WCA November 2018

From the Americas

The novel ‘reasoning’ behind the proposed rollback of stricter fuel economy standards

cybersecurity awareness and insider threat prevention, organisations need to take “a holistic approach” – focusing first on people, then on processes and technology.

“I don’t know how they are going to defend this analysis.” Antonio M Bento, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Southern California, was referring to the position taken by the Trump administration on the issue of federal fuel economy standards: that strict rules put in place in 2012 – requiring automakers to roughly double the fuel economy of new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2025 – should be drastically scaled back. (See “Massive regulatory rollback,” above) As noted by Brad Plumer of the New York Times , in support of the proposed rollback of the Obama-era rules, Mr Trump has made the novel claim that forcing automakers to build cleaner cars will lead to more highway accidents and deaths. (“Trump Officials Link Fuel Economy Rules to Deadly Crashes. Experts Are Skeptical,” 2 nd August) Although Dr Bento’s research is cited throughout the document outlining the scuttling plan, he is among the sceptical outside experts who reviewed a draft of the Trump proposal. He told Mr Plumer, “I just don’t think it’s correct.” Weight versus size in safety concerns Three main arguments are put forth in the rollback proposal:  First, people who buy fuel-efficient vehicles will spend more time behind the wheel, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash  Second, the fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, slowing the rate at which people buy newer vehicles with advanced safety features  Third, the lighter-weight cars made in conformity to tighter standards may constitute a safety threat Readers will judge for themselves whether these claims are persuasive. Here, much condensed, are the results of the Times ’s “closer look” at them.  The ‘driving more’ argument. Of the more than 12,700 extra road deaths that the Trump administration estimates would result from keeping the Obama-era standards in place, compared with halting them after 2021, about half are attributed to a phenomenon known as the “rebound effect”: As cars and trucks become more fuel-efficient, the cost of driving goes down and people are likely to drive more. The Obama administration concluded that the rebound effect produced a fairly modest 0.1 per cent increase in driving for every one per cent increase in vehicle fuel economy. The Trump puts the rebound effect as essentially twice as large, but according to some economists this higher estimate is questionable.

Automotive

A Trump proposal for a massive rollback of fuel-efficiency standards would court a rebellion by ecology-minded states In 2012, during the Obama administration, the federal government worked with California and the auto industry to craft a uniform set of national standards requiring automakers to increase the fuel economy of their fleets to reach an average of roughly 54 miles per gallon by 2025. Now, USA President Donald Trump’s tendency to attempt to reverse the approach of the Obama administration in all matters threatens an upheaval in the domestic automotive market. The Trump administration announced plans on 2 nd August to freeze fuel-efficiency requirements for the nation’s cars and trucks through to 2026. On the same day, California and 18 other states said that they would sue to stop any proposal to weaken the Obama-era federal fuel-efficiency standards. Reaffirming that the facts and the science support him and his attorney general, California Gov Jerry Brown asserted that his state “will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.” As noted by the Washington Post , the Trump plan would attempt to revoke California’s long-standing legal right to set its own, more stringent tailpipe standards, and restrict the ability of other states to follow Gov Brown’s lead. (“Trump Administration to Freeze Fuel-Efficiency Requirements in Move Likely to Spur Legal Battle With States,” 2 nd August) Post reporters Brady Dennis, Michael Laris and Juliet Eilperin pointed out that, if California were to prevail in the likely legal clash to come, the state could set tougher standards than the (current) federal government. This would confront automakers with the prospect of having to meet different standards when manufacturing vehicles for sale in different states. A varied set of standards state-to-state is something the industry has said it does not want. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standards in recent years; and within California, leaders from both parties strongly support the state’s right to set its own tailpipe standards.

47

www.read-wca.com

Wire & Cable ASIA – November/December 2018