepping a rule. READ MORE

Excerpt from Farm Progress: American Coalition for Ethanol CEO Brian Jennings says that effective federal policy would incentivize the market to encourage multiple technologies. He believes that low carbon biofuels can serve as a low-cost, technologically proven means to meet decarbonization goals while also creating economic opportunities in rural America.

“Unfortunately, today’s proposal isn’t that. Today’s proposal would stifle innovation and slow near-term climate reductions in exchange for a future of supply chain uncertainty and exacerbating environmental damage and human rights impacts from unsustainable mining of critical minerals across the globe,” Jennings says. “Rather than put all our eggs in the electric vehicle basket, a smarter and more achievable approach would be through a technology-neutral Clean Fuel Standard that ensures fair and accurate accounting and crediting of GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions from climate-smart agriculture practices and unleashes homegrown fuel sources.”

House Energy Chair Cathy McMorris, R- Wash., says that the new fuel standards will make driving more expensive. While electric vehicle prices have been trending down, they are still higher than petroleum-powered vehicles. According to Kelly Blue Book, the average price of an electric vehicle at the end of 2022 was over $61,000 compared to just under $50,000 for traditional vehicles. McMorris adds that electric vehicle insurance also costs around 26% more.

“This will hurt low-income families the most, while also making us more reliant on China for critical materials necessary for electric vehicles,” McMorris says. “It’s a lose-lose for American families and for American security.”

American Trucking Associations President and CEP Chris Spear says that while his organization shares the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving fuels efficient, he has major concerns over EPA proposed changes to what he considers already agreed upon regulations. READ MORE

Excerpt from Ethanol Producer Magazine: The GHG emissions standards proposed by EPA are different than corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The EPA’s GHG standards focus on protecting the public’s health and welfare, while the DOT’s focus with CAFE standards is to promote energy efficiency. The agencies have worked in the past on joint rulemakings to set GHG and CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles but are not required to do so. According to the most recent regulatory agenda released by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to release a proposed rule to set light-duty vehicle CAFE standards for MY 2027 and beyond this year.

That CAFE rulemaking could take into account a rulemaking released by the U.S. Department of Energy on April 11 that proposes to revise its regulations regarding procedures for calculating a value for the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of EVs for use in the CAFE program administered by the DOT. The proposed rule would update regulations that have been in place for more than two decades. If finalized as proposed, the rule would significantly reduce the fuel efficiency ratings for electric vehicles, which could change the way vehicle manufactures rely on EVs to meet CAFE standards and encourage them to make gasoline-fueled vehicles more efficient.

While it is unclear how the DOE’s EV proposal and the upcoming DOT CAFE rulemaking will impact the transportation fuel industry, representatives of the U.S. ethanol industry are criticizing the EPA’s proposed rules on vehicle GHG emissions. The Renewable Fuels Association said the rule fails to consider the near-term opportunity to achieve significant GHG emissions reductions through the increased use of high-octane, low-carbon ethanol fuel blends.

Growth Energy said the EPA’s proposal would leave carbon reductions on the table. “Based on early reporting, EPA’s proposed standards show a lack of imagination and ignore the reality that even by the most aggressive estimates, internal combustion engines will still occupy more than half of the light-duty vehicle marketplace by 2040,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “This proposal would constrict innovation and risk leaving millions of tons of carbon reductions on the table—setting us on a path towards eliminating any role for proven, emissions-reducing biofuel blends precisely when we should be embracing a strategy that supports multiple low carbon options.

“In President Biden’s own words, ‘you simply can’t get to net-zero by 2050 without biofuels.’ By disregarding the contributions of low-carbon biofuels, the proposal puts a thumb on the scale for one technology at the expense of others, rather than giving automakers the flexibility to pursue innovative strategies for decarbonizing light-duty vehicles.

“In order for the U.S. to meet its climate goals from the transportation sector, low carbon biofuels must be part of any strategy to drive emissions reductions,” she added. “The proposed standards should drive the adoption of the greatest possible range of technologies and fuels—particularly those that support hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

The American Coalition for Ethanol said the EPA’s proposal will stifle innovation. “We share EPA’s desire to decarbonize the U.S. passenger fleet but believe there is a better way than arbitrarily regulating a solution with significant unknowns,” said Brian Jennings, CEO of ACE. “As EPA Agriculture Advisor Rod Snyder told ACE members just last month, there is no question we will be using liquid transportation fuels for a long time to come, our lifetimes. Appreciating this truth, ACE members are dedicated to producing domestic biofuels with net-negative carbon scores – something that EVs will never achieve.

“Effective federal policy would incent the market to deliver multiple technologies to decarbonize the transportation sector such as through a technology-neutral federal Clean Fuel Standard that sets aggressive reduction goals beginning now,” he added. “With properly crafted policy, low carbon biofuels can serve as a low-cost, technologically proven means to meet decarbonization goals in the near and long term while creating economic opportunities in rural America.

“Unfortunately, today’s proposal isn’t that,” Jennings continued. “Today’s proposal would stifle innovation and slow near-term climate reductions in exchange for a future of supply chain uncertainty and exacerbating environmental damage and human rights impacts from unsustainable mining of critical minerals across the globe. There has to be a better way.

“Rather than put all our eggs in the electric vehicle basket, a smarter and more achievable approach would be through a technology-neutral Clean Fuel Standard that ensures fair and accurate accounting and crediting of GHG reductions from climate-smart agriculture practices and unleashes homegrown fuel sources.” READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico: The target is a “fleet average” that the EPA calculates for each auto manufacturer. That means that an automaker’s sales of zero-carbon electric vehicles can offset the pollution from its fossil-fuel cars and trucks, though automakers may pursue more efficiencies in gasoline-powered models as well.

The final real-world figures can also vary depending on how automakers choose to comply with the rule.

The rule also strengthens limits on vehicles’ conventional air pollutants — a step that would also increase the incentives for carmakers to go electric.

For acid-rain-causing nitrogen oxides and other organic gases, the standard would be reduced to 12 milligrams per mile in 2032, down 60 percent from an Obama-era requirement. EPA also proposed a standard for “particulate matter” (i.e., soot) that’s down as much as 92 percent from current standards.

In addition to the primary proposal, Alejandra Nunez, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for mobile sources, said the agency is soliciting comments on several alternative regulatory options of varying stringency for light-duty vehicles. The least stringent would achieve 64 percent electric vehicle penetration in 2032, Nunez said, while the most would reach 69 percent.

That proposal also creates warranty requirements for batteries on zero-emissions trucks and would require automakers to install “state of health” battery monitors accessible to customers.

The light-duty proposal will be open for 60 days of public comment and the heavy-duty proposal for 50 days of comment once published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.

Questions linger about whether the U.S. electric grid can stand up to the load of charging so many vehicles, and whether domestic manufacturing and mining can ramp up fast enough to make sure EVs are produced domestically.

“The ‘electrification of everything’ is not a solution,” Barrasso (Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)) said Wednesday. “It’s a road to higher prices and fewer choices.” READ MORE

Excerpt from KATV: The Biden administration faces many hurdles in its efforts to spur quick and widespread adoption of electric cars.

Consumer resistance and mining constraints for battery components are among the biggest obstacles to the government’s plans.

And a new Gallup survey shows a sizable chunk of the population is opposed to buying an EV.

The survey found just 4% of respondents already own an EV, only 12% are “seriously considering” buying an EV, and 41% say they won’t buy one.

"Can (the Biden administration) feasibly achieve their goal? I think the answer’s pretty clearly no," said Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science.

“They're assuming that they'll end up being at price and performance parity (to gas-powered cars), and the evidence is not there for that,” Mills said.

Mills said the conventional argument that prices will come down as technology evolves and more options become available “doesn't hold water” for EVs, because of the minerals needed for the batteries.

The EV battery is the bulk of the price difference, adding between $10,0000 and $15,000 to the cost to build a car.

And about 70% of the battery costs come from raw materials, such as nickel, cobalt, manganese, steel, aluminum and copper.

“The claim being made by people that technology will make the battery cheaper is essentially a claim that the world's mining industry will really quickly find cheaper ways to produce all those metals and minerals,” he said. “There is zero evidence for that.”

China currently supplies nearly three-quarters of refined energy minerals needed for EV batteries and other items, such as solar panels and windmills, Mills said.

The U.S. has the minerals, but it would take time and regulatory changes to tap into the needed resources to meet the demand, he said.

The EPA’s proposed standards would phase in over model years 2027 through 2032.

Mills doesn’t see mining capacity or battery technology changing so quickly that EV prices drop over the next decade.

And, he said, more people could opt to keep their car longer or turn to the used car market if faced with an increasing share of more expensive EVs in the new car market.

That could push prices higher for used cars and maintenance services to keep them running, he said.

The heart of the Biden administration’s efforts is to reduce pollution, which the EPA says has serious impacts on the climate and human health.

Gallup found skepticism even there, with around a quarter of respondents saying they don’t think EVs help address climate change. That’s especially true of Republicans, with 55% telling Gallup that they don’t buy that EVs will help climate change. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico Pro/E&E Daily: Republican members on the panel blasted the plan, arguing it would lead to more dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) got into a heated exchange with Regan over the rule, noting that a critical material for electric cars, cobalt, is mined in Congo.

"You guys are putting an environmental agenda over child miners in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Van Orden said. "The Environmental Protection Agency and the Biden administration are putting the national security at risk because every single electronic vehicle has components that are either manufactured or processed by the Chinese Communist Party." READ MORE

Excerpt from S&P Global: While onboard with ambitions to transition the US car fleet to electric vehicles, the heavy-duty trucking industry called out the Biden administration for attempting to extrapolate that push to its sector without regard for the complexities and operating conditions that come with moving 72% of the US economy's freight.

"While we share the passion for EVs in cars and light-duty vehicles, projecting an automotive construct onto trucking industry dynamics is a massive mistake," Andrew Boyle, co-president of Boyle Transportation and first vice chairman of the American Trucking Associations, told lawmakers April 18. "If battery electric trucks had adequate range, there was adequate charging infrastructure, and utilities could deliver the power, we truckers would be delighted."

But that is not the reality he laid out for the Senate Environment and Public Works' clean air, climate and nuclear safety subcommittee. While a clean diesel truck can fuel up in 15 minutes anywhere in the country and get a range of about 1,200 miles, a long-haul electric truck could need up to 10 hours to charge, assuming charging infrastructure is even present, for a range of just 150-330 miles.

"We would need far more trucks to haul the same amount of freight, and each of those trucks would cost two to three times a comparable diesel truck," Boyle said. "Converting the US fleet of Class 8 trucks to battery electric would require a $1 trillion investment, which ultimately would flow to consumers."

Boyle contended that the consumer-facing EV product is so much further ahead as battery-powered heavy-duty trucks require at least two 8,000-lb batteries and cannot leverage any of the existing car charging infrastructure.

Further, he noted an attempt by one trucking company to build a facility for 30 electric trucks in Illinois that was essentially laughed at as city officials said that such a project would draw more electricity than the entire city currently uses. READ MORE

Excerpt from Washington Post: The proposed rule also assumes that Detroit can make these vehicles at this scale — and that the United States would be stronger if it could. Yet, neither is certain: We do not have enough domestic production, or even reliable sources, of the minerals needed to produce the required amounts of electric vehicles, batteries or renewable power that will be required to charge all the new EVs.

As Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global, recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, meeting Biden’s climate goals will require vast quantities of copper (of which 40 percent is mined in Peru and Chile, and 47 percent is smelted in China), lithium (of which 60 percent is processed in China) and cobalt (of which 70 percent is produced in the Democratic Republic of Congo). By giving unreliable sources and competitors significant leverage over the U.S. automobile industry, this rule will make America less secure.

Finally, the rule rests on dubious legal authority. The Clean Air Act does not specifically regulate carbon dioxide, nor does it give the EPA the authority to require that automakers sell a specific number of EVs. And the Biden administration did not have the votes to pass such a sweeping EV mandate in Congress — even when Democrats controlled both houses. But by setting such stringent fleetwide carbon dioxide emissions requirements in such a tight time frame, the EPA is effectively forcing automakers to radically ramp up EV production as the only way to comply.

This forced remaking of the U.S. automotive industry may not stand up in court, just as the Obama and Biden teams’ attempted remaking of the U.S. electric utility industry did not. To quote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in that matter (West Virginia v. EPA), this may be a case of the EPA trying “to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself.”

...

One lesson of the 1990 Clean Air Act — whose benefits far exceeded its costs — is that it largely let the market, aided by technological innovation, come up with the most efficient ways to reduce emissions as required by law. This new rule would cast that measured approach aside, put the economy and national security at risk, and pile new costs on the American consumer. READ MORE

Excerpt from The Hill: ... In comments filed on EPA’s proposal, my organization, the World Resources Institute, and Earthjustice have urged EPA to set RFS volumes for only one year at this time, rather than three, to give the agency time to complete a more thorough reassessment of the environmental impacts of biofuels and align the RFS program with the new realities of the transportation sector. That means allowing ethanol use to decline proportionately with gasoline consumption as our vehicle fleet becomes more efficient and electrified. And it means focusing farmers on the opportunity to convert waste materials, such as corn stover, into fuel for difficult-to-electrify applications, such as aviation.

The Biden administration’s strategy for decarbonizing the transportation sector rightly relies on electrification, not biofuels, as its main solution. As EPA comes to a final decision on revising RFS in the coming months, it must fundamentally revamp its proposal to move away from dedicating land to biofuels production and adopt a policy that is consistent with the administration’s climate strategy. READ MORE