MSRP Vs. MPG: Consumer Groups Plead With Trump to Ignore Automakers, Keep Fuel Economy Standards
Every automotive manufacturer currently selling cars within the United States has incessantly requested that the government dial back federal fuel economy standards ever since Donald Trump took office. Now, two advocacy groups — Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America — have sent a letter to Trump making a case to maintain Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the good of average Americans.
Automakers have claimed that higher efficiency targets will increase vehicle cost, making this a battle between two camps, each focused on U.S. wallets: MSRP and MPG.
The letter, shared with us by Consumer Reports (which is published by Consumers Union), states that “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards” and that the current regulatory norms support job creation, innovation, and improve air quality while also lowering fuel costs for middle-class families.
While the White House has not officially stated that it wishes to re-open and review fuel economy and emission standards through 2025, there are reasons to believe that it might happen. Donald Trump’s second day in office saw requests to reconsider efficiency and emissions targets for 2022 through 2025. A month ago, eighteen executives from the world’s biggest automakers requested that the president revisit the Obama-era fuel efficiency rules.
Much to the chagrin of automakers, the Obama administration’s EPA hurried a final determination for the 2025 emission standards prior to their April 2018 deadline. Many carmakers expressed their disapproval and fears; Ford CEO Mark Fields even claimed the decision could cost over a million U.S. jobs.
President Trump has shown himself to be open to deregulation and even encouraged in a January meeting with automakers where he said, “We’re bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. big league.”
The letter from Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America thoroughly disagrees with the notion that deregulation is the way to encourage employment or boost the economy:
“Rolling back fuel economy standards would hurt hard-working, middle-class Americans and small businesses that rely on a car or truck for their livelihood. Even at today’s lower prices, gasoline is a major expense for a majority of American families. Fuel economy standards are a cost-effective way to save consumers money on fuel. In fact, Consumers Union’s research shows that consumers would enjoy net savings of $3,200 per car and $4,800 per truck, over the life of a vehicle that meet the 2025 standards, even at today’s low gas prices. If gas prices rise, which we expect they will, the savings would be significantly higher. And when consumers save money, they spend it on local goods and services, helping to further boost the economy and encourage more job growth.”
Interestingly, the majority of the automakers now contesting the standards had initially agreed to them during the recession.
A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.
More by Matt Posky
Comments
Join the conversation
Yes, 80% want higher standards...only 20% buy smaller cars (if that many). Everybody wants everybody ELSE to do the right thing. If conserving oil is such a benefit to society (and I think it is--less fuel burned means less air pollution, less C02, and the oil we have will last longer for future generations), instead of these idiotic standards, TAX GASOLINE and use the money to FIX the roads, and IMPROVE THEM, further reducing congestion and pollution. $5 gasoline will "help" people make the right choice. And the truth is, our roads ARE crumbling...so the tax revenue can be used constructively (pun intended) to rebuild them. Or should we raise income taxes to fix the roads? Or cut state aid to schools? Maybe cut defense spending (that would be good). Or how about cutting Social Security (it won't be there for me, so maybe we should...) Fat chance that our leaders will raise gas taxes, and end these silly rules. In the future, I think gasoline could spike up or rise anyway...
Another garbage fire of a comments section that I'm not sorry I wasn't here for.