The Department of Transportation says it’s ready to announce fuel economy standards that will raise gas prices by 76 cents a gallon and fuel use by 45%, right as the world struggles with the effects of a war of choice that has spiked energy prices globally.
Update: This article was originally published on September 2, with the change expected to be announced “soon.” On Saturday, it was announced that the change will be finalized on Monday.
Since the 1970s, the US government has had various rules that guide auto manufacturers to make and sell more efficient vehicles.
The main standards, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), were first implemented after the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, and the ensuing energy crisis. The standards require manufacturers to maintain an average level of fuel efficiency across their fleet, or else they have to pay a fine for every noncompliant car they sell.
Prior to these standards, American cars were large and gas guzzling, with very little interest in efficiency. CAFE standards and other government regulations related to efficiency and clean air, both on the state and federal level, have made cars cleaner and more efficient as time has gone on.
The result of cleaner and more efficient vehicles is that it costs less to fuel them, costs less to breathe the dirty air they cause, and makes the environment that you depend on for everything good in your life more livable.
So, of course, republicans want to end all of that.
DoT ‘about to announce’ effort to raise your fuel costs
This weekend, Sean Duffy, the corrupt former reality TV contestant posing as the current head of the Department of Transportation said that this assault on Americans’ pocketbooks is “COMING MONDAY,” quoting a statement by Mr. Trump that falsely portrayed the changes as being a rollback of an EV mandate that never existed.
These changes in fuel economy standards aren’t a surprise – on his very first day, Duffy signed a memo promising to increase US fuel costs, reversing standards that were estimated to save Americans $23 billion. But his intent was to target any fuel economy standard whatsoever, wanting to eliminate anything that saves you money, as $23 billion wasn’t enough for him.
Over time, that intent has been refined and officially proposed as a reduction in 2031 target average fuel economy from 50.4mpg to 34.5mpg. The NHTSA says that in fact, these changes would raise fuel costs by $185 billion, and carbon emissions by 5%. These numbers do not take into account the higher health costs from more pollution (but the White House literally says your life is worth nothing, anyway).
Then it was put up for public comment, and the vast majority of the 68,294 comments naturally opposed the plan to hike your fuel and health costs and make the environment less livable.
The changes could raise fuel costs by more than 45%
Doing some simple math, lowering fuel economy from 50.4 mpg to 34.5 mpg would raise the average fuel required to go the same distance by 45% – meaning that average total fuel costs will go up by at least 45% if cars meet the new standards rather than the old ones.
Why “at least” 45%? Well, not only would this regulation mean that drivers have to buy more gasoline on average, but it also means that gasoline prices would go up even further as demand goes up.
You need look no further than an analysis released by the Department of Energy which said that gas prices will go up by 76 cents per gallon if republicans’ energy plans were to take effect. And before anyone claims partisanship – this report was signed off on by Chris Wright, the oil CEO currently squatting in the DoE (who of course sees higher gas prices as a good thing, since it makes more money for his industry).
Mr. Trump claimed in his post on Saturday that this would “lower prices,” but a report signed off on by his own people acknowledges that not only will prices go up, but that usage will increase – so you’ll be paying more per gallon and buying more gallons.
Mr. Trump also took credit for investment into American automakers, despite that he has worked to end the renaissance of American manufacturing led by President Biden, with republicans actively trying to send those EV jobs to China.
All of this is happening as oil prices are already at all-time highs, driven there as America slowly continues to lose a war of choice that has spiked energy prices globally (along with several other oil wars EVs have nothing to do with).
They already stopped CAFE, why do it again?
The elimination of CAFE standards is somewhat of a formality at this point. Republicans in Congress couldn’t muster the votes to eliminate CAFE entirely, so instead used procedural finagling to set CAFE fines to $0, as part of their massive $4 trillion giveaway to US elites. So, effectively, there is no enforcement of CAFE rules at the moment anyway.
So why double up on this effort?
It’s all part of the general all-out assault on American’s pocketbooks, in the form of higher energy prices, that has been engaged in by republicans in the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Interior, EPA, and others.
In many cases, these changes have been reversed by courts due to the nakedly arbitrary and capricious rulemaking involved, and you can expect to see more lawsuits defending your pocketbooks from assault by republicans.
Top comment by Craig Merrow
Ten years ago I built a passive solar home with 6.5 kWh of PV. At the time, I wanted to take the cost of energy out of the equation when I retire in a few years. Two years ago I traded my 2012 Prius C for a 2021 Chevy Bolt so I wouldn't have to buy gas anymore. With energy prices climbing and potential shortages looming, I'm now looking at my investment from an energy security standpoint - and not just happy, but thankful that I did!
But the reason republicans keep hammering against regulations they’ve already tried to defeat is that by attacking on multiple fronts, it will take longer for a future legitimate government to untangle the damage done. This means that republicans’ constituents, the oil companies who bribed them into position, will presumably get a little longer to profit further off of your misery.
This isn’t the only way that Duffy is trying to make you less safe. He recently eliminated government guidance related to bike lanes and other road safety measures. If local and regional governments follow the new guidelines, pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates could go up from 19-54%, when they are already near an all-time high.
For no particular reason, here’s the link to find out how to register to vote in your state. November’s just over a month away.
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments
Facts Only
* The Department of Transportation is finalizing changes to fuel economy standards on Monday.
* Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards require manufacturers to maintain average fleet efficiency or pay fines.
* The proposed change reduces the 2031 target average fuel economy from 50.4 mpg to 34.5 mpg.
* The NHTSA estimates these changes will increase fuel costs by $185 billion and carbon emissions by 5%.
* A Department of Energy analysis indicates gas prices would rise by 76 cents per gallon under these energy plans.
* 68,294 public comments were submitted regarding the proposal, with a majority opposing it.
* Sean Duffy is the head of the Department of Transportation.
* Chris Wright is an oil CEO and official at the Department of Energy.
* Republicans in Congress previously set CAFE fines to $0.
* The Department of Transportation recently eliminated government guidance on bike lanes and road safety measures.
Executive Summary
The Department of Transportation is set to finalize new fuel economy standards that significantly lower the 2031 efficiency target from 50.4 mpg to 34.5 mpg. This move represents a reversal of previous standards intended to reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Proponents of the change, including the current administration, frame this as a rollback of mandates to support American automakers. However, internal agency data from the NHTSA and Department of Energy suggest the shift will increase total fuel costs by $185 billion and raise the price per gallon by approximately 76 cents due to increased demand.
The situation is compounded by the fact that CAFE enforcement is already weakened, as congressional action previously reduced non-compliance fines to zero. Beyond fuel standards, the Department of Transportation has also removed federal guidance on pedestrian and cyclist safety. While the administration argues these moves promote economic flexibility and manufacturing growth, critics point to the resulting increase in pollution, health costs, and energy expenses for consumers during a period of global energy price volatility.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the current administration is systematically dismantling environmental and safety regulations to benefit the fossil fuel industry and automotive manufacturers, knowingly shifting the financial burden of higher fuel costs and health risks onto the general public.
This narrative relies heavily on Emotional Exploitation, utilizing highly charged language—such as "assault on American's pocketbooks" and "profit further off of your misery"—to frame policy shifts as deliberate acts of aggression. By juxtaposing regulatory changes with visceral imagery of "dirty air" and "corrupt" actors, the argument seeks to bypass a technical debate over MPG targets and move directly into a moral condemnation of the actors involved.
Patterns detected: ARC-0001 Emotional exploitation
The driving paradigm is one of systemic capture, assuming that regulatory rollbacks are not based on economic theory or manufacturing needs, but are "bribes" paid to the oil industry. It echoes the historical pattern of the "regulatory pendulum," where successive administrations aggressively erase the work of their predecessors. The implication is a loss of long-term agency for the consumer, who becomes more dependent on volatile global energy markets as domestic efficiency mandates vanish.
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve "rage-baiting" the middle class by linking complex regulatory targets (MPG) to immediate, painful outcomes (cents per gallon) while painting the opposition as cartoonishly villainous. While the core data provided regarding MPG targets is specific, the surrounding prose aligns closely with this psychological attack pattern.
Bridge Questions:
1. How do the projected costs of implementing higher fuel standards for manufacturers compare to the projected fuel savings for consumers?
2. What evidence exists to support or refute the claim that reducing these standards directly facilitates the transfer of EV jobs to China?
3. In what ways would a "zero-fine" CAFE environment affect manufacturer behavior regardless of the stated MPG target?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like an opinion-driven analysis that integrates specific policy details with partisan commentary, exhibiting a human argumentative style rather than pure objective reporting.