On August 20, Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change published a Discussion Paper to launch consultations on the mid-term evaluation of Canada’s light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission regulations for the 2022–2025 model years. Public comments may be submitted to email@example.com by September 28, 2018. Once comments have been reviewed, if the government determines that regulatory changes are needed, it promises a second consultation period. One of the first off the mark with a response: Clean Energy Canada, with “Canada should explore stronger vehicle standards to cut pollution and enhance competitiveness” .
The mid-term review is required by the 2014 regulations under which Canada currently operates, but it comes at a time when Canada must decide whether to continue to align its fuel efficiency standards with the U.S., as it has done for 20 years, or follow its own path. The current Canadian trajectory is shaped by our GHG reduction commitments under the Paris Agreement, the Pan-Canadian Framework for Clean Growth and Climate Change , and a 2017 commitment to develop a national Zero-Emissions Vehicle Strategy by 2018.
But in the U.S. , on August 2, the Trump administration announced the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicle Rule (SAFER) , which proposes weakening the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions standards and Department of Transportation’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light duty vehicles in model years 2021 through 2025. The proposed rule would also revoke a legal waiver which allows California and 13 other states to set their own pollution standards. Based on arguments made in the document “Make Cars Great Again” , published by the Wall Street Journal, the Trump plan claims it will save $500 billion in “societal costs,” avert thousands of highway fatalities and save consumers an estimated $2,340 on each new automobile. Most of the Administration’s arguments are refuted in “Five Important points about the Safe Vehicle Rule” by the Sabin School of Law at Columbia University. Other critiques: from Vox: “Trump is freezing Obama’s fuel economy standards. Here’s what that could do” (Aug. 2); and “The EPA refuted its own bizarre justification for rolling back fuel efficiency standards” (Aug. 16); “Trump administration to freeze fuel-efficiency requirements in move likely to spur legal battle with states” in the Washington Post (Aug. 2) ; “Trump’s Auto Efficiency Rollback: Losing the Climate Fight, 1 MPG at a Time” by Inside Climate News (Aug. 2) .
What should Canada do? Technical analysis comes in Automobile production in Canada and implications for Canada’s 2025 passenger vehicle greenhouse gas standards, released by the International Council on Clean Transportation in April 2018, which analyzes the Canadian vehicle manufacturing market and sales patterns and describes the possible impacts if Canada aligns weakens its greenhouse gas emission standards with the Trump administration, or maintains its existing standards and aligns with California. Other opinions: From Clean Energy Canada on Aug. 2 , “Canada should hold firm and reject Trump’s efforts to roll back vehicle standards” ; or “On vehicle emissions standards It’s time Canada divorced the United States” in Policy Options (April 2018); and “Trump’s plan to scare Americans into supporting car pollution” in the National Observer (Aug. 7) .