Plan to Gut Obama’s Auto Mileage Rules Is Getting Dialed Back

January 22, 2020

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Ryan Beene and Jennifer A Dlouhy (Bloomberg) Revised proposal will require modest annual efficiency gains; Draft rule is under review by White House budget office -- ... A draft of the final rule, now undergoing a final White House review, includes several changes that could make it easier to defend in court and more palatable to some automakers that had refused to publicly endorse the earlier proposal.

...

The Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department originally proposed capping mileage and tailpipe greenhouse gas emission requirements after the 2020 model year, thwarting scheduled increases charted under the Obama administration. However, the agencies are now planning to require annual 1.5% increases in the stringency of those requirements for 2021-2026 vehicle fleets, under the draft final rule submitted to the White House for review on Jan. 14.

In addition, the measure would spare automakers from radical changes to the complex system of mile-per-gallon and carbon dioxide emission credits that are used to measure compliance, the people said. And while administration officials had considered scrapping a provision in the rules that rewarded plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles, the incentive is retained in the draft final rule -- albeit with changes to make it more technology-neutral, the people said.

...

To be sure, the Trump administration has already moved ahead with the most controversial aspect of its sweeping plan to reshape auto efficiency rules by stripping California of its authority to set tailpipe greenhouse gas standards that are tougher than federal requirements. Federal agencies finalized that move last fall, and litigation over the issue is underway now. READ MORE

California Sues U.S. to Regain Power Over Auto Emissions (Bloomberg)

AUTO RULE AVOIDS MAJOR COMPLIANCE CHANGES (Politico's Morning Energy)

Trump promised his mileage standards would make cars cheaper and safer. New documents raise doubts about that.
Top Senate Democrat argues that revised rule “will lead to vehicles that are neither safer, nor more affordable or fuel-efficient.” (Washington Post)

GREENS CALL ON AUTOMAKERS TO BREAK WITH TRUMP ON EMISSIONS: (Politico's Morning Energy)

Toyota sided with Trump in California fight. Will it pay a higher price than others? (Detroit Free Press)

The Auto Industry Wanted Easier Environmental Rules. It Got Chaos. (Wall Street Journal)

COURT REJECTS TRUMP REQUEST TO FAST-TRACK CALIFORNIA WAIVER CHALLENGES: (Politico's Morning Energy)

Excerpt from Politico's Morning Energy: The heads of five major environmental groups — including new NRDC president and former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy — are calling on GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and six other automakers to stop supporting the Trump administration's auto emissions rollback in court. A full-page ad running today in The Washington Post, Detroit Free Press and Sacramento Bee calls on the companies to instead support "state clean car leadership" and "rigorous" federal standards. "If they continue on this path, the auto companies will find themselves on the wrong side of history — and facing a consumer backlash," McCarthy said in a statement. The other signatories are the heads of the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

AUTO DEAL SCRUBBED FROM SAB REPORT: EPA's Science Advisory Board agreed to remove references to the potential benefits of California's voluntarily auto emissions deal with Ford and other automakers from its report on the Trump administration’s rollback, Pro's Alex Guillén reports. The report will still broadly conclude that the administration's proposed SAFE Vehicles rule was "very poorly done in some respects," according to Peter Wilcoxen of Syracuse University, the chairman of the working group that produced the board's draft report, which cited the California deal as a potential intermediate option between the Obama-era emissions targets and the complete freeze proposed by the Trump administration. READ MORE

Excerpt from Detroit Free Press: But a science advocacy group says Toyota’s decision, which the automaker defends, to side with the Trump administration against California over emissions rules could damage that image.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is on the opposite side of Toyota in this legal battle, is pointing to results from a poll it commissioned that highlights a dramatic drop in favorability for the Japanese automaker over the issue.

The group is banking that Toyota consumers, more so than others, will react negatively when they learn that the company supports the Trump administration’s effort to revoke California’s authority to set its own emissions standards, an issue near and dear to people concerned about air quality and climate change.

...

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined a federal court fight to try to stop the administration from revoking California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act. California, which has more than 30 million motor vehicle registrations, sets emissions standards that are followed by more than a dozen states.

...

“Toyota is one of the leading companies of this, but I think more than anyone else, they’ve built a brand on being green,“ Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Hybrids have been core to their identity in the U.S. over the past two decades. … Obviously we would hope that when they see the impact that this could have on their brand that it would cause them to rethink the support.”

The potential reputational damage, the union says, is borne out by polling of 1,000 Toyota consumers nationwide, both Democrats and Republicans, from last month.

“Initially, 78% of all Toyota owners said that they would definitely purchase another Toyota. After learning more about the lawsuit, that number drops to less than half of all Toyota owners (47%),” according to the results, which were provided to the Free Press. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

...

Pollster Matt George said the results should concern Toyota, in particular, because of the negative reaction from younger Toyota owners, those 18 to 34. Four in 10 of those consumers who initially said they would purchase another Toyota said they would consider switching brands over Toyota’s stance, a situation that could be more concerning for the automaker because few of those polled (15%) were fully aware of the issue.

Toyota, like other automakers, has said its main focus in siding with the Trump administration is to ensure a single national mileage standard, and that the company is still focused on the environment.

“We do not believe that there should be different fuel economy standards in different states. There should be one standard for all Americans and all auto companies. That is why we decided to be part of this legal matter. Doing so does not diminish our commitment to the environment, nor does it lower our desire to manufacture vehicles that produce fewer emissions year-after-year,” according to a statement the company released in October.

The legal fight against California pairs with the administration’s effort to roll back planned Obama-era vehicle mileage improvements. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico's Morning Energy: COURT REJECTS TRUMP REQUEST TO FAST-TRACK CALIFORNIA WAIVER CHALLENGES: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected a request from the Trump administration to fast-track legal challenges to its decision to strip California of its vehicle emissions waiver, Pro's Alex Guillén reports. The court denied requests to expedite challenges to the "One National Program” rule from the Trump administration, as well as from General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota and other automakers backing the administration. The government and the manufacturers had argued the legal battle means extended regulatory uncertainty for a key industry, but the three-judge panel ruled they "have not articulated 'strongly compelling' reasons that would justify expedition of this case." READ MORE