Groups Express Concerns Over Proposed Fuel Economy Standards

Several groups representing renewable fuel producers, fuel marketers, and agricultural interests have expressed their concerns to the Department of Transportation (DOT) about its proposed fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light duty trucks. In a letter sent on Monday, these organizations argue that the DOT “improperly” incorporated electric vehicles (EVs) into its analysis.

The DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently issued its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for model years 2027 to 2032. The standards call for a 2% annual increase in fuel efficiency for passenger cars and a 4% annual increase for light trucks. Currently, CAFE standards require cars and light trucks to average 49 mpg by 2026.

In addition to these requirements, the DOT’s proposal aims for a 10% annual efficiency increase for commercial pickup trucks and work vans between model years 2030 and 2035.

However, the groups that signed the letter, which include the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers Association, and fuel marketing and retail organizations NATSO, SIGMA, and NACS, are not primarily concerned with the specific figures in the proposal. Instead, they take issue with the decision to include EVs in the multi-year analysis.

According to the groups, the DOT should consider the “consequences and legality” of this approach. They argue that including EVs in the analysis violates a provision in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that prohibits NHTSA from accounting for dedicated alternative fuel automobiles.

NHTSA Violates Congressional Intent in Proposed Fuel Economy Standards

Several groups have accused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of violating Congress’s directive regarding the inclusion of electric vehicles (EVs) in its analysis. In a letter, the groups argued that including zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) in the analysis goes against the specific treatment of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and other dedicated alternative fuel vehicles mandated by Congress.

Furthermore, the groups criticized NHTSA’s decision to “misinterpret” the statute, stating that it directly contradicts Congressional intent and should be regarded as a violation. They insisted that the underlying analysis used to establish fuel economy standards must be revised to exclude consideration of electric vehicles.

In addition to urging the agency to eliminate these considerations, the groups advocated for a technology-neutral approach to improving fuel economy. Treating all fuels and technologies equally would lead to positive and immediate outcomes while upholding the law’s intent.

The proposed rule was also criticized for its lack of affordability and cost-effectiveness. The agency’s own projection estimates net societal disbenefits of $4 to $5 billion and net personal disbenefits of $5.7 to $5.8 billion as a result of implementation. This, according to the groups, demonstrates that the proposed standards are economically impractical and would significantly restrict consumer access to affordable transportation solutions.

The deadline for comments on the agency’s proposal was October 16.