Attorneys General of New York, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington

October 5, 2017
Via Federal eRulemaking Portal
E. Scott Pruitt
Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Elaine Chao
Secretary, United States Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
RE:

Comments on Reconsideration of Final Determination of the Mid-Term
Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025
Light-Duty Vehicles and Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827

Dear Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao:
The undersigned Attorneys General submit these comments in response to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s
(Highway Administration) joint Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final
Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model
Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles; Request for Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards. 82 Fed. Reg. 39551 (Aug. 21, 2017) (Request).
Summary
The model year 2022-2025 greenhouse gas emissions standards under reconsideration are
the heart of the national program established in 2009 as part of the National Fuel Efficiency
Policy. That Policy responded to our country’s critical security needs to address global climate
change and reduce oil consumption, which have grown more urgent in the intervening years. In
January of this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced: “on a
twelve-month rolling total basis, electric power sector [carbon dioxide] emissions are now
regularly below transportation sector CO2 emissions for the first time since the late 1970s.” 1 In
other words, the transportation sector is now the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
1

See U.S. EIA, Power sector carbon dioxide emissions fall below transportation sector
emissions, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29612 (emphasis added) (last visited Oct.
3, 2017).
120 Broadway, 26th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10271-0332 ● Phone (212) 416-8459 ● Fax (212) 416-6007 ● WWW.AG.NY.GOV

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 2 of 14
and it continues to grow, at an average rate of 2.0 percent annually since 1990. 2 In 2015, light
duty vehicles comprised sixty percent of U.S. transportation sector emissions. 3 Globally, the
transportation sector is the fastest growing source of dangerous greenhouse gas pollution, 4 and it
is the primary driver for U.S. oil dependence, including on foreign imports of oil. 5 The 20222025 standards will reduce emissions by more than 540 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, as
well as reduce oil consumption by more than 1.2 billion barrels.
Cars and trucks also emit the criteria pollutants that create smog and cause or worsen
public health problems. Oxides of nitrogen, for example, contribute to the ground-level ozone
air pollution that exacerbates respiratory conditions such as asthma and emphysema. 6
Jurisdictions across the country, including the signatory states here, continue to suffer the effects
of automotive pollution in the form of elevated levels of ozone, among other pollutants, in the
air. Reducing pollutants from automotive emissions will improve our citizens’ public health.
In the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation (Final Det.), EPA found that not
only do the 2022-2025 standards remain technologically achievable, but that “the current state of
technology, and the pace of technology development and implementation, could support a
proposal, and potentially an ultimate decision, to adopt more stringent standards for MY 20222025.” Final Det. at ES-8. EPA and the Highway Administration’s joint technical assessment
found that automakers were over-complying with the first several years of their joint National
Program because a wider range of cost-effective technologies exists than the agencies had
originally projected in 2012 when they first set the standards.
Therefore, as explained in a letter that our group of Attorneys General sent to
Administrator Pruitt on June 8, 2017, reconsideration of the current standards is unwarranted. (A
copy of that letter is annexed here as Exh. A). To the extent that EPA is considering changing
the standards at all, however, the agency should evaluate strengthening—rather than
weakening—the current standards in light of the readily available and cost-effective means to do
so and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

2

See U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation GHG Emissions and Trends,
https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/transportation-ghg-emissions-and-trends (last
viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
3
See U.S. DOT, supra, n.2.
4
See Benoit Lefevre & Angela Enriques, Transport Sector Key to Closing the World’s Emissions
Gap, WRI, http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/09/transport-sector-key-closing-world%E2%80%99semissions-gap (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
5
See David L. Greene, Howard Baker, and Steven E. Plotkin, Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from U.S. Transportation, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://wwwcta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/Reducing_GHG_from_transportation[1].pdf (last visited Oct. 3,
2017).
6
See U.S. EPA, Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution, https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basicinformation-about-no2#Effects (last visited Aug. 10, 2017).

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 3 of 14
Background for the Model Year 2022-2025 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
In 2010, EPA and the Highway Administration established the National Program, the first
nationwide joint greenhouse gas emissions/Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards,
for vehicles sold in model years 2012 to 2016. 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010). Building on
the success of the 2012-2016 standards, EPA and the Highway Administration, in a joint 2012
rulemaking, respectively adopted final greenhouse gas emissions standards and final CAFE
standards for model years 2017-2025. 77 Fed. Reg. 62624. As with the earlier standards, the
two agencies harmonized their standards so that the greenhouse gas emissions standards set by
EPA may be met by complying with the Highway Administration’s CAFE standards, which
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve fuel economy, and through vehicle air
conditioning refrigerant improvements, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but do not
improve fuel economy. 77 Fed. Reg. 62624.
Because the 2022-2025 standards were adopted well in advance, the implementing
regulations provided for a Mid-Term Evaluation—to be completed by no later than April 2018—
to confirm that the standards remained appropriate under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, taking
into consideration the following factors:
(i) The availability and effectiveness of technology, and the appropriate lead time
for introduction of technology;
(ii) The cost on the producers or purchasers of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines;
(iii) The feasibility and practicability of the standards;
(iv) The impact of the standards on reduction of emissions, oil conservation,
energy security, and fuel savings by consumers;
(v) The impact of the standards on the automobile industry;
(vi) The impacts of the standards on automobile safety;
(vii) The impact of the greenhouse gas emission standards on the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards and a national harmonized program; and
(viii) The impact of the standards on other relevant factors.
40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h)(1)(i)-(viii).
In accordance with the requirements in § 86.1818-12(h)(2), EPA, together with the
Highway Administration and the California Air Resources Board, issued a draft Technical
Assessment Report (Technical Assessment) in July 2016. The agencies based their 1,200-page
assessment on a comprehensive and exhaustive record, including state-of-the-art research; input
from stakeholders; information from technical conferences; published literature; and studies,
including the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Report on fuel economy technologies.
Technical Assessment at ES-3. EPA and the Highway Administration each provided its own
initial technical assessment of the technologies available to meet the model year 2022-2025
standards, and each provided its own different, and reasonable, compliance pathway. NHTSA
and EPA also performed multiple sensitivity analyses that demonstrated additional compliance
pathways. Id.

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 4 of 14
Both EPA and the Highway Administration reached the same conclusion. The auto
industry is, on average, over-complying with the first several years of the harmonized national
standards. This is because a wider range of technologies exists, at similar or lower costs, than
the agencies had originally projected in the 2012 rule. Technical Assessment at ES-2.
In addition, when the California Air Resources Board adopted its Advanced Clean Cars
program in 2012, it committed to participating in the Midterm Evaluation with EPA and the
Highway Administration. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review, Jan. 18, 2017, at
ES-1. 7 Like EPA and the Highway Administration, the Air Resources Board found that
manufacturers are over-complying with the greenhouse gas emission requirements and are
already offering various vehicles on the road now that are able to comply with standards for
future model years. Id. at ES-2. Specifically, the Air Resources Board found that 23 types of
trucks, 23 types of sport utility vehicles, and 26 types of passenger cars meet 2020 or later
greenhouse gas emission standards with a conventional gasoline powertrain. Id.
In 2016, EPA provided an opportunity for public comment period on the draft Technical
Assessment and, where appropriate, updated its analysis in response to the comments and to
incorporate the most recent data. Id. at 1. EPA is not reopening the Technical Assessment for
comment in this reconsideration. Notice, 82 F.R at 39553.
Based on the Technical Assessment, EPA issued a Proposed Determination in November
2016 concluding that the 2022-2025 greenhouse gas emissions standards remain appropriate.
During the public comment period on the Proposed Determination, EPA received over 100,000
comments.
Based on the above record and because none of the information in the public comments
materially called its analysis into question, EPA made a Final Determination that the model year
2022-2025 greenhouse gas standards remain appropriate under Mid-Term Evaluation factors set
out in 40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h)(1). Final Det. at 8. Indeed, EPA concluded that it would be
feasible to adopt more rigorous greenhouse gas standards than the original 2022-2025 standards:
The Administrator did consider whether it would be appropriate to
propose to amend the standards to increase their stringency. In her view,
the current record, including the current state of technology and the pace
of technology development and implementation, could support a proposal,
and potentially an ultimate decision, to adopt more stringent standards for
MY 2022-2025.
Final Det. at 8. In the end, however, EPA decided to maintain the original standards to promote
regulatory certainty. Final Det. at 8.
Despite its conclusions that the auto industry is more than technologically able to meet
the 2022-2025 standards, and that consumers, the environment, and energy security will all
benefit from the standards, EPA nonetheless published the Notice of Intention to Reconsider the
7

Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc-mtr.htm (last viewed Sep. 27, 2017).

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 5 of 14
Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for
Model Year 2022–2025 Light Duty Vehicles, 82 Fed. Reg. 14671 (Mar. 22, 2017) (Notice). In
the Request for comment on the Notice, EPA and the Highway Agency also introduced several
new factors that the agencies contend—without explanation—are “relevant” to reconsideration
of the standards. See 82 Fed. Reg. 39551, 39553. Included in this list are several, such as “the
extent to which consumers value fuel savings from greater efficiency of vehicles,” and “the
appropriate reference fleet,” which appear impermissibly to be designed to enable the agencies to
equate consumer demand or preference with factors such as emissions reduction, technology, and
cost that are firmly grounded in Clean Air Act § 202(a) and 40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h)(1)(i)(viii). Id.
Finally, in the Request, EPA, with little explanation, also solicited comment on whether
the greenhouse gas standards for model year 2021 remains appropriate. 82 Fed. Reg. 39551,
39552. Unlike the 2022-2025 standards, the model year 2021 standard is not part of the MidTerm Evaluation. EPA and the Highway Administration issued that model year’s standards as a
Final Rule in 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012).
Discussion
The Model Year 2022-2025 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Are Appropriate Under
Clean Air Act Section 202(a) and Midterm Evaluation Factors.
In the Final Determination, EPA found that the model year 2022-2025 standards are
appropriate under Clean Air Act § 202(a)(1) as well as the Midterm Evaluation factors.
Specifically, EPA found the standards technologically feasible at reasonable cost, with
manufacturers achieving compliance largely through improved gasoline technologies that are
already in commercial production, or could feasibly be in production by 2025, rather than
extensive electrification of their fleets. Final Det. at ES-2 (discussing factors (h)(i)-(h)(iii)).
Indeed, the estimated cost for the gasoline technologies is lower than what EPA had initially
predicted; in 2012, EPA had projected a per vehicle cost of $1,100, but in the Final
Determination the agency estimated a cost range of $800 to $1,115. Final Det. at ES-4-5
(discussing factor (h)(ii)).
EPA’s conclusion, moreover, does not account for potentially significant developments
such as the recent announcement by a coalition of global corporations, including the shipping
company DHL, to accelerate a shift towards electric vehicles by committing to replacing part or
all of their vehicle fleets with hydrogen-powered or plug-in electric cars or building the charging
stations needed by electric cars. 8 Since half of the cars on the road are company cars, this action
could have a potentially large impact. Id. Electric vehicles, however, are only a small part of the
compliance pathways modeled by EPA and the Highway Administration, see Final Det. at ES-45; thus, any acceleration in the wider use of electric vehicles would make compliance with the
2022-2025 standards easier than predicted.
8

See https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19092017/electric-cars-ev100-coalition-charging-fleetikea-dhl (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 6 of 14

In addition, several auto manufacturers have recently announced plans to substantially
bolster their hybrid and electric product lines. Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler is investing $10.8
billion to bring more than 10 new electric cars to market by 2022. 9 Volvo announced in June that
it will introduce only hybrid or battery powered car models starting in 2019. 10 Last month,
Volkswagen said it will invest $20 billion to develop at least one battery-based electric offering
for every model sold by VW, Audi, and its other brands, 11 while BMW will introduce more than
two dozen all-electric cars or hybrids by 2025, and Jaguar/Land Rover’s entire fleet of new
vehicles will be electric or hybrid starting in 2020. 12 And just this week, GM announced its
commitment to abandon all gas- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of an all-electric fleet,
beginning with dramatic expansion of its long-range electric battery vehicles cars by 2023. 13
The Final Determination also found that the 2022-2025 standards will result in significant
carbon dioxide and oil consumption reductions, with their corresponding environmental, fuel
economy and national security benefits. Final Det. at ES-6 (discussing factor (h)(iv)). EPA
estimated that the 2022-2025 standards will result in reduction of 540 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide. Because the standards are met in part by improving fuel economy, enabling
drivers to travel the same distance using less fuel, the standards will also reduce oil consumption
by 1.2 billion barrels. Id. at ES-6.
EPA also found that the standards will provide significant cost-savings benefits to
consumers and the general public. Notably, EPA found that the benefits of the standards, not
including fuel savings, exceeded the costs, and that the fuel savings alone also exceeded the costs
of the program. Id. at ES-6-7 (discussing factor (h)(iv)). In considering the average payback
period of a MY 2025 vehicle, as compared to a MY 2021 vehicle, EPA’s analysis showed that
consumers who financed their cars with five-year loans would see payback within the first year,
and consumers who paid cash would see payback in five years. Overall, consumers would
realize a net savings of $1,650 over the lifetime of a new vehicle.
In evaluating factor (h)(v), the impact of the standards on the automobile industry, the
Final Determination Found that the average cost per vehicle, which EPA and the Highway
Administration had initially projected to be $1,100, had dropped to $875. Id. at ES-24-25.
Because the agencies considered the originally projected estimate of $1,100 to be reasonable, the
observed increase of only $875 is necessarily reasonable. Id. at ES-25. EPA further noted that,
9

See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-daimler-agm/daimler-accelerates-electric-car-programidUSKBN1700N7 (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
10
See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/vw-ceo-vows-to-offer-electricversion-of-all-300-models-by-2030 (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
11
See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/vw-ceo-vows-to-offer-electricversion-of-all-300-models-by-2030 (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
12
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/business/energy-environment/volvo-hybrid-electriccar.html?_r=0 (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).
13
See https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-going-all-electric-will-ditch-gas-dieselpowered-cars-n806806 (last viewed Oct. 3, 2017).

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 7 of 14
for the first time in 100 years, vehicle sales were strong for seven straight years, through 2016.
While the standards affect the price of new vehicles, EPA found that they did not reduce the
availability of vehicle choices for consumers at any point, including the lowest price vehicle
segment. Id. Moreover, as noted above, compliance with the standards will not require extensive
electrification of the fleet; the Final Determination concluded that multiple routes to compliance
exist, all requiring 3 percent or less strong hybrids and electric vehicles. Id.
On the issue of the effect of the model year 2022-2025 standards on automobile safety,
factor (h)(vi), EPA used an updated analysis based on the most recently available crash data and
concluded that the standards can be met with no net increase in fatalities. Id. at ES-26-27.
With respect to factor (h)(vii), the effect of the greenhouse gas emissions standards on the
CAFE standards and a national harmonized program, EPA stated that providing its determination
at that time (January 2017) would enable the Highway Administration to take the greenhouse gas
standards into account in when it proposes the final 2022-2025 CAFE standards and thus fully
align both agencies’ standards. Id. at ES-27.
With regard to the last factor, “other relevant factors,” EPA considered only regulatory
certainty relevant. Id. at ES-28. As noted above, EPA found that “the automakers’ response to
technology development and deployment . . . has exceeded EPA’s projections set out in the
original 2012 rule.” Id. However, EPA concluded that changing the standards at the midterm
point could disrupt the industry’s planning for future product lines and investments, and decided
to maintain the original 2022-2025 standards. Id.
To the Extent that EPA Decides that Revision of the Standards is Appropriate, the Record
Supports Strengthening the Standards.
The Applicable Legal Standard under the Clean Air Act.
Any decision by EPA to reconsider the Model Year 2022-2025 Greenhouse Gas
standards must be driven by the agency’s statutory directive to protect the public health and
welfare. Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to promulgate standards for new
motor vehicles to control the emission of air pollutants that the agency has found “cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), CAA § 202(a)(1). EPA has concluded that public health and
welfare are endangered by carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. See Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act (“Endangerment Finding”), 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009). The Endangerment
Finding has been upheld on judicial review. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. E.P.A.,
684 F.3d 102, 119 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (upholding EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases may
“reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and agency’s issuance of
emission standards for cars and light trucks), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Util. Air
Regulatory Grp. v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), and amended sub nom. Coal. for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 606 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 8 of 14
While § 202(a)(2) states that emission standards promulgated under 202(a)(1) “shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and
application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period[,]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 7521(a)(2), EPA’s statutory mandate remains
“protecting the public’s ‘health’ and ‘welfare[.]’” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532
(2007). Thus, while EPA may give “appropriate consideration” to factors such as technological
feasibility, lead time, and cost, those factors cannot outweigh the agency’s statutory directive and
the goal of the Clean Air Act.
In Husqvarna AB v. E.P.A., 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001), for example, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit construed another provision, § 213, of the Clean Air Act.
That provision directs EPA to adopt emissions standards for non-road engines and vehicles that
will “achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable[,]” while “giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to
manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.” Id. at 200, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7547(a)(3). In rejecting a manufacturer’s claim that
the emission standards EPA adopted did not represent the “best balance” of these factors for the
industry, the court held that:
EPA did not deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional
will by placing primary significance on the “greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable” and by considering cost, noise, energy, and safety
factors as important but secondary factors. The overriding goal of the
section is air quality and the other listed considerations, while significant,
are subordinate to that goal.
Id. (emphasis added).
Similarly, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538
F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit also considered how an agency balances the factors
to be “considered” in achieving the overall purpose of the statute. At issue in Center for
Biological Diversity was § 32902(f) of Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which
directs the Secretary of Transportation to set “maximum feasible average fuel economy
standards” while taking into consideration “technological feasibility, economic practicability, the
effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the
United States to conserve energy.” 49 U.S.C.A. § 32902(f). The Ninth Circuit concluded that:
“[t]he EPCA clearly requires the agency to consider these four factors, but it gives NHTSA
discretion to decide how to balance the statutory factors – as long as NHTSA’s balancing does
not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EPCA: energy conservation.” Center for
Biological Diversity, 538 F.3d at 1195.
The legislative history of the Clean Act further reinforces that public health and welfare
concerns must be paramount. The Senate Committee that approved the proposed bill stated that:
The proposed bill would require [the Department of Health Education and
Welfare (HEW), EPA’s predecessor] to make a judgment on the contribution of

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 9 of 14
moving sources to deterioration of air quality and establish emission standards
which would provide the required degree of control. [HEW] is expected to press
for the development and application of improved technology rather than be
limited by that which exists. In other words, standards should be a function of the
degree of control required, not the degree of technology available today.
S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24 (1970) (emphasis added). In short, it is imperative that public health
and welfare drive the level of technology required.
More Stringent Greenhouse Gas Standards Are Urgently Needed to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Public Health.
As discussed above, the greenhouse gas standards are a critical part of the National
Program, which was promulgated to address our country’s urgent needs to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and reduce oil consumption. These needs have become even more critical in the
intervening years. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the burning of fossil fuels is
causing climate change. 14 Global average temperature has been steadily rising with the growth
in industrialization and fossil fuel use; since the nineteenth century, global average surface
temperatures have increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. 15 Most of the warming has occurred in
the past thirty-five years, and sixteen of the past seventeen warmest years on record have
occurred since 2001. 16 As a direct result of greenhouse gas pollution, we also are experiencing
more frequent and increasingly extreme and costly storms, often bringing unprecedented
volumes of precipitation; flooding; longer and more frequent and severe heat waves; rising sealevels; and ocean acidification. 17 The economic and public health harms – including lives lost –
from these changes are felt throughout the United States and its territories, from the droughts and
wildfires in the West, to the extreme heat, precipitation and flooding in the Midwest, to the rising
sea levels along our coasts. 18 And as recent events have demonstrated, climate change is
increasing the likelihood and severity of hurricane disasters. Rising sea levels increase storm
surge, and the intensity of future hurricanes is expected to increase. 19
14

See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate,
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate
(“Emissions of several important greenhouse gases that result from human activity have increased
substantially since large-scale industrialization began in the mid-1800s. Most of these human-caused
(anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions were carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels. . . .
Scientists know with virtual certainty that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the
planet.”) (last visited Oct. 3, 2017).
15
See NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-onrecord-globally.
16
Id.
17
See U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States,
2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment, http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ (last visited on Aug. 10,
2017) (Climate Change Impacts).
18
See https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ (last visited Aug. 19, 2017).
19
U.S. Global Change Research Program, supra, n.17.

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 10 of 14

Transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States, and the only sector where carbon dioxide emissions increased in 2016, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Agency. 20 Based on the most recent EPA Inventory Data, cars and
light trucks made up 62 percent of the sector’s emissions. 21 As discussed above, EPA estimated
that the current model years 2022-2025 standards will result in the reduction of 540 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide, Final Det. at ES-6; more stringent standards will result in greater
reductions.
The critical need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which falls squarely within EPA’s
mandate under the Clean Air Act, together with EPA’s own finding that “the current state of
technology and the pace of technology development and implementation, could support a
proposal . . . to adopt more stringent standards for MY 2022-2025[,]” Final Det. at 8, compel the
conclusion that more stringent greenhouse gas standards for model years 2022-2025 are
appropriate.
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, more stringent model years 2022-2025
standards would also reduce the criteria pollutants that create smog and cause or worsen public
health problems. Cars and trucks emit oxides of nitrogen, which contribute to the ground-level
ozone air pollution that exacerbates respiratory conditions such as asthma and emphysema. 22
Likewise, particulate matter lodges in lungs and can cause or worsen pulmonary and cardiac
health problems. 23 Indeed, jurisdictions across the country, including the signatory states here,
continue to suffer the effects of automotive pollution in the form of elevated levels of both ozone
and particulate matter in the air. Reducing pollutants from automotive emissions will improve
our citizens’ public health.
Finally, more stringent standards will also further reduce the country’s oil consumption.
The current 2022-2025 standards will reduce oil consumption by 1.2 billion barrels, Final Det. at
ES-6, a figure that will increase with the standards’ stringency.
Several Factors Listed in the Notice have No Statutory or Regulatory Basis
Several of the newly coined factors listed in EPA’s Notice and request for comments
focus on consumer preference, including “the extent to which consumers value fuel savings from
greater efficiency of vehicles”; “the distributional consequences on households”; “the availability
of realistic technological concepts for improving efficiency in automobiles that consumers
demand”; and “the impact of the standards on consumer behavior.” 82 Fed. Reg. at 39553.
20

See https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30712 (last visited Aug. 24, 2017).
See 2015 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, United States EPA,
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (last visited Aug.
10, 2017).
22
U.S. EPA, supra n.6.
23
See U.S. EPA, Particulate Matter Pollution, available at https://www.epa.gov/pmpollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM (last visited Aug. 10, 2017).
21

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 11 of 14
These factors, however, have no statutory or regulatory basis for inclusion in any EPA
reconsideration.
As discussed above, § 202(a)(1) directs EPA to protect public health and welfare by
setting vehicle emission standards with a compliance timeline based on technological feasibility
and cost, and subject to the requirement that compliance with the standards cannot pose an
unreasonable safety risk. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), (2), (4). While the statute directs EPA to
consider the cost of compliance, which affects both manufacturers and consumers, consumer
preference is not a listed factor. Nor can it be read into the statute. When Congress intended for
EPA to consider consumer preference or demand in setting an air quality standard, it explicitly so
stated. 42 U.S.C. § 7511b(e)(2), which directs EPA to set criteria for emissions from volatile
organic compound sources, specifically states that EPA, in establishing these criteria, “shall take
into consideration the uses, benefits and commercial demand of consumer and commercial
products.” Id. at §7511b(e)(2)(B). Congress made no such statement in § 202(a). EPA may not
properly inject such considerations here.
Several of the factors listed 40 C.F. R. § 86.1818-12(h)(1) similarly reflect § 202(a)(1)’s
goals and considerations. See, e.g., 40 C.F. R. § 86.1818-12(h)(1)(i)-(iii), (v), (vi) (availability
of technology, lead time cost on producers and purchasers, feasibility and practicability of
standards, safety). The remaining factors in § 86.1818-12(h) reflect the fact that EPA and the
Highway Administration now adopt joint, harmonized standards. EPA therefore also considers
the impact of its standards on EPCA’s goals, see § 86.1818-12(h)(1)(iv), as well as on the CAFE
standards and the national program itself. Id. at (h)(1)(iv), (vii). While the last factor,
(h)(1)(viii), allows EPA to consider the impact of the standards on “other relevant factors,” EPA
in the Mid-Term Evaluation used this subsection to consider regulatory certainty. There is no
explicit regulatory provision for considering consumer preference or demand.
There is no Factual or Legal Basis to Revise the 2021 Standard
EPA states that its decision to reconsider the 2022-2025 standards was based on its
contention that the Mid-Term Evaluation was legally flawed. 82 Fed. Reg. 14671. Setting aside
the validity of that position, which we strongly dispute, the 2021 standards were not legally
required to be considered in the Mid-Term Review. See § 86.1818-12(h). EPA and the Highway
Administration issued the 2021 standards as part of their joint Final Rule for model years 20172021, issued in 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 62624. EPA has identified no legal or factual basis to justify
re-opening of the model year 2021 standards or to broaden the scope of its improper re-opening
of the Mid Term Review to include them.

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 12 of 14

including the current state of technology and the pace of technology development and
implementation, could support a proposal, and potentially an ultimate decision, to adopt more
stringent standards for MY any change of the standards should be to adopt more
stringent greenhouse gas standards for model years 2022-25 that will address the urgent need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

GEORGE EPSEN

Attorney General

Matthew I. Levine

Scott N. Koschwitz

Assistant Attorneys General
Of?ce of the Attorney General
PO. Box 120, 55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06141 -0120
(860) 808-5250

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York

By: 

CHU
Chief, Af?rmative Litigation Section
CHANNING JONES
Public Interest Fellow
New York State Department of Law
Environmental Protection Bureau
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271-0332
(212) 416-8446

 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KARL A. RACINE

Attorney General

ROBYN R. BENDER

Deputy Attorney General
Public Advocacy Division
BRIAN CALDWELL

Assistant Attorney General
Public Integrity Section
Of?ce of the Attorney General
of the District of Columbia
441 Fourth St. NW Ste. 600-S
Washington, DC. 20001
(202) 724-6610

Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 13 of 14
FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General
Matthew I. Levine
Scott N. Koschwitz
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 120, 55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
(860) 808-5250

KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General
ROBYN R. BENDER
Deputy Attorney General
Public Advocacy Division
BRIAN CALDWELL
Assistant Attorney General
Public Integrity Section
Office of the Attorney General
of the District of Columbia
441 Fourth St. NW Ste. 600-S
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 724-6610

FOR THE STATE OF IOWA

FOR THE STATE OF MAINE

THOMAS J. MILLER
Attorney General
JACOB LARSON
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Iowa Attorney General
Hover State Office Building
1305 E. Walnut Street, 2nd Floor
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-4341

JANET T. MILLS
Attorney General
GERALD D. REID
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Natural Resources Division
Office of the Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
(207) 626-8545

FOR THE STATE OF MAINE

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS

JANET T. MILLS
Attorney General
GERALD D. REID
Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Natural Resources Division
Office of the Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
(207) 626-8545

MAURA HEALEY
Attorney General
CAROL IANCU
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
One Ashburton Place, 18th Flr.
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 963-2428

 Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Chao
October 5, 2017
Page 14 of 14
FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

JOSHUA STEIN
Attorney General
BLAKE THOMAS
Deputy General Counsel
North Carolina Department of Justice
114 W. Edenton St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 716-6400

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
PAUL GARRAHAN
Attorney-in-Charge
Natural Resources Section
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 947-4593

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA

FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT

JOSH SHAPIRO
Attorney General
STEVEN J. SANTARSIERO
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Environmental Protection Section
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
21 South 12th Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Direct Dial: 215-560-2380
Cell Phone: 267-449-6639
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
KATHARINE G. SHIREY
Assistant Attorney General
Washington State Attorney General’s Office
PO Box 40117
Olympia, WA 98504
(360) 586-6769

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR.
Attorney General
NICHOLAS F. PERSAMPIERI
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
(802) 828-3186

 EXHIBIT A

Attorneys General of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and the Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
June 8, 2017
E. Scott Pruitt
Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re:

Midterm Evaluation of Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Duty
Trucks for Model Years 2022-25

Dear Administrator Pruitt:
The undersigned Attorneys General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection submit this letter in response to your
letter to California Governor Brown dated May 2, 2017, regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency’s midterm evaluation of the current federal standards for greenhouse gas emissions from
cars and light-duty trucks. We write to express our strong disagreement with your contention that
EPA’s midterm evaluation process was legally flawed. If you seek to roll back these important
standards, we intend to pursue appropriate legal action to defend them in court.
Background
The federal standards for model years 2022-25—together with the parallel standards
California enacted and many of our states voluntarily adopted—will substantially cut the
greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change as well as reduce the pollutants that cause
smog and foul the air that people breathe. Cars and light-duty trucks emit about 20 percent of
greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide) from fossil fuel combustion in this country. All told,
these vehicles emit well over a trillion tons in greenhouse gases each year from their tailpipes,
emissions that are raising the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels that are
already producing increasingly intense climate-change impacts such as sea-level rise, extreme
weather, and ocean acidification.
In 2009, the principal U.S. automotive regulators—EPA, the California Air Resources
Board, and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)—partnered with the auto industry and other stakeholders to assess how best to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions using readily available and affordable technologies. This cooperation
resulted in the 2012 rulemaking, which set increasingly stringent standards for greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for the 2017-25 model years. 77 Fed. Reg. 62,624
(Oct. 15, 2012). In addition to substantially cutting carbon pollution—by the equivalent of the
annual emissions of 422 million cars currently on the road—these standards limit nitrogen oxide
and other smog-forming emissions that trigger asthma attacks. And by improving the fuel
economy of these vehicles, the standards will reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil.
To confirm achievability of the more stringent standards for model years 2022-25, EPA
agreed to complete a midterm evaluation by April 2018. 40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h). EPA had to

120 Broadway, 25th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10271-0332 ● Phone (212) 416-8750 ● Fax (212) 416-6007 ● WWW.AG.NY.GOV

 consider several factors in its evaluation, including the availability and effectiveness of
technology, the costs to manufacturers and consumers, and the impact of the standards on
emission reductions, energy security, fuel savings, and automobile safety. Id., § 86.181812(h)(1).
EPA followed the process set forth in its regulations. First, after extensive research, EPA
issued a draft Technical Assessment Report (TAR) jointly with NHTSA and CARB last summer,
which found that the existing standards for model years 2022-25 can be met using existing
available technology. EPA provided a 60-day public comment period, assessed those comments,
and issued a draft final decision to maintain the current standards. EPA subsequently provided a
30-day comment period on the draft final decision and considered those public comments prior
to issuing its final determination affirming the standards in January 2017. EPA concluded that
the current standards are feasible at reasonable cost, will achieve significant carbon dioxide
emissions reductions, and will provide significant economic and environmental benefits to
consumers.
Indeed, even though EPA concluded that the record regarding the automakers’ fuel
economy technologies supported making the standards more stringent, it decided that regulatory
certainty weighed in favor of keeping the current standards in place.
EPA’s Midterm Evaluation Complied with Applicable Law and is Consistent with the Facts
In light of these facts, the characterization in your May 2 letter that EPA “circumvented”
the required legal and scientific processes in its midterm evaluation is erroneous and inconsistent
with your stated desire to “follow the letter of the law.” First, although your letter contends there
was insufficient opportunity for public comment during the process, EPA followed the
regulatory requirements for seeking and considering public comments on both the draft TAR and
the draft decision to maintain the current standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h)(2)(ii), (iii).
Second, your assertion that EPA deviated from the “required process” by not submitting
these draft documents to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the Department of
Transportation is completely unfounded. Neither OMB nor DOT review is required for the
midterm evaluation under the 2012 rule. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.1818-12(h).
Third, your argument that EPA acted prematurely by completing the midterm evaluation
over a year ahead of the deadline finds no support in the language of the regulations. With
respect to both the publication of the draft TAR and the final decision, the regulations prescribe
deadlines by which the agency must act. See id., § 86.1818-12(h)(1) (requiring EPA to issue its
final determination by “[n]o later than April 1, 2018”) and (h)(3) (requiring EPA to publish its
draft TAR by “no later than November 15, 2017”). Although EPA is often faulted for missing
deadlines, we are unfamiliar with any occasion on which the EPA Administrator has criticized
his own agency for fulfilling its regulatory obligations ahead of schedule.
More fundamentally, it would have served no purpose for EPA to delay issuing its final
decision until the last possible moment. As Governor Brown pointed out to you in his letter dated
March 15, 2017, there are at least three separate reports by scientists, engineers, and other

2

 experts analyzing the standards and concluding that they are feasible. The record is clear that
appropriate technology exists now for automakers to achieve the current standards for model
years 2022-25 at a reasonable cost. The timing of EPA’s action reflected the reality that, as a
result of their technological resourcefulness, automakers were already ahead of schedule in
complying with the standards to date and that conditions were ripe to assess the technology
available for the later model years. The reasonableness of EPA’s determination was further
confirmed by the decision reached by CARB in March that its parallel standards—which many
of our states have adopted—are readily achievable by automakers. See California Air Resources
Board, Resolution No. 17-3 (March 24, 2017), pp. 7, 15-16,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/board/res/2017/res17-3.pdf.
In his March 15 letter, Governor Brown said California was prepared to take all
necessary steps to preserve the current standards. In our view, EPA’s midterm evaluation was
lawful and fully supported by the record. And in light of the critical public health and
environmental benefits the standards will deliver, if EPA acts to weaken or delay the current
standards for model years 2022-25, like California, we intend to vigorously pursue appropriate
legal remedies to block such action.
Ultimately, we are hopeful that you meant what you said in your opening in your letter to
Governor Brown—that you too seek “cleaner and more efficient vehicles” and that you are
committed to “the principles of cooperative federalism underlying environmental statutes.” No
environmental statute embodies those principles of cooperative federalism more fully than the
Clean Air Act. And few steps would be simpler to ensure cleaner and more efficient vehicles
than EPA’s keeping in place its current standards for greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light
duty trucks.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General of New York

Karl A. Racine
Attorney General of the District of
Columbia

Tom Miller
Attorney General of Iowa

3

 Janet T. Mills
Attorney General of Maine

Ellen F. Rosenblum
Attorney General of Oregon

Brian Frosh
Attorney General of Maryland

George Jepsen
Attorney General of Connecticut

Peter F. Kilmartin
Attorney General of Rhode Island

Josh Shapiro
Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Bob Ferguson
Attorney General of Washington

Patrick McDonnell
Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection

Maura Healey
Attorney General of Massachusetts

Matthew P. Denn
Attorney General of Delaware

T.J. Donovan
Attorney General of Vermont

Douglas S. Chin
Attorney General of Hawaii

4