Mobility

At their inception, emission and fuel standards were separate – implemented at different times and for different reasons.

• Emission Standards were adopted in 1970, when Congress passed the version of the Clean Air Act that gave the Environmental Protection Agency legal authority to target automobile pollution.
• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards were adopted five years later (1975) in response to the OPEC Nations' oil embargo on the United States. Vehicles started meeting the fuel standards in 1978 and 1979.

The Obama Administration weaponized emission and fuel standards through the One National Vehicle Program, which increased and combined the two types of standards together. It was a new program that scrapped the previous standards. Auto manufacturers would have to contend with stronger regulations but hopefully meet both of them through the same technological advancements - since a better fuel economy translates into a reduction of the carbon dioxide being emitted from a car’s tailpipe.

President Obama charged three legal authorities with making the rules for his One National Vehicle Program: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and California Air Resource Board (CARB). The new rules would be implemented in two phases:

• Phase 1 - Required a fuel standard of 35.5 mpg by 2016.
• Phase 2 - Required a fuel standard of 54.5 mpg standard by 2025.

Yes. Complying with regulations isn’t cheap. Auto manufacturers have to develop new technology, redesign vehicle models, and sometimes redesign manufacturing plants. The costs are high and are usually passed on to consumers by raising the prices of new vehicles.

From 1999 to 2008, new car prices had been steadily declining. In 2007 though, Congress approved higher fuel standards. Although former President Bush never signed them into law, Environmental Protection Agency data reveals automakers may have responded to Congress’ decision. Average fuel economy increased for cars manufactured from 2008 to 2010, indicating automakers were probably preparing to comply with stronger fuel standards that would soon be adopted. As portrayed by the graph, car prices began to rise in 2009, possibly in response to the automakers’ own decision to improve their vehicles’ fuel economies.

The election of President Obama in 2008 did not help. He mandated even stronger fuel and emission standards through his One National Vehicle Program. It’s estimated that his National Program increased the price of a new vehicle by a minimum of $3,800. More likely than not, it has costed consumers even more, since in a period of just seven years (2009-2015), car prices rose $6,200 above the previous trend.

Said another way, do the means justify the ends? It’s an important question to ask. Those who support fuel and emission standards certainly believe so, but there is evidence that indicates they may actually be detrimental. According to some, Obama’s One National Vehicle Program actually harmed the environment. An increase in new vehicle prices keeps people in their older, higher emitting ones (scrappage effect), and when cheap gas is coupled with fuel efficient cars, people tend to drive more, emitting even more pollution than usual (rebound effect).

BUT, let’s conduct a thought experiment. We’ll assume Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump and that she kept the One National Vehicle Programin place. The environmental effect/benefit would have been negligible. At most, global warming would have slowed by a thousandth of a degree Celsius.

In fact, the Bush Administration also discovered fuel standards have essentially no impact on the climate. According to former President Bush’s Department of Transportation, increasing the fuel standards for cars manufactured from 2011-2015 would have slowed global warming by seven-thousandth of a degree and reduced sea level rise six-hundredths of a centimeter by the end of the century.

Simply, fuel standards – especially former President Obama’s One National Vehicle Program – are expensive with little, if any benefit to the environment.

This another great question, and the answer is yes.

Increased Foreign Dependence

To become compliant with the One National Vehicle Program, automakers would have had to develop electric vehicle lines. Electric vehicles need batteries, and batteries need rare earth minerals – which because of environmental regulations cannot be mined in America. The result? Former President Obama’s National Programwould have made America dependent on foreign energy resources, a far cry from the original intent of CAFE standards.

Vehicle Safety

In order to make vehicles more fuel efficient, auto manufactures tend to decrease their size and lower their weight. Of course, this means that the automakers meet the higher fuel efficiency requirements, but it comes at an enormous expense, aka. a decrease in vehicle safety. Moms and Dads certainly understand the concept that bigger and heavier usually equates to safer. As the Institute for Energy Research wrote: “[W]eight reduction also can mean less safety. For instance, a Dodge Ram pick-up in a head-on collision with a Ford Focus would surely be the winner, i.e. the Dodge Ram owner would walk away with minor injuries while the Ford Focus driver may not survive the crash.”  

The One National Vehicle Program, and frankly fuel standards in general may have other more important consequences. Vehicle safety is on the forefront of most drivers’ minds, and the federal government has no business deciding that people shouldn’t be able to purchase, bigger, heavier, and ultimately safer cars.

President Trump wants to fix the problems caused by former President Obama’s One National Vehicle Program, and he plans to do it through his Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, which will increase fuel and emission standards from 2020 levels 1.5% a year beginning in 2021 and lasting till 2026. Keep in mind, the Obama Administrations regulations had set the standards to increase 5% a year.

Of course, this move has not gone over well with every state. For reasons dating back to the 1970s, when the Clean Air Act was adopted, California can apply to opt out of the federal vehicle emission standards, but only if it has adopted as strong as or stronger standards than the federal ones. It isn’t an automatic waiver, though. The federal government must approve California’s request for an exemption.

During the Obama Administration, California was granted its waiver and more. He gave them a seat at the table to help formulate the One National Vehicle Program, a policy that every other state would have to follow.

But much like President Trump’s decision to lessen Obama’s fuel standards, he made things fair again by saying no to California and revoking its CAA exemption waiver and preempting it from adopting stricter fuel standards. Although fuel and emission standards are closely related (i.e., tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions are reduced when fuel economy improves), California should not have been one of the three legal authorities charged with developing and implementing the One National Vehicle Program.

President Trump anticipates that SAFE will benefit Americans by reducing driving deaths, decreasing the cost of vehicle ownership, and as President Trump likes to say, create HUGE savings for the U.S. Economy!

Expected Benefits:

• Reduce the price of buying a new vehicle by at least $1,000
• Reduce the price of owning a vehicle by $1,400
• Reduction in regulatory costs by $100 Billion
• Reduce vehicular deaths by 3,300 and vehicular injuries by 397,000

Because President Donald Trump is going to save us money.

States have had the ability to choose to adopt California’s emission standards, giving up their freedom and ability to govern to the California Air Resource Board (CARB). When a state does become what is commonly referred to as a “CARB” state, meaning when it decides to subjugate itself to California, it has to abide by the standards put in place by the California Air Resource Board.

Well, thanks to an executive order by former Governor John Hickenlooper, Colorado is now a CARB state. Put simply, when California says jump, Colorado will ask: how high? This is of great concern to all Coloradans, for two reasons:

1. California’s emission standards will increase the cost of an average new car after by at least $2100. This price increase will of course reduce new vehicle purchases, harming consumers and threaten local businesses and jobs.
2. Most importantly, why should Coloradans be governed by Californians? LEVs might work fine for urbanized hipsters on the Pacific Coast. They don’t do quite as well for farmers, ranchers, miners, hikers, and people who just need to get around in the snow. In California, the ratio of cars to trucks/SUVs purchased is about 50/50; here in Colorado, 75% of vehicles sold are trucks and SUVs.

To make matters worse, on the heels of adopting California’s Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards, Colorado has adopted its Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate as well.

To comply, auto-dealers will have to lower electric vehicle prices and raise the prices of the cars Coloradoans actually want. If you are in the market for a new car, the cost of acquiring one will become much steeper when Colorado adopts the ZEV standards. Either you’ll have to purchase a discounted (but still pricey) electric car or shell out a needlessly large sum for a mountain-friendly ride. Keep in mind, electric vehicles can’t take you over rugged mountain roads or drive you safely through a snow storm.

Many would-be buyers will probably refrain from purchasing new cars altogether, leaving many more high-emission, environmentally destructive, and unsafe vehicles on the road.

But, with President Trump’s SAFE Vehicle Rule, all of this could be meaningless. In September 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to withdraw California's Clean Air Act waiver and the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Safety Administration preempted states from adopting stricter fuel economy standards. Said differently, California lost its ability to issue more stringent emission standards, and as a result, Colorado technically won’t be able to abide by CARB’s decisions.

The unfortunate part is that we cannot celebrate quite yet. Whether or not the federal government can both withdraw California's waiver and preempt states from adopting stricter standards are issues currently under dispute in federal court. So, until a legal decision is finalized, experts are anticipating Colorado will implement California's emission standards in 2022 and electric vehicle mandate in 2023. There is a chance a final ruling will be made prior to the start dates, but one won't likely be made until after the 2020 presidential elections.

While we wait to see how the chips fall, it is important to remember that President Trump wants to put consumers back behind the wheel and that Colorado stands to benefit immensely from this move!