US EPA and DOT Proposal to Freeze Fuel Economy Standards for 2021-2026

Aug 3, 2018

Reading Time : 1 min

EPA and NHTSA designed the 2012 standards to decrease GHG emissions and improve average fuel economy of cars and light trucks annually from 2017 through 2025, culminating in a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon at the end of that period. The new proposed rule would freeze the standards at 2020 levels for a six-year period, requiring automakers to produce vehicles with an average fuel economy of 37 miles per gallon through Model Year 2026. The Acting Administrator at the EPA, Andrew Wheeler, articulated that these standards are more “realistic” and cost-effective for both manufacturers and families.

The proposed rule also revokes the waiver held by California to authorize its own emissions standards for vehicles and nonroad engines. Under Clean Air Act Section 209, this waiver has given California the ability to set emissions reduction goals since Ronald Reagan’s governorship. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act allowed other states to adopt California’s emission standards under Section 177. In a statement released on Twitter, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lamented the loss of the 48-year-old waiver, criticizing “fake conservatives” for neglecting to defend state’s rights to make their own policies. Other California officials joined Schwarzenegger in condemning this freeze. Gov. Jerry Brown has sworn to push back against this freeze “in every conceivable way possible.”

In a hearing before the Senate on Wednesday, Wheeler advocated that the rollback could have cost savings of $500 billion for consumers. Moreover, safety has been central to the administration’s argument against tighter fuel standards, suggesting that this proposal would reduce the number of deadly car accidents resulting from the 2012 rule. The NHTSA cites that newer-model-year vehicles are safer, but have been less affordable due to tighter fuel economy standards. Therefore, NHTSA and EPA argue that this proposal would make newer, safer cars more accessible. Wheeler admitted that oil consumption would increase, but that the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Official estimates from the EPA project an increase of 2-3 percent in daily fuel consumption, equaling roughly 500,000 barrels per day. The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.