As a reminder, this is a necessary action because of how the tax credit is currently structured – right now, if you buy an electric vehicle made by GM or Tesla, you are no longer eligible to take the tax credit. We have been advocating for an update to this credit for a while (for some background, here is what we thought the solution was in 2019).

The proposal from the Ways and Means Committee extends the credit for a decade and also changes the credit to make it better for consumers. It does also complicate it somewhat, so bear with me.

How much is the credit now?

The current credit is $7,500 for pretty much any EV on the market. This bill allows up to a $12,500 credit, but that depends on a few factors.

• The base credit is $4,000 for any vehicle that has a battery capacity of 7-10 kwh, depending on the year of manufacture (spoiler alert – ALL EVs meet this criteria).
• A higher battery capacity gets you more money – $3,500 is added to the base amount if the battery capacity is 40 kwh or more through 2026 and 50 kwh or more after 2027 (spoiler alert, most battery electric vehicles meet this criterion already. If you’re buying a plug-in hybrid vehicle, your credit will not get this bump).
• To incentivize domestic assembly of EVs (literally where the car is assembled) and a workforce protected by a union, an additional $4,500 is available for vehicles manufactured in the U.S. by a unionized workforce.
• Finally, if 50% or more of all of the components that make up a vehicle are made in the U.S., as well as the battery cells, you get an additional $500.

How is the new EV tax credit better for consumers?

In addition to the fact that you might be getting a $12,500 credit (!!), you can now definitely take the incentive. The issue with the old credit is that it was a tax credit. Pardon me while I explain how tax credits work for folks who, like me, don’t think about them all the time. (If you already understand what it means for this tax credit to now be refundable and transferable, skip ahead to the next section.)

Tax Credit – this is something you can deduct from the taxes you owe the government. So, if you owe the government more than $7,500 in a year, you can deduct that amount from what you owe Uncle Sam if you bought an electric vehicle that year. Which is great, unless you don’t owe Uncle Sam that much, in which case you can only deduct up to the amount you owe. In order to owe the government that much, you pretty much need to make over $100,000 if you’re married filing jointly.

Refundable Tax Credit – Same as above, except that if you don’t owe Uncle Sam more than the amount you would get for the credit, Uncle Sam will PAY YOU! It ensures that you still get the full value of the credit, even if you don’t happen to owe the government that much in the year you bought your EV.

Transferable Tax Credit – This allows someone else to take the credit for you and just give you the cash. There are a couple of great scenarios for this – first, if you go the dealer to buy your car, the dealer can take the credit and apply the value of the tax credit to your sale price. Voilà, instant rebate off the price of the car. Currently dealers can only do this if you lease the car, so it will be great to have this work for sales as well. Policy-wise, this is the best way for an incentive to work – nobody has to wait till April to get their tax credit, they immediately have the value of the credit deducted from the price of the car! Also, this is great for non-profit entities like cities or states because they can also get the incentive by transferring it to another entity (non-profits don’t pay taxes, so no tax bill to Uncle Sam).

Ok, unglaze your eyes – this means that the tax credit can now work as a point-of-sale rebate, giving you, the consumer, the value of the credit at the time you buy the car. Hooray!

There’s always a catch, what’s the catch?

There are some new parameters around the tax credit, which will impact your purchase decisions and whether you can take the credit.

First, there are now income caps on the credit. Generally, it’s expected that higher-income individuals are more likely to buy an EV regardless of whether or not there is an incentive. The new credit has income caps for taking the credit ($400k individual and $800k for married filing jointly – still pretty generous, if you ask me).

Second, there are also MSRP caps (I bet you innately know what an MSRP is, but may not know what is stands for – Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price). Instead of doing a one-size-fits-all cap, the committee designated four caps for different types of vehicles. The caps part of this means that you can’t get the credit if the car/SUV/truck you want to buy has a MSRP higher than these values:

• Sedans – $55,000
• Vans – $64,000
• SUVs – $69,000
• Pickup trucks – $74,000

In general, smaller vehicles cost less and bigger vehicles cost more, so this ramping makes sense – the truly luxury vehicles in each market segment won’t be incentivized, but having a lower cap for sedans doesn’t mean that you can’t get the credit for buying a SUV or pickup. If you’re interested in what different types of vehicles normally sell for, you can check out Kelly’s Blue Book, and here’s a handy list of EVs currently available in the U.S. with their MSRPs.

What are people saying about the new and improved EV tax credit?

Generally, the response to this proposal has been positive.

However, there are a few naysayers. Tesla isn’t unionized and Elon Musk took to twitter to note his displeasure with the adder for unionized plants. They will also have a few models that won’t qualify for the credit, but at the moment none of their customers have access to the tax credit, so this seems helpful to them on the whole.

There are other companies who don’t seem to want unions in their plants – they only build plants in right-to-work states (i.e., states that have made it clear that employees don’t have to join unions if their plants are unionized) and they don’t want to see the credits consumers can get for their vehicles decreased because they aren’t unionized – Toyota and Honda seem to be the leaders in this complaint. Honda and Toyota were in fact quoted over the weekend effectively saying they would work against this great new incentive because it discriminated against workers who chose not to unionize (or companies who didn’t want unions?). It’s not like either of these companies are really on the leading edge of bringing you amazing EV choices, so that’s probably also part of it.

In order for the U.S. to lead in the future of transportation, we need to do the research here and build the batteries and EVs in the U.S. The automotive industry must rapidly shift away from its fossil fuels roots to a new strategy centered around electrification. As we make that shift, UCS thinks it’s critical we invest to ensure those future jobs are here in the U.S. and in support of well-paying jobs.

But wait, there’s more

There’s actually a lot more happening as the House is working through their reconciliation bill, but I want to flag quickly that the Ways and Means Committee has also included an incentive for used EVs. Used car buyers outnumber new car buyers by more than 2 to 1, so it’s critical that as EVs enter the used car market, that they are made available to these buyers as well. As such, Congress is putting in place a used car incentive of $2,500 or 30% of the purchase price. It will be available only for the second owner of the vehicle and only if they make less than $150,000 per household. The goal of this credit is to make sure everyone can experience driving and EV and take advantage of the significant fuel savings an EV offers, not just people who can afford to buy new cars.

There are also provisions in the tax bill to incentivize infrastructure buildout, incentivize the purchase of EV trucks (delivery vans, trash trucks, and even tractor trailers), provide funds for manufacturers to build domestic battery, component, and assembly plants, and also reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation.

Congress is very busy right now, pushing for climate wins in the Build Back Better Act and UCS is going to support these efforts. It would be great if you could weigh in with your Senators and Congressperson to register your support as well!

There is no doubt that we are in a climate crisis. The western US is experiencing catastrophic wildfire seasons, the Gulf and East Coast are seeing more rapidly intensifying, stronger, wetter and more destructive tropical storms, record-breaking rainfall and flooding is taking  a devastating toll in the Southeast and the Midwest, and we keep breaking the monthly and annual temperature records. To have a fighting chance of limiting global average temperature rise as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as we have agreed in the Paris Climate agreement, we need to ACT NOW. There is no time to wait.

People around the country are suffering from worsening climate impacts, and powerful, effective solutions—investments in clean electricity, clean transportation, and climate resilience—are within our reach. Yet a closely divided and increasingly partisan Congress has not seen fit to move forward major climate legislation through regular order.

Why budget reconciliation is the best (and only) path forward now

First, a reminder that the Democrats and Republicans each currently have 50 seats in the Senate. If there is a 50/50 tie, the Vice President casts the deciding vote. But almost nothing happens in the Senate with just a simple majority anymore.  We have seen the use of the  filibuster rise and rise since 2007, effectively requiring 60 votes to do anything.*

In the mid-’70s, Congress was upset about the filibuster being used too often (déjà vu?) and passed the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which included rules for a process known as budget reconciliation where the budget resolution could be used to direct additional spending on items of interest, and still only require a simple majority to pass. It has been successfully used 22 times, most recently earlier this year for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a bill aimed at providing urgently-needed COVID and economic relief.

The budget resolution is passed annually (at least it’s supposed to be) and is a VERY topline accounting of the money that the federal government can spend. It does not direct spending itself, but rather gives pots of money to the congressional appropriations subcommittees to fill out the nitty gritty of what federal agencies get how much money and what they can use it for. Crucially, the budget resolution needs only 51 votes to pass in the Senate. Instructions for a budget reconciliation process can be included in the budget resolution.  A budget reconciliation bill is then written to direct spending. There are rules, though, lots of them.

Reconciliation – what’s in and what’s out?

Getting policy done through reconciliation is tricky.  Because the reconciliation process takes place on a budget bill, all of the provisions that are put into the reconciliation bill must spend or save large amounts of government money. Just a little bit of money? Nope, can’t do it. Just want to direct the agencies to do something (a report, a study, a plan)? Nope, it has to spend/save money. Want to do something that brings together lots of departments or agencies to work on something together? Nope, all provisions need to be strictly in the jurisdiction of ONE committee. Want to spend or save money outside the 10 year “budget window”? No way – everything has to be budget neutral by the end of 10 years. It’s a lot of rules and it can be difficult to put in place programs that are great policy within this process. But still, it’s worth it if the world is literally on fire and it’s the only way you can direct serious resources to combat climate change. And if we want our country to do its part to help limit the global temperature rise, this is our moment to go big and make things happen. We can use this process to give a lot more money to existing programs that are set up to address climate change, and you can do almost anything on taxes – the Republicans used this process to cut taxes several times – the asks now are about how to use the tax code to promote technologies that reduce emissions, like renewable energy and clean transportation.

Ok, but how does reconciliation actually work?

First, the Senators agree on a topline number that they want to spend.  In the current iteration, Senators in the majority and the White House have agreed on $3.5 trillion that will partially implement President Biden’s American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan.  The reconciliation process will be used to address many pressing needs in our nation—including healthcare, childcare, jobs, education, environmental justice, and climate change.  It’s a lot of money and if Congress writes and passes a good reconciliation bill, it will help a lot of people as well as addressing climate change.

Second, the House and Senate authorizing committees (the committees that generally write the laws, but don’t generally hold the purse strings – those that actually determine spending are the appropriations committee) tell the Budget Committee how much money they want to spend on programs and provisions that are in their jurisdiction that align with the goals that have been agreed on with the topline number.

Third, the Budget Committee wrestles with those numbers and tells the committees how much money they are going to get (never as much as they ask for) and writes a budget resolution that dictates the amount that each committee will get.

Fourth, the Senate and House pass the budget resolution (which sets up the regular government funding process for that Fiscal Year in addition to setting up reconciliation).

Fifth, the Senate and House write budget reconciliation bills that adhere to the dollar amounts included in the budget resolution. (Hopefully those bills are in alignment, but if there are conflicts, see step 7 about negotiations.)

Sixth, the Senate parliamentarian** reads the Senate bill line by line to make sure that all the provisions meet the reconciliation criteria – which are commonly known as the Byrd Rule.  If a provision doesn’t pass muster, it gets lost in the “Byrd Bath”. 

What’s a “Byrd Bath”, you may be asking yourself.  Well, back in the ’80s Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) was worried that reconciliation was being used to do more legislating than it was supposed to and wrote the criteria for budget reconciliation more robust.  The DC shorthand for wondering whether something will be eligible for reconciliation is musing whether it will make it through the “Byrd Bath”. 

Staff will try to rewrite a provision many times to keep it in, but sometimes the ruling of the parliamentarian can’t be overcome and that thing can’t get done through reconciliation (an example is the minimum wage hike that Democrats weren’t successful in including in the American Rescue Plan earlier this year).

Seventh, the House and Senate vote on the budget reconciliation bills.  If they are different, they need to resolve the differences between them.  In doing so, they need to make sure that no committee goes over their budget allocation. They can either do a formal conference (where staff and Members sit in a (zoom?) room and negotiate areas of disagreement), or “ping pong” different versions of the bills back and forth until an agreement is reached.

Eighth, the House and Senate pass the same version of the reconciliation bill, the President signs it and then it is law.

This sounds complicated, remind me why we’re doing this again?

Budget reconciliation is certainly not the main way that we would like to see policy made, but it’s the option we have right now to spend money in a way that advances policy that a slim majority in the Senate can actually get through under the Senate’s current rules. 

On the climate front, it’s clear we need to act now. The most recent IPCC report is horrifying and we have about a decade to get ourselves on the right path to limit overall global temperature rise to 1.5 deg C or we are going to be in a world of hurt – every 0.5 degree rise in global temperature will lead to more frequent and intense storms, heatwaves, agricultural droughts, intensification of heavy precipitation events,…the list goes on and on. The US can and must do its part, including enacting policies to deliver on the emissions reduction commitment of 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030 that President Biden made earlier this year. Unfortunately, combatting climate change is nearly impossible to do legislatively due to years of disinformation campaigns and special interest dollars.  So, we need to use all of the options available to us – budget reconciliation can do a lot to move the needle, especially when done in concert with stringent regulations that we hope the Biden administration will put in place. 

What’s happening now?

The Senate finished up with their bipartisan infrastructure bill (I have thoughts) and turned immediately to the budget resolution. The Senate pulled an all-nighter on Tuesday Aug 10 and passed it in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. The House came back to DC this week to pass the budget resolution – it wasn’t easy and took two tries, indicating that this process is not going to be smooth sailing.  The Senate also will have challenges – Senator Sinema (D-AZ) agreed to vote for the budget resolution, but has noted that she isn’t comfortable with the topline number and Senator Manchin (D-WV) has also expressed some concerns with budget resolution.  Unfortunately, this is not a slam dunk.

Assuming the budget resolution moves forward, in September, we will see the House and Senate committees write the actual details of the reconciliation bill. The House has announced that they are having committee mark ups (committee business meetings where they offer amendments and literally “mark up” the base text) in September. The deal that Speaker Pelosi struck with the moderate Democrats around passage of the budget resolution promised that the Infrastructure bill will be passed by the House by September 27, which also sets the clock for the budget reconciliation bill since the White House and Congressional majority leadership have said they are going to move together.

What we want to see in a climate reconciliation package, and how you can help

As you might expect, we have lots of ideas – on the zero-emission transportation policies that must be included, on climate resilience and adaptation, on how to structure a Clean Electricity Payment Program to dramatically reduce the carbon intensity of electricity production.  We are working with partner organizations and ensuring that Congress hears our ideas as they structure their bills.

Despite how obvious it must seem that Congress should act on climate, this is not going to be easy. We need to keep the pressure up to make sure that Congress takes this opportunity seriously and does everything they can to move forward with this spending plan as quickly as possible to make a real effort to stave off the worst effects of the climate crisis. We can make serious progress on clean electricity, clean transportation, limiting the impacts of extreme heat in places like Arizona, investing in a fair transition for coal workers and coal-dependent communities, and advancing climate justice for disadvantaged communities, if Congress takes on the mantle of climate leadership now.

How can you help?  Simple – call your legislators today to tell them that we need bold climate action in a reconciliation bill and ask them to stand up for science and do what is needed to act on climate.

* Yes, yes, there are some things that aren’t subject to the filibuster anymore. Senator Reid changed the Senate rules in 2013 to allow non-Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Judicial nominees and Agency nominees to get through with a simple majority vote and Senator McConnell changed the rules on SCOTUS nominations to get Justice Gorsuch confirmed in 2017.

** The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, is a staff member of the Senate who knows all of the rules and procedures of the Senate and advises all members of the Senate (and their staff) on them.  She is one of the people you always see on the floor of the Senate when you watch CSpan, sitting below the Presiding officer.  The Senate procedure rulebook is enormous and the parliamentarian (and her small staff) know all of them and offer interpretations to Members and their staff when asked.  There is also a House parliamentarian who plays an important role in House procedure, but is not key in the reconciliation process.

The big story, in my mind anyway, is that we finally seem to be doing something that will address transportation emissions and climate change in Congress, and although things aren’t perfect, it’s definitely a good news story. Now they just have to finish the work that they have started and get it to President Biden’s desk.

The bipartisan infrastructure framework (turned deal, turned Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act)

The much-hailed bipartisan infrastructure bill passed the Senate on August 10, 2021. There is some good stuff in there, but it doesn’t go far enough to combat the climate crisis in general, or to decarbonize transportation.

There were several provisions that we worked hard to make sure were included (and were as good as possible), but almost none of them go as far as we would have liked or climate needs demand.

• EV Charging Infrastructure – the bill does fund $7.5 billion worth of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, but it makes EV charging compete with propane, natural gas, and hydrogen refueling for a third of that amount. Most of the funds concentrate on infrastructure investments along highway corridors, which is helpful in ensuring people with EVs can travel between locations that are further apart. The bill also includes $1.25 billion for community grants, to ensure access to charging and fueling at publicly accessible locations (like grocery stores), with priority given to places like rural areas and low-income communities. However, there is clearly more work to do here.
• Electric School Buses – diesel exhaust is bad for our health and reducing diesel emissions from school buses has been shown to decrease incidences of asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia and also decreases absenteeism. So electric school buses seem like a no brainer, right? Wrong. While the White House made it clear that they wanted the bipartisan Senate group to put $7.5 billion into electric school buses, instead we got $2.5 billion to electric school buses, $2.5 billion to fossil fuel school buses that they called “clean” school buses (CNG, propane, biofuels (which would really be diesel buses), and $2.5 billion to ferries (no, not just electric ferries, which would be cool). We had to fight, along with allies in Congress, to get this provision changed to ALLOW electric buses to qualify for the clean (aka fossil) funding bucket. Many thanks to the 128 organizations that signed onto our last minute letter supporting the full $7.5 billion for electric school buses.
• Transit Funding – The bipartisan group of Senators who put together this deal shortchanged the transit agreement with the White House by $10 billion. That’s a lot of money to not spend and is a huge missed opportunity, particularly because they didn’t fund operations – meaning paying more money for actually operating transit, which could increase the frequency and reliability of public transit and make it easier for more people to make transit their primary way of getting around. Instead, they focused on capital investments – building things and acquiring new buses and trains, which are important, but only part of the picture. And although there are a number of important investments in zero-emission public transit, the bill also misses opportunities to more fundamentally shift our transportation system away from personal car dependence. For example, although it establishes a carbon reduction program, it fails to require states or metropolitan areas to track and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through their transportation investments. It’s not the transformative change we wanted to see on this front.
• Electric Transit Buses – Electric transit buses are a critical component of zero-emission transit systems. The Department of Transportation has a program called the Low and No Emission Bus Program (in DC we just call it LowNo) that has, in recent years, been funded between $85-180 million annually. This program is incredibly oversubscribed, and pretty much all the transit agencies applying want electric buses. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman DeFazio used his version of the infrastructure bill into zero-emission bus program, which we supported. The Senate, however, went the other way. They gave the LowNo program $5.25 billion AND they said that all funds that go into this program, now and forevermore, must be split so that at least 25% of the funds are spent on technology that is NOT zero-emission technology. Another near win.

To recap, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does some good things. It spends about $17.5 billion on electrification, but not JUST electrification – they really showed how much they like natural gas by making it eligible for almost all of these programs. And it was good, but definitely not great, for transit.

So, what’s next? Budget reconciliation, that’s what.

Immediately after voting for final passage on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in the Senate, the Senators turned their attention to the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2022. This year, it includes instructions to spend $3.5 trillion through budget reconciliation which basically allows the party in the majority to pass bills with a simple majority.

This is the climate bill we have all been waiting for! This is our moment, people. This is where the magic happens. We are going to pass an ambitious bill that will put real spending behind the things we need to do to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. My colleagues have been writing about what they hope to see in the climate and clean electricity, and food and agriculture spaces. So here is my missive on clean, zero-emission transportation.

Transportation electrification provisions that must be included in budget reconciliation

I’ve got a list. Here it goes.

• EV consumer purchase tax incentive – right now, most of you probably know, if you buy a new EV you can take a $7,500 tax credit. Unless you buy a GM or Tesla because they are out of credits. Or unless you don’t make enough to have $7,500 worth of tax liability. So, we are working to modify the tax credit so that you can get it no matter what vehicle you purchase and also are aiming to make it easier for everyone to access – either by making it a point-of-sale rebate or a refundable tax credit so you can take the credit whether you have the tax liability or not. We would also like to have this credit support domestic manufacturing and companies with robust labor standards by including an additional incentive for vehicles produced by companies that meet those criteria.
• USED EV consumer purchase incentive – what about the two-thirds of car buyers who buy used cars? We are advocating for a used EV incentive to help lower- and middle-income folks purchase used EVs. They’re good for everyone, not just people who can afford to buy new ones, so we want to make them more attractive and cost-competitive in the used market as well.
• Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle tax incentive – you know all those delivery trucks bringing you your online purchases? They could all be electric. Garbage trucks too. And companies are making real progress on bigger tractor-trailers as well. Currently they are more expensive to buy, but in some applications, they cost so much less to fuel and maintain that they are already cheaper over their lifetimes. And they are key to reducing pollution in overburdened communities that are disproportionately impacted by toxic diesel pollution. Government has a role to play in helping to even out the initial upfront cost so that these vehicles can be made at scale so costs can come down. This is why we are calling for a tax incentive to support deployment of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
• Port electrification – ports are where goods enter the country and can be coastal or inland. No matter where they are, they are enormous sources of diesel emissions that contaminate air quality and negatively impact the communities around them. We MUST electrify the vehicles and equipment at ports to protect the health of these communities. Congress should include investments to do just that in reconciliation.
• EV charging infrastructure – There is a tax credit for individuals and businesses who want to install charging infrastructure, and this is really important. The tax credit keeps expiring and Congress generally extends it, but frequently not until the year is already over, which is a lesson in how NOT to spur investment. We support extending the tax credit so everyone can count on receiving it when they plan to install infrastructure.
• Accelerate domestic manufacturing of EVs – the auto industry is critical to our manufacturing base, supports large parts of the local economy in many areas, and employs millions of workers. We need this industry to evolve here in the US to maintain leadership in the global industry. The path forward here is ensuring that we are investing in EV manufacturing. We support several tax credits and manufacturing programs to change factories over to producing EVs, bring battery and other component manufacturers to the US, and support new players in the EV industry. We want to make sure that we are building up jobs in the US and we want to make sure that the workers who have these jobs are working in safe environments and being paid well for their labor.
• More for buses! Although there was some funding for electric school and transit buses in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we don’t think that is sufficient. We are pressing for increased funding for both of these technologies in the reconciliation package.
• Electrify the federal fleet – The government has over 500,000 light-duty vehicles in its fleet (including in the US Postal Service). That’s A LOT of cars. And hardly any of them are electric. And generally EVs exceed the performance needs of those vehicles. The government should lead by example and electrify its fleet.

If we manage to get all of these priorities funded in the reconciliation package, that is going to be a VERY significant investment in zero-emission transportation. This is what we are going to be pushing for until it’s done (sometime this fall). If we fail to get this done, well, the climate is going to suffer and I’m not sure when our next opportunity will come along to make this kind of progress. So please, join us, and urge your Member of Congress to live up to this moment and pass a strong climate-focused reconciliation bill!

Today, more than 1,500 scientists, engineers, and other experts sent a letter to the administration calling for bold steps to reduce emissions that cause climate change by at least 50% in 2030, compared to 2005 levels, and highlighting some of the major policies that will be necessary to get us there— including serious policies to decarbonize the power and transportation sectors, which together are the largest emitters in the country.  Scientists are speaking out as never before on this issue and President Biden and others in his administration have taken steps to reinstate science to its proper role as a basis for sound policy— now is the time for the White House to demonstrate that science will drive critical decisions about the future of our health and the planet. [If you are a scientist or expert and want to sign this letter, you can do so here.]

Transportation has a huge role to play

To significantly reduce emissions from transportation, we are going to need standards that drive automakers to produce much cleaner and more efficient vehicles, as well as significantly more zero-emission vehicles than are offered today. Congress has a role to play in ensuring the administration has the tools and funds needed to jumpstart electrification

On March 31, President Biden released his American Jobs Plan (already dubbed the AJP by acronym-loving DC insiders) which holds a lot of promise for transitioning the transportation sector to zero-emission vehicles as well as supporting domestic manufacturing of electric vehicles and jobs in that industry.

The Biden American Jobs Plan invests in electric vehicles in a significant way, supporting:

• Plug-in electric vehicle point-of-sale rebates that will ensure that purchase incentives for all electric vehicles will be available for consumers for a longer period of time. A switch to a point-of-sale rebate would make the incentive available at the time of purchase or making the credit refundable would ensure that the credit is available to all consumers, regardless of income (or tax liability).
• Investment in charging infrastructure for electric vehicles so that consumers will have confidence that they will be able to charge their EVs where they live, work, or when they are on the go. President Biden has long been talking about installing 500,000 chargers by 2030 and this will be a major step in increasing availability of charging infrastructure that will be needed as we shift to EVs becoming the standard vehicle driven.
• A switch to electric transit and school buses which will reduce pollution in communities where they operate, save transit agencies and school districts money on operation and maintenance costs, and reduce carbon emissions.
• Supporting additional domestic manufacturing of EVs and their components will help ensure that we are building tomorrow’s technology in the US to maintain our leadership in this industry. By assisting automakers and component manufacturers retool their facilities and attracting more battery manufacturing to the US, we can support good paying jobs building the cars, trucks, and buses of the future.
• Electrifying federal fleets so the government can lead by example and reduce its contribution to climate change and air pollution.
• Incentivizing the purchase of electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks to reduce both carbon pollution and tailpipe pollution from these giant emitters.
• Investing in modernizing transit by addressing the maintenance backlog and expand existing systems, as well as investing in rail, including new routes, and fast inter-city train service.
• Additional research and development and demonstration programs for key climate priorities, including electric vehicles.

Next up – Congress

You may be wondering what happens next now that the American Jobs Plan is out.  The plan was basically an outline or a blueprint of what the administration would like to see in a Congressional infrastructure package— so now it’s Congress’s turn to take the wheel and write a bill that includes these pieces (and likely others).  This is a big job— it involves most of the Congressional committees and lots of members have bills or priorities that they will want to make sure are included.  It will take a few months to hammer out the details of a national plan.

We have put together a set of funding priorities that largely track with the Biden American Jobs Plan and sent a letter to the Hill yesterday with 36 other organizations calling for consumer incentives for EV purchases, investment in charging infrastructure, transitioning transit and school buses to be zero-emission, incentivizing zero-emission heavy-duty trucks, and reforms that need to be made to make transit better for everyone.

We are excited to see what we can get done to decarbonize and expand access to cleaner transportation this year.

We’re relieved that this work will happen with a president who knows that climate change is happening and that we need to take bold action to stave off the worst impacts. Someone who has touted the need for electric vehicles on the campaign trail, particularly citing the need for 500,000 charging stations. This is all great, but ensuring that the Biden administration delivers on its promises and takes even bolder action is going to require us all to roll up our sleeves, get to work, and keep the pressure on.

We all have hopes and dreams for what this next administration will do. And a big part of our job—as advocates, as policy nerds, as scientists, as people with a platform—is to make sure that the incoming administration has all the information it needs to make great decisions right out of the gate and get this country moving towards a future of lower carbon emissions, better protections for public health, a strong economy, and robust domestic manufacturing that supports good jobs.

My little island in the middle of all of this activity is focused on decarbonizing the transportation sector. Only it’s not so tiny, since transportation is now the largest emitter of carbon pollution in the US, pulling ahead of electricity production a few years ago.

Not only that, the transportation sector pollutes heavily, spewing particulate matter and other toxic pollution that has disproportionate impacts on the communities who live near crowded highways and interstates, trucking corridors, freight centers, ports, and distribution centers where they sort all those Amazon boxes to get them to you in a couple of days.

This air pollution literally kills people, and we have found that people of color bear the brunt of the impacts. We have also learned that those who are exposed to higher levels of air pollution also face higher risks from COVID-19. Talk about a double whammy—air pollution puts you at risk for a number of diseases and shortens life expectancy AND it makes you more susceptible to dying from COVID. We need to fix this.

As part of our nation’s recovery from the pandemic, we fully expect the Biden administration to work with Congress early in 2021 to craft a bill that will provide additional relief to people and businesses affected by COVID-19, likely coupled with a stimulus bill that will help re-energize the economy. Funding for our public transit systems must be an essential part of that. Public transportation is crucial for so many essential workers, yet transit systems across the country are facing deep budget deficits due to reduced ridership, increased cleaning costs, and other impacts of the pandemic. The House has already passed legislation that would provide $32 billion to transit agencies, but it still needs to get through the Senate as well.

We also need to ensure that any stimulus package is designed to put people back to work in ways that have additional benefits for reducing emissions from transportation while also supporting good jobs and American manufacturing. We sent a letter to Congress with 79 other organizations laying out our vision—now it’s time to move toward that future.

We have a plan

There is a way to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions from transportation. Stop using petroleum as the primary fuel to move people and things around. Petroleum (a.k.a. gasoline or diesel) is a dirty fuel, full of chemicals that cause negative health impacts when refined and burned, and a major contributor to global warming.  If we switch to low- or zero-carbon sources of energy to run our transportation system, we glean significant benefits across the board.

Our goal here in the Clean Transportation Team at UCS is to transform our transportation system from a gasoline and diesel-inhaling (and pollution exhaling) sector and into a web of mobility options that works for everyone while simultaneously protecting our climate and cleaning up the air we breathe.

To do this, we need to invest in cleaner fuels, increased transit and mobility opportunities, electric cars and trucks, and ensure that the production of these things, and related infrastructure investments, results in good paying domestic jobs. We need bold steps to transform the transportation sector.

President-elect Biden should set a goal that will result in significant electrification of the vehicle fleet in the short term and put the country us on a path to having all vehicles on the road be plug-in electric or fuel cell vehicles by 2050. This includes more than just personal electric vehicles; we also can and must electrify transit and school buses, delivery trucks, and even tractor trailers sooner than you think.

Setting a strong target early in the administration will send an important message to industry as well as ensure that government agencies are forging ahead. The impact this will have across government will be significant. The Department of Transportation can prioritize grant funding or solicit projects that significantly increase investment in electrification. The Department of Energy can align their research priorities so that work on battery chemistry, battery recycling, and interoperability is prioritized, not to mention ensuring that loans are going to companies who are actively retooling their facilities to boost their electric vehicle (EV) production. And the Environmental Protection Agency can get back to actually regulating and ensuring that their work results in cleaner air and water and protects frontline and environmental justice communities.

We are also preparing for a new set of car and light truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emission standards—as you may recall, the Trump administration rolled back the Obama (and Biden!) standards earlier this year, and as a result automakers can get away with making only a tiny improvement in vehicle efficiency through 2026, negatively impacting your options as a consumer in the dealer showroom.

We will be calling on the Biden administration to start work immediately on the next round of standards and to ensure that these standards push the automakers to make much more efficient vehicles AND bring more electric vehicles to the market.

President-elect Biden has said numerous times from the campaign trail that he wants to deploy half a million charging stations. That’s a great idea. Though it may take even more than that over time, that’s definitely a down payment toward more people seeing that an EV can meet their needs. We will work with both the administration and Congress to ensure that charging stations are deployed in places that will be convenient for people who live in apartments and don’t have access to dedicated off-street parking, along highway travel corridors, and are available in ALL communities.

Electrification alone is not a silver bullet, however. Investments in transit and transit-oriented development are key, especially for urban areas. While we increase access to transit, we also need to decarbonize it and are working to increase funding for electric transit buses. Improving access to a multitude of clean transportation options for communities, together with a transition to vehicle electrification, will ensure we are reducing pollution while increasing mobility and the economic opportunities it enables.

We still have opposition to overcome

Transitioning to a low-carbon and low-pollution transportation future will not happen naturally or overnight. Even with a President-elect who believes in science and wants to decarbonize our economy while providing relief from COVID and bolstering good paying jobs and manufacturing, we still face a massive hurdle—industry opposition to the future we want and need.

The oil and gas industry has enjoyed unfettered access to the White House for almost four years now and has played an outsized role in US politics far longer than that. They are not going to go quietly into the night. They will continue to oppose progress, try to divide us, and spread lies and disinformation about the transportation solutions that are becoming more and more viable.

They have already started an astroturf campaign against EVs, and we can expect this to ramp up steadily as EVs gain more market share and become a more obvious choice for more consumers. We need to be ready for this, ready to stand up and say no more—you had your days (years, decades) in the sun, now it’s time to stop spewing your toxic pollution and let us breathe clean air.It’s time for the Biden administration to put the fossil fuel industry in its place and hold them accountable for past harms. And if the industry wants to stay relevant in a clean transportation future, they need to be part of the solution.

That auto industry also has a long history of trying to block progress. Recent reporting shows that, like the oil industry,  the auto industry knew a half century ago that carbon dioxide causes global warming and did nothing to change their business trajectory. In lots of ways, this is nothing new—automakers have a long history of opposing health and safety regulations (seat belts, air bags, pollution controls….). What is new, however, is that there is currently a split in the auto industry, with some companies siding with California regulators and acknowledging that they can meet the Obama-Biden standards, and others standing with the Trump administration as they undid the original standards. It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out over the next few years.

As part of that, we hope that the auto industry will change its tune and start working to increase their electric vehicle options and actually try to sell them through their dealer network, and we stand ready to call them on their hypocrisy if they continue on their current path of working to sell EVs in Europe and China and refusing to do so here.

Overall, we are excited for the next president to take the oath of office. We have high hopes yet clearly understand that we have a lot of work to do to put our country back together. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be calling on you, our allies, to help us powerfully make the case to the administration and demand clean transportation for all.

Today, US House passed their infrastructure proposal, the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2)*.

This massive infrastructure bill is the result of the work of many committees in the House. The centerpiece is the surface transportation bill (sometimes known as the highway bill) that gets passed about every five years. Then other legislative pieces got added, including adding tax incentives for electric vehicles and clean energy. The result is a good bill that will pass out of the House – the question, as always, is what will happen in the Senate.

We are excited in particular about the parts of the bill that help transition to vehicle electrification, deploy clean energy, and build resilience into our road and infrastructure systems. And yes, we definitely worked on many of these provisions with Congressional offices over the past year.

The bill is full of great policies, but here are ten that pertain to electric vehicles, clean energy, and resilience that we especially like in the bill:

• It helps to deploy more electric transit buses – this provision would significantly increase investment in a relatively small program at the Department of Transportation that provides funding to local transit agencies so that they can replace their older, more pollution-emitting diesel buses with electric transit buses and the necessary charging infrastructure. For the past few years, this program got about $85-130 million a year, but was so popular that it received applications for projects totaling $500 million in 2019.  Electric transit buses do not emit any pollution that negatively impacts local air quality–such as NOx or particulate matter–making them better for the climate. The more than $1.7 billion that the House will invest over the next five years is a real win and will help the United States transition to electric buses faster.
• Deploys more electric vehicle (EV) charging stations along highways – one of the questions I frequently get asked by people who are considering buying an electric vehicle is how to deal with longer road trips. This bill creates a grant program to facilitate the installation of charging stations along highway corridors. There are already several designated corridors with charging stations, but this bill will greatly increase the number of designated corridors and funding to install the charging infrastructure, which will allow people to travel greater distances more easily in their battery electric vehicles
• Invests in electrification at ports – ports are the places where goods come into this country and start their journey to their final destination. Ports are also DIRTY. People who live next to ports breathe some of the most polluted air in the country. The ports that most of us think about are seaside, so there are idling ships, trucks, locomotives, and heavy equipment galore to move the freight. The inclusion of a grant program to help push port operators to invest in cleaner technologies will help protect the health of people who live in the surrounding communities and also the people who work at the ports.
• Increases deployment of electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure in communities – there is a group of provisions that will together help increase deployment of EV charging infrastructure – from providing a rebate that state and local governments can apply for, to studying how to make sure that the infrastructure is deployed in underserved communities (and make sure this actually happens!) to providing technical assistance so that building codes can properly reflect how best to put in infrastructure in new buildings. There are also increases in funding to school districts who want to buy EV school buses and programs that ensure that fleets operated by the federal government are buying electric vehicles (including the Postal Service). Together, this package will help ensure that EVs and charging infrastructure are more widely deployed.
• Extends the EV tax credit – The consumer purchase incentive for buying an EV from Tesla and GM has run out. Last year a plan to extend the EV tax credit was rolled out and supported by 60 organizations. We were hopeful that it would pass last year, but that didn’t come to fruition and we’re delighted to see it included in this bill. This tax credit, which reduces the cost of an EV to consumers (whether they buy or lease their vehicle), is critical to overcoming one of the main barriers to electrification – the increased upfront cost of buying an EV. Thankfully, this bill includes an extension of this credit, ensuring that all consumers will get the credit going forward, regardless of what brand of EV they purchase. In addition to this provision, the bill also contains a new tax incentive for buying a used EV and a new credit for purchasing electric trucks, both of which we consider great additions to the tax code.
• Extends other renewable energy tax credits – These tax credits could help lay the foundation for clean energy growth in the US for the next decade, accelerating and expanding the nation’s use of clean energy like wind power, offshore wind, solar power, and energy storage, which help improve public health and fight climate change. These credits would also boost domestic clean energy manufacturing as well as incentivize wider adoption of labor standards across the industry to help ensure that workers benefit from the transition to a clean energy economy.
• Requires states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to consider greenhouse emissions impacts of investments – States and local governments make most of the decisions about how and where federal transportation money gets spent. In metropolitan areas, MPOs coordinate and evaluate transportation investment decisions to ensure they are consistent with regional priorities, such as cleaner air, safer roads, and improved mobility. Provisions of this bill require states and MPOs to measure per capita greenhouse gas emissions on public roads, set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrate how transportation investments contribute to achieving these targets. These provisions will encourage investment in public transit, biking, and other projects that encourage lower-emission travel rather than expanding roads.
• Establishes a Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program – a PDM program will help ensure states invest federal funds into projects and programs that will increase the resilience of transportation systems nationwide. Why do we need a PDM program? First, much of our nation’s transportation system has been designed and built based on the past climate conditions and usage, yet today, climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events and adding an additional level of risk. Second, all too often a large portion of federal investments go towards fixing infrastructure after a disaster instead of making it stronger before the next storm.
• Establishes a process to study and report on how to plan and design federally funded transportation systems that are “built to last” to withstand current and future climate change impacts. This provision enables the National Academies’ Transportation Research Board to conduct a study of the federal actions needed to ensure that federal agencies are taking into account current and future climate conditions in planning, designing, building, maintaining, investing in, and upgrading any federally funded transportation infrastructure. This would bring us one step closer to the safe and resilient infrastructure system we need to protect our safety, our economy, and our environment now and for decades to come.
• Requires the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board to assess the potential impacts of climate change on the national rail network – Such a study will shine light on how climate impacts, such as inland and coastal flooding, can erode and wash away rail infrastructure causing lengthy and costly shutdowns of the rail system. The study will also look at how extreme heat can buckle and deform pavement and railways along our road and rail systems. Understanding these risks and impacts will help inform how we can adapt our rail systems to withstand a stormier future.

These provisions in the Moving Forward Act will make important steps towards increasing deployment of electric vehicles and renewable energy, as well as clean and resilient transportation infrastructure.  We are living in unprecedented times in which we find ourselves facing compounding risks – risks from COVID-19, climate extremes, and the socioeconomic tolls these strains place on our communities and local and state economies, especially historically disadvantaged and low-income communities. Investing in clean and resilient transportation is not only a wise use of federal taxpayer dollars, it will also reduce heat-trapping emissions from the US transportation sector (which produces nearly thirty percent of all US global warming emissions) and increase the resilience of the transportation systems nationwide, and by doing so, upgrade the almost failing D+ grade of our transportation infrastructure.

Fun Fact: Any House bills with numbers from 1 to 10 are special priorities of the majority party. Bills usually are numbered in the order they are introduced, but the first ten numbers are reserved, and the speaker of the House gets to pick what bills get those numbers.  Since infrastructure was identified as a priority by Speaker Pelosi when the 116th Congress came into session in January 2018, this infrastructure bill got special numerical treatment.

Were you as mad at Toyota as I was when you learned that they are actively undermining the Clean Air Act by siding with the Trump administration as they attack state authority and undermine emissions standards?  If so, you are not alone.

I bought my Prius 10 years ago because I wanted to do the right thing.  I wanted to reduce my own carbon footprint, to use less oil, and be a better citizen of this planet we all share.  The serious savings at the pump is a definite added value but wasn’t the main motivation behind my purchase.

If any of the above resonates with you, then you should be as angry at Toyota as I am.  Or you will be by the time you’re done with this blog. (And then you should check out twitter to see the responses – Bobby Berk from Queer Eye is all over this and there are lots of folks threatening to not buy another Toyota)

Toyota has spent a lot of time and effort over the last couple of decades positioning themselves as the “green” automaker.  The Prius was one of the first mainstream gasoline-electric hybrids for sale in the US and it is a great car.  It has also sold pretty well for Toyota and has had the added side benefit of making everyone think that Toyota is an environmentally-conscious company.  But the data don’t fully support that idea.

Over the past 8 years, while the standards that ensure you get more miles per gallon and emit less carbon pollution have been in effect, all manufacturers have improved their fleets, except Toyota (see chart below – Toyota is the only company whose fleet moved backwards).  Their pick-up trucks are less efficient than most of their competitors  and they are far behind the industry leaders when it comes to electrification – their plug-in Prius can go a mere 25 miles on a charge before turning over to the admittedly efficient gasoline engine, and they offer a low-volume fuel cell vehicle only in California.  They aren’t currently selling any other EVs across the US.

This chart shows increases in fuel economy and decreases in CO2 emissions for each manufacturer since 2012. Every manufacturer except Toyota has sold a fleet of cars and trucks that move in the right direction. Even so, Toyota still has better fuel economy and lower emissions than any of the Big 3.

And now, Toyota has decided to go all in with the Trump administration – joining litigation on the administration’s side – that would negate the long-standing authority that California has had to regulate tailpipe emissions under the Clean Air Act (and the ability for other states to adopt these standards – this impacts 14 states and Washington, DC).  This is a direct attack both on the Clean Air Act, which has been critically important in, you know, saving people’s lives by reducing air pollution, and also the efficiency and emissions standards that drives companies to make more efficient cars and trucks.

Toyota is not the only company to have joined with the administration, of course.  They’re just the biggest hypocrites of the bunch. (I will be honest, this isn’t the first time we’ve noticed their hypocrisy – does anyone else remember the crying ice statue commercial from the last winter Olympics)?  The other companies who have taken the same position are: GM, Fiat-Chrysler, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, and Subaru.

Are there companies doing the right thing?

Yes, yes there are.  In July, four automakers did the right thing – Ford, Honda, VW, and BMW made a deal with California and committed to both making their cars and trucks significantly more efficient over time while upholding the state’s unique authority and leadership on vehicle emissions, putting themselves squarely in opposition to the Trump administration’s attack on California and its gutting of vehicle efficiency standards.

These are the companies that deserve some kudos now, while the rest of the industry throws in with the Trump administration in undermining our ability to meet our climate goals, exacerbates health issues, and ensures that people put more money in the pockets of the oil companies.

The auto industry is at a pivotal point in history and each automaker needs to make a choice – either they are leaders in deploying the vehicle solutions demanded by a warming world, or they are choosing to side with fossil fuel interests and stall progress. Toyota has made clear where they stand today by joining Trump in attacking California standards.

Toyota can no longer hide behind the Prius and the green image they’ve established long ago. I hope Toyota recognizes the damage they’ve done, backs away from the lawsuit, and joins with California and the four other automakers who have chosen a different path.

If you want to make sure Toyota knows how you feel – you can sign this petition.  You can also take to twitter like so many others have and demand that they change their ways.  I do believe that anything you do publicly will make a difference to such an image-conscious company

Most legislation introduced in Congress doesn’t go anywhere – it doesn’t get a hearing, doesn’t get a vote, it just dies quietly at the end of the two-year congressional session.  However, there are a few things that Congress must do either annually or every few years, and these are the big “must-pass” bills that you sometimes hear people talk about.

The Surface Transportation Reauthorization package is one of those must-pass bills. Therefore, it is an important opportunity for Congress to include strong provisions that reduce dangerous heat-trapping emissions, accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,  and make transportation infrastructure more resilient to ensure it is prepared to withstand those extreme weather and climate-related impacts that are already unavoidable due to global warming.   Every five years or so, Congress takes a look at our transportation system and tells the agencies how they should alter their course — they evaluate how things have been going and send directions to the agencies involved on how to administer those programs going forward.  This process is always a massive undertaking, usually somewhat contentious, and covers a lot of policy ground (highway spending, safety, rail, transit, permitting, etc.).

This week, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is going to officially kick off the beginning of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization process by considering their surface transportation reauthorization bill by holding a business meeting, where they will consider amendments to the base text (also called a “mark up”).  The base text should be released today (yes, the day before the business meeting), so we will all be reading it quickly and providing input into offices of members who sit on this committee.  If you’re thinking that it is a little crazy that we are only going to see bill text the day before the committee considers the bill, you are not wrong, but this will be a long process so this will not be our only bite at the apple. UCS wants Congress to pass a Surface Transportation Bill that ensures a low-carbon and resilient transportation system.

Reducing emissions and advancing clean vehicles

Given that the transportation sector is the leading contributor to US heat-trapping emissions (producing nearly 30 percent of all US global warming emissions) UCS is strongly advocating for using the Surface Transportation Bill to set the stage to deploy more electric vehicles (EVs).  We have a few ideas of things that should be included in this bill to make this a reality:

• Include the Clean Corridors Act, which would create (and provide grant funding for) more highway “corridors” that connect urban centers by installing charging infrastructure (or hydrogen fueling stations) along the major routes between those cities. The charging stations should be fast charging stations, meaning that they can charge an EV to 80 percent in about 30 minutes.
• Update the federal guidebook that standardizes signage to make sure that it includes EV signage that all states can choose to adopt. The last full update of this manual was in 2009, when there were only a handful of Tesla Roadsters on the road. The Department of Transportation has updated their interim guidance in the meantime, but having signage for people to know where charging stations are located is critical.
• Increase funding for electric transit buses. In 2018, states and cities applied for grants totaling $558 million, but only $85 million of funding was available.  It comes as no surprise that cities and states are interested in converting transit buses to electric power – they provide both health benefits for the neighborhoods the buses operate in as well as climate benefits.
• Ask states and metropolitan planning organizations to create EV plans, particularly on EV charging infrastructure deployment, to accommodate their citizens that choose to buy or lease EVs.

Given that climate change in the future will amplify the risks our vulnerable transportation systems already face, we also have some ideas on how to make more climate-ready and resilient transportation systems:

• All infrastructure that we build now should be ready to withstand the future impacts of climate change – for example, new federally funded infrastructure should be built at least two feet above the “100-year” (1 percent annual chance) flood level.
• Provide grant funding for climate-resilient infrastructure, specifically for coastal states, improving evacuation routes, and for flexible use of funds to account for future conditions.
• Create an expert panel to study the likely impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure and provide a report to Congress with recommendations and guidance on how to appropriately plan and build climate-ready transportation infrastructure.

This markup is just the first step in what will likely be a very long process.  Other committees in the Senate need to weigh in (Finance for tax issues, Commerce for rail and safety issues, Banking for transit issues) and then the House also needs to put together their multi-committee bill.  Finally, the House and Senate will need to resolve the differences between the bills in conference.  The existing authorization of the surface transportation programs (the Fast Act) expires in September 2020, so there is also a lot of time left in this process.  We will keep an eye on these issues as they move through Congress and do our best to ensure that strong electrification and climate resilience priorities are included in the final bill.

But the night before the hearing, Committee leaders called attention to the real beneficiaries of the rollback and officially launched an investigation into Big Oil’s covert campaign supporting the rollback, which was originally exposed in a blockbuster New York Times report late last year. The committee demanded answers on the coordination between the administration and  Marathon Petroleum, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Legislative Exchange Council, Energy4US and Americans for Prosperity. Those answers are due on July 3 – we will see if these entities comply with the Committee’s request.

The hearing

While we await those answers, the hearing provides some fascinating background about the machinations behind this ridiculous rollback. Some quick numbers:

• 10 – There were ten (10!) witnesses at this hearing. There were two testifiers from the Trump administration, Bill Wehrum, (now outgoing) Assistant Administrator of EPA, and Heidi King, Deputy Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the Department of Transportation.  Mary Nichols, the Chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), also testified on the second panel, along with witnesses from the United Auto Workers, Consumer Reports Advocacy, the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, Colorado Department of Transportation, the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the Louisiana Attorney General, and others.
• 5 – Between opening statements, documents for the record, testimony, questioning, and drama, the hearing lasted more than five hours.
• 17- About two weeks before the hearing, 17 of the world’s largest automakers, including Ford, General Motors and Toyota (many of whom are represented by the Alliance, who was a witness), sent letters to the Trump administration (also a witness) and California (also a witness), told the administration that their plan to rollback cleaner cars standards would reduce profits and create “untenable” instability in the auto manufacturing sector, promoting calls for parties to resume negotiations, which were summarily stopped by the Trump administration earlier this year.
• 2 – As is typical, the hearing was split into 2 panels – the first panel was the administration officials and the second panel was everyone else. There was a little drama on this front though…..

The Wheeler letter

Mary Nichols, the Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), should have been sitting at the table with the administration witnesses, as California is (should be) an equal partner in setting the standards. However, the EPA was committed to undermining her at every turn.  Bill Wehrum refused to sit with her on the same panel.  While sparks were flying about this detail in the hearing room (with the Democrats arguing that Mary Nichols should have been on the first panel and Republicans arguing that she shouldn’t be sitting with administration witnesses), EPA Administrator Wheeler – who was not in the room – found a way to chime in.

David Shepardson tweeted out a letter from EPA Administrator Wheeler addressed (only!) to the minority (Republican) committee members. In the letter Administrator Wheeler basically called Mary Nichols a liar, said that her testimony was not truthful (!!), and accused her of “irresponsible testimony about conspiracy theories that ‘the oil industry drove this action’.” Again, this is the morning after the committee sent letters to oil industry members to disclose their involvement, based on evidence they had been communicating with the administration about this rule.  Having this letter drop as the hearing was starting made the hearing kick off rather strange, AND from all of the public statements we have seen, the content was absolutely inaccurate.  The (untrue) content of the letter was referenced multiple times during the hearing, both by Wehrum and by some Republican Committee Members.

What did the administration say?

The real fireworks of the hearing occurred while Wehrum and King were testifying.   They both made rather predictable (and untrue) statements about how the proposed rollback is actually good for people, said that everyone at both agencies are working together (even though there is ample evidence that EPA technical staff have been frozen out of the analysis), blamed California for stalled negotiations – it was the same stuff we have been hearing for over a year now.

But the back and forth with the Reps was still fun.  Here’s a sampling of some of the lines of questioning that the witnesses had to respond to (the number in parentheses is the district each Rep represents in their state) –

• Schakowsky (D-IL-9) noted that the analysis that NHTSA relies on to say that mandating more efficient cars actually has dramatic negative safety consequences is untested and unproven – she asked Wehrum if EPA really signed off on it.
  • Bill Wehrum’s answer was that EPA had talked about it and they believed that the rule would save lives (refuted by the fact that EPA had to put their critique of NTHSA’s model in the official record during interagency review – an unusual move). He went on to simultaneously mansplain and brush off Rep. Schakowsky by saying that that the safety analysis was “very complex”.
  • Schakowsky’s answer to this was perfect – she noted that garbage in equals garbage out when modeling, demonstrating her understanding of complex issues.
• Matsui (D-CA-6) talked about the importance of state authority and asked Bill Wehrum specifically about the administration’s intent to revoke California’s waiver to regulate tailpipe pollution – an authority the state has had since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, and an action that no administration has ever proposed.
  • Bill Wehrum refused to acknowledge that a waiver granted to California to regulate emissions has never been revoked, while in reality over 100 waivers have been granted to date and none have ever been revoked.
• Dingell (D-MI-12) mostly wanted to get the Trump administration awe nd CARB back to the negotiating table and asked if EPA would restart negotiations if CA was willing to.
  • Wehrum said he would do what the President wanted him to do.
• Blunt-Rochester (D-DE) asked why NHTSA wasn’t working on rules that would actually increase the safety of vehicles – like side restraint standards and side impact testing for car seats.
  • King said that rulemakings are complicated and they issue them when they’re ready (nevermind that NHTSA is many years overdue for several safety rules, as was noted by former Deputy Administrator David Friedman on the second panel).
• Chairman Pallone (D-NJ-6) DeGette (D-CO-1) probed Bill Wehrum’s potential conflicts of interest as he is under investigation about his work with his former clients in the oil industry – they asked specifically about the rollback – he didn’t recall any meetings and didn’t know if any of his staff had meetings with these groups.*
  • Bill Wehrum refused to say he would definitely get the list of meetings to Rep. DeGette, instead saying that he would take the request back to EPA’s Office of Congressional Affairs.

*As an epilogue to this section – it’s worth noting that on Wednesday June 26, Bill Wehrum announced that he was stepping down from EPA – apparently because the ethics probes by both the EPA inspector General and the House Energy and Commerce Committees were having detrimental impacts on his former employer,  Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm where he represented power sector and energy and gas clients who were mostly fighting against regulations.

The main theme

One of the things that we heard over and over again was that most people don’t want the rollback of the standards, as the administration has proposed.  Representatives, both Democrat and Republican, the United Auto Workers, the Alliance of Auto manufacturers, the head of the Colorado Dept of Transportation – everyone wants the Trump administration to cease and desist with their relentless rollback of the popular and effective fuel economy and global warming pollution standards and go back to the negotiating table with CARB to find a solution that strengthens the standards.

Following the hearing, bipartisan letters were sent to the agencies and California, urging them to restart negotiations.  These letters were signed by Reps. Dingell and Tonko from the democratic side and Reps. Upton and Shimkus from the republican side.

While a negotiated outcome could be better than what we’re facing, particularly if it eliminates the administration’s attack on the Clean Air Act and state authority, the devil is in the details. As my colleague Dave has pointed out, the proposals that automakers put into the record are still a lot weaker than the existing standards—if that’s an indication of what a negotiated settlement looks like, that’s not much of a victory for the American public.

Moving forward, it will be critical that Congress continue to press the administration on its bad modeling and even worse proposals—strong oversight is needed to get the administration to uphold its Congressionally mandated responsibilities to protect public health and welfare and improve energy efficiency. The Energy and Commerce hearing is a good public display of the committee’s interest in this issue, and the letters that they sent to the oil companies and oil-funded front groups shows that they aren’t letting go of this issue any time soon.  We will continue to share our analysis and expertise in this issue and look forward to learning more about the committee’s work over time.  Ideally this level of interest stops the Trump administration from finalizing the rule as it was originally put forward in their proposal, and Congress will continue to play an important role in continuing to hold their feet to the fire.

Numerous polls and studies show that reducing the upfront cost of EVs is key to accelerating adoption.  The purchase price of EVs are currently higher than their conventional gasoline-powered counterparts, so the federal $7,500 tax credit for plug-in electric EVs helps make them cost competitive and is critical for deployment.  The credit is structured differently than most other tax credits– the full credit is available until an auto company hits 200,000 EV sales – after a manufacturer exceeds that number of sales, there is a year-long phase down period where buyers receive a partial tax credit.

Why does this matter?

Two U.S. manufacturers have hit the 200,000 sales mark and are currently in the phase down – Tesla and General Motors.  Nissan will likely be the next manufacturer to hit the cap.  As consumers are shopping for a new EV, they will find that they will not be able to take the tax credit for vehicles made by these manufacturers, which creates a disincentive to buy EVs from these companies.  With about 40 EV models on the market (compared to nearly 300 models for conventional vehicles), the already restricted consumer choice on EVs shrinks even more.  Further, many of these EVs are only available in select markets, so depending on where you live, you may have far fewer EV models to choose from. This also penalizes the companies that have been leading the way on electrification as they are now competing with companies that have been slower to market and whose vehicles are still eligible for the tax credit.

It’s not that this is a bad structure, but the biggest problem with the current tax credit is that 200,000 vehicles isn’t considered scale in the auto industry.  For example, in 2018 over 240,000 Jeep Cherokees, 325,000 Honda Civics, and 909,000 Ford F-series trucks were sold.  These vehicles are all being produced at scale, but not a single EV model has had sales anywhere close to these numbers over their many years on the market.

As battery costs decline and manufacturing scale increases, these vehicles will become cost-competitive with conventional vehicles – both our analysis and new analysis from ICCT show that we can expect to see price parity in the mid-2020’s.  We strongly support expanding or modifying the tax credit for a defined period before EVs are cost-competitive with conventional vehicles.  There are a number of ideas on how to do this; some change the credit to be a more conventional tax credit and allow for it to be used for a set number of years.  Others increase the number of vehicles (the “manufacturer cap”) that are eligible for the tax credit.  We are open to evaluating any of these solutions.

We are nearing a tipping point in the next decade where electrification will be mainstream — costs for batteries are coming down, and manufacturers are nearing deployment of EVs in every class of vehicle. But it will take bipartisan support and investment to make that vision a reality, if the US is to lead the world towards a more sustainable transportation future.

What’s new this week?

Last night, the first bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation that would increase the tax credit was unveiled.  It has the support of 60 organizations, including the auto companies (all of them – this is no small feat), utilities, auto suppliers, environmental groups, health groups, business groups, and security groups.  In other words, this is legislation that has widespread support and could potentially become law.

In the Senate, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Susan Collins (R-ME) are the primary architects of the Driving America Forward Act.  Representative Dan Kildee (D-MI-5) is the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives.  This proposal would increase the per manufacturer cap to 600,000 and reduce the tax credit value for the additional 400,000 units to $7,000 per vehicle (it’s currently a maximum $7,500 per vehicle).  The bill also extends the tax credit for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles for 10 years, which will incentivize the development and deployment of additional low carbon, zero tailpipe emissions options, which UCS also supports.

What will the bill really do?

Some relatively simple math shows the benefits of EVs. The average EV driving on electricity in the US will generate 3.3 tons FEWER CO₂e (CO₂ equivalent) emissions per year than an average gasoline-powered car (which right now gets about 30 mpg).  If I could wave a magic wand and replace 400,000 conventional vehicles with EVs tomorrow, the reduction would be 2 million metric tons of CO2e emissions per year, roughly the same emissions as from the electricity use of almost 350,000 homes in  a year.

These climate benefits are real and are only going to get better as the grid gets cleaner.  My colleagues have been looking at the emissions impacts of driving an EV in different parts of the country for years now and we have already seen a dramatic shift in the several years since when we first started this work.  In 2009, we found that 45 percent of people lived in areas where an EV would produce the same tailpipe global warming emissions as a conventional vehicle that gets 50 mpg.  By our more recent analysis in 2018, that number was up to 75 percent (the toggle function on the map in this blog is really fun).  In large parts of the country, EVs emit much less than even the most efficient conventional vehicle.  That’s a significant change over a relatively short time period.  Unlike gasoline, electricity is a transportation fuel that can get (and has gotten!) significantly cleaner over time – as the grid gets cleaner, the emissions from EVs charged on that grid automatically go down.

In addition to the climate benefits, this bill would also result in lower oil use – to the tune of about 480 gallons per year per car.  In my magic wand scenario above, that would be nearly 200 million gallons of gasoline that are not used.  That’s a lot of oil.  Speaking of oil – you know who isn’t going to like this bill?  The Koch brothers and the oil industry.  We have been keeping an eye on their lobbying activities around the EV tax credit – I’m sure it won’t be terribly surprising to learn that they are actively trying to abolish it.   This means that the oil companies think that EVs pose a real threat to their business.  To me, that means we’re on the right path, but we can’t afford to deviate now.  We must keep moving forward, and that means increasing EV sales and making sure that charging infrastructure is available so we can dramatically reduce emissions from transportation.

EVs may be a threat to the oil industry, but they are critical to the auto industry

US leadership in a critical industry is also riding on our ability to deploy EVs domestically.  Globally, there is really no question that we are moving towards electrification.  The International Council on Clean Transportation has written several reports on the global EV market and what other countries are doing to incentivize EV purchases – not surprisingly, China is setting itself up to eat our lunch.

In 2018, 64 percent of the EVs sold in the US were made domestically.  GM, Tesla and Nissan EVs have been rolling off assembly lines in MI, CA, and TN, for example. That’s a pretty good news story.  But if we, as a country, do not continue to invest in electrification, we are not going to be able to keep posting these numbers.  We are going to wind up importing more EVs, and maybe more importantly, the intellectual capacity on innovation and leadership in the advanced automotive industry is going to shift elsewhere.  As ICCT put it “Economies like Japan, Germany, and the United States, among others where there is major automobile manufacturing, have the most to lose if they do not lead in the transition to electric vehicles.  China, on the other hand, is now the leading automobile market and has the most to gain from staking out a leadership position in the shift to electric.”  If we don’t stay at the table, we can’t win.

It would be great for more Senators to support the bipartisan bill to extend the EV tax credit – you can ask your Senators to co-sponsor the bill by taking this action.

If the Science Committee was, well, different, this hearing would be an opportunity to examine the scientific facts underlying the issue of allowing unlimited glider trucks on our nation’s roads, facts which clearly show that these vehicles are dangerous to public health.  Instead, I expect it to focus on the false narrative that political leadership at EPA, glider manufacturer Fitzgerald, and more recently, Steve Milloy, founder of the climate and science-skeptic blog Junk Science, have been putting forward – that glider trucks help small businesses and are no more polluting than new, more expensive, trucks.

The witness list shows that this hearing is just meant to be legislative theater for the Chairman. The Republicans have invited the trade association of the independent truckers (OOIDA, basically the only mainstream industry group that has always supported the glider rule repeal) and Dr. Richard Belzer, an economist for hire, who was hired by Fitzgerald to write a “straw Regulatory Impact Analysis” that was submitted to the agency – he will undoubtedly parrot their talking points in the hearing. The final witness for the majority is Linda Tsang from the Congressional Research Service, which I like to call the library for Congress, is a non-partisan research and analysis service arm for Congress (let’s hear it for librarians!) – this is an interesting pick as she has not written anything publicly available on gliders, so it’s unclear what her specific expertise will be.  The minority (Democrats) were allowed to invite one witness – Dr. Paul Miller, the Deputy Director and Chief Scientist of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), which is a coordinating body for air quality regulators in the northeast.  Note that Paul is the only scientist who was asked to testify at this hearing.

What is this hearing about?

Good question, and it’s one we have been asking ourselves since we first heard about the hearing.  We have a couple of hypotheses:

1. Chairman Smith has routinely used his position to give a stage to industry interests and fringe perspectives that align with his, and now this administration’s deregulatory agenda. Fitzgerald is just the latest actor to somehow curry favor and use the Committee to relitigate environmental protections.
2. This hearing is really about undermining the science done at EPA and gives the Republicans a stage to question EPA’s methodical testing of glider trucks (please note, however, that no witnesses from EPA were invited to testify).
3. All of the above.

Isn’t this a regulatory issue?  Why is Congress getting involved at this point?

Congress has been playing in the glider vehicle space for a little while, but it’s really heated up recently.  One reason for this is a recent letter lead by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL and member of the Science Committee), who reiterated many of the same talking points OOIDA and Fitzgerald have used in pressing for an exemption to environmental protections for these dirty trucks. Another is that Steve Milloy, an industry shill and longtime opponent of regulation, has been combing over emails sent between agency officials and outside parties about EPA’s testing of glider vehicles last fall, attempting to make mountains of molehills in his quest for deregulation.

If you’ve read previous UCS blogs on gliders, you may remember that when then-Administrator Pruitt began the process of repealing the rule that limits glider truck production at the behest of Fitzgerald there was a (now discredited and withdrawn) “study” done by not-scientists at the Tennessee Technical University (TTU) that was bought and paid for by Fitzgerald.  EPA documented the issues with the TTU study and also did their own study of the emissions from in-use glider trucks (glider trucks that have been on the road a while).  EPA doesn’t have tractor trailers just sitting around to test, nor do they have the budget to buy a bunch of them, so when they need tractors to test, they typically borrow them while they put them through their paces.  This time, Volvo helped them procure some gliders to test and there is a mad conspiracy theory out there that Volvo influenced the results because they helped find the trucks for EPA to test.

Several Congressmen have latched onto this story line and sent letters to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) asking them to open an investigation into the procurement of the trucks (the OIG recently said they would start an audit, not a full investigation).  In addition, Chairman Smith has now sent a couple of letters requesting specific correspondence between EPA and Volvo and calling into question the “scientific integrity and validity” of the EPA, despite the fact that a top Trump appointee has already notified Chairman Smith that he doesn’t see any untoward influence in the study and that it was conducted according to standard lab practices. Furthermore, as we have already pointed out, the EPA study merely confirms the obvious: these trucks pollute like crazy.

Attacking an empty chair

Tomorrow, I expect that we will see some reprisal of the Congressional letters to the agency play out.  Unfortunately, each Science Committee member will be the center of their own one-man show, since they are seeking no input from the agency itself.  If the committee were interested in actual oversight and upholding their constitutional role, the hearing would be focused on the merits of the testing and allow the agency an opportunity to detail the methodology and rigor of the testing protocol which shows how deadly glider trucks are. Instead, this will be another showboat for the Science Committee members to delegitimize the critically important and lifesaving science done by career staff at EPA. Unfortunately, conducting “oversight” without the agency present isn’t a new play for the Science Committee.

In his quest to find fire where there is no smoke, Chairman Smith will once again discover that no bogeyman exists. Despite his efforts to reanimate this issue, citizens, scientists, lawmakers, and businesses know zombie trucks should not be operating on our roads and polluting our air. The science is stating the obvious here…if only the Science Committee were interested in listening to it.

Just before Scott Pruitt resigned from his position as EPA administrator, he gave a parting gift to the super-polluting glider truck industry. He said that the EPA wouldn’t enforce their own rule that limits production of these super-polluting trucks for another year and a half, an action that put thousands of lives at risk and seems legally indefensible. We had something to say about this, and so did you! More than 14,000 UCS supporters weighed in with EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, telling him to reverse course and close the glider vehicle loophole.

Glider trucks are really bad—they emit up to 40 times the NO_x and 450 times the particulate pollution allowed in new trucks sold today. We have written about the strange backstory of these trucks and the saga of how one company (cough – Fitzgerald – cough) stands to gain from the previous administrator’s actions several times. You could say that we’re pretty fired up about glider trucks here at UCS.

So, what happened yesterday?

Andrew Wheeler is now the acting administrator of the EPA.  He was confirmed as deputy administrator in April and took over when Pruitt resigned.  We have been watching to see what he will do on several issues core to UCS’s mission and we got our first indication last night that he is at least more rational than his predecessor. He is not going to follow through with the enforcement ban that Pruitt put in place, which is great news. Is it the end of the story? Definitely not. But it’s a good indication that he is cut from different cloth than Pruitt.

This is a huge win for people who breathe air, particularly if they do so near trucking corridors. But we’re not out of the woods yet. There is still a rule on the table that would deregulate glider trucks entirely—many of you submitted comments on this rule (thank you!!) and we are in a waiting period to see if it gets finalized. Acting Administrator Wheeler has the power to kill the rule, like he did the enforcement ban, we just need to wait and see if he is willing to take that next step.

A political maneuver—but nonetheless a positive one

You may be wondering why he did this now, quietly, on a Thursday night, less than a week before he’s scheduled to testify in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee…..oh wait. There’s no doubt in my mind that Acting Administrator Wheeler made this move on purpose just before his first Senate hearing since he was confirmed. He is signaling that he is a different kind of political appointee and is probably hoping that Democratic members will go easier on him; this move may help.

The other piece of this puzzle are the lawsuits against the enforcement that were immediately filed by several environmental groups  and 16 states—the DC Circuit Court stayed the enforcement ban as they collect more information.

However, there are still LOTS of outstanding issues that we will keep a close eye on and will work to hold him accountable for anything the agency does under his watch—including weakening the clean car standards and undermining state authority to regulate tailpipe emissions (the proposal for this could come next week), advancing the restricted science proposal, continuing with this nonsense on PFAS, taking any further action on glider trucks…..the list is long.

But today let’s take a moment to savor our victory. Enjoy it. Relish it. Drink it in. These moments are infrequent, but they are fortifying. On Monday, we’ll be back in the fight.

Reading the EPA’s redetermination is mind-boggling – it is basically a regurgitation of industry talking points put forward by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and Global Automakers (Global) in the public record.

Some comments that were in opposition to the auto industry talking points were alluded to in the document, but there is no substantive evaluation of any of them. Nothing approaching a robust technical debate of any information is presented in this report — it is simply declarative, substituting the political will of the Administrator to side with industry for the hard, scientific rigor found in the 2017 Final Determination.

Although the redetermination is full of questionable assumptions and strange conclusions, we picked five falsehoods that are core to their reasoning and explain why they’re wrong.

Falsehood 1

What they say: Vehicle costs were underestimated in the EPA’s original record that was foundational to the first Final Determination.

Why they’re wrong: When it comes to technology costs, EPA ignores the large number of peer-reviewed publications from its own technical staff showing how manufacturers can meet the 2025 standards, even without significant penetration of plug-in electric vehicles or strong hybrids.  It takes at face value automaker claims about the level of technologies needed to achieve the standards, without actually examining the studies cited by the automakers in making those erroneous claims, studies which in fact contradict the automakers’ assertions that significant penetration of advanced technology is necessary.  It also ignores the latest evidence on the vehicle costs needed to meet the rules.

Falsehood 2

What they say: Gas prices have changed since the rule was finalized in 2012.

Why they’re wrong: Gas price projections did change between 2012 and 2018.  However, when the agency updated their analysis for the mid-term evaluation and did the Final Determination in January 2017, they took that into account.  The projected gas prices used in the previous administrations’ Proposed and Final Determinations are nearly identical to current gas price projections.  Why the current EPA decided to focus on this and say it was a reason to re-evaluate the Final Determination is beyond me.

In one place, the redetermination exclaims that “lifetime fuel savings to consumers can change by almost 200 percent per vehicles based on the assumption on gas prices according to the 2016 Proposed Determination (Table IV.12).”  This is true.  A quick look at the table (below) clearly shows that fuel savings can go from good to great depending on the gas prices expected in 2025, ranging from $1,439 to $4,209 over the lifetime of the average vehicle, which is all good news for consumers.

Falsehood 3

What they say: “Consumers’ preferences are not necessarily aligned to meet emission standards and there is uncertainty on this issue that merits further consideration.”

Why they’re wrong: They go out of their way to say that consumers don’t want fuel efficient vehicles, which is not the data we’ve seen.

They cite an automaker point that only 5% of 2017 sales of normal gasoline-powered vehicles would meet 2025 standards. I don’t know why they would expect today’s vehicles to meet standards 8 years out.  The whole point of the standards is to make sure that vehicles get more efficient over time.

Auto manufacturers redesign vehicles every five years or so – it is in these product redesigns that they make major changes in the body style, and the efficiency of the engine and other components.  In eight years, all vehicles are going through at least one redesign, which is plenty of opportunity to make vehicles more efficient so they meet the standards.

It’s worth noting that models of popular vehicles like the Ford F-150 and Toyota Camry already meet targets well into the future—there is lots of opportunity to improve the efficiency of these vehicles and ample technology to do so, as reams and reams of research ignored by the agency can attest.

In addition, the way the standards work, not every vehicle needs to be exactly in compliance every year because they are based on an average.  There are flexibilities built into the program that allow manufacturers to bank and borrow credits over time because it is understood that vehicles will be more efficient right after a redesign and may be less efficient than the standards when it’s approaching its next redesign.

They also show misleading data on the uptake of electric vehicles by consumers.  Plug-in electric vehicle sales are increasing every year and as more models are introduced in varying sizes, more consumers will be able to consider them as an option for their lifestyle. Moreover, hybrid sales also grew from 2016 to 2017; conveniently, EPA excluded 2017 because it was a chart lifted from Alliance comments rather than analyzed with any sort of independent rationale.

Lastly, multiple polls have shown that consumers value fuel economy strongly. A NRDC poll from 2016 showed that 95% of Americans agree that “Automakers should continue to improve fuel economy for all vehicle types” and 79% of Americans believe that “The U.S. government should continue to increase fuel efficiency standards and enforce them”. Consumers Union has also published multiple polls that show that nearly 9 in 10 Americans think that automakers should continue to raise vehicle fuel economy.  And a poll released by the American Lung Association last week showed that after people hear balanced arguments from each side, their support for the standards increases slightly. It’s like I’m not alone in wanting to spend less money at the gas station.

Falsehood 4

What they say:  Consumers will be priced out of the market by these standards.

Why they’re wrong: Consumers are the greatest beneficiary of these savings.  As noted above, consumers stand to save thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicles. In fact, consumers that finance their vehicles save money as soon as they drive their new cars off the lot, as the marginal cost of the fuel saving technology on their monthly payment is far exceeded by the money they save on fuel every month.

They also say that average new car sales transaction costs have increased as a result of the standards, a point which has been debunked repeatedly.  For example, Consumers Union showed that new car prices have remained relatively flat over the past 20 years with respect to inflation, and used car prices have fallen.  Similarly, auto analysts Alan Baum and Dan Luria showed that transaction prices are on the rise as a direct result of automakers upselling luxury packages to increasingly wealthy consumers.  All of this ignores consumers who are currently saving money due to paying less at the pump, which recent research shows disproportionately benefits low-income individuals, again a study acknowledged and ignored by Administrator Pruitt.

Falsehood 5

What they say: The growing preference for larger vehicles over cars make it harder to comply with the standards.

Why they’re wrong: The popularity of SUVs and light trucks doesn’t undermine the standards—it reinforces the need to maintain their strength.  Rather than setting a single greenhouse gas emission target for the average vehicle sold by a manufacturer, which is what the original vehicle standards did in the 1970’s, the new vehicle standards consider the size and type of the vehicles sold to determine each manufacturer’s target. This ensures that all vehicles improve their efficiency, including trucks and SUVs, while giving automakers flexibility in hitting their targets, based on the vehicles they sell. This system means that no particular vehicle model needs to be “in compliance”; some vehicles can achieve greater fuel economy and others less in a given year and the manufacturer’s fleet can still be in compliance with the standards.

What’s missing from the redetermination?

What they don’t say: Weakening the global warming emission standards endangers public health and welfare by contributing to global warming

Missing from the Revised Final Determination is any mention of climate change or its impacts, which endangers Americans now and into the future and is the reason that EPA sets these standards. Scientists warn that we must significantly reduce emissions of global warming pollutants to avoid the worst effects of climate change, including sea level rise, wildfires, and infectious diseases.  As it stands now, no other federal policy is delivering greater global warming emissions reductions than these vehicle standards. If the EPA completely rolls back the regulations, as some have signaled, that will mean an additional half billion tons of global warming emissions just from the vehicles sold between 2022-2025.  Doing so would make hitting our obligations under the Paris Climate Accord a virtual impossibility, significantly damaging our ability to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

We knew that this day was coming, but the extent to which this redetermination relies solely on industry arguments and ignores the robust analytics that underlie the original Final Determination is confounding.  It makes me think about the story that came out around Administrator Pruitt’s confirmation, when we learned that he took a letter written by a Devon energy lobbyist and put it on his OK Attorney General letterhead and submitted it to the Department of Interior.

This redetermination feels like that – like he just read the Alliance and Global comments and used their quotes to rewrite the determination.  It’s a slap in the face to everyone who cares about data, analytics, scientific integrity, and our climate.  We know he’s going to propose rolling back the standards in the proposed rule that we expect to see this summer.  The question is by how much.  We will keep a close eye on this and let you know what he proposes and ask for your help in keeping the standards strong.

Glider vehicles have gone from being a niche issue to a major conversation piece both here in DC and now also in Tennessee.  The villains are still Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, Fitzgerald Glider Kits, and Congresswoman Diane Black.  The new heroes are the Tennessee Tech University (TTU) faculty and students.

First a quick recap of the issue: Glider vehicles are new truck bodies that have old, polluting engines in them.  As noted in my colleague Dave Cooke’s previous blogs, the particulate matter (PM) emissions alone from these vehicles will cause an additional 1600 premature deaths annually (assuming they make 10,000 vehicles a year). And the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are 10x that of the emissions from the Volkswagen diesel cars that were outfitted with defeat devices for every year this loophole remains open.

These dirty polluting trucks are terrible for the environment, our health (particularly the health of people who live along trucking corridors, predominantly people of color, which was acknowledged in an early draft of the proposal to roll back the rule), and for companies and dealers that sell new trucks that actually meet the current PM and NOx emissions standards.

The glider vehicle loophole was closed as part of the Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulations that were finalized in 2016 – Administrator Pruitt is looking to repeal the part of the rule that limits the number of glider vehicles that can be sold with pre-2010 engines.

But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt doesn’t seem to care about any of that.  There are several different layers of malfeasance happening here, many of them come directly out of my colleagues’ Disinformation Playbook.  I’ll start with the science interference.

The newest twist in this story is about the “study” that TTU performed and Fitzgerald included in their request that the agency repeal the rule that limits the production of super polluting glider vehicles.  I will admit, here at UCS, we were incredulous about the brevity of the “data” and lack of methodology included in the “study” – it’s basically a table with almost no information – it includes carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, which have been under control in transportation for some time, an acknowledgement that all trucks they tested have higher NOx emissions than allowed, and said that the PM emissions were “below the threshold detection point” (because they didn’t measure it! check out Dave’s blog on this point – it’s gold). Because we are a bunch of science nerds, we wondered who would have signed off on this testing?  What was the level of scientific rigor?  Did no one at the university notice that the study was designed, bought, and paid for by Fitzgerald?

Tennessee Tech University faculty fight back

Unknown to us, there was a giant debate happening among the faculty at Tennessee Tech University about this very “study.”  It turns out that this “study” really is just a politically-driven hack job and the faculty at Tennessee Tech University aren’t having it.

The Faculty Senate business meeting minutes are amazing and downright enjoyable to read.  They appear to have first talked about it on January 29^th and the Faculty Senators just ripped into Tom Brewer (more on him later), asking all of the questions you would expect – who conducted this research? Did you actually not measure PM? Do you not realize this looks like a conflict of interest? etc.  The very next day, they approved a resolution that starts by saying that their reputation has been damaged by this “study” and demands an external investigation of the person who led it (Tom Brewer), that TTU President Oldham withdraw university support for the “study,” that all research and associations with Fitzgerald are suspended, and that there is an immediate internal investigation of the “study.”

It took until February 19^th, but TTU President Oldham sent a letter to the EPA asking them to disregard the “study,” as they were going to submit it for peer-review.  A win for science!!

I promised more information about Tom Brewer, the person who apparently oversaw the “research” for the “study.”  Brewer has a BA in business administration and previously worked in product administration at GM, was the president of the Board of the Tennessee Automotive Manufacturers Association, and was brought to TTU to be “an industry liaison.”  This is the “expert” that ran the study.  Fitzgerald apparently has “no engineers experts on staff” nor any of the appropriate equipment to conduct the testing.

Corporate cronyism

There is a political story that underlies all of this – namely that Fitzgerald, the largest glider vehicle manufacturer, happens to be located in Congresswoman Diane Black’s district (she’s running for Governor of Tennessee this year, if you want to keep tabs on her).  Representative Black has long sought to ensure that these zombie trucks continue to be sold in high numbers – she has repeatedly introduced (unsuccessful) appropriations riders to stop glider vehicles from being regulated.  She is also the person that TTU sent their “study” to and it was that letter that got forwarded on and included in the Fitzgerald request to roll back any regulations for glider vehicles.

In addition, it is worth noting the timing of this whole withdrawal process.  At one point, Fitzgerald said that they would still be able to make a profit if sales volumes were capped; this stance changed shortly after Administrator Pruitt was confirmed, however.  Last year, Fitzgerald met with Administrator Pruitt in May, submitted their petition for reconsideration in July, and the notice that this was going to be revisited came out in August. In December, EPA held a hearing at which several UCS supporters testified (thank you!!) and over 26,000 UCS supporters sent comment letters to EPA requesting that this loophole stay closed – our supporters are awesome!

Fitzgerald is clearly working to exert their influence at every turn.  They are sponsoring university research that they are refusing to release details of (The Fake in the playbook).  And about at the same time, Fitzgerald gifted land to the university to build a Center for Intelligent Mobility (The Screen in the playbook).  They are clearly behind the entire repeal effort happening at the EPA and are the reason that Congresswoman Black has been championing zombie trucks for years (The Fix in the playbook).

The uproar at Tennessee Tech University, the blatant political motivations that have been in the mainstream press here, here, and here, Congressional scrutiny, and common decency aren’t likely enough to keep this loophole you could drive a truck  through closed.  I think it’s incredibly likely that Administrator Pruitt goes ahead with his proposal to allow unregulated glider vehicle sales.  It’s up to all of us to let him know that that’s not ok.  Please take this action to speak out against this and we’ll keep you updated on the next steps.

Remember dieselgate? The Volkswagen scandal that led to huge emissions of harmful air pollution from their cars, criminal charges, and a $30 billion mea culpa? Well, dieselgate may be small compared to the new emissions scandal that is playing out across the country. This time, however, the emissions cheating would be explicitly allowed by Congress.

As with the VW scandal, it involves so-called emission defeat devices – equipment that shuts off a vehicle’s emissions control system, allowing the car to spew hazardous pollution into the air. These defeat devices are marketed to amateur racers (and sometimes the general public who think it’s fun to “roll coal” and blow black smoke at Priuses). Manufacturers of these defeat devices are pushing Congress to let them off the hook for selling products that are used illegally in our communities, and so far many in Congress are siding against clean air.

What do defeat devices do and who wants them?

All vehicles on public roads must have pollution control systems to remove dangerous air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and smog precursors (carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) from vehicle exhaust. And this is a really good thing. The EPA estimates that current pollution control systems will prevent up to 2,000 premature deaths, avoid 2,200 hospital admissions, and eliminate 19,000 asthma attacks annually because some of these pollutants cause lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory harm.

These emission control systems can, however, be turned off by defeat devices which are frequently marketed as “tuners”, “oxygen sensor simulators” or “exhaust gas recirculation delete kits”.

Why would someone want to turn off their vehicle pollution controls? One popular reason is for amateur car racing. We’re not talking NASCAR here, as purpose-built race cars are already exempt from this requirement. Instead these are local races where people “convert” their regular cars into race cars to use at tracks.  And if people want to modify a car that they use just for racing so that it goes a little faster on the track, it’s probably not that big of a deal.

Out of the millions of vehicles on the road, only a tiny fraction of them are modified to be used in racing competitions. However, if people bypass the emission controls on cars they use on our streets on a regular basis, that’s a different story: it imposes unnecessary pollution on the drivers’ neighbors and it’s against the law. So if device manufacturers are knowingly selling defeat devices for off-track use, they should be prosecuted.

How big of a deal could this be?  Big. One settlement that the EPA made with H&S Performance states that they sold over 100,000 devices and that the pollution from those devices would be nearly TWICE the NOx pollution put out by VW diesel cars from 2008 until they were caught in 2015.[i] 

One company, double dieselgate.  It’s staggering.

It turns out that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies who are willing to sell people defeat devices that they can put on their own cars.  We don’t have a complete handle on the number of devices sold, or how much extra pollution they are spewing out into our communities. But based on the emissions from just H&S Performance, it has the potential to be HUGE. And if manufacturers and retailers of these devices are marketing these defeat devices to the general public for use on our roads, the emissions, and therefore health, impacts could be enormous.

So, what does this have to do with Congress?

Manufacturers of defeat devices have a vested interest in making it difficult for regulators to stymie the illegal use of these defeat devices since the more they sell, the bigger their profits. There are bills in the House (H. 350 ) and Senate (S. 203) called the “RPM Act” that would make it very difficult for the EPA to go after manufacturers of these defeat devices who are clearly selling to people who are using these on their everyday vehicles. It is critical that the EPA maintains the ability to stop manufacturers who aren’t playing by the rules.

In a recent hearing about the RPM Act in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Alexandra Teitz, a consultant for the Sierra Club, dubbed this “DIY Dieselgate”, which is incredibly apt.

There are a lot of Senators and Representatives supporting this bill because the trade association for the manufacturers who make these devices (and other aftermarket parts) is putting in a lot of effort on Capitol Hill. The manufacturers see a challenge to their business model and profitability. And they have put a lot of effort into convincing amateur racers, wrongly, that the EPA intends to stop all amateur racing or take their race cars.

The manufacturers are selling this bill as a clarification of existing law, when in actuality it will make it very hard, if not impossible, for the EPA to do their job and ensure that all Americans have access to clean air – and one way they will do it is to prosecute manufacturers who are clearly selling these defeat devices to individuals who are not using them solely for racing. We need to make sure Congress is aware they are voting for legislation that will put the health of their constituents at risk.

Allowing amateur racers to modify a small number of vehicles that are solely used at the track is one thing – but sanctioning mass marketing of emissions defeat devices that are resulting in deadly air pollution in communities across the country is another. Check out the list of cosponsors for the House and Senate bills to see if your representative is on the bill. If so, please call your representative and ask that they withdraw their support for the RPM Act.

[i] The settlement agreement notes 71,669 short tons (or 65,017 metric tons) of NOx emissions over the lifetime of vehicles with H&S Performance defeat devices installed.  An analysis by MIT researchers estimate excess NOX emissions of 36,700 metric tons between 2008 and 2015 from non-compliant 2.0L VW vehicles.