U.S. links mpg, highway deaths
Easing car-mileage rules will curb driving, risks, it argues
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration says people would drive more and be exposed to increased risk if their cars get better gas mileage, an argument intended to justify freezing Obama-era toughening of fuel standards.
Transportation experts dispute the arguments, contained in a draft of the administration’s proposals prepared this summer, excerpts of which were obtained by The Associated Press.
The excerpts also show that the administration plans to challenge California’s long-standing authority to enact its own, tougher pollution and fuel standards.
Revisions to the mileage requirements for 2021-26 are still being worked on, the administration says, and changes could be made before the proposal is released as soon as this week.
Under the Obama-era
rules, automakers would be required to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025, achieving an average of about 54 mpg, thus lowering oil consumption and greenhouse-gas pollution and representing the largest move by the United States to combat climate change.
The Trump administration’s “preferred option” for weakening the rule would allow mileage standards to rise as scheduled until 2020, at which point the standard would freeze at about 37 mpg.
The Trump administration gave notice earlier this year that it would roll back tough new fuel standards put into place in the waning days of the Obama administration. Anticipating the new regulation, California and 16 other states
sued the Trump administration in May.
Overall, “improvements over time have better longer-term effects simply by not alienating consumers, as compared to great leaps forward” in fuel efficiency and other technology, the administration argues. It contends that freezing the mileage requirements at 2020 levels would save up to 1,000 lives per year.
New vehicles would be cheaper — and heavier — if they don’t have to meet more stringent fuel requirements and more people would buy them, the draft says, and that would put more drivers in safer, newer vehicles that pollute less.
At the same time, the draft says that people will drive less if their vehicles get fewer miles per gallon, lowering the risk of crashes.
David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
said he’s doubtful about the administration’s estimate of lives saved because other factors could affect traffic deaths, such as automakers agreeing to make automatic emergency braking standard on all models before 2022.
Experts say the logic that heavier vehicles are safer doesn’t hold up because lighter, newer vehicles perform as well or better than older, heavier versions in crash tests, and because the weight difference between the Obama and Trump requirements would be minimal.
“Allow me to be skeptical,” said Giorgio Rizzoni, an engineering professor and director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University. “To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch.”
Experts say that a heavier, bigger vehicle would incur less damage in a crash with a smaller, lighter one and that fatality rates are higher for smaller vehicles. But they also say that lighter vehicles with metals such as aluminum, magnesium, titanium and lighter, highstrength steel alloys perform as well or better than their predecessors in crash tests.
Alan Taub, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan, said he would choose a 2017 Malibu over a heavier one from 20 years earlier. It’s engineered better, has more features to avoid crashes and additional air bags, among other things. “You want to be in the newer vehicle,” he said.
An April draft from the Trump administration said freezing the requirements at 2020 levels would save people $1,900 per new vehicle. But the later draft raises that to $2,100 and as high as $2,700 by 2025.
Environmental groups questioned the justification for freezing the standards. Luke Tonachel, director of the clean-vehicle program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the risk from people driving more because of higher mileage is “tiny and maybe even negligible.”
Under the Trump administration proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 mpg in real-world driving, and that wouldn’t change through 2026.
California has had the authority under the half-century-old Clean Air Act to set its own mileage under a special rule allowing the state to curb its smog problem. More than a dozen states follow California’s standards, amounting to about 40 percent of the country’s new-vehicle market.
Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed California’s right to request its waiver, and in 1977 said other states could adopt the state’s stringent car emissions standards. Along the way, emissions control strategies first adopted by California — catalytic converters, nitrous oxide regulations and “check engine” systems, to name a few — have become standard across the country.
Asked if he thinks a freeze in U.S. mileage standards is warranted, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler told a small group of reporters last week, “I think we need to go where the technology takes us” on fuel standards.
Information for this article was contributed by Tom Krisher and Ellen Knickmeyer of The Associated Press; by Dino Grandoni of the The Washington Post; and by Coral
Davenport of The New York Times.