Ending greenhouse gas emissions standards for new cars is supposed to result in more affordable choices for consumers and regulatory relief for companies, according to a statement from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Yet, the agency’s draft impact analysis shows the proposal might instead cost the country more than it would save. It depends on what is counted and assumptions about the broader economy.
“They’re trying to cook the books to show that somehow what they’re doing saves costs,” Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules, said in an interview.
A spokesperson for the agency agreed that some of the modeled scenarios were “highly speculative” but said they are designed to show the influence of market conditions, like gas prices. One estimate showed repealing emissions standards would cost the country $350 billion a year. Another predicting ideal economic conditions showed annual savings of $490 billion. Neither of those figures included the cost of public health consequences from air pollution.
Initial details of the proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding were announced Tuesday by Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” Zeldin said at an Indiana auto dealership, calling greenhouse gas rules “the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods.”
Dropping emissions standards for new vehicles is one effect of the agency’s plan to repeal the “endangerment finding,” which underpins the federal government’s ability to regulate the greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.
In 2009, the agency under President Barack Obama detailed evidence that greenhouse gases, including those emitted by cars, harm human health.
Last year, President Joe Biden’s administration set rules to reduce the release of these heat-trapping gases as well as other air pollutants. Widely touted economic benefits of $99 billion a year included reduced public health costs from cleaner air along with reduced fuel and maintenance costs.
To understand the economic impact of the proposal, the EPA modeled several scenarios in a draft report. Some include changing more government policies than others. Some rely on economic factors beyond the government’s direct control.
For instance, one projection estimates repealing the endangerment finding and the car emissions standard for greenhouse gases would have a net cost of $350 billion for the nation. That scenario includes ending tax credits for new electric cars created by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Other projections show that the repeal would result in overall savings once a gallon of gasoline becomes a dollar cheaper than previously forecasted.
Goffman suggested that “an unrealistically low price for gasoline” was the only way the Trump administration could show the plan had broad economic benefits.
An EPA spokesperson told USA TODAY: “These values are illustrative and show the sensitivity of future gas savings based on different fuel prices. Many actions that can impact gas prices in the future and basing the benefits on future gas prices is highly speculative.”
When the Biden administration announced its car pollution standards in 2024, the EPA explained how the rule could change the cost of new cars as part of an 800-page analysis.
Purchase prices were projected to increase, ranging from about $900 for a sedan to $2,600 for an SUV. But the agency said consumers would save money in the long run because of cheaper maintenance and fuel savings over the vehicle’s lifetime. For example, sedan and SUV drivers would save $4,400, it said.
The savings projected under Biden were even larger after including purchase incentives in the calculations. But those will be eliminated as a result of cuts in Trump’s "Big Beautiful Bill" approved by Congress weeks ago. For instance, people who buy new electric cars soon will lose access to $7,500 in tax credits.
The draft analysis of the new proposal is much shorter – just 63 pages – and does not project changes in the cost of new cars. Instead, it estimated nationwide impacts.
Trump administration officials have touted $54 billion in annual savings for Americans. An EPA spokesperson clarified that figure included benefits from expected new vehicle technology but did not include costs such as long-term maintenance. Adding those leads to a net cost increase of $18 billion a year.
When Biden’s administration set car emissions standards last year, a report calculated it would save the nation $13 billion a year in public health spending by reducing the amount of fine particulate matter released in the air. This pollution is associated with premature deaths and hospitalizations from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.
That report also estimated that limiting greenhouse gas emissions would bring $72 billion in climate benefits annually. This was calculated from the social cost of carbon, a measure that considers things like human health effects, agricultural productivity and property damage from natural disasters.
The repeal proposed by Zeldin would keep the particle pollution limits; however, it would remove standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The new estimates did not include the effects, like public health, of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Goffman, the former EPA official, said repealing the endangerment finding has implications beyond car emissions. Its repeal could limit the federal government’s power to regulate all greenhouse gas emissions and make future attempts to tackle climate change harder.
“This goes beyond an individual administration exercising discretion that can be reversed by a future administration,” Goffman said. “They’ve taken themselves out on the legal ledge, and it’s only a couple of millimeters wide.”
This proposed repeal is part of a larger movement from the Trump EPA. In June, Zeldin announced the administration's intent to remove and scale down air pollution limits on power plants.
In that news release, the agency said it would save the power sector about $1.2 billion a year in regulatory costs. It didn’t mention that its cost-benefit analysis found it would also cost $8 billion a year from worsened public health. That means a net negative from easing those pollution limits: While companies save money, people would spend more because of poorer health.
Electricity generation and transportation are the two biggest sectors emitting greenhouse gases. Together they make up more than half of emissions in the country. The plans to scale back limits on power plants and new cars could have significant influence on global efforts to avoid climate change consequences.
“Trump's EPA is trying every trick in the book to deny and avoid their mission to protect people and the environment,” wrote Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who now leads the advocacy group America Is All In. “Instead of doing their job, this EPA is putting the safety of our loved ones at risk.”
Written comments from the public about the repeal proposal can be submitted until Sept. 15. The agency also plans to hold public hearing sessions next month. More details can be found on the agency’s website.