The new EPA tailpipe emissions standards don't cut it
And—as a possible Trump presidency looms—California's stricter rules remain in limbo.
IN A NUTSHELL
The EPA has announced the “strongest-ever pollution standards for cars” starting from 2027. Leading environmentalists such as Bob Yuhnke (see his note below) are concerned they don’t go nearly far enough. Here’s why:
Emissions to rise initially: The new rules allow emissions to actually increase until 2028, with only a small reduction (4% less than the 2021 level) by 2030
Insufficient for climate goals: These standards won't meet the US commitments under the Paris Agreement
Millions of polluting vehicles: The rules allow automakers to sell millions of gasoline-powered cars through 2032, locking in emissions for decades
Health concerns: The weaker standards do not adequately reduce pollutants that harm air quality and public health
In California, however:
Stricter rules: California sets stricter air pollution standards than federal regulations. Other states can adopt California's rules instead of the federal ones
Waiver backlog: California needs EPA approval (waiver) for its rules, but many are stuck waiting. There are fears the EPA won't approve waivers before the election, potentially weakening California's authority under a new administration
A backup plan: Agreements with automakers ensure some emission reduction rules stay in place regardless of federal approval. However, these agreements only cover car emissions, not other sources of air pollution
THE DETAILS
This week, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new rule governing tailpipe emissions for cars from the 2027 model year onwards. Syris Valentine of Grist writes:
The rule, which follows three years of deliberation among regulators, automakers, and others, places increasingly stringent standards on the amount of CO2 and other pollutants cars can emit. The goal is to further electrify the country’s fleet through 2032, when President Biden hopes to see every other car sold be electric or a plug-in hybrid.
Read the rest of the report on Grist
In response to the announcement, the transportation specialist and climate policy analyst Bob Yuhnke shared the following perspective with climate activists (and which we republish with permission):
Climate friends, US CO2 emissions from on-road vehicles exceeded 1.4 billion tonnes in 2021. EPA’s standards will allow annual on-road emissions to grow to 1.5 billion tonnes through 2028 as total on-road vehicles increase from 275 million to 300 million by 2030. Overall, on-road vehicle emissions will not be reduced to achieve the reductions needed to meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement, or to attain air quality standards where 100 million Americans live.
EPA estimated in the proposed rule that CO2 emissions from cars and light trucks will begin to drop slowly from 2029 to 2032, reducing emissions from over 1 billion tonnes in 2021 by only 42 million tonnes in 2030, which is only a 4% decline below 2021 by 2030.
Overall on-road emissions for cars and trucks will remain near 1.4 billion tonnes throughout the years the rule remains in effect. This is far from the reduction needed from the transport sector to achieve the 50-52% reduction economy-wide committed by the U.S. under the Paris Agreement. EPA said it had no obligation to consider standards that would be adequate to achieve the reductions needed to meet US obligations under the Paris Agreement. Without greater reductions from transport, the U.S. will not fulfill its commitment under the UN Climate Convention. Without US leadership, our failure will give other nations cover for failing to meet their NDCs.
For all vehicles produced during the six model years covered by the cars and light truck rule (2027-2032), total emissions over the first 15 years that those vehicles will be on the road will exceed 125 billion tonnes, which is about the same as all the CO2 emitted by the entire WORLD during the years from 2024 to 2027. Once those tonnes enter the atmosphere, we cannot get them back. They will become a major contributor to driving a hotter climate.
The standards for light and heavy duty vehicles do not require manufacturers to make even one zero emission vehicle. The rule relies on fleet average emission standards to “induce” manufacturers to make some EVs. But the real driver for EV sales will be the 17 states that adopt the California standards requiring the sale of 100% zero emission cars by 2035, and zero emission trucks by 2036.
Nationwide 120 million new cars and light trucks will be sold during the decade ending in 2030. EPA’s fleet averaging standards will allow automakers to sell about 85 million new fossil fueled polluting vehicles. Most clean cars will be sold in States that adopt the California standards. Most of the polluting vehicles will be sold in the 33 states that have not adopted more protective state standards. The effect of EPA’s rule will be to shift emissions to hurt at-risk communities near ports and highways in States without state standards because they will be exposed to increased pollution from growth in fossil fueled vehicle traffic.
EPA air quality modeling performed for the 2022 truck rule demonstrate that the standards are not adequate to achieve the NOx and PM reductions needed to attain national air quality standards by 2045 in nonattainment areas where over 100 million Americans live. These standards are not adequate to protect the health of millions of our children, elders and others from asthma, COPD, cardiovascular disease and other diseases of air pollution.
Do NOT be fooled by the hype. The rule achieves minimal reductions in emissions by 2032, but this is not a win for climate or for healthy air quality.
EPA has given the auto industry permission to reap profits from selling 95 million new polluting vehicles that will impose death and destruction on nearly all of humanity for generations to come.
For those of you who worked with me in drafting the Transportation section of USCAN’s VECA, you will recall that to meet the climate crisis VECA called for 100% sales of light duty ZEVs by 2030. This rule does not represent any serious effort to transition the transportation sector to a zero emission economy. The numbers of polluting vehicles sold after 2030 that will remain on the road for more than 20 years ensure that transport will continue to add CO2 emissions after 2050.
We will be preparing a petition asking EPA to reconsider and tighten the rule based on the massive increase in atmospheric and oceans temperatures that have occurred since the comment period closed last summer. Your participation will be welcome.
Bob Yuhnke
Elders Climate Action
303-499-0425
About Bob Yuhnke: Bob created the Air Program at Environmental Defense Fund during the 1980s, played a major role in enacting parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990, represented state and local governments, EDF, NRDC and Sierra Club in litigation involving implementation of the CAA, and litigation related to the air pollution impacts of highways, metropolitan transportation plans, and energy projects. During the Obama Administration he directed the transportation program at the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project where he developed state, metropolitan and local strategies and drafted legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. Currently he is assisting US Climate Action Network develop policies to achieve IPCC CO2 reduction targets for the transport sector.
Meanwhile in California, time is running out
Thanks to a provision in the Clean Air Act, California is able to set its own emissions standards that are stricter than the federal ones. This is a big deal—not just because of California’s economic might and large population, but because other states, in turn, are allowed to follow California’s rules rather than the federal ones—and a significant number have done so.
California’s rules can only be enacted once they’ve been approved by the EPA and the federal agency grants a corresponding waiver.
A Politico story at the beginning of the year noted that not only had CARB postponed enforcing its nation-leading clean truck purchasing mandate (because the EPA hadn’t given the green light yet), but that:
A half-dozen other high-priority California climate and air rules are also waiting on their federal waivers, including rules governing emissions from lawn mowers, ferries, locomotives and refrigeration units on trucks and railcars. All of them have provisions that technically went into effect this week.
The growing backlog of waivers is raising fears among former regulators and environmentalists that the EPA won’t be able to approve them all before the presidential election, paving the way for a potential Trump administration to weaken California’s unique authority over air and climate pollution.
The story added:
A long queue of waivers at the EPA is nothing new for California. And it’s not clear that EPA is to blame for the entire backlog, although some of the waivers have been sitting at the agency for more than a year.
But now these waiverless regulations are butting up against enforcement deadlines, industry opposition and a presidential election with the looming specter of a hostile EPA.
This week, we asked the EPA about the status of eight outstanding waiver requests. The agency declined to comment on if/when these would be granted.
What happens if the EPA doesn’t approve California’s waivers before the election? And if Trump wins?
The Golden State has a plan for that. In “California Is Quietly Trump-Proofing Its EV Rules,” Heatmap News’s Matthew Zeitlin writes:
On Tuesday, the state announced an agreement with Stellantis, the automaking conglomerate that contains the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram brands to comply with more restrictive tailpipe emissions rules through 2026. California also said Stellantis would go along with its electrification mandates through 2030 — regardless of whether either is struck down by federal regulators or the courts.
The agreement is part of California’s effort to preserve its ability to set emissions standards and mandate electrification even with a hostile White House and judicial branch. By trying to get enough of the industry to agree to its rules voluntarily and not join any effort that may arise to throw them out, it hopes either to preserve its rule-making ability or, in the worst case scenario, leverage the industry’s desire for predictability to keep the rules themselves intact.
Read the rest of Matthew’s piece on California’s agreement with Stellantis
Agreements like this (and the one signed in 2019 with five other major manufacturers) are certainly better than nothing. But they’re for automobiles: they don’t cover all of the things that spew carbon—like harbor tugs, train locomotives or lawnmowers. So, rather than “Trump-proofing,” the Golden State’s nation-leading emissions rules, the agreements will more likely be a “partial mitigation of Trump” should the president return to the White House.