• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe March 17, 2023
Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska March 14, 2023
U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse March 14, 2023
$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’ March 14, 2023
UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’ March 9, 2023
Next
Prev

U.S. Publishes Tailpipe Emissions Rollback, Prompts Legal Threat from 19 States

August 5, 2018
Reading time: 4 minutes

Atlantacitizen/Wikipedia

Atlantacitizen/Wikipedia

 

After the Trump administration picked a fight on tailpipe emissions that Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler tried to avoid, 19 states and Washington, DC are headed to court to defend their auto energy efficiency rules and their right under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act to set their own standards.

The states “announced they would sue to halt the proposed rollback, touching off what will likely be a heated legal showdown, possibly making it to the Supreme Court,” Reuters reports. “It could also become a polarizing issue in elections in November,” with mid-term elections now just 91 days away. [Just sayin’. – Ed.]

  • The climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
Subscribe

“Many U.S. states have adopted California’s emission rules, and together they make up about one-third of the U.S. auto market—making the stakes for the auto industry enormous,” the news agency notes. “The administration said the proposed rollback would mean billions of dollars in regulatory savings for car manufacturers. But the industry is pushing for a negotiated settlement between states and the administration to lift uncertainty over the kinds of cars and trucks it will need to produce for the American market in the coming years.”

In the weeks leading up to the White House regulatory rollback, it was clear that automakers had been lobbying to relax Obama-era rules, but hadn’t wanted Washington to go far enough to spark a legal battle against California and the so-called 177 states, whose authority to set their own efficiency standards is based on California’s.

“If California were to prevail in the likely legal clash to come, the state could set tougher standards than the federal government, leaving automakers with the prospect of manufacturing vehicles that meet different rules in different states—something the industry has said it does not want,” the Washington Post states.

But now, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) from the Department of Transportation and the EPA “would freeze fuel efficiency standards at 2020 levels through 2026, and require dramatically fewer electric vehicles as more people continue to drive gasoline-powered vehicles,” Reuters notes. “The administration said the freeze would boost U.S. oil consumption by about 500,000 barrels of oil a day by the 2030s, and argued it would prevent up to 1,000 traffic fatalities per year by reducing the price of new vehicles and so prompting people to buy newer, safer vehicles more quickly.”

“Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). “Americans shouldn’t be denied the ability to purchase a car or truck that meets their needs.”

But the Trump team’s core argument—that weaker efficiency standards will promote driver safety by curbing vehicle miles travelled, speeding up the rate at which consumers buy newer, safer vehicles, and enabling automakers to design heavier, supposedly safer cars—is not landing well with outside experts who know the industry.

“I don’t know how they are going to defend this analysis,” said University of Southern California economist Antonio M. Bento, whose research is cited throughout the administration’s report. “I just don’t think it’s correct.” In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Daniel Becker and James Gerstenzang take aim at the notion that a cleaner car is less safe than a dirty one.

But if the NPRM survives legal challenges (and a possible or likely Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in January), Times climate and energy specialist Brad Plumer warns the rollback could become Trump’s “most consequential climate-policy rollback yet, increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by an amount greater than many midsized countries put out in a year.”

If the measure were enacted, “America’s cars and trucks would emit an extra 321 million to 931 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere between now and 2035 as a result of the weaker rules, according to an analysis by the research firm Rhodium Group. A separate estimate by the think tank Energy Innovation pegged the number even higher, at 1.25 billion metric tons,” Plumer writes. “To put that in context, the extra pollution in 2035 alone would be more than the current annual emissions from countries like Austria, Bangladesh, or Greece.”

The rollback would also cost the country’s consumers US$457 billion, Greentech Media reports. “It’s hard to overstate the foolishness of this move,” said Energy Innovation CEO Hal Harvey. Modelled as a gas tax, the rollback would be the equivalent of 57¢ per gallon in 2040.

“By hitting the brakes on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards before model year 2021, the administration would cause the owner of an average model year 2025 vehicle to fill up the gas tank 66 more times and drive up the cost of ownership by $1,620 over the life of the vehicle,” adds Therese Langer, transportation program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

“By 2035, the rollback would add at least 158 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to our air annually and increase U.S. fuel consumption by 13.9 billion gallons per year—more than we import each year from Iraq or Venezuela,” she added. “That is the equivalent of having more than 39 million additional cars on the road.”

But Harvey said it would make little sense for automakers to retool their production before they know whether the rollback will survive the court challenges ahead. “How do you decide your cars’ [standards] if you have no idea if Trump’s going to win, or the original regulations are going to prevail? If you’re smart, you’re going to follow the original regulations anyway,” he said. “Car companies have to make multi-billion-dollar decisions based on new uncertainty.”

With that in mind, Équiterre issued a news release last week, calling on the Canadian government to go its own way on tailpipe emission standards.

“Given the harmonization of Canadian and U.S. standards, the weakening of U.S. regulations could lead to a corresponding weakening in Canada if the federal government does not hold its ground on GHG emissions reductions,” the release states. “In light of this step backwards in the fight against climate change, Équiterre is calling on the Canadian government to maintain its position on emissions standards and to break away from the U.S. federal regulation.”



in Auto & Alternative Vehicles, Canada, Energy Politics, Legal & Regulatory, Sub-National Governments, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Environmental Defence Canada/flickr
Shale & Fracking

Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe

March 18, 2023
247
U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr
Oil & Gas

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
130
David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr
Community Climate Finance

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
464

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
464
Environmental Defence Canada/flickr

Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe

March 18, 2023
247
Joshua Doubek/Wikipedia

No New Jobs Came from Alberta’s $4B ‘Job Creation’ Tax Cut for Big Oil

October 6, 2022
850
Rebecca Bollwitt/flickr

Fossils Stay ‘Oily’, Gibsons Sues Big Oil, U.S. Clean Energy Booms, EU Pushes Fossil Phaseout, and Fukushima Disaster was ‘No Accident’

March 14, 2023
210
Behrat/Wikimedia Commons

Hawaii Firm Turns Home Water Heaters into Grid Batteries

March 14, 2023
467
NTSB

Ohio Train Derailment, Toxic Chemical Spill Renews Fears Over Canada-U.S. Rail Safety

March 8, 2023
1.4k

Recent Posts

U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
130
EcoAnalytics

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
136
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board/flickr

$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’

March 14, 2023
254
Raysonho/wikimedia commons

Purolator Pledges $1B to Electrify Last-Mile Delivery

March 14, 2023
90
United Nations

UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’

March 10, 2023
97
Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Biden Cuts Fossil Subsidies, But Oil and Gas Still Lines Up for Billions

March 10, 2023
192
Next Post
Our Children's Trust

Youth Climate Lawsuit Proceeds After Supreme Court Blocks Latest Trump Attack

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}