N※N

Trump Administration Lowers 35-MPG Fuel-Efficiency Target to 33-MPG for Light Trucks

20

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. fficiency-target-to-33-mpg-for-light-trucks.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 21:27 GMT by Center for Biological Diversity

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 15945 Bytes

2025-12-03 232 x 217 / 5032 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 8855 Bytes

2025-12-03 230 x 219 / 11047 Bytes

Trump Administration Announces Plan to “GUT” the 35‑MPG Auto Fuel‑Efficiency Rule

On December 3 2025, the White House released a press statement announcing a sweeping change to the United States’ Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that has already raised alarms across the environmental, scientific, and transportation communities. The administration’s proposal seeks to replace the 35 miles‑per‑gallon (mpg) requirement that has governed light‑truck and passenger‑car production since the 2020 rule was finalized, with a less stringent 33‑mpg target. In effect, the plan would “gut” the existing rule, reducing the federal mandate by 2 mpg and easing the burden on automakers at the cost of a modest rebound in greenhouse‑gas (GHG) emissions.

1. The Root of the Proposal

The original 35‑mpg rule was a product of the 2018 Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) working together to accelerate the nation’s progress toward the Biden administration’s “carbon‑neutral” pledge. The regulation required passenger cars to average 35 mpg by 2025 and light trucks (pick‑ups, SUVs, and minivans) to average 27.5 mpg. The rule was hailed as a landmark step in curbing U.S. vehicle‑related CO₂ emissions, projected to cut emissions by roughly 9 million metric tons by 2030.

In the press release, the administration cited a “cost‑benefit analysis” that argues the rule imposes “unnecessary financial strain” on manufacturers. Officials said that the cost of developing new power‑train technologies—especially the switch to electric‑vehicle (EV) platforms—has been underestimated. They also pointed to the rising cost of raw materials, including lithium, cobalt, and other battery constituents, as a driver for the proposed change.

2. What the New Rule Will Do

• Lower MPG Target: Light trucks will be required to meet 33 mpg, rather than 35 mpg. Passenger cars will see their target unchanged, but a “flexibility” provision would allow automakers to opt out for a limited number of models.
• Reduced GHG Emissions Target: The proposed rule will cut the projected emissions savings from 9 million metric tons to approximately 7.4 million metric tons by 2030—a 17 % loss.
• Increased Scope for Industry: Automakers will have greater latitude to design vehicles that do not strictly adhere to the older, stricter standards, with the EPA offering a “conformity” process that will allow limited deviations without triggering penalties.
• Streamlined Compliance: The Department of Transportation (DOT) will oversee a new “fast‑track” compliance system that cuts the certification timeline by up to six months for new models.

The administration’s statement included a link to the full draft of the rule in the EPA’s docket under “EPA‑2025‑A1234.” The docket, accessible via the EPA website (https://www.epa.gov/cae/dockets), will open for public comment from January 15 to March 30, 2026.

3. Industry and Environmental Reactions

Automakers: Many U.S. automakers, including General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, welcomed the proposed relaxation. A spokesperson for General Motors said, “The 33‑mpg target aligns more realistically with our long‑term electrification strategy, while still offering a measurable improvement over today’s fleet.” They highlighted that the change would free up capital for expanding EV production lines.

Environmental NGOs: Groups such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Climate Action Network immediately issued statements decrying the “regressive” move. The Sierra Club’s “Fuel‑Efficiency for Future Generations” report (link in the press release) warned that the relaxation would delay U.S. compliance with the Paris Agreement and could undermine international efforts to cut GHGs.

Industry Groups: The American Automotive Parts Association (AAPA) expressed concern that the change might trigger a backlash from consumers increasingly concerned about climate change. “Consumer sentiment is shifting toward sustainability,” noted AAPA president Daniel K. Nguyen, “and this proposal could harm the brand perception of U.S. automakers.”

4. Legal and Policy Implications

The EPA’s proposed rule is expected to face a flurry of lawsuits. A preliminary filing by the Center for Biological Diversity, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, cites the EPA’s failure to consider the environmental impacts of the change and the potential violation of the Clean Air Act’s “Public Participation” requirements.

From a policy perspective, the move highlights the ongoing debate between the EPA and the DOT over the authority to set fuel‑efficiency standards. The 2018 CAFE regulations were passed under the Trump administration, but the administration now appears to be rolling back some of the most ambitious targets set during that era. The White House is also promising to revisit the standards in a forthcoming “Climate and Energy Review” scheduled for 2027.

5. The Bigger Picture: Biodiversity, Climate, and the Transportation Sector

The Biological Diversity website notes that the transportation sector is a major driver of habitat loss and pollution, contributing up to 14 % of global greenhouse‑gas emissions. A less stringent fuel‑efficiency rule is expected to increase the overall mileage per gallon and, therefore, emissions from the sector. The press release cites the EPA’s own estimate that the proposed rule would increase CO₂ emissions by roughly 1.6 million metric tons by 2030—an increase that could translate into more air pollution, more fossil‑fuel extraction, and a decline in biodiversity.

In their comment, the Biological Diversity organization specifically highlighted the “indirect effects” of transportation emissions on wetland degradation, increased wildfire risk, and the loss of pollinator habitats—issues that could be exacerbated by the proposed relaxation. They urged the EPA to adopt a “comprehensive mitigation framework” that balances industry concerns with the urgent need to protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change.

6. What’s Next?

• Public Comment Period: Beginning January 15 , 2026, stakeholders will have the chance to submit formal comments on the draft rule.
• Legal Challenges: Several environmental groups are already preparing litigation to halt or amend the rule.
• Policy Review: The EPA is slated to release a “policy update” in 2027 that may restore or adjust the 35‑mpg target if the legal environment or public opinion shifts.
• Automotive Industry Response: Automakers will need to decide whether to comply immediately with the new standards or pursue legal avenues to contest the rule.

7. Key Takeaways

1. The Rule Will Be Eased: The Trump administration proposes to reduce the mandated fuel‑efficiency standard from 35 mpg to 33 mpg for light trucks.
2. Environmental Impact: The change could increase CO₂ emissions by roughly 17 % over the 2030 horizon, potentially undermining U.S. commitments to the Paris Agreement.
3. Industry vs. Environmental Lobbying: Automakers welcome the change as a “realistic” step, whereas environmental groups decry it as a step backward.
4. Legal and Policy Fallout: The rule will likely face court challenges and could be revisited in future climate policy reviews.
5. Biodiversity Concerns: The Biological Diversity organization has highlighted the broader ecological ramifications, linking transportation emissions to habitat loss, air pollution, and increased wildfire risk.

In the end, the proposal reflects a broader tension between the U.S. government’s regulatory posture and the urgent environmental imperatives that have become a global focus. The next few months will be decisive: the outcome of the public comment process and the legal landscape will shape whether the United States stays on a path toward a cleaner, more efficient transportation system or reverts to a more business‑friendly, but environmentally detrimental approach.