CAFE fuel standards

capt 418, see CAFE 2

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/10/koch-nichols-scott-pruitt-strip-california-waiver-regulate-auto-emissions

...

A coalition of conservative groups, many with close ties to the Koch brothers, are calling for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to strip California of its right to set stricter greenhouse gas limits for personal vehicles.

Not satisfied with Pruitt’s decision to rewrite the Obama-era emissions standards — which had been written cooperatively with the automakers, state of California, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and EPA — the American Consumer Institute (ACI) organized a letter to Pruitt calling “for the revocation of California’s waiver from the Clean Air Act, which allows the state to decouple from federal policy and impose strict emission standards on automobiles.”

When asked about this threat on the sidelines of the BNEF Future of Energy Summit, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, told Desmog, “I don't think they're going to do that.”

Commenting on the conservative organizations requesting that Pruitt revoke the waiver, Nichols told Desmog, “They're the same groups that've been supporting Pruitt through all this other stuff.”

...

https://www.ecowatch.com/better-vehicle-standards-drive-innovation-2563561982.html

Ca Cda

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/10/koch-nichols-scott-pruitt-strip-california-waiver-regulate-auto-emissions

coalition of conservative groups, many with close ties to the Koch brothers, are calling for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to strip California of its right to set stricter greenhouse gas limits for personal vehicles.

Commenting on the conservative organizations requesting that Pruitt revoke the waiver, Nichols told Desmog, “They're the same groups that've been supporting Pruitt through all this other stuff.”

...In the weeks leading up to his announcement about the emissions standards, Pruitt had taken a more antagonistic tone towards California, signaling that he might attempt to revoke the waiver that was granted by the Obama administration, per legal mandate, in 2009.

“California is not the arbiter of these issues,” Pruitt told Bloomberg News in March, adding that the state “shouldn’t and can’t dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be.”

With the waiver in hand, California can continue to enforce current greenhouse gas emissions standards, despite whatever the EPA sets as the new national standards for model years 2022-2025. On top of that, any other state can choose to adopt California’s standards, which 13 other states and the District of Columbia currently have.

Because these states represent roughly one-third of the country’s personal vehicle market, automakers would have to decide whether to set up two different production lines for states following the California standards and the rest of the country, or whether to treat California’s targets as a de facto national standard.

Predictably, the automakers, through the powerful Auto Alliance and Global Automakers trade groups, are calling for one national regime, which could result from a grand bargain like the one that Pruitt just scrapped, or could be delivered by Pruitt stripping California of its waiver.

Any attempt at such a repeal would be hugely controversial, and possibly illegal, due to many nuances in the Clean Air Act and the history of its application and enforcement. A waiver granted to California under the Clean Air Act has never been revoked, and has only been denied once.

Notably, that lone denial came in December 2007 when William (Bill) Wehrum, who ran the EPA’s clean air division at the time, convinced then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to reject the state’s request to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, the very issue at hand today.

(California was later granted that same waiver in 2009 under the Obama administration, after the state sued the EPA, and after the Supreme Court had held in 2007 that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. For a much more comprehensive background on California’s waiver and Wehrum’s opposition, see this recent Desmog article.)

Today, Wehrum is again the air chief at the EPA, and is again in a position to attempt to strip California of its unique authority to set its own air pollution limits. As Wehrum, Pruitt, and EPA policymakers work to figure out the new national emissions standards for cars and light trucks, they are hearing from groups including the American Consumer Institute and its Koch-tied coalition on the importance of revoking the California waiver.

Who Are the Groups Fighting California’s Clean Air Act Waiver?

The ACI letter to Pruitt, dated March 28, 2018, was signed by representatives from 11 groups, eight of which have known ties to the Koch network, and all of which are routine commenters on conservative issues.

The :{American Consumer Institute (ACI):(style="font-weight:700"):}: is credited with organizing the coalition, and the letter is signed by its President Steve Pociask. The group is best known for opposing net neutrality efforts while being funded by a major internet service provider (ISP) lobby, as journalist Lee Fang detailed for VICE. More recently, Pociask has turned his attention to attacking electric vehicles, writing on Forbes that “the science on electric vehicles does not support continuing California’s waiver.”

:{Less Government:(style="font-weight:700"):}:is an “organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault,” which was founded and run by Seton Motley, who is also listed as a Policy Adviser to the climate science-denying Heartland Institute. Though Motley and his Less Government org have their roots in telecom and media issues, he has in recent years engaged more on climate and energy issues, signing some anti-wind energy letters organized by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and writing a bit on electric vehicles.

The :{Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA):(style="font-weight:700"):}: is part of the network of front groups funded by the Koch brothers and their donor network through the Center to Protect Patient Rights (now called American Encore), and Freedom Partners. As the Energy and Policy Institute has described, “TPA essentially exists as a shell for its advocacy, based on its own IRS form 990s: 'The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has given control of the management duties and the daily activities of the organization to MLM Consulting, LLC (MLM). MLM will be responsible for managing the organization and work to support the exempt purposes of TPA. The President of TPA, David Williams, is the sole owner of MLM Consulting LLC.'” Williams signed the ACIletter to Pruitt. TPA has fought clean energy policy in the past using the website SolarSecrets.org and has published white papers arguing against solar energy tax credits.

:{Consumer Action for a Strong Economy :(style="font-weight:700"):}:is run by Matthew Kandrach, and has been linked to a number of coalition efforts stemming from the FreedomWorks organization, which was born of a merger between the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and Empower America.

American Commitment is run by Phil Kerpen, a former Vice President of Americans for Prosperity. The organization was founded by Sean Noble, a right-wing operative with close ties to the Koch brothers who also runs the Center to Protect Patient Rights (American Encore), a major funnel for Koch donor network money to front groups.

FreedomWorks was, as mentioned above, born of a merger between the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)and Empower America, though it has no known Koch ties at present day. The group was described in a 2012 article in Mother Jonesas “one of the main political outfits of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party.” It pushes free market policies and has questioned the well-established science linking human activity to a warming planet.

The :{Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):(style="font-weight:700"):}: is a conservative advocacy group dedicated to “economic freedom” that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Texaco, and the family foundations of the Koch brothers.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is an anti-tax group that has received funding from the oil and gas lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, along with various groups in the Koch network such as the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and the Center to Protect Patient Rights, as well as DonorsTrust.

The :{60 Plus Association:(style="font-weight:700"):}: describes itselfas the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and receives significant funding from groups connected to the Koch brothers. The group has also received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, and was created by Sean Noble (see American Commitment above). Noble was until recently a consultant for the Arizona Public Service utility company, and has led efforts in Arizona to kill solar-friendly legislation.

Frontiers of Freedom, run by George Landrith, has received significant funding from Exxon, the Koch brothers, and dark money organizations like Donors Trust. In 2015, Landrith launched the Energy Equality Coalition to battle against the federal electric vehicle tax credit. The coalition also includes David Williams of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance and Horace Cooper, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Landrith is also a directorof the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR).

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity was once funded by the Charles Koch Foundation and has actively lobbied for more liberalized tax laws, and for less scrutiny towards offshore tax havens.

Seven of the organizations that signed this letter to Pruitt — and five of the actual representatives who signed — also recently penned a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defending “electronic and heat-not-burn” tobacco products (or vaping products), indicating that this network is defending the tobacco industry as well as oil and gas companies.

California and Partner States Fight Back

Nichols has signaled that California will not be retreating from its strong standards.

“California will not weaken its nationally accepted clean car standards, and automakers will continue to meet those higher standards, bringing better gas mileage and less pollution for everyone,” Nichols wrote in a statement emailed to reporters. “This decision takes the U.S. auto industry backward, and we will vigorously defend the existing clean vehicle standards and fight to preserve one national clean vehicle program.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has also said that California is prepared to sue if the EPA moves to weaken the vehicle emissions standards.

“We are going to do everything that can been done to defend these standards,” Becerra toldReuterslast week. “So far, when we have been challenged on environmental standards we have had a good record in court. We haven’t lost a case.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to grant California a waiver on air pollution emissions standards if the state has “compelling and extraordinary circumstances,” which California argued a decade ago, and which the Obama administration agreed that it does. To revoke the waiver, the EPA would legally have to prove that those circumstances are no longer there. To satisfy the courts in California's inevitable legal challenge, this would require a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis.

At the BNEF Future of Energy Summit on April 10, Nichols said, “The document that came out a week ago from the administrator did nothing to change the nature of the debate. It expressed Mr. Pruitt's view but there was absolutely nothing new in the way of data or analysis to support that view.”

She did indicate that she would be willing to sit down with the EPA and automakers to look at some “minor adjustments” to the technical changes measuring how companies could comply, but not the targets themselves. She provided an example related to electric vehicles. “Under the 2012 rules [car companies are] responsible for upstream emissions of power plants for charging EVs [electric vehicles]. I don't think that's a great idea. I didn't think so at the time.”

However, “if the whole system is up for reexamination,” said Nichols, “then that's a whole different story … That's a different fight. And we would win it.”

It’s also clear that other states would have California's back and join a legal fight, or start their own. Attorneys general from 11 states said last week in a statement that they would defend California's right to set firm standards.

“By cooking the books on its review of national auto emissions standards, the Trump administration is putting special interests ahead of New Yorkers’ health and wallets,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “We stand ready to take legal action to block the Trump administration’s reckless and illegal efforts to reverse these critical standards and the gains we’ve made in ensuring cars are more fuel-efficient and less polluting.”

TAGS:

cafe standards

Scott Pruitt

american consumer institute

william wehrum

FreedomWorks

competitive enterprise institute

Americans for Tax Reform

60 Plus Association

frontiers of freedom

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/4/headlines/epa_chief_scott_pruitt_lauds_rollback_of_auto_emissions_standards

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/4/3/headlines/epa_orders_rollback_of_obama_era_greenhouse_gas_emissions_rules

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02042018/climate-change-car-fuel-efficiency-cafe-standards-epa-pruitt-auto-pollution-gas-mileage-california-global-warming

By hitting the brakes on the decades-long drive to reduce automotive carbon emissions, President Donald Trump's administration has taken its most consequential step yet toward undoing his predecessor's legacy on climate change.

Scott Pruitt, the embattled chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced the reversal on Monday in a "final determination" that President Obama's plan for the 2022-2025 model years went too far and would be revised.

Pruitt did not yet announce a replacement for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which dictate fuel efficiency and therefore emissions. And even after he does—after more consultations and debate—it's likely to be challenged in court.

So would another aspect of his plan: his threat to refuse a waiver to California, which is intent on setting its own tough standards.

"Cooperative federalism doesn't mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country," Pruitt said. "It is in America's best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to partnering with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard."

California immediately pledged to "vigorously defend" the existing rules. "EPA's action, if implemented, will worsen people's health with degraded air quality and undermine regulatory certainty for automakers," California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said. "This decision takes the U.S. auto industry backward."

If Pruitt prevails on auto standards, it would be at least as significant as the other main rollback of climate rules set in motion by the Trump administration—the attempt to dismantle of the Clean Power Plan limits on emissions from power plants. That one, too, is entangled in protracted litigation.

But there's a big difference that could makes the move on automobiles more damaging to the fight against global warming.

Even with the Clean Power Plan stuck in limbo, it's becoming increasingly evident that electric companies are going to meet the plan's overall targets anyway, because renewables, natural gas and conservation are all overpowering dirty coal in the marketplace for electricity.

Not so for cars and trucks, according to the experts and the lessons of history. Fuel efficiency, alternative vehicles and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to progress without some kind of forceful federal action.

One Giant Step

When Obama first set the standards, the EPA calculated that they would prevent more than 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases—more than one year's worth of total U.S. carbon emissions—over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2025.

"It's the single biggest step to date that any nation has taken to address global warming," said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has been a leading advocate of fuel-efficient cars for decades.

But not if the steadily tighter standards are lifted—even temporarily.

"It's important not just where we end up in annual emissions. How we get there really matters," said Samantha Houston, a consultant to the system dynamics group at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who has been studying the implications of a rollback for eventually meeting the world's climate goals set out in the 2015 Paris accord. "If it looks like we're going to have only a modest decline in the short run, we're going to have to drop off a cliff steeply in the future."

Until now, the auto industry, on average, has out-performed the federal vehicle standards.

But greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are increasing with strong vehicle sales, led by SUVs and other light trucks, and a rise in miles driven. Carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector last year reached their highest level since the 2008 economic downturn, now accounting for 37 percent of U.S. emissions from energy consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

For the second consecutive year, transportation surpassed the electric power sector (34 percent of U.S. energy-related emissions) as a contributor to greenhouse gas pollution; prior to that, power plants had been the largest U.S. emissions source since the late 1970s.

Market forces, meanwhile, helped drive U.S. electric power sector emissions last year to their lowest level since 1990, as generators switched from coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas and renewable sources like wind and solar continued their rapid growth. Electric power sector emissions are down more than 27 percent from 2005 levels. The Clean Power Plan's aimwas to reduce emissions 32 percent by 2030.

Meanwhile, oil prices, which were about $100 per barrel when both the federal and California light-duty vehicle standards were being developed, are now just over $60 per barrel, and not expected to increase over the next two years as global production exceeds consumption. Relatively low gasoline prices mean that there's less incentive for consumers to seek out fuel-saving vehicles.

"There is no momentum in the right direction," said Becker, "and a lot of momentum in the wrong direction right now."

Original CAFE Deal Was Unprecedented

The history of the fuel economy and emissions standards is a lesson in compromise, not confrontation.

The fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet had stagnated for two decades before Congress, seeking in part to address the pain of consumers grappling with record-high oil prices, passed legislation to force improvements in 2007. Soon after taking office, President Barack Obama announced a plan to accelerate that progress with standards based for the first time on greenhouse gas emissions. At a Rose Garden ceremony, he was flanked by representatives of 10 automakers, their unions, and then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger—an unusual show of partnership brought on by unique circumstances.

GM and Chrysler had just accepted billions of dollars of assistance from taxpayers to rescue them from the brink of collapse due to the economic downturn. The automakers also were facing the unwelcome prospect of two sets of fuel economy standards, since the Obama administration seemed prepared to allow California to exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own, more stringent auto standards.

Obama used the opportunity to forge a three-way agreement with automakers and California to reduce oil dependence, carbon emissions, and transition to a new fleet of cleaner vehicles.

"In the past, an agreement such as this would have been considered impossible," Obama said at the time.

It took three years for the details to be hammered out, along with an agreement by California officials to accept the federal standards as equivalent to their own, and a pledge by the automakers and their trade associations to end more than a dozen pending lawsuits challenging California's right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The standards as finalized required automakers to double the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

"It was an unprecedented process that heavily included consulting with the auto industry," said Jody Freeman, who was counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama White House and an architect of the deal. "They agreed because they were getting something of real value. They were getting the uniformity and clarity that had been lacking for so many years."

But in a letter submitted at the start of the Trump administration, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said that their cooperation with the program was contingent on the federal government's promise to conduct a thorough midterm review of the standards and continue its consultation with the industry. Instead, commenters were given less than a month to respond when the Obama administration's EPA proposed to maintain the targets on Nov. 30, 2016. The automakers' association said the government had "abruptly abrogated" its commitments.

The Obama administration had concluded that the savings to motorists of $1.7 trillion in fuel costs over the life of the vehicles would outweigh the cost to the auto industry, which it put at about $200 billion over 13 years. But the automakers' alliance said that "staggering" sum was an underestimate. Although the Obama administration had concluded that the standards could be met mainly with improvements to gasoline-powered internal combustion technology, the auto industry's assessment was they could not be achieved without a rapid transition to electric cars at much higher cost. "Adjustments to the regulations are needed to allow automakers to build vehicles that consumers want and can afford," the automakers said in comments submitted to the EPA.

All of the carmakers have plans to expand their offerings of electric and alternative-fuel vehicles—GM plans to launch a new family of electric carsin 2021 on which it expects to make a profit. But to bolster their argument for less stringent standards, their Alliance last month submitted to EPA a report co-authored by Joseph D'Aleo—a consultant for the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that challenges mainstream climate science—citing studies funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

InfluenceMap, a nonprofit that tracks corporate lobbying, calculated that the auto industry spent at least $49 million lobbying in 2017, the most since it sought federal bailout money in 2008.

California's Special Influence Over Automakers

In the wake of Pruitt's determination that the Obama standards were too stringent, the most important question is what will happen to California's standards. Dating back to the Clean Air Act of 1970, Congress recognized a special role for California, which was ahead of the nation in tackling pollution.

California was permitted to set its own air pollution standards, as long as it received a waiver from the U.S. EPA certifying that the state standards were at least as protective of public health and welfare as federal standards and that the state had shown they were necessary to meet "compelling and extraordinary conditions." Over the years, California has received more than 50 such waivers and has led the nation in requirements for catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline and other air pollution advances.

More than a dozen states—accounting for more than 40 percent of the U.S. car market—have set their light-duty vehicle standards based on the California standard, as they are permitted to do under the Clean Air Act.

[](https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox_full/public/Auto-Emissions-US-Average-Chart-529px.png?itok=SUsR2jj_)

Pruitt's action today does not undo that—and it's not clear that it ever will.

"The auto industry will only make one 'car'," said David Bookbinder, chief counsel for the Niskanen Center. That means that the California standard serves as a de facto national standard. "California is the whole game," he said.

And California has made clear its commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from autos, with Gov. Jerry Brown in January setting a new target of 5 million zero-emission vehicles in California by 2030, up from the state's prior target of 1.5 million by 2025.

The automakers, said Freeman, may end up "like the dog that caught the car"—getting something it really doesn't want: more litigation and uncertainty.

Weak Targets Now, Higher Costs in the Future

But if regulators today set targets that are not aggressive enough, the risks and increased costs will be passed to future generations. If the United States rejoins the world's other nations in the effort to hold the world's temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, it will have to play catch-up—and seek steeper, more costly increases in vehicle fuel efficiency to achieve the same cumulative carbon cuts envisioned under the Obama plan, explained Houston. "If we chipped away at it little by little, there would not be the need to make such drastic reductions in the future," she said.

That would be penny wise and pound foolish, the paper said.

"The additional effort—and cost," it said, "should give automakers and policy makers pause."

https://www.ecowatch.com/suvs-trucks-nullify-car-efficiency-2550909616.html

SUVs and Trucks Nullify Car Efficiency Gains

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased safety and environmental standards for cars in the 1970s, automakers responded. Although they had to adhere to the new rules, they didn't base their entire response on safety or pollution concerns. Instead, they looked for loopholes.

Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, vehicle manufacturers were required to more than double fuel efficiency for cars over the following decade. Canada and other countries followed suit. But trucks, vans and SUVs weren't subject to the same regulations, so automakers started marketing them as family vehicles.

In many countries, greenhouse gas emissions have been falling in some sectors, thanks largely to a shift from coal-fired power. But they've been rising in the transportation sector. That's bad news. Transportation accounts for about 14 percent of global emissions and is now the largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S., mostly from cars and trucks.

In Canada, the largest share of emissions is from the oil and gas industry, at 26 percent, but transportation, at 24 percent, is a close second. While emissions from electricity generation and heavy industry have been declining in Canada since 1990, emissions from oil and gas and transportation have been rising, by 76 percent for oil and gas between 1990 and 2015, and 42 percent for transportation. According to the Government of Canada, car emissions went down by 23 percent over that period, but "emissions from light trucks (including trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) doubled."

Fuel efficiency, hybrid and electric vehicles and cleaner transportation options such as car-share programs, transit and cycling infrastructure are necessary to reduce pollution and climate change. But the growing worldwide market for trucks, SUVs and "crossover vehicles," which combine car and SUV design, are negating advances in those areas.

Trump is sending Obama’s auto fuel economy standards back to the drawing board.

During a Wednesday visit to Michigan, President Trump will announce that efficiency standards established by the Obama administration will undergo further review, according to a senior White House official.

The Obama standards for vehicles manufactured between 2022 and 2025 were originally adopted in 2012 with a promise to automakers that a review before April 2018 would assess whether they could realistically meet the goal. Days ahead of Trump’s inauguration, Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced the review was complete. The standards — requiring new cars and light trucks to get an average of 36 miles per gallon, up from 26 today — would remain unchanged.

The auto industry was incensed, claiming there hadn’t been proper consultation or data collection. In February, automakers reached out to new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and asked him to reconsider. Now, they’re getting a second chance at relaxed guidelines.

Another review of the standards could take years. To stand up to legal challenge, the government will have to prove the data undergirding the EPA’s original review was inadequate.

But the Trump administration contends the new review is no big deal. “I don’t think we’re saying we’re going to pull [regulations] back,” said the White House official. “We’re just doing the review that was originally agreed to.”

http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-auto-emissions-standards-2303524715.html

The oil industry and its "deep state" allies in the Trump administration have lured U.S. auto companies into a potentially fatal political trap, chumming Detroit by tapping into the deeply embedded penchant of the Big Three for chasing short-term market trends at the expense of long term value.

Excited by the arrival of a Big Oil ally, Scott Pruitt, to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the auto industry asked the Trump administration to undo the recent Obama Administration rule locking long term, reliable standards for emissions and fuel economy. The industry argued that the standards, which it agreed to back in 2009 as part of the auto bail-out, were now too onerous because consumers were shifting to buy SUV's again with lower oil prices. The argument is utterly bogus. The 2009 rules set separate, if ambitious, standards for each size class of vehicle, so while more SUV sales do drive up average emissions and oil consumption, they do not require the companies to make a single vehicle to a higher standard than they agreed to.

What's really at stake here is the pace of vehicle electrification. Meeting the 2009 standards for each vehicle class was always dependent on a significant portion of those vehicles being zero-emission electric drive. That's an existential threat to the oil industry—and in many ways to Detroit's dealers, who make most of their money repairing the drive trains of internal combustion cars. Electric drive vehicles (EV) have a fraction of the maintenance costs of gas or diesel.

But a rapid deployment of electric drive cars is vital to the long term global viability of automobile manufacturers. Whatever happens in the U.S., global auto markets are going electric and the Big Three need a major U.S. EV market to compete in the 21st century.

...

aug 2012

usnwr

What you see isn't what you necessarily get with the government's new fuel efficiency standards.

The Obama administration released new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards this week, requiring automakers to raise the average fuel efficiency of new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

But don't expect to see 54.5 miles per gallondotting the window stickers of every new car anytime soon, or even by the 2025 deadline.

"Bottom line, that isn't what you're going to see," says John O'Dell, senior editor at car-shopping site Edmunds.com. That's because of the way the government measures fuel economy—in more lab-like, less real-world conditions—so the actual mileage goal is closer to about 36 miles per gallon, O'Dell says.

That's not to say, however, that fuel efficiency overall won't increase or that there won't be cars that get 54.5 miles to the gallon or more by 2025, he says.

"There will be something out there with 54.5 miles per gallon or something close to that, but that is not going to be the predominant number," O'Dell says. "The numbers people see are going to be all over the map."...

ucs

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/better-fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy-basics.html#.VarRSflViko

Fuel Economy Basics

Contents

Investing in technologies to increase the fuel economy of America's vehicle fleet will create domestic jobs, save consumers money at the pump, cut global warming pollution, and put us on a path to cut projected U.S. oil consumption in half over the next 20 years.

Increasing fuel economy—a measure of how far one travels on a gallon of fuel (mpg)—is not a silver bullet. Yet, sound fuel economy policy and good engineering can deliver the cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs we need to help tackle our oil consumption and climate change problems.

History of U.S. Fuel Economy Standards

Congress first established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, largely in response to the 1973 oil embargo. CAFE standards set the average new vehicle fuel economy, as weighted by sales, that a manufacturer's fleet must achieve.

Through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, Congress established fuel economy standards for new passenger cars starting with model year (MY) 1978. These standards were intended to roughly double the average fuel economy of the new car fleet to 27.5 mpg by model year (MY) 1985.

Additionally, the Department of Transportation set the first round of CAFE standards for light trucks (i.e., pickups, minivans, and SUVs) beginning with MY 1978. CAFE standards for light trucks were increased to 22.2 mpg for MY 2007 and scheduled to increase further. No similar increases were made for passenger cars until until 2007, when historic energy legislation was passed by Congress and signed by the President. This new energy legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, raised the fuel economy standards of America's cars, light trucks, and SUVs to a combined average of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020—a 10 mpg increase over 2007 levels—and required standards to be met at maximum feasible levels through 2030.

Federal law directing increases in fuel economy became necessary because oil consumption had been steadily escalating, in large part due to the relative stagnation in CAFE standards, the doubling of annual vehicle miles traveled in the previous 25 years, and a sizable increase in the market share of less efficient SUVs and light trucks.

In 2009, a historic agreement between the federal government, state regulators, and the auto industry established a National Program to implement these first meaningful fuel efficiency improvements in over 30 years and the first-ever global warming pollution standards for light-duty vehicles.

The agreement grew out of the new fuel efficiency standards passed by Congress in 2007, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which precipitated global warming pollution standards for vehicles under the Clean Air Act, and global warming pollution standards enacted in California and subsequently adopted by 13 other states and the District of Columbia. The agreement provided a mechanism for automakers to build a single national fleet of new vehicles that are in compliance with federal and state requirements under both the Clean Air Act and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

hmm wiki

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975,^[1] in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo and were intended to improve the averagefuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) produced for sale in the United States. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) establish standards separately for passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and nonpassenger automobiles (light trucks) at the maximum feasible levels in each model year, and requires that DOT enforce compliance with the standards. DOT has delegated these responsibilities to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Through EPCA and EISA, U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) also requires that "a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards".

The CAFE achieved by a given fleet of vehicles in a given model year is the production-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per U.S. gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less (but also including medium-duty passenger vehicles—such as large sport-utility vehicles and passenger vans—with GVWR up to 10,000 pounds), produced for sale in the United States. The CAFE standards in a given model year define the CAFE levels that manufacturers' fleets are required to meet in that model year, specific levels depending on the characteristics and mix of vehicles produced by each manufacturer. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the applicable requirement, the manufacturer must either apply sufficient CAFE credits (see below) to cover the shortfall or pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. Congress established both of these provisions explicitly in EPCA, as amended in 2007 by EISA. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).^[2]

CAFE Standards Reach Prius Levels 25 Years After Its Introduction

Starting in 2011 the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cut-off values.[3] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m²) must achieve fuel economy (as measured for CAFE) of 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), while aFord F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m²) must achieve CAFE fuel economy of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published. CAFE 2016 target fuel economy of 38.5 MPG (44 sq. ft. footprint) compares to 2012 actual advanced vehicle performance of Prius hybrid: 50 MPG, plug-in Prius hybrid: 95 MPGe and LEAF electric vehicle: 99 MPGe.

CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. ^[4] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.^[5] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates CAFE standards and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measures vehicle fuel efficiency. U.S. Congress specifies that CAFE standards must be set at the "maximum feasible level" given consideration for:

technological feasibility;
economic practicality;
effect of other standards on fuel economy;
need of the nation to conserve energy.

Historically, the EPA has encouraged consumers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, while the NHTSA expressed concerns that smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles may lead to increased traffic fatalities.^[6][7] Thus higher fuel efficiency was associated with lower traffic safety, intertwining the issues of fuel economy, road-traffic safety, air pollution, and climate change. In the mid-2000s, increasing safety of smaller cars and the poor safety record of light trucks began to reverse this association.^[8] Nevertheless, in 2008, the on-road vehicle fleets in the United States and Canada had the lowest overall average fuel economy among first worldnations: 25 miles per US gallon (9.4 l/100 km) in North America, versus 45 miles per US gallon (5.2 l/100 km) in the European Union and was even higher in Japan, according to data as of 2008.^[9] Furthermore, despite general opinion that larger and heavier (and therefore relatively fuel-uneconomical) vehicles are safer,^[10] the U.S. traffic fatality rate—and its trend over time is higher than some other western nations, although it has recently started to gradually decline at a faster rate than in previous years.^[11]

[hide]

omg, why do they care?

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/Vehicle-2011-06-03-Industry-Brief.pdf

No. 10-1092 (Lead) and Consolidated Cases (Complex)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL.,

Petitioners,

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, AND

THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petitions for Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards;

Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324 (May 7, 2010) __

JOINT OPENING BRIEF OF NON-STATE PETITIONERS

AND SUPPORTING INTERVENORS

John P. Elwood

VINSON & ELKINS LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

(202) 639-6500

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

Eric Groten

VINSON & ELKINS LLP

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746-7568

(512) 542-8709

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

DATED: June 3, 2011

Additional counsel listed

beginning on inside front cover

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 1 of 232

Patrick R. Day, P.C.

HOLLAND & HART LLP

2515 Warren Ave., Suite 450

Cheyenne, WY 82001

(307) 778-4209

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

Paul D. Phillips

HOLLAND & HART LLP

555 17th Street, Suite 3200

Denver, CO 80202-3979

(303) 295-8131

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

John A. Bryson

HOLLAND & HART, LLP

975 F Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 393-6500

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

James A. Holtkamp

HOLLAND & HART LLP

60 E. South Temple, Suite 2000

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

(801) 799-5800

Counsel for Coalition

for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al.

Shannon L. Goessling

SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL

FOUNDATION, INC.

2255 Sewell Mill Road, Suite 320

Marietta, GA 30062

(770) 977-2131

Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation,

Inc., et al., and Intervenors Langdale Farms,

LLC, et al..

Edward A. Kazmarek

KAZMAREK GEIGER

& LASETER LLP

One Securities Center

3490 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 350

Atlanta, GA 30305

(404) 812-0840

Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation,

Inc., et al., and Intervenors Langdale Farms,

LLC, et al..

Harry W. MacDougald

CALDWELL & WATSON LLP

Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600

Atlanta, GA 30346

(404) 843-1956

Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation,

Inc., et al., and Intervenors Langdale Farms,

LLC, et al..

Chet M. Thompson

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 624-2500

Counsel for American Iron and Steel Institute

and Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 2 of 232

Sam Kazman

Hans Bader

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE

INSTITUTE

1899 L Street NW, 12th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 331-2265

Counsel for Competitive Enterprise

Institute, FreedomWorks, and Science

and Environmental Policy Project

Neal J. Cabral

McGUIREWOODS LLP

Washington Square

1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1200

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 857-1700

Counsel for Ohio Coal Association

Gordon R. Alphonso

McGUIREWOODS LLP

The Proscenium

1170 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 2100

Atlanta, GA 30309

(404) 443-5500

Counsel for Ohio Coal Association

Scott C. Oostdyk

McGUIREWOODS LLP

One James Center

901 East Cary Street

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 775-1000

Counsel for Ohio Coal Association

Richard P. Hutchison

LANDMARK LEGAL

FOUNDATION

3100 Broadway, Suite 1210

Kansas City, MO 64111

(816) 931-5559

Counsel for Mark Levin and

Landmark Legal Foundation

Ronald J. Tenpas

Michael W. Steinberg

Levi McAllister

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 739-5145

Counsel for Energy-Intensive Manufacturers’

Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 3 of 232

John J. McMackin, Jr.

WILLIAMS & JENSEN, PLLC

701 8th Street, NW, Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 659-8201

Counsel for Energy-Intensive Manufacturers’

Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation

F. William Brownell

Norman W. Fichthorn

Henry V. Nickel

Allison D. Wood

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

1900 K Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 955-1500

Counsel for Utility Air Regulatory Group

Robin S. Conrad

Sheldon Gilbert

NATIONAL CHAMBER

LITIGATION CENTER, INC.

1615 H Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20062

(202) 463-5337

Counsel for Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America

Ashley C. Parrish

Cynthia A.M. Stroman

KING & SPALDING LLP

1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 737-0500

Counsel for Portland Cement Association

and Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America

Katie Sweeney

NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

101 Constitution Ave. NW

Suite 500 East

Washington, D.C. 20001

Counsel for National Mining Association

Peter Glaser

Mark E. Nagle

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 274-2998

Counsel for National Mining Association

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 4 of 232

Alexander C. Schoch

Mary L. Frontczak

PEABODY ENERGY COMPANY

701 Market Street, 6th Floor

St. Louis, MO 63101

Counsel for Peabody Energy Company

Peter Glaser

Mark E. Nagle

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 274-2998

Counsel for Peabody Energy Company

Ellen Steen

Danielle Quist

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION

600 Maryland Ave. SW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 22024

Counsel for American Farm Bureau Federation

Peter Glaser

Mark E. Nagle

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 274-2998

Counsel for American Farm Bureau Federation

Timothy K. Webster

Roger R. Martella

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

1501 K Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 736-8000

Counsel for the

National Association of Manufacturers, et al.

Charles H. Knauss

Shannon S. Broome

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP

2020 K Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 373-6000

Counsel for the

National Association of Manufacturers, et al.

Matthew G. Paulson

BAKER BOTTS LLP

98 San Jacinto Boulevard

1500 San Jacinto Center

Austin, TX 78701

(512) 322-2500

Counsel for the

National Association of Manufacturers, et al.

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 5 of 232

Of Counsel:

Quentin Riegel

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF MANUFACTURERS

1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20004-1790

(202) 637-3000

Counsel for the

National Association of Manufacturers

Harry Moy Ng

Michele Marie Schoeppe

AMERICAN

PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

1220 L Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20005-4070

(202) 682-8251

Counsel for American Petroleum Institute

Elizabeth Gaudio

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

1201 F Street NW, Suite 200

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 406-4443

Counsel for the

National Federation of Independent Business

Gregory M. Scott

NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL

AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION

1667 K Street NW, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 457-0480

Counsel for National Petrochemical

and Refiners Association

Thomas J. Ward

Amy C. Chai

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

HOME BUILDERS

1201 15th Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 266-8200

Counsel for

National Association of Home Builders

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 6 of 232

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES,

RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Non-State Petitioners and Supporting

Intervenors state as follows:

The Court’s Order of March 22, 2011 (Doc. No. 1299440) rejected petitioners’

briefing proposal and required these 67 parties, representing a variety of interests, to

file joint briefing subject to a combined word limit, and does not otherwise provide

for separate argument where those interests may diverge. Any given argument

presented or incorporated in this brief should not be construed as necessarily

representing the views of each of these parties.

A. Parties and Amici

PETITIONERS:

Case No. 10-1092: Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.; Industrial

Minerals Association–North America; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Great

Northern Project Development, L.P.; Rosebud Mining Company; Alpha Natural

Resources, Inc.

Case No. 10-1094: Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc.; John Linder

(U.S. Representative) (GA-7th); Dana Rohrabacher (U.S. Representative) (CA-46th);

John Shimkus (U.S. Representative) (IL-19th); Phil Gingrey (U.S. Representative)

(GA-11th); Lynn Westmoreland (U.S. Representative) (GA-3rd); Tom Price (U.S.

Representative) (GA-6th); Paul Broun (U.S. Representative) (GA-10th); Steve King

(U.S. Representative) (IA-5th); Nathan Deal (U.S. Representative) (GA-9th); Jack

Kingston (U.S. Representative) (GA-1st); Michele Bachmann (U.S. Representative)

(MN-6th); Kevin Brady (U.S. Representative) (TX-8th); John Shadegg (U.S.

Representative) (AZ-3rd); Dan Burton (U.S. Representative) (IN-5th); The Langdale

Company; Langdale Forest Products Company; Georgia Motor Trucking Association,

Inc.; Collins Industries, Inc.; Collins Trucking Company, Inc.; Kennesaw

Transportation, Inc.; J&M Tank Lines, Inc.; Southeast Trailer Mart, Inc.; Georgia

Agribusiness Council, Inc.

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 7 of 232

Case No. 10-1134: American Iron & Steel Institute

Case No. 10-1143: Competitive Enterprise Institute; FreedomWorks;

The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Case No. 10-1144: Ohio Coal Association

Case No. 10-1152: Mark Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation

Case No. 10-1156: Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.

Case No. 10-1158: Energy-Intensive Manufacturers’ Working Group on

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Case No. 10-1159: Portland Cement Association

Case No. 10-1160: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of

America

Case No. 10-1161: Utility Air Regulatory Group

Case No. 10-1162: National Mining Association

Case No. 10-1163: Peabody Energy Company

Case No. 10-1164: American Farm Bureau Federation

Case No. 10-1166: National Association of Manufacturers; American

Frozen Food Institute; American Petroleum Institute; Brick Industry Association;

Corn Refiners Association; Glass Packaging Institute; Michigan Manufacturers

Association; Mississippi Manufacturers Association; National Association of Home

Builders; National Federation of Independent Business; National Oilseed Processors

Association; National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Specialty Steel

Industry of North America; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; West

Virginia Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

Case No. 10-1182: State of Texas; Governor Rick Perry (TX); Attorney

General Greg Abbott (TX); Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Texas

Agriculture Commission; Texas Public Utilities Commission; Texas Railroad

Commission; Texas General Land Office; State of Alabama; State of South Carolina;

State of South Dakota; State of Nebraska; State of North Dakota; Commonwealth of

Virginia; Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi

USCA Case #10-1092 Document #1311526 Filed: 06/03/2011 Page 8 of 232

iii

RESPONDENTS: United States Environmental Protection Agency

(Respondent in all consolidated cases); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (Respondent in Nos. 10-1094 and 10-1143); and Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency (Respondent in Nos.

10-1160 and 10-1166)

PETITIONERS’ INTERVENORS: State of Georgia; Langdale

Farms, LLC; Langdale Fuel Company; Langdale Chevrolet-Pontiac, Inc; Langdale

Ford Company; Langboard, Inc.–MDF; Langboard, Inc–OSB

RESPONDENTS’ INTERVENORS: Global Automakers (f/k/a

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, see Doc. No. 1310060);

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Natural Resource Defense Council,

Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; States

of California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York,

Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington; Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection; City of New York

AMICUS CURIAE FOR PETITIONERS: American Chemistry

Council

AMICI CURIAE FOR RESPONDENTS: Institute for Policy

Integrity at New York University School of Law; Honeywell International, Inc