Reaction to Trump's proposed rollback of CO2 standards

Gov. Jerry Brown: 'California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible'

August 02, 2018 01:00 AM

From staff reports

The Trump administration today released its proposal to roll back Obama-era regulations for greenhouse gas emissions and cap federal fuel efficiency requirements for passenger vehicles at the 2020 levels of 35 mpg, instead of letting them continue to rise through 2025 to about 50 mpg.

Here are some reactions from around the industry to the administration's approach:

General Motors:

"We are encouraged the proposal includes provisions that would recognize the environmental benefits of new technology developments such as the increased use of electric vehicles, autonomous and related technologies.

"We look forward to working with all parties to achieve one national 50-state program. Regardless of the standards, we remain committed to a future of zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion. The pathway to that vision includes continually improving fuel economy and our commitment to an all-electric future."

For previous statements on this issue from GM CEO Mary Barra, click here.

Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council:

"The Trump administration is driving our auto future in reverse. The clean car standards are already saving our families billions at the pump, supporting nearly 300,000 American jobs, and cleaning up dangerous tailpipe pollution. We need to speed up that progress, not slide backward. Let's keep our eyes on the road–and not let Trump and his dirty deputies run us into the ditch."

Joint statement from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers:

"Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment. With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers."

Adam Lee, chairman of Lee Auto Malls in Maine:

"Mark my words; this rollback will be bad for business.

"As automakers have met the standards, manufacturers and dealers have been selling more cars and making more money than ever before. Here is my question for the President and these agencies: Why are we going to change the very standards that are giving us the most advanced, most efficient and most desirable cars, trucks and SUVs we've ever seen?

"The reality is that Fiat Chrysler, General Motors and Ford compete in a global economy. China, India, Japan, South Korea and the European Union all have higher fuel-economy standards than the U.S. The world is moving to cleaner, more efficient vehicles. You don't have to care about clean air to see that reversing on fuel efficiency would put our automakers out of step with a global market.

"Do you think Honda, Nissan and Toyota are planning to make cars that are less efficient? When did America start to believe that losing our competitive edge was a good thing?

"The idea that rolling back miles-per-gallon standards will be good for the U.S. auto industry is ridiculous."

Karl Brauer, executive publisher of Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book:

"This is a huge shift in regulatory oversight, and while it initially looks like a benefit for automakers, it will likely add a level of uncertainty none of them want. Producing and selling automobiles is a long-term process. It requires long-term planning that can't easily be modified without costing car companies a lot of money. Government policy changes are similarly protracted, often requiring years to resolve. This combination will keep courtrooms busy and boardrooms nervous for the foreseeable future."

John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute:

"The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity.

"Transportation is the nation's largest source of the excess CO2 emissions that cause global warming. Both science and economics show that motor vehicle efficiency and greenhouse gas standards are crucial and effective ways to deal with this problem.

"There has been enormous progress in automotive engineering. This progress provides automakers with many low-cost ways to achieve steady gains in efficiency and meet the strong but fair and flexible standards developed six years ago.

"The past decade saw average new car and light truck fuel economy rise by 23% even as sales reached new highs and vehicles improved in performance and in many other ways. This progress is a tribute to engineering ingenuity and it refutes any claims that stronger standards put sales, jobs and profits at risk.

"Michigan's automakers have the technology and intellectual capital needed to meet ever-tighter MPG and GHG emission targets. The standards are designed with flexibility in mind, and have already adjusted to the shift back to SUVs and other light trucks.

"California and other states will be well justified in an effort to preserve their rights to keep strong standards in place and ensure environmental progress."

David Cooke, senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"By going after state authority to set emissions standards, the administration would also be fighting against one of the strongest levers California and other states have on public health. Electrification of transportation is a key component of many state plans to meet air quality requirements. Attacking state leadership on cleaner vehicles is a direct attack on public health, particularly that of the most vulnerable communities."

David Sullivan, analyst, AutoPacific Inc.:

"I'm not convinced that any savings from dialing back these standards will end up in the consumer's pocket. We are already seeing margins at OEMs impacted by the tariffs and it would take a lot more than this to trickle down to the consumer. For better or worse, CAFE still exists. Also, the U.S. market no longer has the might it once had 20 or 30 years ago in driving product planning decisions. Powertrains are being developed for the Chinese market and will make their way to the U.S.

"If anyone really thinks that automakers are so shortsighted that they can't look past the next two or six years, they need to wake up. Automakers are looking to President 46 and have to be prepared for whatever he or she might put into motion. I really don't expect automakers to change their course as a result of this. President Trump has already shown an unexpected slight soft side, such as keeping the tax credits for electric vehicles and it's likely just a negotiating tactic. There is also a lot of low-hanging fruit for the government to go after such as aviation, earth moving equipment, ships, and lawn equipment.

"If the government really wants to help the auto industry, they'll clean up the over 90 different blends of gasoline we use in the country, modernize homologation standards, and dial back the trade rhetoric. All of this will still need to be sorted out in the courts but in the meantime, automakers have to continue with business just as it was last week because the situation is too fluid for making expensive decisions."

Michelle Krebs, executive analyst of Autotrader:

"This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful."

Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst, Kelley Blue Book:

"While many environmentalists will see this move as an attack, the reality is sales of hybrid and electric vehicles are not growing, even with incentives on the vehicles and home chargers and the like. If and when consumers demand more fuel efficiency from their vehicles, or we finally get a noticeable gas tax, OEMs will build them. With that being said, I do believe Gen Z -- and especially the youngest ones -- will expect their vehicles to be electrified in some manner, so demand may come in the next 10-15 years. A smart OEM will continue to develop EVs and hybrids, and, if the administration gets its way, do so without the pressure to meet an unrealistic regulatory statute.

Jeremy Acevedo, manager of industry analysis at Edmunds:

CARB state battle: "Having two sets of standards has long been a thorn in the side of automakers, but today's announcement is just the first step in what will be a painful court battle that could go on for years. In today's highly divided political climate, this fight couldn't come at a worse time."

Vehicle prices: "It's a bit of a shaky argument to say that fuel economy standards are what's driving up the average cost of vehicles. SUVs and trucks carry higher price tags, and that hasn't deterred car shoppers from buying them at a record pace this year. Automakers are going to be investing in clean vehicle technologies for global markets regardless, and the profits made from selling pricey trucks and SUVs have long been the piggy bank to fund advanced technology. This means U.S. SUV and truck buyers will end up being the ones footing the bill for fuel sipping technologies that will end up on the road in other countries."

Consumer impact: "This won't mean much for car buyers in the immediate term, as these are changes that won't hit the market for several years. While this gets sorted out, automakers will continue to make vehicles that meet current standards, which will include a healthy mix of SUVs and fuel efficient vehicles. But the fact remains that oil prices are far from stable, so it's naive to think that prices will stay low forever. Car buyers may love their SUVs now, but at some point, the market will reach a breaking point and the question will be how ready the automakers will be for it."

Supplier reactions

John Boesel, CEO of CALSTART, a clean-transportation business group:

“This is a huge setback for the industry, especially suppliers that create two thirds of all U.S. auto-related jobs. Automotive suppliers are making billion-dollars bets in high-efficiency vehicle technology. Today’s announcement is likely to provoke a long battle in the courts and create a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Meanwhile, suppliers in other countries will be racing ahead to help the rest of the world meet their obligations under the global climate accord.

“Our surveys show that suppliers see the current, strong fuel economy standards as good for jobs and good for investment. If there is one thing these companies need to thrive, it’s consistent, long-term targets.

“In driving terms, today’s announcement throws the U.S. auto tech industry into neutral or possibly into reverse. Meanwhile, companies in Europe and Asia have their feet on the accelerator and are advancing rapidly. If we want to create jobs and be real global competitors, we need to be moving ahead and working toward the current standards -- not filing legal briefs and wasting our time in the courts.”

Chris Miller, executive director of Advanced Engine Systems Institute:

“We had hoped to encourage cooperation among all stakeholders and agencies when we developed and released our set of constructive principles. It’s our hope now to prevent a dramatic weakening of the federal standard and further erosion of regulatory certainty, so we can continue to innovate and invest in the United States and cut harmful pollution in a timely fashion.”

Tim Regan, President, Emission Control Technology Association:

“The NPRM could be a setback if California, industry and the federal agencies don’t come to an agreement. The automotive suppliers call on national and state policymakers, auto manufacturers and labor to unite, like they did six years ago, on standards that maintain U.S. environmental leadership, save consumers money and support our industry.”

Heidi Brock, CEO, Aluminum Association:

“We look forward to a final rule that maintains the competitiveness of North American suppliers, provides certainty to our automotive customers and, ultimately, helps deliver new cars and trucks consumers want to buy. Aluminum companies committed or invested more than $2.6 billion in auto-related manufacturing in recent years, with more potentially to come. That’s because automakers are further accelerating their use of high-strength, low-weight aluminum alloys to safely and cost effectively increase miles-per-gallon, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Rasto Brezny, executive director, Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association:

“We need the agencies and California to come together and find a compromise that would continue strong U.S. leadership in the clean mobility industry. If the standards are significantly weakened, we introduce market uncertainty that will negatively impact supplier investments, jobs and innovation in the United States.”

Ann Wilson, senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association:

“We will continue to work with the agencies and California to develop one national standard that maintains stability for our member companies. We believe continued progress in fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions standards will allow our country to remain a leader in the technologies that make cars and trucks cleaner and more efficient here and around the globe.”

State reactions

California Gov. Jerry Brown:

“For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere. Under his reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage and breathe dirtier air. California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”

U.S. Sen John Thune, R-S.D., Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee:

“Manufacturers must continue efforts to make vehicles more fuel efficient and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but federal regulations shouldn’t compromise safety or force consumers to drive vehicles they don’t want to or can’t afford to buy. The SAFE Vehicles proposal offers the public an important opportunity to consider new information about the safety realities of smaller and lighter vehicles in collisions as part of a more informed conversation about achievable fuel economy standards.”

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J.:

“President Trump’s rollback will … undermine the competitiveness of our domestic vehicle industry and endangers the hundreds of thousands of jobs associated with car manufacturing. The reality is car manufacturing is a highly competitive global industry and today’s rollback will undermine our manufacturers’ ability to compete for consumers around the world.”

U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass.:

“Not only is the Trump administration gutting Clean Air Act protections, they’re also now standing in the way of states who made this a priority. It is an outrageous intrusion that will harm the public health and the environment.”

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro:

“Pennsylvanians have a constitutional right to clean air and pure water. Right now, over 6 million Pennsylvanians are breathing harmful air. I strongly oppose the Trump Administration’s plans to roll back clean car standards, which are critical to protecting Pennsylvanians’ health. Last year I sued the EPA over its roll back of smog protections, and former Administrator Scott Pruitt backed down the next day. If the federal government won’t do their jobs to protect Americans from these types of air pollution, I will.”