Industry Will Struggle to Meet Tougher Fuel Economy Standards

With cheap oil, consumers are again buying gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups, dragging down auto-company fleet averages

2016 Chevrolet Silverado

2016 Chevrolet Silverado.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Most auto industry employees expect the Obama administration will make fuel economy rules more strict following an ongoing review, according to a new survey.

Fifty-two percent of the engineers, managers and other workers in the automotive manufacturing and supply chain industries who responded to a WardsAuto survey said they expected the government to tighten corporate average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Only 13 percent expected the rules to be loosened.

The agencies that set the rules, U.S. EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board, are evaluating their effectiveness in a midterm review. They will have to decide by April 2018 — under a new administration — whether to tighten, loosen or maintain the standards for model years 2022 to 2025.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A technical review that kicked off the process last month found that automakers would not meet a projected fuel economy target of 54.5 mpg in 2025 unless the standards were made stricter (ClimateWire, July 19). New cars have been meeting and exceeding the per-engine standards so far, but the average fuel economy of the fleet on the roads has stalled because Americans are choosing more trucks and sport utility vehicles over passenger cars. Revising the expected share of trucks sold in 2025 upward, the agencies projected automakers would only achieve an average miles-per-gallon rating of 50.8.

Automakers have argued that low gas prices and changing consumer preferences make it harder to meet the administration's goals and have pushed for a weakening of the standards. Environmentalists have argued the standards should be tightened to cut carbon emissions further.

DuPont sponsored the new survey, which was conducted over the past two months. Nearly two-thirds of the 600 respondents named electric vehicles as the top topic of debate during the midterm review, above off-cycle technologies or the agencies' different regulatory systems. Nearly three-quarters said the role of electrification to meet fuel economy targets has not become clearer in the last year.

Meeting the standards requires little electrification, according to the agencies' technical review. Officials expect cars sold in 2025 to have traditional internal combustion engines.

Twelve percent of the survey respondents said their companies were most focused on plug-in EVs to meet 2025 standards. Lightweighting was the most popular strategy at 34 percent. The administration had not anticipated the technology would lead to such big increases in fuel economy when setting the rules. Administration officials, in their review, argued the emergence of lightweighting, alongside other technologies like start-stop or mild hybrids, give automakers more options to cut carbon emissions at lower costs.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe