Fuel standards

Trump administration rescues automakers

Live by the administrative state, die by the administrative state. That’s the reality facing environmentalists as the Trump administration prepares to roll back fuelefficiency standards put in place under Barack Obama.

Congress established fuel-efficiency mandates for vehicles in 1975 during the oil crisis. Like virtually every other government initiative, they’ve never gone away. At first, cars had to hit an average of 27.5 mpg by model year 1985. Trucks and minivans had a lower standard. In 2007, new legislation raised an automaker’s fleet average to 35 mpg and gave bureaucrats the ability to set even higher levels. In 2012, the EPA began a review to determine standards for model year 2022-25 vehicles. But when Donald Trump won the election, the agency hurriedly cut the effort short so it could ram through new rules before the Obama administration left town.

Just days before Trump took office, the EPA issued a requirement that vehicles average around 50 mpg by 2025.

Unsurprisingly, these increases would boost prices.

Mr. Obama’s EPA put the cost at around $900 per vehicle. The Transportation Department now puts it at more than $2,000. There’s a practical downside to that. Increasing automobile prices means some consumers will postpone purchases and opt to drive older, less safe and less efficient vehicles for longer.

While well-intentioned, the standards have undermined market efficiencies and triggered a host of unintended consequences. Carmakers are forced to build smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles to meet the requirements regardless of consumer preferences. SUVS and pickups are keeping Detroit in the green, yet GM, Ford and Chrysler are forced to spend billions producing models that boost their MPG fleet numbers and end up in rental car lots.

Automakers have been pushing for relief, and the Trump administration is on the verge of delivering. Last week, numerous media outlets reported that the EPA will soon officially freeze mileage requirements.

Simultaneous with this effort, the Trump administration is setting up a showdown with California. Since 2009, the Golden State has received a waiver under the Clean Air

Act that allowed it to set tighter emissions restrictions than those imposed by the federal government. A dozen states and the District of Columbia have signed on to those regulations.

This has Democrats, once again, suddenly embracing states’ rights. They’d have a valid point if they were also pushing to roll back these federal programs entirely and leave everything to the states. Until that happens, however, national standards are appropriate.

The Trump administration is correct to freeze the fuel-efficiency standards at 2020 levels as a means of fulfilling the president’s promise to rein in the regulatory state. The costs of stricter regulations far exceed the negligible environmental impacts. Consumers don’t need federal bureaucrats dictating what kind of cars they drive. The marketplace is more than capable of sorting it out.

The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.

The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.

Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor

P.O. Box 70

Las Vegas, NV 89125

Fax 702-383-4676 trade war with China, soybean commodity prices have dropped more than 17 percent for the quarter and more than 10 percent for the year. Like drops in stock market investments, this drop in prices means exactly the same thing for the soybean farmer — a substantial loss in net worth.

That crop has a real worth in terms of the price at which it can be sold, and Mr. Trump’sfighthassubstantially affected that price. What is the administration’s answer for this? It is asking for a subsidy in the amount of $12 billion for the farmers. Of course, “subsidy” simply means “welfare,” and the American taxpayer pays twice — once for the loss in commodity prices and a second time for the welfare payment.

How is that wonderful economic state promised by Mr. Trump working out for his supporters? not friends of our community. I take the position that they are here only to make as much money as possible without regard to Nevada and its people. This suit is like walking over all the dead and injured as they suffer.thelegalactionis disgusting and shows the company philosophy in a true light.

MGM should have shown some restraint toward everyone involved in this death and injury event.