EPA Expected To Overturn Proposed Fuel Economy Standards

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to overturn proposed fuel economy standards as early as next week.

According to Reuters, the government agency will make the announcement at a Chevrolet dealership in Virginia on Tuesday. The announcement is expected to come directly from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the event will reportedly be attended by an assortment of groups supporting automakers and dealers.

The specifics of the announcement remain unclear but Pruitt is expected to overturn fuel economy standards that were put in place by the Obama administration. The original proposal sought to increase the average fuel economy rating of new vehicles to approximately 50 mpg by 2025 but it was left open for review in April of 2018 to determine whether or not those targets were feasible.

By determining the proposal is no longer appropriate, the Trump administration can now lower the fuel economy standards to something more realistic. Several sources told Reuters the agency hasn’t determined what the new fuel economy standards should be but a proposal could be presented later this year. A May or June date is most likely but the Department of Transportation is reportedly pushing for a proposal to be introduced even sooner.

A number of automakers have been pushing for the original proposal to be overturned as consumers have embraced crossovers and trucks which would make hitting an average fuel economy rating of 50 mpg difficult. Of course, several states don’t want any changes and they are reportedly gearing up to battle any proposal that would lower fuel economy limits from the original plan.

According to EPA’s latest Light-Duty Vehicle CO2 and Fuel Economy Trends report, the 2016 model year adjusted fuel economy rating for new vehicles hit a record high of 24.7 mpg. The average for cars was 28.5 mpg, while trucks averaged 21.2 mpg.

  • Honda NSX-R

    So they’ll overturn the fuel economy standards, but by how much?

    • SgtBeavis

      They are simply not going to implement the 2025 standards. The current standards will remain in effect. In the article, when they say they’ll lower the standards to something more appropriate, they are referring to future standards, not the current ones.

      Frankly, if you really want more fuel efficient cars on the roads, you need to raise gas taxes. We need to do that anyways to pay for infrastructure fixes and improvements but no one has the intestinal fortitude to get it done.

      • Honda NSX-R

        I think I’ve seen an article on here that said the Trump administration will raise gas taxes…

  • Ilbirs

    A pressure that must be put into EPA is not only to make a revision of the fuel economy standards but also the way a car is considered, as the so-called footprint (average track width multiplied by the wheelbase) generates some important distortions to the market, like compact trucks being bloated to a point where the old S10 and Ranger seem tiny next to the models that succeeded them. Other important distortion when talking about compact trucks that I suspect is derived from this measurement that favors bigger vehicles: the disappearance of the single cab and short wheelbase specs which dimensions are closer to the ones of a midsize sedan instead of what we see in this segment now, with models that in practice differ from a full size truck only in width.

  • Jerry Hightower

    The article alludes to the fact that people are buying gas guzzling SUV’s and trucks instead of economical cars. While the average of 24.7mpg in 2016 is good it’s not good enough to reach 50mpg by 2025.

  • SteersUright

    We should revoke these and implement even harsher ones. At what point does addressing pollution become the top priority? Most of our bodies of water and air in major cities are all polluted. The pollution affects everyone in ways still not totally understood from massive increase in autoimmune disease, cancers, etc. Profits need to stop being the overriding motive for every decision made in Washington.

    • danno

      No one is stopping you from buying electric vehicles, installing solar panels, knock yourself out going “green”
      By posting on this forum, you’re complicit in what you claim is evil – computers, smart phones, internet would not be possible without evil pollution.

      • dawyer

        You are Shift balance of responsibility between civilian and organization and Enterprise. If you say so, we don’t need World Health Organization and government exist to do their job. Are your sure all is your choice in your living even understand everything is possible to harm you or your kids, don’t say that is harm to other country’s people.

        • danno

          OK, so I had a hard time making sense of your post, but here goes for a reply. The US and Canada have good clean air, clean water and anti-pollution policies in place. They “just” need enforcing. The next 10% of clean will cost 1000% in terms of relative cost. What the clean fan boys that post here miss are the big bogies in the room. Russia, Mexico, China, Middle East and India contribute many times more pollution into the earth’s waters, earth and atmosphere than USA and Canada combined.
          You’re efforts on focussing on these blogs are a waste of time.

          • SteersUright

            Lol, What on earth are you talking about? The US is the largest polluter in the world just after China, and certainly even more per capita. This is a well established fact. You cant even eat most of what you catch in the water near any major city in the USA and now were finding most of our fresh water supplies are tainted. Our air quality isnt the greatest in many of our own big cities either, nor for anyone near agriculture or mining. To think that many multiples of billions of people will have no effect on pollution is absurd. To think that the USA doesn’t need to curb its own pollution as a responsible global citizen and for the sake of the health of its own people by embracing greener policies in Washington and Board rooms it to live with your tiny little head in the sand.

          • danno

            Sure would be nice if you would avoid ad hominin attacks, and have a civilized discussion.
            Define “US is the largest polluter in the world”. Use facts please.

    • smartacus

      Obozo is one of the worst enemies of the environment.
      He only paid lip service to wanting to see more efficient cars,
      by proposing fuel economy standards so unprogressive
      that the next administration overturns it. Which just happened.

  • danno

    Uhuh, so when are the laws of the land changing to accommodate your dreams, probably never.

    • SteersUright

      You’re right. We should all just accept the world as is and never “dream” nor try to make any changes for the better.
      Go back to your rocking chair please. The next generation has arrived.

      • danno

        Replying to a thread 20 days later, did it take your mom that long to approve your reply?
        Who needs the rocking chair…..

  • Ken Lyns

    So when do we see diesel Priuses in the US?

  • gary4205

    Carbon Dioxide is not a “pollutant” or a “greenhouse gas”!

    Co2 is the most essental building block for all life on Earth.

    Everyone pushing the global warming scam belongs in prison for crimes against humanity.

    As for gasoline, the United States has more oil than all of the oil that’s been consumed worldwide, since the beginning of time.

    And that’s just in shale oil!

    We have serious problems, including actual pollution. Stop this nonsense and work on actual problems.

    And jail the “climate change” scammers immediately, and forever.

    • SteersUright

      Oh Gary…you antique you… Please, for goodness sakes, just read one article in your lifetime that isnt propaganda, that is generated by any of the many respected Universities, by people who dont just blurt things out because they sound authoritative and “manly”… Nearly every scientific organization and major University on planet earth, you know, the same planet your greatness shares with us, all warn of detrimental human impact on climate and more. And yet, somehow, you’ve again bestowed your genius upon us that CO2 is “not a pollutant” because the Koch brothers and all these other rich old men with much $$ to gain and fewer years to worry have created these websites telling you so.

Someone Paid $65k For A BMW E30 325i, Albeit A Rather Nice One

This 325i has just 6,794 miles, but still, $65k is too much for a non-M3 Bimmer.

Taking A Seven-Year Car Loan Is A Really Dumb Decision, Yet Many Americans Do It

The lower monthly payments attract buyers, but they fail to realize the interest rates are much higher.

Lyft Adding 200 Electric Vehicles To Its Denver Fleet

This is Lyft’s largest single deployment of EVs to date, and also the largest in Colorado’s history.

If You Like Audi’s New-Gen A6, Then You’ll Love The 2020 S6

A big, sports-oriented, diesel-powered S6 Sedan sounds like an interesting package, doesn’t it?.

Hunkt Canticie Is Yet Another Chinese Range Rover Sport Knock-Off

The Hunkt Canticie is priced at roughly a tenth of what a Range Rover Sport sells for .

Get One Of The Very Last 2010 Porsche 911 Sport Classics For “Just” $600,000

This is number 237 of only 250 911 Sport Classics ever made and has less than 700 miles on the odo.

Driven: 2019 Hyundai i30 Fastback N Improves On A Winning Recipe

The i30 Fastback N is very similar to the hatch, but manages to haves its own distinct personality.

Nico Rosberg Pits McLaren Senna And 720S Against Each Other

Both the 720S and Senna are powered by twin-turbo 4.0-liter V8s, but each has its own, distinct character.

UAW Strike Forces GM To Scale Back Its Presence At 2020 CES

GM intended to show off a new EV in prototype guise, but will instead have a much smaller presence at the event.

Can The Audi RS5 Sportback Serve As Your Sole Daily Driver?

It sure ain’t cheap, but with 444 HP, sharp handling and decent room, the RS5 Sportback has a lot going for it.