Trump’s EPA Argues More People Will Die in Car Accidents unless California Fuel Rules Are Weakened
by Evan Halper (Los Angeles Times) The Trump administration is embracing a curious — and some would say dated — argument as it builds its case to weaken federal rules championed by California that require cars and SUVs to average 55 miles per gallon by 2025.
It is warning that the fuel-efficiency targets, seen by most as key to meeting climate and air quality goals in California and nationwide, could actually end up killing people.
…
Under the Clean Air Act, California has its own authority to set mileage standards stricter than those of the federal government. A dozen other states currently embrace California’s rules, as federal law allows, and if they refuse to go along with the weaker targets the administration settles on, automakers are in a bind.
Anything other than a single national standard destabilizes their business model of building one fleet of cars suitable for the entire country. Though the law set the target at 55 miles per gallon, it was based on outdated testing methods. So it is widely accepted that the actual 2025 goal, as reflected by real-world driving conditions, is closer to 44 miles per gallon.
…
It is an argument long advanced by (Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott) Pruitt’s allies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group funded by the network of donors led by industrialists Charles and David Koch. The institute and other Koch-funded groups recently sent Pruitt a letter, pushing him to revoke the waiver allowing California to set its own rules. They accused the state of pursuing a radical national agenda against gas-powered vehicles.
“In our view, CAFE has always threatened lives,” Sam Kazman, general counsel at the institute, said of the federal rules, called corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards. He accuses federal agencies of covering up the “death toll” that the downsizing of the fleet has created, and points to findings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that occupants of larger, heavier vehicles are most likely to survive a crash.
The problem the Trump administration confronts in embracing that argument: The fuel economy rules don’t necessarily push consumers into smaller, less-safe cars.
…
California’s push to keep the Obama-era rules in place is backed by extensive safety modeling. It gamed out potential safety concerns by redesigning three models of cars — a Toyota Venza wagon, a Honda Accord sedan and a Chevy Silverado pickup — with the most lightweight materials. The simulated crash testing showed fatalities would not increase, according to officials at the California Air Resources Board.
…
Pruitt wrote in his directive that the EPA plans to “examine the possible impacts of fleet turnover on safety.” Translation: The EPA will argue the rules threaten to stymie new car sales because fewer people will be able to afford them. In doing so, Pruitt is embracing an argument advanced by the National Automobile Dealers Assn. that the Obama administration and California found had little merit.
The targets would “price millions of potential buyers out of the market,” association President Peter Welch warned in his late 2016 congressional testimony.
It’s a challenging case to make. By 2025, the targets would raise the average cost of a vehicle by less than $900. But that cost increase is eclipsed by savings that drivers would enjoy at the pump from more efficient vehicles.
…
Becker (Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign of the Center for Auto Safety) points out that sales of new cars keep growing — suggesting fuel economy targets are not really keeping drivers from buying newer, safer cars. READ MORE
MAIL CALL! IN THE AIR TONIGHT (Politico’s Morning Energy)
DEMOCRATS PRESS PRUITT ON TESTIMONY: (Politico’s Morning Energy)
Utilities, oil interests clash over EV policy at conservative policy summit (Utility Dive)
Excerpt from Politico’s Morning Energy: California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao Wednesday, calling on her to maintain national fuel economy standards set by California under the Clean Air Act. “I ask for your commitment to maintain the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards at the maximum feasible level, as required by law, and to seek consensus with California so that we can continue to enjoy the success of a coordinated national program to improve fuel economy,” Feinstein wrote. Read the letter here.
Excerpts from Politico’s Morning Energy: Separately, Democratic Reps. Doris Matsui and Paul Tonko sent a letter Monday calling out a different aspect of Pruitt’s testimony last week before Congress. The pair point to a contradiction between Pruitt’s remarks and reports that the administration has drafted a proposed rulemaking to block California’s waiver authority to set stricter standards for light-duty vehicles. “If true, these reports directly contradict your testimony last week. As you were reminded at the start of that hearing, it is a violation of the law to knowingly make false statements to a Congressional committee,” Matsui and Tonko write in a letter to Pruitt. Asked last week about whether he would revoke California’s special Clean Air Act waiver, Pruitt told lawmakers “not at present.” The lawmakers requested Monday that Pruitt provide all documentation related to the development of the notice of proposed rulemaking by Friday. Read the letter here. READ MORE
