Ex-EPA chief: We got the rules right in 2012

While some Automotive News readers may have been supportive of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's announcement last week that he is reopening the EPA rule that set fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light-duty trucks from 2022-25, I doubt that any of you were surprised by it. I know I wasn't.

This administration's decision had nothing to do with the record or the needs or wishes of our automakers or consumers. It won't do anything to bring certainty to the industry except increase business costs and confusion. And it is not a done deal; in fact, the process hasn't even started. There will need to be a full and transparent rule-making before the rule will change.

The sole reason Pruitt and his EPA reopened this rule is their unwavering belief that rules are bad no matter what the benefit, and rules to address climate change are intolerable. There isn't any decision made during the prior administration that the current administration doesn't feel an overwhelming need to roll back. They view all rules, by definition, to be anti-business even when they were undertaken to provide essential public health and climate protections and would provide far more benefits than costs.

This rule enjoyed the support of the auto industry when it was finalized in 2012, and well-documented technology advances made since then have enhanced opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce carbon emissions at lower costs — while allowing the full range of cars to be sold that consumers want to buy.

In 2008, two of the Big 3 auto manufacturers were facing bankruptcy. The Obama administration bailed them out and negotiated new standards for the 2012-16 model years that the automakers applauded. Soon after, California adopted equivalent standards and one national car program was created. That set the stage for significant health benefits and cost savings to consumers and proved to be a boon to automakers — not a burden. Clean cars that Americans actually wanted to buy were produced, GM and Fiat Chrysler repaid the bailout, thousands of new jobs were created and automakers enjoyed years of record new-car sales.

So with all that success under our belts, why does the current administration think the EPA got it so wrong when it set standards from 2017 to 2025?

We didn't, and one look at the extensive record we compiled is convincing. Pruitt's decision relies on statements from industry lobbyists, rather than objective analysis of all the relevant data and information. The current standards, including those set for 2022-25, remain achievable, affordable and essential. They will deliver needed public health improvements while allowing the U.S. to maintain a strong presence in the worldwide fight against climate change. The rule is good for business, even better than originally estimated. And while the automakers didn't see record new-car sales this year, their business is still booming by all accounts.

We're now seeing automakers speaking up to reiterate their commitment to climate action and their support for the standards in the existing rule. Some, such as Ford, Toyota and Honda, are asking the EPA to work with California to consider adjusting the incentives in the rule and raising their business concerns about reopening the standards themselves. They know that the one national car program is essential to maintain. They know they can produce clean, fuel-efficient vehicles that will meet or exceed the existing standards, because they are doing it right and sending those cars to China and the EU. Why? Because China and the EU are demanding them.

Lobbyists for the automakers visited the White House very early in the new administration, and my guess is they asked for the moon. That's generally what lobbyists do. But what they likely didn't expect was that they would actually get what they asked for. This administration wasn't interested in the substance of the rule, why it was needed or the protections it would afford. And its decision isn't designed to be, nor is it, good for our automakers who know they have to produce the cars of the future, not just cede the clean-car market to other countries.

After my tenure at the EPA, I joined Pegasus Capital Advisors, a private-equity fund that focuses on sustainability and wellness investments. I am proud of its commitment and that of other business leaders and investors who are "investing with purpose," as Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock investment firm, recently espoused in a memo to CEOs.

It's encouraging to see the business community standing up and being counted. Now is the time for automakers in this country to join them by saying loudly and clearly that they are open for business in this country and will support standards that ensure American families enjoy the benefits of the fuel-efficient, clean cars of the future.

It is smart business to keep these cars here in America to benefit our health, lower our carbon pollution and save our drivers money by taking them farther on a gallon of gasoline.

Gina McCarthy is the director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and an Advisor at Pegasus Capital Advisors.