Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy defended the Trump administration’s rollback of federal fuel economy targets during a policy forum at the Washington Auto Show, arguing the prior rules were “a backdoor way to an EV mandate.” He framed the move as restoring consumer choice and protecting combustion-engine viability, but several key legal, technical, and market realities were left out of the case he made to industry leaders.
What Changed in the Federal Fuel Economy Rules
The Department of Transportation’s rewrite lowers the 2031 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) target from 50.4 MPG to 34.5 MPG. Duffy has repeatedly described the earlier figure as a 60 MPG requirement, which it was not. It’s also important to note that CAFE test values differ from the sticker MPG consumers see; a 50.4 CAFE target would translate to a materially lower window-label number and could be achieved with a mix of technologies including advanced gasoline engines, hybrids, and mild hybrids, not just battery-electric vehicles.
- What Changed in the Federal Fuel Economy Rules
- The Law Anticipated Electrification, Not Just Combustion
- Missing Context On Incentives And Penalties
- EV Demand And Cold-Weather Reality Across Regions
- Energy Policy Crosscurrents Clouding Market Signals
- Competition With China And Trade Tensions
- The Bottom Line For Consumers Under Weaker Standards
Automakers also comply using credit trading, air-conditioning efficiency improvements, lightweighting, and aerodynamic gains. NHTSA’s own regulatory analyses have long shown multiple combustion-compatible pathways to meet rising standards without forcing a singular powertrain outcome.
The Law Anticipated Electrification, Not Just Combustion
Duffy suggested Congress designed CAFE solely around combustion engines. The original Energy Policy and Conservation Act dates to 1975, but Congress updated the program with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which explicitly references hybrid, battery-electric, and fuel-cell vehicles. That legislative history undercuts the notion that recognizing EVs in compliance is a policy overreach rather than an intended feature of modern fuel economy law.
Missing Context On Incentives And Penalties
Absent from Duffy’s remarks was another policy shift that reshaped the market calculus: recent budget legislation that eliminated Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for EVs and other clean-energy technologies, while also zeroing out CAFE noncompliance penalties retroactive to the 2022 model year. Those changes effectively reduced both the carrots and sticks that had been nudging automakers toward higher efficiency, magnifying the impact of lowering future CAFE targets.
Duffy cast the rollback as pro-consumer and pro-market, saying it will allow manufacturers to “build the vehicles people want to buy” and lower prices so drivers upgrade out of older, less efficient cars. Economics research and EPA’s Automotive Trends reports, however, have consistently found that standards are a primary driver of efficiency gains; weakening them typically slows fleetwide progress and can delay fuel savings for consumers.
EV Demand And Cold-Weather Reality Across Regions
Duffy argued EVs remain a niche purchase, especially in rural, cold regions. Sales data offer a more nuanced picture. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports EVs accounted for 5.33% of sales in Wisconsin over the most recent 12-month period it tracks, compared with 8.96% nationwide. Internationally, adoption is much higher in markets like Norway, where EVs dominate new-car sales.
Cold weather does reduce EV range—independent testing by organizations such as Consumer Reports and AAA shows declines at low temperatures—but it does not render EVs unusable, and technologies like heat pumps and preconditioning mitigate the impact. At the same time, gasoline vehicles also lose efficiency in winter. The larger driver of EV demand remains total cost of ownership, charging availability, and model selection—factors that automakers and policymakers can influence.
Energy Policy Crosscurrents Clouding Market Signals
While describing the rollback as a market-friendly reset, the administration has taken a heavier hand elsewhere in energy. It has denied permits for multiple renewable power projects and sought to pause already approved offshore wind developments, with courts repeatedly allowing work to resume. Those actions complicate claims of regulatory neutrality and affect the carbon intensity of the grid that vehicles—gas or electric—ultimately depend on for their lifecycle emissions.
Competition With China And Trade Tensions
Duffy praised the pace of Chinese innovation while calling out what he termed “massive” state support for EV makers and data-privacy concerns. He criticized Canada’s move to permit tens of thousands of Chinese EVs at a lower tariff rate, warning that such policies could let China dominate global manufacturing. Automakers and trade groups have urged a balanced approach, noting that supply-chain diversification and domestic battery production incentives are crucial to long-term competitiveness.
The Bottom Line For Consumers Under Weaker Standards
For drivers, the immediate question is whether looser standards translate into cheaper vehicles and faster turnover of the fleet. In the near term, lowering CAFE targets reduces compliance costs for some models, but it also risks locking in higher fuel bills over years of ownership. With the legal framework already designed to include electrified pathways, and with global competitors moving quickly, the missing context in Duffy’s defense is what the United States may forgo in efficiency gains, consumer savings, and technological leadership by stepping back now.
