Maryland Attorney General Joins Multi-State Effort to Block Rollback of Fuel Economy Standards

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, four major cities, and one county in formally opposing a Trump administration proposal that would significantly weaken fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks. This collective action is a direct response to a proposed rule from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that critics argue is unlawful and would negatively impact both consumers and the environment. The comment letter submitted by the coalition aims to halt the rollback of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which have historically served to reduce consumer costs through improved vehicle efficiency and decreased gasoline demand.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 mandated NHTSA to establish “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards. This mandate requires the agency to consider factors such as technological feasibility, economic practicability, the impact of other government motor vehicle standards, and the necessity of energy conservation. Traditionally, NHTSA has modeled baseline vehicle fleets, incorporating existing technologies and vehicles, including millions of electric vehicles already on the road, to determine future fuel economy targets. However, the current proposal from NHTSA reportedly misinterprets its statutory authority by instructing the agency to disregard electric vehicles in its baseline fleet calculations and throughout its analysis. This exclusion, critics contend, leads to a distorted assessment of the maximum feasible fuel economy achievable by the automotive industry.

Furthermore, the coalition asserts that NHTSA has employed flawed analyses concerning vehicle affordability, sales projections, fleet turnover rates, fuel savings for consumers, and vehicle safety to present a harmful rule as beneficial. For instance, the proposed standards are alleged to obscure billions of dollars in lost fuel savings for drivers, essentially redirecting these savings from consumers to oil companies. The proposal also allegedly ignores hundreds of billions of dollars in future damages attributed to climate change-driven disasters, disregarding current scientific consensus. The coalition also points out that the proposal appears to disregard the importance of energy conservation, treating high gasoline prices and global oil market instability as acceptable trade-offs for increased fossil fuel company profits.

The comment letter submitted by the coalition outlines several key arguments against NHTSA’s proposal. It contends that NHTSA’s decision to ignore the existence and sales of electric vehicles is contrary to legal requirements and constitutes poor agency decision-making. The coalition also argues that the proposal directly contradicts Congress’s mandate for energy conservation. Additionally, the letter criticizes NHTSA’s proposed termination of credit trading between auto manufacturers as arbitrary and capricious, which could negatively affect vehicle affordability. Finally, the coalition reiterates that the entire proposal is founded upon defective analyses regarding vehicle affordability, sales, fleet turnover, fuel savings, and safety.

In addition to Attorney General Brown of Maryland, the comment letter was co-signed by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The coalition also includes support from the Cities of Chicago, Denver, New York, and San Francisco, as well as one county.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

---