Why a few carmakers are siding with Trump in the emissions fight
For anyone hoping to solve the mystery of why a group of leading automakers chose to side with the Trump administration in its fight with California over vehicle emission standards, the Environmental Protection Agency may have a clue.
In its latest Automotive Trends Report, an annual publication issued this year in March, the EPA shows every major automaker’s progress on emissions and mileage efficiency for the period 2012-2017. General Motors, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota, the three most prominent manufacturers siding with Trump, stand out — and not in a good way.
GM and Fiat Chrysler ranked at the very bottom of the list of 13 automakers on both fuel efficiency and emissions. Toyota ranked fifth from the bottom but was also the only manufacturer whose figures worsened during the fiveyear period.
By contrast, three of the four manufacturers that reached agreement with California in July supporting more stringent emissions standards — Honda, BMW and Volkswagen — scored much better. Honda has the best rankings on fuel economy and emissions of all, and BMW and Volkswagen scored well above average.
Did automakers with the worst records on emissions and mileage deliberately gravitate toward the Trump administration’s desire to loosen existing rules? These rules match California standards for auto emissions, which have a goal of 54.5 miles per gallon, fleetwide, by 2025. The Trump administration wants to roll that back to 37 mpg and to revoke California’s waiver allowing the state to set its own emission standard. California’s standard is followed by 11 other states, accounting for roughly 40% of the nationwide auto market.
GM, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota and the lobbying group Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation filed a court motion Monday asking to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s rule proposals. They’re supporting the administration’s position.
They say they’re merely supporting a single set of regulations governing emission and mileage standards nationwide.
To recap the background of the conflict between California and the Trump administration, its focus is California’s greenhouse gas emissions rules as they apply to passenger vehicles. By extension, these affect auto mileage standards, since making cars more fuel-efficient results in lower emissions.
Normally, such environmental regulations are reserved for the federal government. Congress, however, has waived the federal preemption as it applies to emissions, having granted California the right to set its own rules, in legislation dating back to 1970.
Legal experts say the government’s authority to revoke California’s waiver is dubious. The administration contends that the state’s clean air standards are tantamount to mileage regulations, which are preempted by federal law. Its action has already been challenged by a lawsuit filed by California and 22 other states, and by environmental and consumer groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund.
The motion filed by the coalition in the latter case acknowledges that two federal courts, in Vermont and Northern California, issued rulings rejecting that argument. It contends, however, that because industry appeals of those rulings were voluntarily dropped in accordance with agreements with the Obama administration and could be revived, those rulings aren’t final.
California’s determination to forge its own path on climate change despite Trump’s hostility is evident from the agreement the state’s Air Resources Board announced in July with Ford, Honda, BMW of North America and Volkswagen. The agreement upholds the gist of the existing clean air regulations. The deal reflects a compromise translatable into a fuel efficiency standard of 50 mpg by 2026, rather than the existing goal of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
The EPA’S report on automotive trends suggests the 2025 goals have successfully inspired the industry to make progress on environmental goals.
The report also tends to confirm the industry’s argument that its mix of automotive models complicates the march toward greater fuel efficiency.
But generally, the EPA report indicates vastly improved efficiency is well within the industry’s grasp if it invests more in new technologies. And that requires regulatory pressure to continue — not be reduced.