WASHINGTON – In response to the Obama administration’s announcement on Oct. 1 setting new fuel economy mandates for the 2017-2025 Model Year, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) issued the following statement regarding its concern for vehicle affordability in light of the new proposed standards.
“America’s franchised auto dealers have long supported fuel economy improvements.
“Less than five months ago, the administration issued the most expensive fuel economy mandates ever, estimated to cost industry and consumers over $50 billion. Now, before the ink has barely dried on those as yet unimplemented rules, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California have decided to launch a new and far more costly set of fuel economy mandates that would require light-duty cars and trucks to achieve up to 62 mpg on average by 2025. Why the rush? Apparently, California regulators are once again threatening the administration with an unworkable patchwork of state-by-state standards at the expense of one national standard premised on sound analysis.
“For many Americans, the prospect of being priced out of the car market means being driven out of the job market, so a primary concern for our members is the affordability of basic transportation for Americans. Preventing further job loss, preserving consumer choice and affordability, and improving safety should be primary factors in setting any fuel economy standard.”
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) recently released findings of a recent national survey that show most Americans support adoption of a 60 mile per gallon (MPG) standard. CFA’s report says that nearly three-fifths (59 percent) agreed that the federal government should require all automobile companies to increase the fuel economy of their motor vehicle fleets to an average of 60 MPG by 2025.
Three-quarters (75 percent) said they would be prepared to pay more for a new, more fuel-efficient car if they recovered the additional expense through lower fuel costs within one year. More than three-fifths (62 percent) said they would pay more if they recovered this additional cost within five years.
