Electric vehicles were prominently displayed at this year’s auto shows; for good reason. EVs are cheaper and cleaner to drive than their gasoline-powered counterparts and are beginning to appear as SUVs and pickups, which are the most popular vehicle types in the U.S. Want to find out how clean an EV is in your area? Check out this handy emissions calculator.

2019 Hyundai Kona EV

This crossover utility EV is already a fan favorite, having generated strong reviews from auto reporters and consumer advocates since it was introduced to the U.S. in January 2019. It not only has good looks, but also good performance. The Kona EV gets 258 miles on a full charge from its 64 kWh battery pack, which can be filled up to 80 percent in just 75 minutes from a 50kW level 3 charger, or to 100 percent when plugged into a level 2 (240V) charger overnight.  The Kia Niro EV, the Kona’s sister car, has similar specs.

The only bad news here is the Kona EV is exclusively available on the West Coast and in Northeast states (specifically, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Washington D.C.). Should sales of this newcomer prove strong, Hyundai may be pressed to expand its availability but until then, you need to travel to a state where it is sold to take possession of this new EV offering from Hyundai.

2019 Volkswagen e-Golf

Volkswagen is slowly making amends for their transgressions and are beginning to offer electric options across their vehicle classes. One of the reasons why I’m excited about the 2019 VW e-Golf is its price. This all electric hatchback starts at $32,790 and is still eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit – bringing the base MSRP down to $25,290. Considering that the average new vehicle cost $37,577 at the end of 2018, getting a nice VW for around $25k is a great deal. Though the e-Golf offers slightly less range than its competitors (estimated 125 miles on a full charge), it’s a good size – easily fitting 4 adults with bags in the trunk – and has plenty of electric range for most daily driving. Its price and features earned the e-Golf “best electric vehicle in the compact class” honors from Car & Driver, and an overall 10Best award for 2019. Similar to the Kona EV, the availabiilty of the e-Golf is limited to the “ZEV states” for now, but VW plans to bring more EVs to all 50 states as soon as 2022.

2019 Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid

Minivan alert! Do you need to shuttle gremlins to soccer practice or the mall but also want to cut your carbon footprint? Then this 2019 offering from Chrysler may be for you, as it is currently the only plug-in minivan for sale in the U.S. With the ability to travel 32 miles on a full charge, the Pacifica Hybrid can avoid filling up with gas for weeks or even months depending on your daily driving needs. It is also eligible for the $7,500 federal tax credit, which brings its price more in line with other traditional minivans.

When the battery is depleted, the Pacifica Hybrid operates like a traditional gasoline-electric hybrid, and achieves considerably better fuel economy than its gas-only minivan competitors. EPA rates the Pacifica Hybrid as capable of 32 miles per gallon combined in traditional hybrid mode, which is 10 mpg more than the Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, and standard Pacifica. With its 16.5-gallon fuel tank, the Pacifica Hybrid also offers an outstanding 520 miles of total driving range, plenty for weekend warrior’ing or long road tips.

2020 Toyota Corolla Traditional Hybrid

For the car shoppers who can’t use an EV because they don’t have a place to plug it in every night, this traditional gasoline-electric hybrid might be a better choice.  The 2020 Toyota Corolla Hybrid comes in at a MSRP of just $23,880 and offers an estimated 52 MPG combined with the reliability consumers have come to expect from Toyota. Though the Prius has been the king or queen of traditional hybrids, the 2020 Corolla is a great alternative with a a more innocuous styling package.

2020 Rivian R1T

Based in Plymouth Michigan, start-up automaker Rivian recently raised funds to launch production of an all-electric pickup truck (the R1T) and an all-electric SUV they unveiled at the LA Auto Show this past November. Pickups and SUVs are the most popular vehicle classes in the U.S., so if Rivian cracks the code at producing an affordable electric version of these vehicles, they may be onto something huge. The Rivian R1T pickup is expected to deliver up to 400-plus miles of range, have an 11,000-pound tow rating and a cargo capacity of 1,760 pounds, go 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, and have off-road capability. But these impressive specs will come at a price. The R1T is expected to start at about $69,000 before any tax credits, but if you need a pickup truck and are tired of burning too much oil as you carry your cargo around, check out the Rivian R1T.

To spare you the trouble of digging through all 667 pages of the full report, here are a few key findings that run the gamut from good to bad to downright ugly.

1. The good: Total US emissions decreased slightly in 2017

Good news everyone! US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions decreased 0.3 percent in 2017 compared to 2016. This decline was due largely to the continued shift from coal to natural gas, an increased use of renewable energy, and a year of milder weather that helped cut emissions from the electric power sector by 4 percent in 2017.

Emissions on a per capita and per GDP basis also fell, though population and GDP rose in 2017, offsetting some of these gains. Overall, emissions in 2017 were only 1.6 percent higher than 1990-level emissions, down from being 15.7 percent higher than 1990 in 2007.

Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017

2. The bad: Global warming emissions increased in every sector other than electric power generation

The power sector might be getting cleaner, but no other sector measured by EPA demonstrated any similar progress in decreasing emissions. Transportation, the largest single source of emissions in the US, saw emissions rise by 0.8 percent in 2017 while the industrial, residential, and commercial sectors all emitted at least 1 percent more (see Table ES-2 from the report below).

Moreover, the overall 0.3 percent decrease represented a slower rate of decline than had occurred in 2015 and 2016, when emissions dropped by 2 percent compared to each previous year. This slower rate of emissions decline means that it will be more difficult for the US to keep emissions down as population growth and an improving economy are forecast to skyrocket energy demands over the next several decades.

Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017

3, The ugly: A small year-over-year decline in emissions is nowhere near what is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change

A 0.3 percent decrease in emissions isn’t going to cut it if we’re going to avoid truly catastrophic impacts from climate change, including more deadly heat events, extreme storms and precipitation, property-consuming sea level rise, and reduced crop yields, among other things.

To reduce the worst of these impacts—and limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that global net CO2 emissions need to drop 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, and reach ‘net-zero’ global emissions by 2050—a far cry from the 0.3 percent reduction seen in the US in 2017. (Net-zero means that any global warming emissions are offset by sinks that take carbon out of the atmosphere, like tropical forests or oceans, or by geoengineering efforts that can cool Earth’s temperature but remain largely unproven and untested.)

As the IPCC puts it, all pathways to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure and industrial systems.” I wouldn’t call a 0.3 percent decrease in GHG emissions either rapid or far reaching and, given President Trump’s environmental and energy agenda of decreased regulation and more pollution, hope for sweeping action from the executive branch isn’t on the immediate horizon.

There’s still time, however. The pathways the IPCC has identified to meet the 1.5°C target don’t really start kicking into gear until 2022 with the major reductions that are needed to be seen by 2030 (see chart below). For the US, this means that we need to get down to 3,807.63 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2030—a reduction of more than 41 percent compared to 2010 levels. Continued small reductions like 2017’s 0.3-percent drop just won’t get us there.

Source: Global Warming of 1.5°C IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

The Trump administration is moving in the wrong direction on climate change

While the urgency of acting on climate change is more obvious than ever, the Trump administration is instead doing everything it can to delay action and slow progress on cutting emissions. President Trump and his appointees at the EPA, Department of the Interior, and other agencies are pushing for more and more investment in fossil fuel extraction while simultaneously rolling back many of the policies that have helped us bring down emissions.

The administration has announced its intention to leave the Paris climate deal, undermining global cooperation on this vital issue. It’s going after rules that limit power plant emissions and methane leaks, two major contributors to climate change. And it’s trying to freeze improvements in vehicle efficiency, one of the biggest and most significant climate policies on the books.

Things could always be worse of course, and any emissions decline is better than none, but the Trump administration is clearly not setting the country on a path to prevent the worst climate scenarios from becoming reality in the years and decades ahead.

Today, I’m reporting on the legislative tug-of-war over the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles. Fossil fuel interests on one end, literally everyone else on the other. This fight arose when the suits over at Exxon, Shell, and Koch Industries became worried about the potential of electric vehicles (EVs) to mess with their 90 percent share of transportation fuel in the U.S. And you know what? They should be worried. The EV market is small but growing fast, and there have been tons of production milestones and new model releases over the past quarter.

So, the suits gather around and hatch a plan. The first step is easy. Poke a bunch of holes in the earth until a black goo comes out, refine it, and sell a LOT of it – like millions and millions of barrels – every day. Second, pay geeks-for-hire to produce analysis that skews data to reach misleading results about any policy or technology that may affect sales. Then, aggressively fund advocacy groups with innocuous names like Americans for Prosperity and American Commitment to push the bogus analysis along with talking points on the importance of maintaining a free-market for transportation fuels. (This step both distances yourself from the court of public opinion and masks any mention of maintaining the oil-powered status quo). The final piece of the puzzle is to spend an egregious amount of money on a politician – preferably a Senator – in hopes they will turn your holiday policy wish list into, oh I don’t know, maybe a bill called the Fairness for Every Driver Act, which would eliminate the EV tax credit and slap EV owners with a user fee. Thanks Senator Barrasso (R-Wyo)!

Fortunately for everyone on the side of science, groups like UCS and our allies recognize the need for clean electricity to replace oil as the dominant transportation fuel. Armed with peer-reviewed studies, widespread public support, and a couple well-written blog posts, advocates are pushing to improve the tax credit so that it can advance the EV market even further.  There are a few ideas about how to best do this, including the Electric CARS Act, which would extend the tax credit for 10 years and has been introduced in the Senate by Sens. Merkley (D-OR), Heinrich (D-NM), and Cortez Masto (D-NV), and in the House by Reps. Welch (D-VT) and Rosen (D-NV).

Congress has a couple weeks before they adjourn and toss any un-passed bills in the trash just like my kid’s 5-week old finger paintings. Whether the EV tax credit will be improved, eliminated, or untouched is unclear. What is clear is that you can get involved in this policy debate by taking 2 minutes to place a phone call to your Senator and House Representative in support of the EV tax credit.

Call 833-216-1727 (or 833-513-5863 if you live in California or Nevada) to support the EV tax credit

Politicians take constituent calls seriously, and they can move the needle on how hard your elected officials will fight for clean air, combating climate change and supporting the American EV industry. You can remind whoever answers the phone about the science behind the benefits of electrifying transportation. For example; an EV produces the emissions equivalent of a gasoline car that gets 80 MPG; driving on electricity can save you almost $800 per year in fuel costs and more on scheduled maintenance; EVs offer a quieter, safe ride; EVs are great in the snow and inclement weather; and driving an EV means never stopping for gas at that one gross gas station!

Want to stay up-to-date on future EV policy debates? Text “EV” to 662266. You will be opted in for occasional general UCS updates in addition to our messages especially for EV enthusiasts.

Here is the phase out schedule for the federal electric vehicle tax credit for Tesla. Note that other EV models from other brands still qualify for the credit. Source: https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives

There are strong arguments for both why Tesla will fail and why they will succeed. And, if marriage has taught me anything, it’s that I’m usually wrong. So, I don’t want to predict what exactly will happen to Tesla. Instead, I can detail why Tesla may succeed or fail irrespective of the broader EV industry, which is set to overtake gasoline-powered vehicles over the next decade.

SCENARIO A: Tesla is doomed. Why the electric vehicle maker will fail.

The coming elimination of the federal tax credit may have prompted some to cancel their Model 3 orders. One report claims that 24 percent of the 450,000 Model 3 deposits have been refunded, though Tesla contends the report doesn’t match its own data. Even if the 24 percent estimate is far off, the elimination of the federal tax credit will impact consumer demand.

You can’t get a Model 3 for less than $49,000 today, so the major Model 3 competitors – the Nissan LEAF and GM Bolt – have now become better bargains as they have both significantly cheaper sticker prices (from $29,990 and $36,620, respectively) and will remain eligible for the full $7,500 federal tax credit beyond 2018. Prospective EV buyers who aren’t charmed by the Tesla allure and want to save a couple “stacks of high society” may forget about their Model 3 deposit and choose one of the dozens of other EVs for sale (though many could be considered inferior when it comes to range, brand prestige or technology add-ons like autopilot).

Tesla may not only face demand problems. Their vehicle production pace hasn’t been quick enough to yield a positive balance sheet on an annual basis and the company has run higher quarterly deficits in the ramp up to Model 3 production. Also, Tesla doles out hundreds of millions a year for solar energy systems, has a burn rate of around $480,000…per hour, and has a $82.5 million debt note coming due in August.

Tesla has consistently become cash flow negative before getting back to the black, so the current cash flow problems should not be a big concern. Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/elon-musk-says-dont-worry-about-teslas-burn-rate-he-might-be-right/

Putting supply and demand aside, Tesla’s outlook has also been impacted by CEO Elon Musk’s recent bout as a whiny billionaire. He got into a social media spat with one of the divers who rescued the kids trapped in the Thailand cave, argued about the value of his donations to conservative politicians and campaigns, and threw a public tantrum about negative media stories. This erratic behavior couldn’t have helped Tesla’s stock price, which dropped 5 percent after Tesla asked suppliers for cash back to help the car maker turn a profit, a milestone that was promised to investors in Tesla’s last shareholder meeting.

$TSLA took a bit of a hit in mid-July, due to concerns about cash flow. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=%24tsla&oq=%24tsla&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1488j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

SCENARIO B: Everybody relax! Here is why Tesla is guaranteed to succeed.

OK, ok. I know there was a lot of negativity in the preceding paragraphs. Take a breath, do this 3-minute meditation exercise then come back. You good? Good. Let’s continue.

Tesla is guaranteed to succeed because of one simple fact. Electric vehicles are a better product than gasoline-powered vehicles. They are cheaper to drive, cleaner to operate, cost less to maintain, drive smoother, can be fueled at home or topped off in a couple minutes on the road, direct fuel spending to regional utilities rather than multinational oil companies, and are simply a blast to drive.

All signs point to the coming electric revolution. The only question remains; how quickly will it happen? The answer depends on vehicle cost parity, which is improving as battery costs decline and EVs are made at larger scales from more manufacturers. The number of globally available EV models is set to jump from 155 at the end of 2017 to 289 by 2022 and the sticker price of EVs could become competitive with gas vehicles by 2024 – even cheaper than gas cars after that. Automakers are extending electric drivetrains to more vehicle segments like CUVs and minivans and, as a result, EV sales are rising in the U.S and around the world.

EVs will succeed and so too will Tesla. The Tesla brand has developed an allure strong enough to get them over any financial hurdle. Despite rarely becoming cash flow positive, the company has already raised $19 billion. That’s just how things roll out in Silicon Valley. And investor enthusiasm for the brand is well-founded. Tesla is the best in the game at marketing their brand of sustainability and cutting-edge technology to buyers of all ages and backgrounds. Both my 60-year old neighbor and 18-year old niece think Tesla’s are cool, for example. Musk is a revered figure (in some circles) and viewed as a prophet who will lead transportation away from fossil fuels and toward the promised land of using rooftop solar panels to capture energy, store it in home-based battery packs, and use it to light our homes and fuel our vehicles. That’s a powerful vision that seems within grasp, and Musk is bold (read: rich) enough to help us make it happen.

This marketing strategy has been backed up by Tesla’s ability to produce cars that turn heads and a profit. The Model 3 is the most profitable electric car in the automotive industry, with a margin as high as 30 percent, and has garnered glowing reviews from some of the toughest auto reviewers. The Model S was the top-rated car in its class by Consumer Reports and the Model Y SUV is set to disrupt one of the most popular vehicle segments in the U.S. Also, Tesla’s can come equipped with add-ons unique to the brand, like “ludicrous mode,” “autopilot” and a network of high-speed charging stations.

Overall, the performance of Tesla’s vehicles combined with the effective marketing of Elon Musk’s vision has given Tesla an “it” factor, and generated tremendous enthusiasm around the brand. This hype is more than enough to continue fueling demand to keep Tesla afloat even after they lose the federal tax credit.

As for cash flow and production? Being cash flow negative is a growing company’s M.O., and Tesla has demonstrated that they can get back in the black once they start churning out enough vehicles to meet demand. Today, Tesla is set to pump out 6,000 Model 3s a week – a record high – and plans to ramp up production even further. Demand isn’t set to wane, either. 450,000 people put down a deposit on a car that they hadn’t necessary seen, step foot in, or read anything about beyond the company propaganda – and demand has steadily risen for Tesla’s other models.

So don’t fret. This electric vehicle pioneer is set to settle in as a market leader in EVs.

How did we get here: A brief history of CAFE fines and penalties

Get your waders on and join me in the weeds of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, a regulation administrated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and not to be confused with, though inextricably linked to, the EPA rules that govern tailpipe emissions.

CAFE was created by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which required NHTSA to set a penalty for automakers who fail to meet any federal fuel economy target. When EPCA became law in 1975, the CAFE penalty was set at $5.00 per tenth of an mpg per vehicle sold. Though Congress passed a law in 1990 requiring federal agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation, NHTSA updated these fines just once, in 1997, up to just $5.50. This 50-cent increase was far short of what the fine should have been if it was truly adjusted inflation. According to the Department of Labor, $5.00 in January 1975 actually had the same buying power as $15.27 in January 1997.

In 2015 Congress updated its Inflation Adjustment Act to prevent agencies like NHTSA from setting artificially low penalties. In response, NHTSA (under President Obama) recalculated CAFE fines based on a formula laid out by Congress and set a new penalty of $14.00 per tenth of an mpg per vehicle. This recalculation was slated to go into effect for model year 2019 vehicles, and was finalized on December 28, 2016 – just 2 working days before President Trump and his cadre of regulation-slashing cabinet members and agency administrators took office.

Here is what President Trump is trying to do to reduce CAFE fines and penalties

In late January 2017, NHSTA published a series of rulemakings that delayed the effective date of the penalty increase – first for 60 days, then for 90 more days, then another 14 days, and finally, in July 2017, indefinitely while the agency reconsidered the penalty increase via a separate rulemaking. The decision to indefinitely delay the penalty increase was then challenged in the Second Circuit by a host of advocacy organizations and several states attorneys general. The two major trade groups representing automakers also joined the suit on the side of the government, who argued that federal agencies have an inherent authority to indefinitely delay a rule while it is being reconsidered. A panel of three judges (two of whom were appointed by a Republican president) disagreed.

This ruling may do nothing to incentivize automakers to improve fuel economy improvements

I know this is a good news post, but I do need to sprinkle in some bad news. The bad news is that NHTSA is moving forward with another rulemaking that will flatline the CAFE penalty at $5.50 per tenth of a mpg per vehicle – effectively rolling back the penalty increase that the Obama Admin worked to put in place. In that rulemaking, NHTSA argues that the CAFE penalty is not a “civil monetary penalty” as defined in the law requiring agencies to adjust penalties for inflation, and therefore does not need to be adjusted. I can’t wait for a court to get involved in these semantics if (when) this rule is challenged.

But this ruling could help other courts rule against the Trump Administration

On the one hand, the Second Circuit ruling on the indefinite delay rule may do nothing to incentivize automakers to meet fuel economy targets, since the penalty for missing mpg targets will likely be flatlined anyway. On the other hand, the finding that federal agencies cannot indefinitely delay a rule while it is pending reconsideration is a holding that could be applicable in other ongoing lawsuits and may become a major thorn in the side of President Trump’s rollback agenda – especially if other federal circuits agree with the Second Circuit here.

For example, UCS is a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging an attempt by the EPA to effectively indefinitely delay standards designed to prevent accidents at facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals. This case resides in the D.C. Court of Appeals, who may now look to the Second Circuit in determining whether EPA exceeded its statutory authority when indefinitely delaying a rule. You better believe our attorneys at Earthjustice sent the Second Circuit opinion on the CAFE penalties to the D.C. Court of Appeals, who is expected to issue a final ruling on the Trump Admin’s decision to delay the effectiveness of chemical safety standards in the next several months.

More broadly, the Trump Administration’s M.O is to first delay the effective date of Obama-era rules – sometimes for months, other times indefinitely – and then roll them back. If the courts agree that an indefinite delay of a rule is inappropriate, this Second Circuit decision becomes a strong piece of judicial opinion (aka jurisprudence) for future challenges to President Trump’s attempt to erode public health and economic protections across all federal agencies.

Researchers at the University of Maryland National Center for Smart Growth analyzed what the Washington, D.C / Baltimore region may look like from now until 2040. The “Engaging the Future” report contrasts four possible futures against a baseline scenario in which the region adds nearly 1 million additional commuters. Under the baseline “do-nothing” scenario, commute times could quadruple despite large increases in rail ridership.

Congestion in the region, already bad, is forecast to get significantly worse. In spite of large increases in rail ridership, vehicle miles traveled and hours traveled are set to increase, which will worsen traffic – especially on highways. Source: National Center for Smart Growth

So, what can be done? The researchers played with different inputs in their model, which can all be found on page 3. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll focus on three: (1) self-driving vehicles, (2) better public transit, and (3) fuel price. Assuming growth or decline in these three factors produced the following four future scenarios for the region.

Revenge of the Nerds: Cheap fuel and autonomous vehicles incentivize driving and sprawl

This is a future of rapid economic growth driven by low fuel prices, widespread adoption of self-driving vehicles, and a retreat from government regulation in the face of such economic success. When combined, these factors increase the capacity of existing expressways, reduce the cost of driving, and make travel time more productive as commuters can watch Netflix as their car drives them to work. If most people are in self-driving cars, congestion could be reduced as cars are able to travel closer together and cause fewer crashes, allowing existing highways to accommodate more vehicles. As a result, ridership on transit plummets, emissions from transportation rise, and more farmland and forests are converted into housing.

The widespread use of autonomous vehicles increases highway capacity by 50 percent, which dramatically reduces congestion. But as residents decentralize due to new housing patterns, vehicle miles and emissions increase. Source: National Center for Smart Growth

Free for All: Self-driving cars fail to take hold, low fuel prices exacerbate sprawl as more jobs and people move into the region

This scenario assumes little government regulation and a slow but steadily growing economy led by job and population growth throughout the region. Low fuel prices mean no major investments in mass transit, but public-private partnerships are forecast to invest in new tolled highways and the construction of an additional bridge to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. In this scenario, employment and housing disperses from urban areas, and households fill the formerly protected agricultural preserves of the inner suburbs, especially in Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Baltimore Counties. Though sprawl worsens, and mass transit ridership declines, congestion and transit time improve as jobs move to the suburbs, closer to commuters.

This scenario assumes a relaxation in development restrictions, which allows new residential developments to locate in the formerly rural areas of Montgomery, Baltimore, Prince George’s and Howard Counties. Source: National Center for Smart Growth

Blue Planet: High fuel prices and strong government regulation stimulate investments in mass transit and renewable energy

This scenario assumes low levels of self-driving cars, but strong economic growth as advancements in clean technology overpower the economic drag of rising fossil fuel prices. High-tech clusters expand throughout the region, and investments in transit and renewable energy greatly decrease emissions, improve travel times, and lower regional congestion. Local governments accommodate growth by increasing residential capacity in inner suburbs, especially around the expanding transit network. The changes in travel behavior are forecast to be dramatic in this scenario. Though vehicle miles traveled increases, congestion is reduced as more public transit accommodates new straphangers. As a result, transportation-related emissions are greatly reduced as vehicles become electrified and personal transit shifts to public transit.

In this scenario, transit ridership increases 21 percent over the baseline; about half due to the expanded network and half due to high fuel prices. Unlike the baseline, many more transit trips originate in the cores and inner suburbs, with a substantial increase in reverse commutes to transit-accessible inner suburb locations. Source: National Center for Smart Growth

Last Call at the Oasis: As gas prices quadruple and economic growth slows, governments respond with more investment in core transit and electric vehicle infrastructure

The last scenario envisions a future defined by scarcity. Declining world oil reserves quadruples gas prices and accelerates the transition to electric vehicles, but not self-driving cars. The changing structure of the economy directs growth to the city cores of the region, and both households and jobs concentrate near transit stations in urban centers or inner suburbs. A quadrupling of gas prices would cause dramatic changes in travel behavior. Transit ridership would increase significantly, and electric vehicle sales would rise, helping slash emissions from transportation. In addition, considerably less forest and farm land would be developed in this scenario, since the jobs and housing would be concentrated more toward transit hubs in city centers or inner suburbs.

When vehicle operating costs quadruple, travel behavior, and ultimately land use, change in expected ways. Households cluster in the inner suburbs, close to employment and services, and near existing and new rail transit stations. Source: National Center for Smart Growth

Travel behavior is profoundly affected by a fourfold increase in fuel costs, the lack of autonomous vehicles, and the concentration of households in suburban corridors. As a result, congestion could fall dramatically in this scenario, along with auto-related pollution.Source: National Center for Smart Growth

How policy can help shape the Washington, DC / Baltimore region

This modeling effort demonstrates that the Washington, DC / Baltimore region could grow in vastly different ways. If we are to maximize the potential of self-driving cars and electric vehicles to reduce congestion and transportation-related emissions, smart policy will be needed to help drive the adoption of these technologies even if gas prices remain low.

Policies that offset the cost of electric vehicles incentivize the installation of public charging infrastructure, and push the generation of renewable energy are a good start – and already on the books across the country. Additional regulations to ensure autonomous vehicles are powered by renewable electricity and, to the greatest extent possible, operate as shared rides, will also likely be important as self-driving technology encourages people to take a car over public transit.

Policy will also be needed to keep housing and jobs from expanding too far into agricultural preserves and forests beyond the inner ring of suburbs. Placing affordable housing near transit hubs will likely remain key to keep people using public transit, even if congestion is somewhat lessened from a widespread adoption of self-driving cars.

Lastly, it’s important to recognize that neither self-driving cars nor electric vehicles are a panacea to transportation-related emissions and congestion. Even if we have cleaner vehicles, if there are more people in the region buying more vehicles and driving them more, then a decrease in emissions from fuel efficient or electric vehicles could be at least partially offset by the sheer volume of new drivers in the region. That’s why housing and regional planning policy must be taken into account when looking at the holistic future of this region – and hopefully this report informs regional planners and other policymakers as they look to expand the productivity and environmental stewardship of the region.

Regardless of what the Trump Administration boasts, a dive into the data shows just how ineffective the President has been at both enacting and removing regulations. The Executive Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews every rule that a federal agency wants to enact and has been counting how many rules have come through its doors. I took a look at the OMB database to find out how many rules – including repeals of existing rules and new rules – the Trump Administration has sent to OMB during its first 18 months compared to how many rules the Obama Administration sent to OMB during its first 18 months.

The results are striking.

The Trump Administration has sent about half the number of economically significant* rules and about a third of all rules sent to OMB for review compared to the Obama Administration over the same timeframe.

_{*As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.}

This evidence further supports claims that the White House and our federal agencies have been hollowed out by the Trump Administration, which has ostracized longstanding public servants, failed to fill key roles, and created a working environment no one wants to join. In 2017 alone, nearly 400 workers left the EPA, and the agency’s staffing has reached its lowest point in almost 30 years. If every EPA employee eligible to retire by 2021 does so, the EPA would have about less than 8,000 employees by the end of President Trump’s term – a cut of nearly half.

Overall, this weakening of the federal government’s ability to enact and update rules is having a negative effect on public health and our environment. EPA has fewer staff to push back against an attempt by EPA Administrator Pruitt to delay rules designed to prevent chemical disasters. The Department of Interior is accepting early retirements and has less staff to manage our public lands and push back against industry petitions for oil and gas drilling permits. And, the White House itself seems unable to present a coordinated approach to policy, both foreign and domestic.

But fear not! The good news is that UCS is helping mobilize people across the country to #StandUpForScience, and is helping organize events to promote the use of science in sound rulemaking. UCS is also working to stop the rollback of rules designed to protect public health and fighting the Trump Administration’s efforts to stymie the effectiveness of the federal government. You can join these efforts too! All it takes is signing up for some emails and devoting some time to help make a difference. See you there!

A brief history of the fuel efficiency standards

This suit opens a new chapter in an epic saga that is longer than any George R.R. Martin or Robert Jordan series. Was this saga TL;DF (too long, didn’t follow)? Here is a brief primer.

In 2009 automakers agreed to a federal standard that requires them to gradually raise the average mpg of their vehicles through 2025. But, two days after President Trump took office, automakers and their trade groups asked the White House to weaken the standard. The Trump Administration agreed, and subsequently relied on bogus, industry-funded science to determine that the standards need to be changed.

How, exactly, the standards will be changed is TBD, but even before we allow EPA to get to that stage, UCS and our allies are asking a panel of federal judges to review the EPA decision to reexamine the standard. If the court finds that EPA’s decision to overlook the reams of science-based evidence that supported the original standard was improper, then EPA will have to go back to the drawing board and the current standard will remain intact.

Is this all the automakers fault?

In a word, yes. But blame must also be placed on the Trump Administration, which has turned this program into such a boondoggle that automakers have begun to change their tune and claim that EPA isn’t doing what they asked for. Don’t feel too bad for the automakers, though. They led a bull into a china shop and are now upset that the bull is destroying too much china.

What happens if EPA wins

This isn’t the final chance to stop the fuel efficiency standards from being destroyed. Even if EPA wins this case and the similar suit filed by 17 states and the District of Columbia, EPA still needs to submit an additional rulemaking for public comment that details exactly what the standards will be out to 2025. EPA will receive tens – if not hundreds – of thousands of comments in support of maintaining a strong standard, though it is unlikely they will listen to any of them. So, a weak rule will probably get finalized, which will prompt an opportunity for another lawsuit. That lawsuit will be the final crack at striking down what EPA is trying to do but, given how fast the federal government operates, won’t be initiated for quite some time.

In the interim, it’s important to keep pressure on EPA by having the judiciary rule on whether what they did was within the bounds of their authority. EPA ultimately chose to modify a standard that is based on the best available science, years of stakeholder input, and broad public support – and the small army of attorney’s representing the coalition of NGOs and states will make sure the court hears that argument loud and clear. It will also be important to submit comments to future EPA rulemakings on this issue – even if they don’t persuade the agency. An overwhelming number of comments in support of a strong rule clearly demonstrates how Americans view fuel efficiency standards, and can help a court find that EPA did not act in the public interest in weakening the standards.

This shameless attempt to use shoddy research that was funded by the oil industry and used by automaker trade groups to overturn a regulation that is based on sound science and widespread public support is a perfect example of how Pruitt intends to rollback regulations at the behest of his industry-tied former donors.

Pruitt’s plan is a simple (though perhaps illegal) five-step recipe. Here’s exactly how he has been cooking up a regulatory repeal (or re-peel) soup of equal parts corruption, paranoia, and apathy.

Step 1: Separate independent science from the record, then discard

Make it exceedingly difficult for academic scientists to join the advisory committees that help your agency set pollution thresholds, compliance deadlines, and cost estimates.  These committees are supposed to represent the viewpoints of both independent scientific experts and industry stakeholders, but you can argue that the composition of these committees is solely at your discretion. So go ahead and kick those academic nerds off the advisory committees and replace them with industry-funded friends.

Step 2: Liberally add industry-funded junk science to your liking

Promote the “studies” of your new industry-funded advisory committee friends. Bonus points if they use junk science to show that health benefits from reducing smog “may not occur,” rising carbon dioxide levels are beneficial to humanity, or that people don’t want more fuel efficient cars and trucks. At the same time, give your employees new talking points on climate change to ensure any public facing communications either cast doubt on the science your agency has previously relied on or doesn’t mention it at all. Ruthlessly reassign or fire any employee who fails to comply.

Step 3: Bake junk science into the record

This step is important. Copy the text from industry-funded studies into your official justification to reevaluate, suspend, or rollback rules that science has already shown to be effective. The fastest and easiest way to do this is to just copy the text verbatim. Don’t worry that the administrative record supporting the original enactment of these regulations is chockfull of academic, peer-reviewed studies and thousands of public comments that demonstrate why these regulations are reasonable, achievable, and necessary. Also ignore trepidation from agency career staff who think you are opening the agency to legal challenges or failing to use sound science to justify your agenda.

Step 4: Set legality setting to uncertain, and wait until lawsuits have settled

Use the vast legal resources at your disposal to make any legal challenges to your efforts take as long as possible, which, in the federal court system, can be a very long time indeed. While the courts struggle with whether you have overstepped your authority, your rollback will remain in place – effectively stymying the impact of the regulation on industry for potentially years.

Step 5: Clean your workspace to eliminate traces of corruption and outrageously bad ethics

Make sure you have the support of your boss as you engage in some light to medium graft and corruption. You will probably need a soundproof “privacy booth” that costs taxpayers close to $43,000, a security detail that costs $3 million and protects against non-existent death threats, and a cheap condo rented from the wife of corporate lobbyist for the fossil fuel and auto industries. Keep public leaks of your missteps to a minimum and refrain from using social media to say anything of value.

Overall, this recipe is a disaster for both independent science, and public health. Help UCS push back against Pruitt’s effort to cook this regulatory rollback soup by checking out our new nationwide mobilization effort called Science Rising. This effort isn’t a one-day march—it is a series of local activities, events, and actions organized by many different groups. Our shared goal is to ensure that science is front-and-center in the decision-making processes that affect us all—and to fight back against efforts that sideline science from its crucial role in our democracy.

Will you join us to keep #ScienceRising?

Stories broke this week that Pruitt allegedly: (1) rented a condo linked to lobbyists who represented an oil pipeline project the EPA approved last year and who donated to Pruitt’s campaign to become Oklahoma Attorney General, (2) looked into renting a private jet that would cost U.S. taxpayers $100,000…a month, (3) gave two of his staffers raises under a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), but not to actually work on water safety, and (4) lied to Congress about his use of private email to conduct government business.

This misuse of taxpayer dollars and pay-to-play corruption is infuriating – though unsurprising given what else is going on in this Administration – and indicates the type of person we have in charge of the federal agency charged with protecting our air, water, and health.

Pruitt doesn’t give two quarks about the U.S. taxpayer. Instead, these potential ethics violations highlight Pruitt’s penchant for using the office of the EPA Administrator to further industry interests, give handouts to his inner circle, and hide the evidence all along the way.

Although these corruption allegations are making headlines today, equal or greater attention must be paid to Pruitt’s somewhat quieter crusade to rollback regulations designed to protect our health and environment. These regulatory “reforms” haven’t garnered as much press coverage as Pruitt’s lavish spending, lobbyist connections, or shady dealings, but they are based on the same type of corrupt moral code Pruitt brings to the EPA and will cost more than just taxpayer dollars.

So, here are 5 regulatory rollback efforts currently underway at EPA that will impact our health and safety, and must be making headlines too

(1) Rollback of the “Glider Truck Rule”

Glider trucks are brand new truck bodies that manufactures cram an old polluting truck engine into so that the truck looks new from the outside but has an ancient polluting relic of an engine on the inside. The particulate matter emissions from these vehicles are estimated to cause 1,600 premature deaths each year. Pruitt’s EPA reopened a loophole that was closed under the Obama Administration so that these trucks can now be made primarily by a single company that has funded bogus science and anti-EPA politicians.

(2) Delay of Chemical Safety Standards

EPA had previously designed a suite of updated rules to protect fence-line communities and first responders from chemical accidents that happen like clockwork across the country. Over 2,000 incidents were reported between 2004 and 2013, and lives were lost. Over 17,000 people were injured and 59 people were killed during this period, and over 400,000 people experienced evacuations or shelter-in place orders because of a chemical-related accident. Upon entering office, Administrator Pruitt put this rule on hold almost 2 years later than the rule was supposed to go into effect. In just the last year, 33 more accidents occurred at facilities covered by these rules, and the consequences of these accidents may have been lessened or avoided if EPA didn’t initiate this delay.

(3) Rollback of the light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency standards

The light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency standards are a joint effort by EPA and DOT to improve the average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles. These standards have been shown to not only reduce oil use and pollution, but also create jobs, give consumers more fuel-efficient vehicles across all vehicle classes, and have been widely supported. But, the EPA now doesn’t care about any of that as they have signaled that they are going to reconsider or rollback the fuel efficiency rules covering vehicle model years through 2025. This decision overturns thousands of pages of hard evidence, good science, and sound data, and undercuts one of the most important climate policies that is still on the books.

(4) Repeal of the Clean Power Plan

Last fall, the EPA issued a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, a policy designed to reduce emissions from electric power generation approximately 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. By the EPA’s own estimates, the Clean Power Plan would prevent 90,000 pediatric asthma attacks and save 4,500 lives each year. The agency is still taking comment on that proposal, which, in addition to making a mockery of the value of human health and the environment, attempts to reinterpret the Clean Air Act as well as how the power system works in order to avoid the need for meaningful regulatory action. UCS, along with 250,000 others, submitted comments to EPA in support of maintaining this policy, though EPA is forecast to rule in favor of industry, rather than individuals.

(5) Failure to require mining companies to clean up their waste

Pruitt’s EPA decided not to finalize a proposal that would have required mining companies to prove they have the financial means to clean up pollution at mining sites, despite an industry legacy of abandoned mines that have fouled waterways across the country. The estimated 500,000 abandoned mine lands in the U.S. can pollute waterways for more than 100 years and pose significant risks to surface and ground water. Pruitt claimed that safe-checking mining companies with a long history of pollution was unnecessary and enforcing a regulation that makes mining companies clean up their mess would impose an undue burden.

Guess who now has to foot these bills? The U.S. taxpayer. EPA spent $1.1 billion on mining cleanups between 2010 and 2014 and EPA’s own documents report at least 52 mines and their processing sites have had spills and pollution releases since 1980. Hard-rock mining companies would have faced a combined $7.1 billion financial obligation under the dropped rule, costing them up to $171 million annually to set aside sufficient funds to pay for future cleanups, according to an EPA analysis. These costs will likely now be borne by the taxpayer instead of the responsible parties.

[UPDATE 3/1/2018, 11:36 am: Did you buy an electric vehicle (EV) in 2017 and install a home charger? If so, you can now claim a tax credit of up to $1,000, or claim up to $30,000 if you installed EV equipment for a business – but just for 2017! This credit is not currently available for 2018 or beyond. Here’s the IRS form.]

This past Valentine’s Day, we asked electric vehicle (EV) drivers to tell us what they love most about driving an EV. The responses were overwhelmingly positive. That shouldn’t be too surprising considering that there are a multitude of reasons why EVs are simply a better product than gas vehicles, including the fact that they are cheaper and cleaner to operate. If you want to get in on this #EVLove, just send your story via Twitter or Facebook with the #EVLove hashtag. Here are some of my favorites responses so far.

Leopold loves the quick, quiet ride to the dog park (but don’t say those two words unless you mean it). #EVLove He doesn’t really get to sit there when we drive, I promise. pic.twitter.com/kp5LS5FiQV

— Hannah Goldsmith (@HannahG0ld) February 17, 2018

“We the stability and road adhesion imparted by the low center of gravity. We the cargo capacity uncluttered by fuel lines or tanks, drive trains or transmissions. We the ease of maintenance.  No more oil changes or drips. We charging at home and not going to gas stations!”  ~Chris

We love our Chevy Volt and belong to the #EVLove cult. With greatly reduced GHG, access to the HOV, and torque that envies: Become an #ElectricCar groupie! pic.twitter.com/dhXZErEaZ0

— Amplify Eco (@AmplifyEco) February 14, 2018

“The lack of maintenance required on these vehicles is one of their best features, because of the braking provided by regeneration I don’t expect to  have to replace brake pads ever again, “One pedal” driving on the Bolt is a wonderful thing to experience, we are so pleased to have these vehicles available that’s car love.” ~Roger

Happy #EVLove Day! We love our Nissan Leaf and am so happy to pass by gas stations on our way around town. The acceleration is awesome! pic.twitter.com/BMwlPkNUBM

— Amy Tidd (@AmyTidd) February 14, 2018

100% torque from zero. Haven’t been to a gas station since Sept 2013. 71,500 miles so far, charged with solar when I’m home. Footage from my first taste of #EVLove at the @Tesla Factory (almost 5 years ago) with Tesla CEO Elon Musk riding shotgun: https://t.co/91S2TRfG5y

— Leilani Münter (@LeilaniMunter) February 15, 2018

View more love stories on our Twitter #EVLove moment > 

https://youtu.be/zB4T4VLPUaw

Set to images of ice sculpture athletes who are melting – crying even – because of climate change, the elegant voiceover states; “winter has given us beauty, hope, and heroes. Winter has given us joy and miracles. Winter has given us the magic of the Winter Games. It’s time we all did more to protect it. So, at Toyota, we are renewing our commitment to hybrid, electric, and hydrogen vehicles. To help keep our winters winter.”

Give me a break. What Toyota really should have these ice sculptures cry over is how much money Toyota gives to trade groups who are working to rollback or dismantle climate change policy.

Toyota makes some clean cars, but could do better

Let’s examine how, exactly, Toyota is renewing their commitment to “keep our winters winter.”

On the one hand, Toyota has been a leader in developing gas-electric hybrid technology, and the Prius has become one of the most – if not the most – high profile and best-selling fuel efficient vehicles. Toyota now also offers a plug-in version of the Prius, which boosts its environmental performance since vehicles with a plug tend to produce fewer emissions than vehicles without one. And Toyota has extended their hybrid technology to vehicles like the Camry, RAV4, and Highlander, which has helped people who need a bigger vehicle save money on fuel and cut their emissions.

On the other hand, the hybrid versions of the Highlander and RAV4 are not big sellers, and Toyota has largely failed to develop cleaner engines for their highest selling pickup trucks and SUVs. The Toyota Tundra and 4Runner, for example, are using the same engines they used nearly a decade ago, and each of those vehicles singlehandedly outsells the entire Prius family.

Toyota must stop combating climate change policy through their trade groups

If we are to “keep our winters winter,” ads featuring melting ice sculptures of Olympic athletes set to the gorgeously haunting music of Hildur Guðnadóttir probably won’t cut it.

Instead, federal and state policy must drive automakers to both improve fuel efficiency and produce more plug-in options – especially for SUVs and pickup trucks. And when it comes to these types of policies, Toyota – through their industry trade groups – has opposed efforts to improve fuel economy or promote electric vehicles at nearly every turn.

For example, the federal fuel efficiency standards were set to nearly double the efficiency of the average vehicle by 2025 and, as a result, achieve the largest reduction in global warming emissions from a single policy in the U.S. But, not less than a month after President Trump took office, the automaker trade groups who represent Toyota among others asked EPA Administrator Pruitt and President Trump to put the fuel efficiency standards on hold. Toyota’s trade groups have since continued to try and weaken the standards and have strongly supported a Senate bill that would do the same.

Today, Toyota and their trade groups are close to achieving their goal of rolling back the federal fuel efficiency standards that are designed to protect public health, save consumers money, and “keep our winters winter.” A leaked DOT analysis indicates the agency is considering several scenarios to weaken the standards, including one that essentially flatlines any required gains in fuel efficiency after 2020. If this comes to pass, the average vehicle MPG sticker will be less than 30, instead of 36, in 2025. This forecasted MPG gap would be bad for winters and consumers. The MPG difference would mean more than $4,000 in additional fuel costs over the lifetime of the average new vehicle.

So, what should Toyota do? As one of the world’s biggest automakers, they should use their market dominance to push their trade groups to better represent Toyota’s claimed interest in combating climate change and stop trying to dismantle federal fuel efficiency standards.

Toyota could also stop claiming that they are a socially responsible company working to reduce climate change emissions when they continue to be represented by trade groups who vigorously oppose some of the most important climate policies. Until Toyota becomes a vocal supporter of policy designed to tackle transportation-related emissions, they will continue to melt the ice.

Help UCS tell Toyota to make their actions speak as loud as their ad campaigns and put their engineers to work, not their lobbyists. Share this graphic and send it to Toyota via social media.

Why we need updated chemical safety regulations

As my colleagues Yogin and Kathy have detailed, chemical-related accidents happen like clockwork. Over 2,000 incidents were reported between 2004 and 2013, and lives were lost. Over 17,000 people were injured and 59 people were killed during this period, and over 400,000 people experienced evacuations or shelter-in place orders because of a chemical-related accident at a facility covered by the rules delayed by EPA.

For years, community groups, environmental organizations, and labor groups lobbied for stronger chemical disaster prevention rules. In 2013, President Obama finally issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to enhance chemical facility safety. EPA then undertook a multi-year effort of stakeholder engagement and requests for information in the run-up to a proposed rule. After receiving comments from the regulated industry, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders, a rule was finalized in January . The updated rule, which modernized the EPA’s Risk Management Program, was scheduled to go into effect March 14, 2017, though some of the provisions were scheduled to phase in over time, some as far out as 2022, which gave the covered facilities some flexibility in figuring out how to comply with the updated requirements. Upon entering office, Administrator Pruitt put this rule on hold until February 2019, almost 2 years later than the rule was supposed to go into effect. This decision prompted the legal challenge from UCS and others.

Smoke and flames rise from the flooded Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, after two trailers of highly unstable compounds blew up. First responders filed a lawsuit saying they weren’t properly warned of risks while responding to an Arkema facility explosion after Hurricane Harvey. Image via: Associated Press / WSJ.

What’s next for the EPA risk management program

There are heavy hitters on both sides of this case. The plaintiffs are a coalition of scientists, fenceline communities, public health advocates, the United Steelworkers (North America’s largest industrial labor union) the EPA, and the DOJ. The case will likely hinge on a judicial interpretation of whether EPA has the authority to delay rules as long as they wish, or whether the agency must adhere to the Clean Air Act’s directive that any reconsideration of a rule “shall not postpone the effectiveness” of the rule for longer than three months (emphasis added).

Interested in more of the legal theory? Read the excellent brief filed by our council Earthjustice here, or let me know if you would like a more in-depth debrief. Stay tuned for the result. The safety of many communities across the country will hinge on it.

Looking for the most fuel-efficient SUV or pickup truck? Read on as I’ll detail the most fuel efficient vehicles in each of these classes below.

1. Toyota Prius Prime (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) – 133 MPGe running on electricity + 54 MPG running on gas

Image via Toyota

This isn’t necessarily the most exciting vehicle on the planet, but the 2018 Toyota Prius Prime offers serious fuel economy and a modest electric range at a reasonable price (from $27,100 before any federal or state credits or rebates). The 2018 Prime is equipped with both a fuel-sipping 1.8 liter four-cylinder engine and an electric motor that runs off an 8.8 kWh battery pack that can be recharged in just 5 hours from any regular outlet, or around 2 hours from a 220V outlet (the type of outlet used by home appliances like a washer/dryer. For more info on different types of EV charging, head here). But even when out of juice, the Prime will still achieve a city/highway combined 54 mpg when running off gasoline alone. Overall, EPA gave the 2017 Prime an estimated fuel economy rating of 133 MPGe making it one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles that still uses gasoline today.

2. Nissan Leaf (Battery Electric Vehicle) – 112 MPGe

Image via Nissan

If you’re ready to ditch gasoline for good, you may want to check out the 2018 Nissan Leaf. The all-new Leaf not only got a style upgrade, but it also got a 40-kWh battery that provides an EPA-estimated 151 miles of all-electric range and a fuel economy rating of 112 MPGe. This is a big improvement from the original Leaf’s 84-mile range, and enough of a range boost that will make the Leaf work for even more people’s driving needs. Charging at home or on-the-go should be easy for Leaf owners as well. The Leaf can be fully charged in as little as 40 minutes with DC fast fast charging, or charged in around 8 hours via level 2 (220V) charging. Starting at $29,900, the Tennessee-built Leaf is cheaper than many of its all-electric competitors, though has slightly less range than the Chevy Bolt (238 miles) or Tesla Model 3 (220 miles).

3. Honda Clarity PHEV (Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle) – 110 MPGe running on electricity + 42 MPG running on gas

Image via Honda

Like the Prius Prime, the 2018 Honda Clarity Plug-In Hybrid (PHEV) includes both a gasoline engine and an electric motor powered by a 17 kWh battery pack, which is good for an EPA-estimated 48 miles of all-electric range. When the electric range is exhausted, the Clarity PHEV relies on an efficient 1.5 liter 4-cylinder engine that produces a 42 mpg, which is very good for a big sedan. The Clarity PHEV base price is $33,400, but don’t forget about the $7,500 federal tax credit, which can knock the sticker price down to $25,900. Overall, the Clarity PHEV offers the best pure electric range of any plug-in hybrid sedan and should be able to compete with other PHEVs like the Toyota Prius Prime, Hyundai Ioniq PHEV, and Chevy Volt.

4. Chevy Bolt (Battery Electric Vehicle) – 119 MPGe

Image via Chevy

The Bolt was MotorTrend’s Car of the Year in 2017, will go 0-60 in just 6.5 seconds, and has an estimated all-electric range of 238 miles. The 2018 Bolt EV remains largely the same, and starts at $37,495. Of course, this price can be lowered by qualifying for the $7,500 federal tax credit and any other state EV credits or rebates. Interested in what EV incentives apply in your neck of the woods? Head over here for a handy guide. The Bolt’s battery pack can gain 90 miles of charge in just 30 minutes from DC fast charging and a full charge from empty will take about 9 hours via level 2, 220V charging. The Bolt charge time shouldn’t be a deal breaker considering the vast majority of EV charging is done at home – and mostly overnight. It’s also important to note that EV drivers typically don’t need a full charge every time they plug-in. If you drive 50 miles in a day, for example, then you only need to replace that 50 miles of lost range, which can happen in a matter of minutes from a DC fast charger or hours from a level 2 charger.

5. Tesla Model 3 (Battery Electric Vehicle) – 130 MPGe

Image via Tesla

There’s not too much to say about the Model 3 that hasn’t already been said. The Model 3 remains one of the most exciting clean vehicles on the market. Just how clean depends on where you plug-in, but UCS analysis has found that for over 70 percent of Americans, driving the average EV results in fewer emissions than a 50 MPG gasoline vehicle. The Model 3 comes with either 50 kWh or 75 kWh battery pack that gives the sedan a range of 220 miles or 310 miles, respectively, and can be fully charged in around 12 hours from level 2 (220V) charging or up to a 50 percent charge in 20 minutes via Tesla’s network of supercharger charging stations. Of course, Tesla has had some trouble meeting the 400,000 Model 3 pre-orders, but they are still taking reservations if you want to get in line and wait an estimated 12-18 months for one of the most hyped electric vehicles of all-time.

6. Hyundai Ioniq PHEV – 119 MPGe running on electricity + 52 MPG running on gas

Image via Hyundai

The Ioniq is Hyundai’s first foray into the electric vehicle market and offers a great alternative to the Toyota Prius Prime at a comparable price – the 2018 Ioniq PHEV starts at $25,835 and the Prime starts at $27,100. The Ioniq also marks the first-time American car buyers will be able to choose between a conventional hybrid, a plug-in electric hybrid, or a battery electric version of the same model. Giving consumers a family of clean options in the same vehicle is a clever move by Hyundai, and one that other automakers may seek to duplicate in their efforts to make electric drive more mainstream.

The 2018 plug-in hybrid version of the Ioniq includes an 8.9 kwh rechargeable battery pack that provides more than 25 miles of all-electric range and can be fully charged in two hours and 18 minutes from a Level 2 charger. Given its inoffensive styling and techno-inclusions like Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and wireless smartphone charging, the Ioniq may challenge the Prius for hybrid sedan market share—a welcome sight for clean car enthusiasts everywhere. Also, the gas-only version of the Ioniq gets a best-in-class 58 combined MPG!

7. Ford F-150 Diesel – 30 MPG (estimated)

Image via Ford

Truck sales continue to outpace passenger vehicle sales. Ford, for example, sold more than 820,000 F-series trucks in 2016, which is more than double the sales of the Toyota Camry, the top-selling passenger car. So it’s critical that manufacturers improve the fuel economy of pick-ups to meet both the consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles and the demands of the federal fuel economy standards. So, it’s exciting to see the first F-150 with a diesel engine and 10-speed transmission heading to showrooms this spring, because it is expected to be the first full-size pickup to crack the 30 MPG barrier. This MPG doesn’t come at the expense of towing power either. The 2018 F-150 is expected to deliver a maximum tow rating of 11,400 pounds, which beats its closest rival, the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel, by over a ton and puts it in the upper echelon of all light duty pickups. In addition to the diesel, Ford recently announced plans for an F-150 hybrid, set to hit the market in 2020.

8. Lexus RX 450h – 30 MPG

Image via Lexus

Just because you may need an SUV doesn’t mean that you necessarily need to sacrifice fuel economy. The 2018 Lexus RX 450h gets a respectable 30 combined MPG and offers a 3 row configuration that can fit 7 or 8 passengers and a decent amount of cargo space. The standard all-wheel drive on this hybrid model is powered by a 308 horsepower V6 motor, and comes with the luxury amenities Lexus is known for. While not exactly a bargain, this model can transport a whole lot of people and stuff while achieving the same fuel economy as the similar sized Land Rover Discovery (22 MPG) or BMW x5 (16 MPG).  If this model is out of your price range, you may want to check out the Toyota Highlander I highlighted in this post.

Banning EPA grant recipients from EPA advisory boards excludes academic scientists from serving on EPA advisory boards in particular, since academics often rely on outside funding – from EPA or elsewhere – to conduct research, fund graduate students, and work in the public interest. For example, EPA grants have funded research linked with projects that: protect children who are at-risk for lead poisoning in Indiana, restore coastal forests in Connecticut, and maintain clean drinking water in Mississippi. It’s hard to argue why conducting research in support of these types of projects would make someone provide biased advice to EPA, yet that’s the reasoning that Pruitt uses to justify this directive. The reality is that industry-funded science tends to be biased, not science from independent academic institutions.

The scientists that Pruitt has removed from EPA advisory boards also happen to be some of our country’s best. Those already dismissed include a Fulbright Scholar and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, for example. Pruitt has replaced these leaders with scientists who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, and chemical industries and have a history of downplaying the health risks of secondary smoke, air pollution, and other public health hazards.

The real reasoning behind this directive is to make it easier for Pruitt to delay, rollback, or dismantle the EPA regulations that are designed to protect clean air, water, and public health. As we begin 2018, EPA is reconsidering rules that would address: the high asthma and cancer rates caused by heavy-duty trucks on busy roadways, the huge amount of global warming emissions from passenger vehicles, and the outdated emergency response requirements for facilities that store explosive or hazardous chemicals. These types of regulations rely on advise from EPA advisory boards, which are now more likely to support Pruitt in loosening rules that cover the industries tied to the new EPA advisory board members.

Our suit challenging the advisory board directive adds to the legal pressure Pruitt faces from similar suits filed by Earthjustice and NRDC, and alleges that the directive is arbitrary and capricious (legalese for b.s.), and has no basis in law or EPA precedent. Our complaint also details how this directive violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all advisory committees to be “fairly balanced,” and not be “inappropriately influenced” by the appointing authority.

I’ll keep you posted on how this suit develops. In the interim, if you have received EPA funding or have served on an EPA advisory committee, send me your story at (jgoldman@ucsusa.org). You can also check out a blog post on this topic from Protect Democracy, and read our complaint here.

Even if you aren’t an EPA-connected expert, check out how you can get more involved in the fight against Pruitt’s anti-science crusade by visiting the UCS action center. This Administration needs to hear from everyone, not just scientists, and UCS provides a platform for you to join the hundreds of thousands of UCS supporters across the country in standing up for independent scientists and an EPA that seeks to protect public health, not industry profits.

[Update 1/29/2018 2:34pm: We updated the text to reflect that other organizations have also filed similar suits, and added additional resources.]

What is the federal tax credit for electric vehicles?

Section 30d of the tax code gives electric vehicle buyers up to $7,500 off their tax bill – or allows leasing companies to receive the credit and lease EVs for lower rates.

The credit is scheduled to phase out for each automaker that surpasses 200,000 EV sales. Some of the early entrants to the EV scene, like Tesla, General Motors and Nissan, are forecast to hit the 200,000 limit in 2018, while others, like BMW, Volkswagen, and Ford, are relying on the federal tax credit to offset the price of EVs that are set to hit dealerships in the next couple years.

What has America gotten for investing in EVs?

The EV tax credit has stimulated a market for vehicles that are cheaper to drive, pollute half as much, and offer a simply better driving experience compared to gas-powered vehicles. If you think that automakers would have produced EVs without the prompting of state and federal policy, may I remind you that automakers fought tooth and nail against seatbelts and air bags, improving fuel efficiency, and pretty much every other vehicle-related regulation that has ultimately benefitted public health and safety. Consumers deserve the opportunity to choose clean vehicles, and the federal tax credit has made that choice easier to make by offsetting the upfront cost of EVs that is often higher than comparable gas vehicles.

The tax credit has also spurred domestic automakers to get in on the EV game. American companies like General Motors and Tesla sell EVs in all 50 states, and are competing with foreign auto giants to become the global leader in EV sales. At a time when EV demand is poised to skyrocket in other countries, eliminating the federal credit will hamper domestic automaker efforts to both sell EVs on their own turf and maintain their global competitiveness.

Federal support for EVs won’t be needed forever

As I’ve previously discussed, the federal tax credit is the most important federal policy supporting the EV market, but won’t be needed forever. Battery costs are forecast to continue their decline, with some projections showing EVs becoming price competitive with gasoline-fueled vehicles in the mid-2020’s. By making EVs cost competitive today, the federal tax credit has helped EVs gain a fingerhold in a market monopolized by gasoline-powered vehicles that have had over a century to mature. Removing the credit now is premature, and will cause EV sales to suffer at a time when the market is just beginning to gain traction.

What will happen to the EV market without the credit?

Even if the federal tax credit is eliminated, the California Zero Emission Vehicle Program will still require automakers to sell EVs in California and the 9 other states that adopted the ZEV program. This program will require EV sales in states that comprised about a quarter of the U.S. vehicle market, so EVs will certainly remain available for sale. Other state support for EVs, like a $5,000 tax rebate in Colorado, will survive too. For state-level EV incentives in your area, check out this handy guide. EVs will also remain cheaper to drive, and a smart choice for millions of Americans who have a strong demand for the technology. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that one of the primary hurdles to more EV adoption is their price (along with access to charging in multi-unit dwellings and the lack of a cheap EV SUV (see Tesla Model Y). So taking away a policy that directly addresses this barrier will make it harder to own an EV, and it will hurt sales. Georgia removed a state tax credit for electric vehicles, and sales dropped an estimated 90% in the following months. I’m not expecting as dramatic as a drop if the federal credit is removed, but EV sales will drop because they will become more expensive and automakers will have less incentive to making them available in the U.S.

So, join UCS in telling Congress that you deserve more clean vehicle options, and that the EV tax credit is a key federal policy that makes it easier to own an EV. Also keep an eye on the UCS website for additional ways you can get involved, and if you are considering an EV, getting one now might be a good option if you are looking to save at least $7,500 of its sticker price.

As someone concerned about the direction of the progressive transportation policy passed under the Obama Administration, Furchtgott-Roth couldn’t be a more troubling pick. Her background and regressive views on public policy make it clear that she has been chosen for this role not because she is a transportation policy expert, but because she is a hard-line conservative economist who can develop, find, and promote research that makes the case for eliminating DOT programs and policy.

Furchtgott-Roth’s views are antithetical to the mission of the DOT Office of Research and Technology

The stated mission of the OST-R is to “transform transportation and make our transportation system safer, more efficient, competitive and sustainable.” To meet this goal, the OST-R five year strategic plan focuses on promoting safety, improving mobility, improving infrastructure, and preserving the environment, which includes addressing the effects of transportation activities on climate change.

Furchtgott-Roth is not known for having expertise on any of these issues. Instead, she is best known for her views on the minimum wage (against), the gender pay gap (a myth), and unions (strong pass). She has also argued that female secret service agents can’t protect the President as well as male agents, climate change is a natural phenomenon, and fuel economy standards kill people. How wonderful! Overall, her career-long campaign against feminism, labor rights and public health make her a concerning candidate in charge of public policy at any level, but especially at the main research arm of the DOT charged with examining transportation-related impacts on the environment, public health, and personal mobility.

Furchtgott-Roth has little experience that is relevant to the DOT Office of Research and Technology

The relevant experience Furchtgott-Roth brings to the table for this role is limited to writing a few articles and blog posts for right-wing think tanks criticizing Obama’s transportation policies. She is an economist by training, a former staffer in the U.S. Department of Labor (and incidentally also formerly managed by current DOT Secretary Elaine Chao, when Chao was the DOL Secretary–#draintheswamp, indeed!), and current senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank whose mission is to foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility (read: get rid of government policy and environmental safeguards). She has no direct experience in transportation-related roles, nor any experience in transportation issues outside of her general anti-regulation commentary.

She herself has a tough time commenting on any relevant experience. Here is what she wrote in response to a Senate questionnaire that asks, “what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment…”

“Nothing is more important to the economic health of America than getting the private sector involved in rebuilding the Nation’s infrastructure. As an economist with over 30 years of experience, I have studied the provision of infrastructure and transportation extensively. I have written articles on transportation issues and on regulation. In addition, I have managed staffs at the Council of Economic Advisers, at the Department of Labor, and at the Manhattan Institute. I have reviewed hundreds of papers and articles to determine their quality and suitability for publication.”

How in the world is any of that either specific enough to be relevant, or related to the mission of the OST-R?

If Furchtgott-Roth was nominated for a role in the DOL, or as an economic advisor, perhaps that would make sense. But for someone with an extensive background in labor and economic issues, not transportation issues, running the DOT OST-R is a bad fit.

Furchtgott-Roth doesn’t use data to tell the full story

Like many political commentators, Furchtgott-Roth doesn’t use data to tell the whole story. Instead, she cherry picks data from studies that best support her argument, without referencing data that supports any counter argument or data that provides a more comprehensive view of any issue. This approach may be appropriate as a bombastic conservative commentator, but not for the person in charge of providing policymakers with impartial, robust data on transportation issues.

For example, Furchtgott-Roth has argued that federal fuel efficiency standards are a bad idea because they literally kill people by requiring automakers to make cars lighter, and therefore less safe. In her book, Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Are Damaging America’s Economy, she writes “for the government, saving fuel is more important than saving lives. It prefers to pay in blood to save oil.”

Now, if you look at the 1,200-page technical report prepared by the EPA and DOT in advance of finalizing the 2017-2025 federal fuel efficiency standards, you’ll find that even though light-weighting can contribute to a car’s safety level (which is also related to a litany of other factors, weight only being one of them), the standards can be achieved and still save lives overall. This is because the standards encourage automakers to reduce the weight more from SUVs than smaller cars. Furchtgott-Roth conveniently left this fact out of her arguments against fuel efficiency standards. Oh, and you know what also kills people? CLIMATE CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION, which the fuel efficiency standards and other EPA/DOT  vehicle policies directly address.

Evidence of Furchtgott-Roth cherry picking data also lies in her claims that climate change either isn’t happening, or is not caused by human activity. In 2015, she claimed “the Earth has been warming and cooling for millennia, certainly before the industrial revolution. It has been steadily warming since the Little Ice Age of the 1700s. Over the past 15 years, despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the warming by some measures has stopped.” Not only has average global temperature continued to increase since 2015, but the short plateau referred to by Furchtgott-Roth has been debunked as a myth.

Overall, Furchtgott-Roth’s misguided use of data isn’t appropriate to lead a public office in charge of reporting accurate data, and should be addressed by Congress when questioning her qualifications for the role.

Specifically, the use of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other metals that are part of an EV lithium-ion battery pack has raised red flags about the poor human rights and worker protection records in the countries where these materials are mined.

A lot of these warnings have been incorrectly categorized under “EVs and rare earth metals.” Though neither lithium nor cobalt are rare earth metals, and rare earth metals aren’t nearly as rare as precious metals like gold, platinum, and palladium, there are important issues surrounding the production of lithium-ion batteries that must be acknowledged and addressed.

It is also important to note that these impacts are not happening just because of EVs. They are also being driven by the global demand for cell phones, laptop computers, and the multitude of other electronic devices that use lithium-ion batteries.

As EVs gain market share, they will be more responsible for the impacts from battery production. But today, EVs comprise a small fraction of global vehicle sales. So, concerns about lithium-ion batteries should be directed not just to the suppliers of EV battery packs, but also toward Apple, Samsung, and the other companies that source lithium-ion batteries for their electronic goods.

Let’s also not forget that the supply chain for gasoline-powered vehicles has its fair share of issues, ranging from human rights violations like the use of child labor, to disastrous oil spills like Deepwater Horizon. But unlike gasoline-powered vehicles, EVs will be able to take advantage of emerging battery chemistries that don’t rely on cobalt or other materials that are linked to exploitative practices.

Cobalt and electric vehicle batteries

Cobalt, a bluish-gray metal found in the Earth’s crust, is one of today’s preferred components used to make the lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, cell phones, and EVs.  Cobalt is mined all over the world, but 50 to 60 percent of the global supply comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has a poor human rights track record. According to UNICEF and Amnesty International, around 40,000 children are involved in cobalt mining in DRC where they make only $1 – $2 USD per day. DRC’s cobalt trade has been the target of criticism for nearly a decade, and the U.S. Labor Department lists Congolese cobalt as a product it has reason to think is produced by child labor. More troubling, cobalt demand has tripled in the past five years and is projected to at least double again by 2020.

What can be done about EV batteries sourcing issues

First, companies should be held accountable for enacting and enforcing policies to only use ethically-sourced materials. Some companies are off to a good start. Apple has pledged to end its reliance on mining altogether, and one day make its products from only renewable resources or recycled materials. Other tech giants like HP, Samsung, and Sony joined an effort called the “Responsible Cobalt Initiative.” Members of the initiative pledged to follow global guidelines for mining supply chains, which call for companies to trace how cobalt is being extracted, transported, manufactured and sold.

On the EV side of things, Tesla has committed to sourcing materials only from North America for its new battery production facility, the Gigafactory.  In 2015, Tesla secured two contracts with mining companies to explore lithium deposits in northern Nevada and Mexico, though Tesla still relies on cobalt that may have been sourced from the DRC.

Both Ford and GM get their EV batteries from LG Chem, who has said they have stopped using DRC-sourced cobalt and stated that neither Ford nor GM batteries rely on DRC-sourced cobalt, but some of the LG practices and statements have been called into question by the WaPo.

Second, recycling can help reduce the need to search for new source of battery materials, or rely on sourcing materials from countries with poor worker protections. Cobalt, for example, (as opposed to gasoline) is fully recyclable and roughly 15 percent of U.S. cobalt consumption is from recycled scrap today.

Companies like Umicore are in the cobalt recycling business and have demonstrated that there is a business model for recycling cobalt that can help reduce demand for DRC-mined cobalt.

Third, battery technology is continuing to improve. The multitude of battery applications has generated a strong financial incentive for researchers to find the next greatest battery chemistry, and some of the most promising next-gen battery types don’t rely on cobalt at all.

Lithium-titanate and lithium-iron-phosphate, for example, are gaining importance in EV powertrain applications and don’t need cobalt. Other battery chemistries that rely on magnesium, sodium, or lithium-sulfur are also gaining traction as they have the potential to beat lithium-ion batteries on energy density and cost. Battery research has seen a big shift in recent years. Nearly half of the presentations at the Battery Symposium in Japan were once about fuel cells and lithium-ion battery materials. But since 2012, these topics have been supplanted by presentations about solid-state, lithium-air and non-lithium batteries.

Overall, the human rights issues related to the lithium-ion battery supply chain cannot be ignored. At the same time, they shouldn’t be used by the oil industry and their allies as a rallying cry to dismantle EV policy support, or as reason to stop the growth of the EV industry. Again, it’s not just EVs that are at issue here. All manufacturers of electronic devices need to find better sources for their batteries and it is their responsibility to source materials from places that have worker protections. It’s also the responsibility of our government to ensure that Americans can buy products that are ethically and sustainably sourced.

The good news

The bill that passed the House and the bill being considered in the Senate include some positive provisions. For example, each establish an expert committee that will be tasked with identifying how self-driving vehicles could affect: mobility for the disabled and elderly, labor and employment issues, cybersecurity, the protection of consumer privacy, vehicle safety, and emissions and the environment. Establishing a structure for a Department of Transportation-led committee to examine these issues is important for informing future self-driving vehicle policy that can help this technology create positive outcomes and avoid its potential consequences.

Both bills also draw a brighter line between federal and state authority related to vehicle safety. The way this division works for regular cars today is that the federal government regulates the vehicle and states regulate the drivers. But this distinction doesn’t quite work with self-driving vehicles, because who is the driver? The person sitting in the driver’s seat, eating pita chips and watching Netflix while the car drivers itself? Or is it the vehicle itself?

To better clarify the distinction between federal and state authority, both the House and Senate bills give control over the design, construction, and performance of self-driving vehicles and self-driving technology to the federal government. States retain their right to enact laws related to how these vehicles are registered, who can use them, and how they interact with state or local roads and infrastructure. However, states would be preempted from enacting any law that can be read to be an “unreasonable” restriction on the design, construction, or performance of a self-driving vehicle.

Self driving vehicles are set to hit the road sooner than you may think. Companies like Google, Uber, Ford, and Tesla are all rushing to get the best self-driving vehicle on the market. Image via; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Driving_Google_Self-Driving_Car.jpg

The last bit of good news is that the bills require automakers to submit detailed cyber-security and safety evaluation reports to the Department of Transportation. The bills also note the need to inform consumers of the capabilities and limitations of self-driving vehicle systems, so that users better know when the system can be engaged or needs to be turned off.  In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board recently found that Tesla’s autopilot lacks the appropriate safeguard to prevent drivers from using it improperly.

The bad news

It wouldn’t be federal legislation if there wasn’t something bad tucked in, and both the House and Senate self-driving vehicle bills have some potentially dangerous provisions.

Both bills allow self-driving vehicles to be granted exemptions from federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Any vehicle, whether self-driving or not, can be granted an exemption from FMVSS, and the law currently allows up to 2,500 exemptions per manufacturer per year.

Self-driving cars will surely need FMVSS exemptions. They might not have a steering wheel, for example, so they couldn’t possibly comply with the FMVSS for steering wheels and, as a result, couldn’t be tested or sold in the U.S. The whole FMVSS playbook will likely need to be updated by the Department of Transportation to respond to self-driving vehicle technology. But before then, self-driving vehicle makers will look for exemptions to sell their product.

The problem is the number of exemptions that the House and Senate bills are offering self-driving vehicle manufacturers. Both bills would grant a single manufacturer up to 100,000 exemptions from FMVSS after a couple years. (The Senate bill starts with 50,000 in year 1, for example.) This means that an automaker could make a self-driving vehicle and exempt it from any safety regulation that would “prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.” Given that self-driving vehicles will likely have similar, if not better, safety ratings than regular vehicles, I could see this language as having very broad appeal for getting the Department of Transportation to approve exemption requests.

Exempting self-driving cars from FMVSS for testing purposes makes sense, but the quantity of exemptions allowed in the House and Senate bills is excessive. Once self-driving cars are on the road, there’s no putting the self-driving genie back in the bottle. Transportation analysts, academics, the government, and the public need to better understand the safety, congestion, labor, and other impacts that self-driving vehicles will create before automakers get a free pass to each put 100,000 self-driving vehicles on the road.

Limiting the number of FMVSS exemptions closer to the current cap of 2,500 per manufacturer would put the introduction of self-driving vehicles at a pace to better understand how they function in actual driving conditions, not on the test track (or test city). In addition, several groups and two former heads of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have expressed skepticism that the agency even has the resources to process additional FMVSS exemptions or conduct adequate oversight in this area.

The ugly news

In 2016, the Obama-led Department of Transportation put together a thoughtful, lengthy memo that detailed where the Department was headed on self-driving vehicle regulation. Earlier this week, the Department tossed that out the window and replaced it with a streamlined set of voluntary guidelines that self-driving companies should seek to follow.

Like the Obama-era guidance, nothing in the new federal guidance is mandatory. But unlike the previous guidance, the new guidance isn’t very specific. Consumer advocates like Consumer Watchdog and Consumers Union lambasted this approach as being a handout for industry, and they have a point. The guidance “encourages” the industry to do a lot of things, like collect data on when self-driving vehicles malfunction or crash, or submit a “voluntary” safety self-assessment that isn’t subject to any sort of federal approval.

Overall, the tone and vagueness of the document, combined with the choice to just throw out, and not build upon, the previous self-driving vehicle guidance puts this move by the Department of Transportation squarely in the ugly category.

Here are the top 3 reasons why you should care about the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022–2025 Light-Duty Vehicles” (aka federal vehicle efficiency standards) and what you can do about it

Vehicle efficiency standards save money for all Americans, but especially low- to middle-income earners

Researchers at the University of Tennessee analyzed 34 years of consumer spending data and found that not only did households from all income levels save money because of improved vehicle efficiency, but low- to middle-income households saved a greater percentage of household income compared to higher earners. Better fuel efficiency saved an average middle-income family as much as $17,000 over the study period – even after households paid more for new and used cars equipped with fuel-saving technology. Vehicle efficiency standards, the researchers concluded, are therefore a true progressive (as opposed to regressive) policy because they benefit lower earners more than higher earners.

Interested in more of these findings? Check out this UCS fact sheet.

Without fuel efficiency standards, automakers would only make gas guzzlers

Free market advocates argue that fuel efficiency standards aren’t necessary. If there is demand for fuel efficient vehicles, then automakers will create a supply to meet that demand. While that sounds good in theory, in practice it doesn’t happen.

In the absence of federal standards, fuel efficiency largely stagnated (see below) and automakers proved reluctant to offer fuel efficient options outside of small sedans.

In response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress established fuel economy standards for new passenger cars in 1975, then again in 1978. These standards were intended to roughly double the average fuel economy of the new car fleet to 27.5 mpg by 1985. No fuel efficiency standards passed until 2007, when Congress set a target of least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and required standards to be met at maximum feasible levels through 2030. The standards now at issue cover vehicle model years out to 2025. Source: EPA 2016 Fuel Economy Trends Report. Appendix D: Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type. Available at, https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/download-co2-and-fuel-economy-trends-report-1975-2016

But Americans largely don’t want small sedans. We want SUVs…and fuel efficiency! Fortunately, the vehicle efficiency standards incentivize automakers to make vehicles across all classes – including SUVs, pickup trucks, and minivans – more efficient. Because the standards do not require automakers only to make small, ultra-efficient vehicles, they prompt automakers to create innovative technologies that boost the fuel-saving performance of the larger vehicles that Americans tend to prefer.

For example, the 2017 Toyota Highlander Hybrid, a full-size SUV, gets a combined 29 miles per gallon. That’s what I average in my mid-sized 2012 Subaru Outback Sport. Not too long ago, the 2001 Highlander only got a combined 18 mpg and the 1995 4Runner (the Highlander predecessor) got 13 mpg. And, the standards are incentivizing automakers to develop electric vehicles. There are growing numbers of electric vehicle models and several auto companies are set to release full electric SUVs in the next several years.

By providing automakers with flexible ways to comply with the standards (aka compliance pathways), the federal vehicle efficiency program has been instrumental in giving consumers more fuel efficient choices no matter what sort of vehicle they need.

Vehicle efficiency and emissions standards are the single most important federal climate policy

I’m guessing that you care, at least tangentially, about climate change. You are reading a blog from the Union of Concerned Scientists, after all. So, you should know that the standards are set to achieve the largest reduction in global warming pollution from a single federal policy (other than the Clean Power Plan, which is mired in legal trouble and threat of repeal from the current Administration).

Transportation is one of the biggest sources of global warming pollution in the U.S., having accounted for 27 percent of emissions in 2015. Cutting emissions from transportation is challenging as our nation continues to rely on personal vehicles and driving has become incentivized by relatively low gas prices and may become further incentivized by the introduction of autonomous driving features. 2016 had the largest increase in national vehicle miles travelled (VMT) since regulators began tracking this data in 1971 and doesn’t show any sign of slowing down. More cars were sold in 2016 than ever before, adding to the 263 million registered vehicles on American roads.

Transportation is one of the biggest sources of global warming pollution in the U.S. Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015. Table ES-6. Available at, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

That’s why – along with electric vehicles, better biofuels, and better transit options – improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles is so important. When including the emissions reductions from the finalized standards for heavy-duty vehicles, the federal fuel efficiency programs will cut emissions by an estimated 550 million tons in 2030 alone. That would be a reduction of over 3 percent of today’s transportation-related emissions and would achieve more reductions over time as the vehicle fleet turns over and gradually becomes more efficient.

How you can help protect the federal vehicle efficiency and emissions standards

UCS is leading the way on telling the EPA and Department of Transportation that consumers want to stick with the current standards. Not only are the standards cost-effective and feasible to meet, the agencies’ research showed that automakers could even exceed them. Help protect standards that are savings Americans money at the pump and reducing the risks of climate change.

Head on over to the UCS Action Center for a couple easy actions you can take, including

• submitting an official comment to the latest EPA rulemaking on the standards
• calling your Congressional representative to tell them that you don’t support President Trump’s attempted rollback of the standards, and
• sending a note to automakers telling them that you demand more fuel efficient vehicles across all vehicle classes.

The bill also establishes an additional rebate of up to $2,500 for low to moderate income Oregon residents, who can then collectively save up to $12,500 on a qualifying electric vehicle.

Which electric vehicles qualify for the rebate

A qualifying vehicle for the new Oregon rebate must:

• Have a base manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than $50,000
• Be covered by a manufacturer’s express warranty on the vehicle drive train, including the battery pack, for at least 24 months from the date of purchase
• Be either a battery electric vehicle OR a plug-in hybrid vehicle that has at least 10 miles of EPA-rated all-electric range and warranty of at least 15 years and 150,000 miles on emission control components.
  1. $2,500 goes to vehicles with battery capacities above 10 kWh.
  2. $1,500 goes to vehicles with a battery capacity of 10 kWh or less.
• Be a new vehicle, or used only as a dealership floor model or test-drive vehicle
• The rebate will apply to new electric vehicles that are purchased or leased, with a minimum 24-month lease term.

How the electric vehicle rebate will be given

• Send in your rebate application within 6 months of buying the vehicle or starting the vehicle lease.
• You may need to send it to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, or a third party non-profit. The application details have not yet been released.
• The rebate will “attempt” to be issued within 60 days of receiving the application (the bill says attempt).

Additional rebates for low-income Oregonians (aka charge ahead rebate)

Ideally, EV rebate programs should provide additional financial assistance to low-income drivers. Low-income households typically spend more on transportation than higher earners, and transportation can comprise up to 30 percent of low-income household budgets. So, being able to save on transportation fuel and vehicle maintenance by choosing an electric vehicle can mean even more to low-income households in Oregon and beyond.

Fueling an electric vehicle in Oregon is like paying the equivalent of $0.97 for a gallon of gasoline. In addition, battery electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and don’t require oil changes, so electric vehicle maintenance costs have been estimated to be 35 percent lower than comparable gasoline vehicles.  The eGallon price is calculated using the most recently available state by state residential electricity prices. The state gasoline price above is either the statewide average retail price or a multi-state regional average price reported by EIA. The latest gasoline pricing data is available on EIA’s webpage. Find out more at www.energy.gov/eGallon.

How the Oregon charge ahead rebate works

• Have a household income less than or equal to 80 percent of the area median income (low income) or between 80 and 120 percent of area median income (moderate income).
  1. Area median income is defined by the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and is tied to the closest metropolitan area in Oregon.
• Live in an area of Oregon that has elevated concentrations of air contaminants commonly attributed to motor vehicle emissions.
• Retire or scrap a gas-powered vehicle that has an engine that is at least 20 years old AND replace that vehicle with an electric vehicle.
• The electric vehicle can be used or new.
• Send in an application to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or third party non-profit. Details are still be worked out.
• Get up to an additional $2,500 in rebate off the electric vehicle.

How the Oregon electric vehicle rebate is funded

These rebates are being established as part of a broader transportation package, so the funding mechanisms in the bill are being levied not only for electric vehicles but also for maintaining Oregon’s roads, bridges, and tunnels and other transportation projects.

Beginning in 2020, electric vehicles will be subject to greater titles and registration fees in Oregon, expected to be about $110.

Oregon will also pay for road work with a 4 percent gas tax, increasing incrementally up to 10 cents by 2024. The bill also enforces a $16 vehicle registration fee, a 0.1 percent payroll tax, and 0.5 percent sales tax on new vehicles.

The bill additionally allows Oregon to introduce rush-hour congestion roadway tolls. Cyclists aren’t off the hook, either. Adult bicycles (defined as bikes with wheels at least 26 inches in diameter) over $200 will be subject to a $15 excise tax. These funds will go toward grants for bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects.

Overall, the electric vehicle rebate fund will be at least $12 million annually, though other monies, like donations, can be deposited into the fund too. $12 million is enough cash for 4,800 full $2,500 rebates each year.

Oregon residents bought 1,969 new pure EVs and 1,506 new PHEVs in 2016, so there’s still a good amount of room for this rebate to help grow the Oregon electric vehicle market. Overall, this is a wonderful program that will both help increase electric vehicle sales in Oregon and help expand the benefits of driving on electricity to those who need it the most.

Correction, July 20, 2017, 11:45am: This post has been updated to reflect that the release date for the rebate is still uncertain. A previous version stated it would be in October, 2017. 

Not many details have been released on the Model 3, but here is a snapshot of how the Model 3 compares to the Chevy Bolt.

No other automaker has a relatively affordable, 200 mile-plus range electric vehicle on the market, yet (the nextgen Nissan Leaf will compete too), and one or both of these vehicles may be a pivotal point in the modern shift to electrics. Assuming you’re already sold on the benefits of driving on electricity, here are a couple tips for you to consider if you’re prepping for an electric vehicle.

#1 Prepare your home charging

There are two main options for charging an electric vehicle at home: (1) 120V charging from an ordinary home outlet and (2) 240V charging from either an upgraded home circuit or existing circuit for a heavy electric appliance like a drying machine.

There is also DC fast charging, but that is only applicable to charging on-the-go and described in more detail below. Before deciding on how to charge, talk with a couple licensed electricians to better understand your home’s electrical capacity. Mr. Electric appears to win the Google SEO for “electrician for electric vehicle,” so maybe head there for a start.

Electric Vehicle Charging Level 1 (120 volts) – about 4-6 miles of range per hour of charge

• Uses an ordinary wall outlet just like a toaster.
• Typically won’t require modifications to electric panels or home wiring.
• Confirm that your home’s electrical circuits are at least 15 or 20-amp, single pole by consulting with a licensed electrician.
• Slow, but can get the job done if you don’t drive that much on a daily basis. If you only need 20 miles of range, for example, only getting 20 miles of charge each night is not a problem. For road trips, most EVs are equipped to handle the faster charging options that can make charging pit stops on road trips pretty quick.

Electric Vehicle ChargingLevel 2 (240 volts) – about 10-25 miles of range per hour of charge

• Installation costs vary, but here’s a 30-amp charger from Amazon that is highly rated and costs around $900, including installation, and here’s one that includes an algorithm to minimize charging emissions and costs.
• Will likely require a new dedicated circuit from the electric panel to a wall location near the EV parking spot.
• Consult with a licensed electrician to verify that your home has a two-pole 30 to 50-amp electrical circuit breaker panel.

Electric Vehicle Charging Level 3 (aka DC fast charging) (400 volts) – Not for home use, but can charge battery up to 80 percent in about 30 minutes

• The fastest charging method available, but prohibitively expensive for home use.
• Some vehicles can get an 80 percent full charge in as little as 30 minutes, depending on the electric vehicle type.

#2 File your tax credit(s)

Purchasing an electric vehicle should qualify you for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500. Here is all the information and form to fill out when you file taxes. You better file quick because the federal tax credit is capped at 200,000 credits per manufacturer. Some manufacturers, including Nissan and Chevrolet, are forecast to hit the 200,000 cap as early as 2018. If Tesla delivers on its 400,000 Model 3 pre-orders, not every Model 3 owner will be able to take advantage of the full $7,500 savings, so act fast!

Also check this map to see what additional state incentives you may qualify for.

#3 Locate public charging stations

Tesla has a network of fast charging stations exclusively for Tesla owners, but there are thousands of public charging stations that any electric vehicle driver can use on the go too. You may be surprised to find chargers near your workplace, school, or other frequent destination. Check out this Department of Energy station locator, or this map from PlugShare. The Department of Transportation has also designated several charging corridors that should be getting even more EV chargers.

#4 Contact your utility

Give your utility a heads up that you are getting an electric vehicle, and inquire about any promotional plans for vehicle charging. Some utilities have flexible “time-of-use” rates, meaning that they will charge you less when you plug a vehicle in during off-peak times (typically overnight). Your utility might also have its own electric vehicle incentives, like a rebate on installation or charger costs, or even a pilot project on smart charging where you can get paid to plug in your vehicle.

#5 Say goodbye to internal combustion engines, forever!

Driving on electricity is not only cheaper and cleaner than driving on gasoline, it’s also a total blast. Prepare to never want to go back to gasoline-powered vehicles as you cruise on the smooth, silent power of electricity.

[Update, Wednesday, July 12, 1:49pm]: We’ve included a table comparing specific features between the Tesla Model 3, and the Chevy Bolt as per requested by our readers.  

Kia Niro Plug-In Hybrid

The 2017 Kia Niro. Photo: Kia Motors

The 2017 Kia Niro Plug-In Hybrid is a well-proportioned crossover utility vehicle that – like all electric vehicles – can be plugged into any regular grounded electrical outlet to charge its 8.9 kWh battery pack. The Niro’s electric drivetrain is paired with a traditional gasoline-fueled engine that will kick in after the 25 mile electric range is exhausted. Though 25 miles might seem paltry, keep in mind that over a quarter of Americans commute under 5 miles to work and another quarter commute under 15 miles each day. The Niro can help those with longer commutes greatly reduce their gasoline use and emissions too.  Having a relatively small battery pack also means that the Niro will have fast charging times. Level 2 charging (from a 240V outlet like one used for a home washer / dryer) will only take a little over an hour to totally refill the Niro’s batteries. The Niro is expected to hit the U.S. market later this year, and will be upgraded to an all-electric version for European markets in 2018.

Chevy Bolt

The 2017 Chevy Bolt might be a game changer for the EV industry. Photo: Chevy

I’ve covered the Bolt before, but the NY Auto Show gave a lot of attention to this all-electric offering from Chevy, and the Bolt remains an indicator for whether electric vehicles will ultimately succeed in the U.S. Don’t worry, the signs are encouraging given what the Bolt and other electrics have to offer.

The 2017 Bolt is MotorTrend’s Car of the Year, will go 0-60 in just 6.5 seconds, and has an estimated all-electric range of 238 miles. These performance stats should help the Bolt appeal to gearheads and eco-drivers alike. With a price tag of around $30,000 after the federal tax credit, joining the electric transportation revolution won’t be a strain on many new car buyers’ wallets, especially considering that the average new car price in 2016 was up to $33,560.

The Bolt’s battery pack can get 90 miles of charge in just 30 minutes from optional DC fast charging, far less time than it takes me to pit stop with my toddler on my way up north for holidays.  A full charge will take about 9 hours via slower level 2 charging, not a big deal considering that electric vehicle drivers have found that over 80 percent of their charging has been done at home – and mostly overnight. And, perhaps most importantly, the Bolt will save you money on fuel. Driving on electricity costs about half as much as driving on gasoline and can cut your vehicle emissions in half compared to similar gasoline vehicles.

Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid (Plug-In Version)

The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is the first electric minivan in the U.S. Photo: By author

The 2017 Pacifica Hybrid is a plug-in version of Chrysler’s popular minivan lineup with a horribly confusing name. At first glance you might mistake this for a traditional gasoline-hybrid without a plug, but no, it actually has a plug and rechargeable battery pack.

The Pacifica Hybrid will have a 16 kWh battery pack that will give it 33 miles of all-electric range, and a gasoline-powered V6 engine that is good for a combined 32 mpg after the battery is depleted, which is really quite good for a large minivan. Other minivans typically get around 20-22 mpg. Level 2 charging can give the Pacifica a full charge in just 2 hours, while level 1 charging from any normal household outlet will take about 12 hours.  Confused about the difference between fast and regular charging? Check out this primer.

WardsAuto gave the Pacifica Hybrid engine high marks as an outstanding “propulsion system,” and the NY Daily News thinks the Pacifica is the best minivan you can buy. These accolades are both important and warranted, as this Chrysler is the first plug-in minivan sold in the U.S., and a critical step toward giving U.S. consumers electric options to choose from among different types of vehicles.

Cadillac CT6 Plug-In

2017 Cadillac CT6 Plug-In. Photo: Cadillac

I’ve got a soft spot for Cadillac. My grandfather exclusively drove jet black Cadillac’s with cream white interiors until he had to stop driving, and I still remember what it felt like to climb into a passenger seat that felt more like a top-of-the-line barcalounger than car seat.

Cadillac is also a quintessential American luxury brand, and has been idolized in countless movies and hit songs. So, I was glad to see Cadillac present a plug-in version of their flagship sedan at the NY Auto Show. The 2017 CT6 Plug-In is an electric / gasoline hybrid that puts out 335 horsepower and a respectable 31 miles of all-electric range from a 18.4 kWh battery pack that also lets it run up to 78 miles in an extra fuel efficient mode. Overall, this model boasts a 62 mpg combined EPA rating, which is extremely impressive for a heavy luxury sedan. The 2017 Audi A8, by comparison, only gets 22 combined mpg.

Recharging the CT6 will take about 4.5 hours and can also be charged via any regular home outlet. Oh, and don’t forget that this beast will sprint from 0-60 in an estimated 5.2 second, which makes it nearly as quick as the Twin-Turbo version. So, if you’ve got around $75,000 to drop on a dope ride, you might want to consider the CT6 Plug-In as a fashionable and fuel efficient way to cruise.

Volkswagen e-Golf

The 2017 VW e-Golf. Photo: VW

Volkswagen is trying to make amends for its transgressions (see Dieselgate). As part of these efforts, which include investing in electric charging infrastructure, the German automaker is set to update an all-electric version of its popular hatchback.

The 2017 VW e-Golf uses a 35.9 kWh battery pack that gives it an estimated 125 miles of all-electric range on a single charge, plenty for many commutes and enough for weekend warrior road trips with a charge pit stop along the way. Volkswagen also made the previously optional 7.2-kW onboard charger standard, meaning that the recharge time from a 240 volt power source (like what is used for a home washer / dryer) has dropped to less than six hours. A DC fast charger that can replenish the battery to 80 percent of its capacity in about an hour, and VW also upgraded the electric motor, dropping its 0-60 time to 9.6 seconds.

Last year, the e-Golf SE started at $29,815 (before the $7,500 federal tax credit and any state or local incentives). If the 2017 model holds the line on that pricing when it goes on sale early in 2018, it should stay competitive with the Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt among the most affordable all-electric vehicles ready for prime time.

To maximize the potential benefits of self-driving vehicles and minimize their potential consequences, UCS developed this set of principles that we will be pushing policymakers, businesses, and other stakeholders to follow. Doing so will ensure that self-driving vehicles reduce oil consumption and global warming emissions, protect public health, and enhance mobility for everyone.

Science-based policy will be key for shaping the introduction of self-driving technology

Many are rallying against any regulation of self-driving technology beyond ensuring it’s safe to use. I’ve even heard the claim that over regulating this technology will literally kill people by slowing the speed at which self-driving cars are introduced, thus delaying their potential safety benefits.

To be fair, this argument has merit. Self-driving vehicles are forecast to reduce the tens of thousands roadway fatalities that occur each year in the US by as much as 90 percent, and can offset the rise of distracted driving that may have caused the biggest spike in traffic deaths in 50 years (though reaching these improved safety levels will take further advances in the technology and widespread deployment).

But, self-driving technology won’t just impact transportation safety. Researchers are forecasting how it will affect traffic congestion, vehicle-related emissions, land-use decisions, public transit systems, data security, and the economy. Unfortunately, the emphasis that many, including the US Department of Transportation, have placed on the safety benefits can be distracting from the need to consider how policy should address the other equally great potential impacts of self-driving technology.

I’m not saying self-driving technology should be regulated to the scrapheap. The technology is highly likely to improve traffic safety and increase access to transportation—both important outcomes. Yet self-driving vehicles will need to be regulated on issues other than safety, as their full breadth of potential impacts won’t be addressed by safety-focused policy or market forces alone.

For example, studies have found that self-driving vehicles could double transportation emissions (already the largest source of climate change emissions in the US), place millions Americans out of work as automated driving replaces truckers and taxi drivers, and/or exacerbate urban sprawl.

The jackpot for winning the race to produce the best self-driving vehicle can still be won even if these negative affects are suffered, and today’s policy frameworks may be insufficient to effectively curtail these future impacts. Let’s not forget that automakers have historically been against regulation (see: seat belts, fuel economy, air bags) and are encouraging policymakers to clear the way for self-driving vehicles not only because they seek to improve transportation safety, but because they see a potential to make a profit.

So science-based policy covering the broader implications of self-driving cars, including how they affect emissions and our economy, will be needed to ensure the best possible self-driving future and these discussions need to happen today. To kickstart these conversations, UCS released these principles that will create a safe, healthy, and equitable autonomous future. Join the conversation on whether and how self-driving technology should be regulated by checking out our new self-driving vehicle web content and signing up for future action alerts here.