Biofuels, automaker groups, urge US NHTSA to rethink fuel economy proposal

Biofuels and agriculture groups are urging federal regulators to rethink proposed fuel economy standards, arguing that the government should not trade the energy security issues posed by oil for the energy security issues posed by critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries.

Instead of relying on EVs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should work with the Environmental Protection Agency to change the fuel economy calculations to provide incentives for flex-fueled vehicles that can run on a fuel blend with 85% ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Corn Growers Association and the National Farmers Union said in joint comments.

"Building up the portion of the fleet capable of running on E85 gives the country an additional option to address potential future oil or critical mineral crises in a way that can protect our national security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the groups said in Oct. 16 comments.

NHTSA in July proposed to boost fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks to reach an average of 58 miles per gallon by model year 2032 and reducing gasoline demand by 88 billion gallons through 2050. The proposed rule, which would start with the 2027 model year, calls for a 2% year-on-year increase in stringency of the standards for passenger cars and a 4% year-on-year increase for light trucks each year through 2032.

NHTSA coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the proposal aligns with EPA's proposed tailpipe emissions standards.

A number of the commenters argued that NHTSA does not have statutory authority to set a fuel economy standard that essentially requires use of battery EVs, or BEVs.

American Petroleum Institute said NHTSA is forbidden by law from considering EVs, yet the proposal includes EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and elements of California's clean car and truck regulations in is baseline assumptions.

"Factoring BEVs into the regulatory baseline effectively creates a federal BEV mandate," which frustrates the limitations on NHTSA's authority, API said.

Growth Energy raised a similar concern and said that NHTSA should remove consideration of EVs from its baseline.

"The proposed rule actively disincentivizes biofuel use by putting an unjustified and unlawful thumb on the scale in favor of [EVs]," it said.

Feasibility concerns

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said that NHTSA's proposal is not feasible. In the time covered by the proposal, 68% of auto manufacturers will be subject to civil penalties in one or more model years, and light trucks on average will fail to meet the proposed standards in every year of the program, the group said.

"When the majority of manufacturers and a significant portion of the fleet (or worse yet the fleet on average) are projected to be unable to meet (a question of technological feasibility) or unwilling to meet (a question of economic practicability) the proposed standards, the proposal clearly exceeds maximum feasibility for both passenger cars and light trucks," the Alliance for Automotive Innovations said.

But the American Lung Association pushed for the strongest possible fuel economy standards. While NHTSA's preferred alternative would require 2% per year increases in fuel economy for passenger vehicles and 10% reduction for heavier duty pick-up trucks, the agency also included alternative standards that range up to 6% annual improvements for passenger vehicles and 14% for heavier vehicles, according to comments from the Lung Association and ten other health organizations.

"The preferred light-duty scenario would reduce 367 premature deaths and 13,064 asthma attacks due to reduced vehicle emissions and the more stringent alternatives would increase these benefits nearly three-fold," the Americn Lung Association said.

Tesla argued that the agency is right to include EVs in its baseline and urged NHTSA to adopt the most stringent alternative. EV deployment, like other technologies, "will follow a S curve leading to a much more rapid pace of adoption between now and when the regulations take hold," Tesla said.