Groups Urge NHTSA to Withdraw Weakened Fuel Economy Standards | NRDC
- WASHINGTON — A coalition of health, consumer, and environmental groups is urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to withdraw its proposed rollback of fuel economy standards...
- The proposed standards would lower the expected fleetwide average to 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031, a figure that the groups point out is below the fuel efficiency...
- “This rollback goes so much further than even what was tried in the first Trump administration,” said Kathy Harris, director of the clean vehicles program at NRDC.
WASHINGTON — A coalition of health, consumer, and environmental groups is urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to withdraw its proposed rollback of fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks, arguing the plan is legally flawed and detrimental to both consumers and the environment. The groups submitted formal comments to NHTSA on , outlining their concerns.
The proposed standards would lower the expected fleetwide average to 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031, a figure that the groups point out is below the fuel efficiency already achieved by current vehicle fleets. According to NHTSA’s own projections, this weakening of standards would cost the average driver $1,400 in additional fuel expenses over the lifespan of their vehicle, potentially negating any upfront savings on vehicle purchase prices.
“This rollback goes so much further than even what was tried in the first Trump administration,” said Kathy Harris, director of the clean vehicles program at NRDC. “If this rule gets finalized, it will deliver a harsh blow to American families struggling to keep up with rising prices. It would raise drivers’ costs at the pump while worsening air pollution across the country.”
The current push to weaken fuel economy standards builds on actions taken throughout 2025. On , President Trump announced NHTSA’s proposed rule rolling back vehicle fuel economy standards, dubbed the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule III,” for model years 2022 through 2031. This followed a series of actions in 2025, including the signing of Congressional Review Act resolutions disapproving California’s Clean Air Act preemption waivers on , and the Trump EPA’s proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles on .
The groups argue that the proposed standards are not only economically unsound for consumers but also environmentally damaging. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, exceeding even the electricity sector. Reducing emissions and improving fuel economy are seen as critical steps in mitigating climate change and improving public health.
Sierra Club Senior Attorney Josh Berman emphasized the broader impact, stating, “Families are already grappling with rising heating bills, medical expenses, and grocery prices — and with this proposal, our cars will become less efficient and more expensive to drive. To make matters worse, less efficient cars will increase air pollution, worsening our air quality and multiplying our health care costs. We urge the Department of Transportation to leave these common-sense fuel economy standards alone.”
The opposition extends beyond national environmental groups. The City of Cleveland submitted a public comment letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation on , expressing strong opposition to the proposed changes, citing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and public health.
Critics also accuse the administration of prioritizing corporate interests over consumer welfare. David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, asserted, “The Trump administration is rewarding oil companies and punishing consumers with their weak standards. Following the law would save people money and clean the air we breathe. That’s not a heavy lift with today’s technology. But the Trump administration is choosing to put corporate profits for its big campaign donors first. Drivers will pay the price to use more gas and pollute more, while Big Oil profits.”
Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, added, “Fuel economy standards should be designed to deliver fuel efficient cars, saving consumers money and reducing toxic pollution that harms public health. The Trump administration’s proposal is bad for consumers and rolls back decades of progress toward cleaner cars and cleaner air.”
Environmental Defense Fund attorney Andy Su echoed these concerns, stating, “Weakening the CAFE standards will add more pollution to the air we breathe, put us all at greater risk for serious health problems, and saddle American families with higher gas bills for years to come. No one in America is hoping to spend more at the gas pump. People want cars that are safe and save money – and this proposal drives us in the wrong direction.”
The deadline for submitting comments on the proposed rule was . The future of fuel economy standards, and their impact on consumers, the environment, and the automotive industry, now rests with NHTSA’s decision-making process.
On , the EPA announced its final disapproval of California’s Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance regulation as applied to vehicles registered outside of California, signaling a continued effort by the Trump administration to challenge state-level environmental regulations.