In an all too predictable response to EPA and NHTSA’s proposed Phase 2 emissions and fuel-efficiency standards for cleaner medium- and heavy-duty trucks, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and American Truck Dealers (ATD) claim it would harm consumers, the economy and emissions goals. The groups say that the rule will add $14,000 to the cost of a new truck through mandates based on potentially untested technologies.
Similar accusations, of course, by the industry go back to the beginnings of the Clean Air Act and fuel economy regulations here cleaner was thought too costly.
The U.S. EPA and NHTSA are jointly proposing a national program that would establish the next phase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. This “Phase 2 program” would significantly reduce carbon emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles, helping to address the challenges of global climate change and energy.
The agencies claim Phase 2 would significantly reduce carbon pollution, cutting GHG emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and conserving about 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.
In addition to providing benefits to the environment and improving energy security, the Phase 2program would save operators money, bringing down the costs of transporting freight, providing savings, benefiting businesses and consumers alike.
- Payback periods for truck owners would be favorable: the buyer of a new long-haul truck in 2027 would recoup the extra cost of the technology in under 2 years through fuel savings.
- Phase 2 would save vehicle owners about $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the regulatory time frame.
The agencies estimate the proposed standards would result in approximately $230 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the regulatory time frame, while costing the affected industry less than one-tenth that amount (about $25 billion over the same period).
“The costs could even drive small fleets and owner-operators out of business, costing jobs and only further impeding economic growth, said ATD in the statement. “While supportive of affordable fuel-economy improvements, ATD is closely reviewing the proposal and the many potential impacts it will have on truck dealerships and their customers.”