Federal data seems to support a key claim the Trump administration made to justify rolling back Obama-era global warming regulations on new cars and trucks.
The Trump administration said its proposal to freeze fuel economy regulations on cars and trucks would keep more than 12,000 people from dying in automobile accidents.
Officials argued Obama-era regulations made cars more expensive, thus encouraging drivers to hang onto older vehicles.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data shows that Americans have, in fact, been holding onto older vehicles and buying fewer new cars. In fact, it’s a trend that’s been going on for a while.
“The average vehicle age has increased from 9.3 years in 2009 to 10.5 years in 2017, suggesting that many households have delayed the purchase of a new vehicle and continuing a trend of U.S. households operating vehicles longer,” EIA reported Tuesday.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled plans to roll back Obama administration auto regulations imposed in 2012, requiring new cars average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
NHTSA and EPA claimed Obama-era fuel economy regulations would raise the cost of a new car by $2,340, putting new cars further out of reach for the average American family. As a result, freezing fuel economy regulations at 2021 levels would save 1,000 lives per year.
New vehicles are safer, according to a recent NHTSA study, meaning holding onto older cars could increase the number of fatalities in automobile accidents as EPA argues.
“More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public,” Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement.
However, environmentalists and some auto experts challenged the claim that Americans were holding onto older, less safe vehicles.
Resources for the Future senior fellow Joshua Linn admitted there was “some evidence” showing consumers held onto older vehicles longer, but said “percentage-point increase in standards resulted in a 0.2% drop in new vehicle demand,” E&E News reported.
Likewise, Carla Bailo, president for the Center for Automotive Research, told E&E News “the concerns about slower fleet turnover are unjustified.” Bailo also said auto companies make more fuel-efficient cars every year to meet fuel economy rules in other countries.
EPA officials in the agency’s transportation office also challenged the fuel economy rollbacks, according to recently released documents. EPA officials said their modeling showed “safety outcomes that show the proposed standards are detrimental to safety.”
However, EIA found the number of Americans holding onto older cars has grown, meaning future fuel economy and safety could be a bigger issue than critics let on.
EIA found “the average age of in-use cars increased, in absolute terms, from 9.5 years in 2009 to 10.3 years in 2017,” adding the “slowing of vehicle turnover has implications for transportation fuel consumption because newer vehicles tend to have better fuel economies.”
The Energy Department’s statistics arm also noted that people across income groups were hoarding older vehicles. In fact, the “average age of vehicles used by higher-income households has increased more than those used by lower-income households,” EIA found.
“Overall, the aging of the vehicle fleet suggests many households have delayed purchasing a new vehicle or have instead purchased a used vehicle,” EIA reported, adding that “spending on vehicle repair and maintenance has also increased in recent years.”
However, EIA did note that fuel efficiency has increased despite people hanging onto older cars and trucks. EIA said this is because “fuel economy has continued to increase because of technology advances adopted across all vehicle types of new light-duty vehicles.”
Read more at Daily Caller
Much of the “safety” crap put on modern cars makes them even more expensive to repair so they get written off faster . More waste and much higher insurance costs .
The people falling out of middle class can’t afford to “upgrade ” so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that those who can afford to drive hang on to their ride longer or don’t buy one at all . Cars have allowed economic activity that would otherwise not be
happening but those days of traveling 40 plus miles for house soccer are wearing thin .
Amber, you are right. If air bags have been deployed, they are so expensive to replace that unless the car is fairlynew it will be written off.
The Eco-Wackos would like to see more people die because they so much beleive this POPULATION BOMB poppycock of Paul Ehrlich I mean some of these idiots must have had one of those silly PET ROCKS back in the time when they were a fad they must have sniffed glue at one time and were into streaking
Another factor totally ignored in all this nonsense. Wages have been stagnant for decades along with low unemployment figures. That runs with higher wage people as well. 20 or 22 m/gal is as irrelevant as .08C degrees global warming.
One thing over looked is given the same level of safety features, a larger heavier vehicle is safer is safer for its occupants. Forcing stingy fuel economy results in smaller and light cars. The safest cars would be modern ones that could be produced with out fuel economy regulations.