U.S. advocacy coalition urges NHTSA to abandon rollback of fuel-economy rules

A multi-organization coalition filed detailed objections with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, urging withdrawal of a proposed downgrade to federal fuel-economy targets. The groups contend the agency’s approach contains technical and legal defects that would leave the national vehicle fleet less efficient than recent trends already demonstrate. Central to their critique is an assessment that the draft rule would reduce the fleetwide target to roughly the mid-30s miles-per-gallon range by 2031 while projecting higher long-term fuel expenditures for drivers. The coalition’s analysis indicates that the administration’s estimates of upfront vehicle cost savings would be outweighed by increased fuel spending during a vehicle’s life, producing a net financial loss for many households. Beyond pocketbook effects, the organizations highlight public-health consequences from higher tailpipe emissions and the associated medical and productivity costs. They warn the proposal would slow progress toward cleaner transportation technology by weakening regulatory incentives for automakers to pursue efficiency gains and electrification. Legally, the groups argue the plan misapplies statutory standards and could be vulnerable to judicial challenge, raising the prospect of protracted litigation that would create regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and states. The comments also frame the rollback as a transfer of economic benefit toward fossil fuel interests while imposing disproportionate burdens on lower-income drivers and communities already exposed to worse air quality. With the public comment window closing, the coalition is pressing the Department of Transportation to reconsider before the rule advances. If finalized as drafted, the policy could reshape automakers’ compliance strategies, affect investment timelines for efficiency and electric vehicle programs, and complicate state-level climate and air-quality planning. The filing signals coordinated legal and advocacy pressure ahead of any final agency action, and it sets the stage for potential lawsuits and state countermeasures that could blunt the administration’s intended deregulatory outcome.