Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Donald Trump’s Backdoor Gasoline Tax

Overturning the basis for America’s tailpipe emissions rules could actually raise prices at the pump — according to the Trump administration itself.

The White House.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It hasn’t attracted much attention, but a document filed by the Trump administration last week admits to something important: The Trump administration believes that it is going to make gasoline more expensive for Americans.

That disclosure came in a technical analysis filed by the Environmental Protection Agency to support its attempt to repeal all carbon dioxide rules under the Clean Air Act. The document is meant to bolster the EPA’s case that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous air pollutant, and that the agency should therefore withdraw all tailpipe pollution limits for cars and trucks.

The document also shows that President Trump will struggle to meet his own campaign promises around energy. When he ran for president last year, Trump promised to cut energy and electricity prices by “at least half” within 12 months of taking office.

Now, the president’s policies are — by his own administration’s admission — likely to cause energy prices to rise. At least compared to the world where those policies never went into effect.

The admission comes on page 10 of the filing in a chart and associated discussion. It’s a confusing image at first glance, so take a look at it, then I’ll walk through it.

Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards | Draft Regulatory Impact AnalysisReconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards | Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis

The rollback would affect light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles — that is, everything from a small Toyota Corolla sedan to a Freightliner Cascadia semi. Because of that, the chart shows both gasoline prices (in red) and diesel prices (in black).

The solid black and red lines are what the government projected would happen to gasoline and diesel prices two years ago based on then-current policy. (They’re labeled AEO 2023 Reference because they came from the Energy Information Administration’s 2023 Annual Energy Outlook, the big yearly compendium of long-term market trends.)

The dashed black and red lines are what the government projected would happen to gasoline and diesel prices in its most recent 2025 Annual Energy Outlook. As you can see, in that report, federal analysts considerably downgraded their forecast for future gasoline and diesel prices — projecting gas prices, in particular, as much as 75 cents cheaper than in 2023. (These lines are labeled AEO 2025 Reference.)

The dotted red and black lines are what the government now thinks will happen when it rolls back the EPA’s tailpipe pollution rules. (These lines are labeled 2025 Alt Transportation, which is the name of the deregulatory scenario in the annual energy report.) As you can see, these — the Trump rollback scenario — come in far above the current 2025 forecast, particularly for gasoline. In other words, the Trump administration believes that rolling back the EPA tailpipe standards will raise gasoline prices.

The document itself acknowledges this: “For the AEO 2025 Alternative Transportation case, the difference compared to AEO 2023 is smaller, yet still lower than the prices in the AEO 2023, and the difference remains relatively stable over time.”

In other words, the document concedes that gas prices under Trump’s rollback will be more expensive — that is, much closer to the 2023 projections — than they were projected to be with the Biden-era regulations in place. The Trump document argues that’s okay: As long as gas prices are cheaper now than they were projected to be in 2023, Americans will have less to save by driving more fuel-efficient cars, so the EPA can roll back its pollution rules without worrying about the resulting increase in gas prices.

It’s an odd argument, one that relies heavily on the global decline in gasoline price forecasts from 2023 to 2025, which has little to nothing at all to do with Trump’s policymaking. As the filing says elsewhere, global gasoline markets can go up and down for many reasons, including “(1) changes in U.S. policies; (2) international incidents (e.g., wars); (3) changes in policies by international organizations (e.g., OPEC); and (4) changes in supply and demand of gasoline and diesel.” If gasoline prices go up significantly in the future, it could throw one argument for Trump’s rollback into question.

The problem for the EPA — and for the president — is that removing gas mileage rules means that American consumers will, as a whole, consume more gasoline. That might be good for the oil and gas industry, and it might slightly reduce the costs of a new car or appliance. But it will drive up energy costs as well — especially for Americans who already own a car or who are not in the market for a new appliance.

This analysis also makes Trump’s rollback oddly captive to the vagaries of Chinese policy. One reason that global gasoline price forecasts have stalled since 2023 is because Chinese gas demand has plateaued due to the explosive growth of that country’s EV industry. The Trump EPA is saying, in essence: Because China has switched en masse to EVs, it’s cheaper for Americans to keep driving gasoline cars. The follow-on innovation effects of this — the fact that American carmakers will fall behind — are not considered in the sample.

But the concession points to a deeper problem for Trump. The president campaigned on a promise to cut energy costs for Americans upon taking office. But over the past seven months, his administration has aggressively rolled back energy efficiency and fuel economy rules. It has imposed tariffs on some energy imports and moved to crack down on some zero-carbon forms of electricity production. At the same time, Trump has personally demanded that OPEC increase drilling to lower gasoline prices.

This Trump rollback — and the resulting rise in projected gasoline demand — comes as the overall energy cost environment has grown more inflationary. As I’ve previously written, electricity prices show every sign of rising in the coming years because of natural gas supply constraints, the Trump administration’s renewables policy, and equipment shortages. The president only has five months left — and a year at most — to cut energy prices in half, as he once promised during the campaign. He better get cracking.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Celebrate the Fourth of July with us and save 20% off an annual subscription, now just $99 $79/year with code: FIREWORKS
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Trump Taps Nashville Legend to Fight Solar and Wind Farms

And data centers might be collateral damage.

Farmland.
Simon Abranowicz | Getty Images | Unsplash

After derailing gigawatts of renewable power with a permitting freeze, the Trump administration is expanding its war on renewable energy, retaining one of country music’s biggest stars in a PR offensive against utility-scale projects on “prime farmland.”

The administration recently onboarded John Rich – one half of the stadium-packing American musical duo Big & Rich – to be Trump’s “special envoy for American landowners.” Rich entered activism around landowner rights last January when he backed opponents fighting a large Tennessee Valley Authority transmission project routed through his home county of Cheatham, Tennessee. This led to him joining the Trump team, where he’s fashioning himself as a go-to guy and cheerleader for anyone who wants Trump to help stop a solar or wind farm they don’t want built.

Keep reading...Show less
Hotspots

Data Centers Are the Election Year Villain

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

Data Centers Are the Election Year Villain
Heatmap Illustration

1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.

  • All week I’ve been thinking about Missouri, where a widely-screened TV campaign ad is airing screeds against AI hyperscale projects to sell a constitutional amendment initiative up for a vote in this year’s November elections. “That hum is the sound of Big Tech making money on online gambling, for porn,” says a nameless man in the ad. “Amendment 5 makes Big Tech pay so you don’t have to. Yes on Amendment 5.”
  • What does Amendment 5 do? Based on the ad, you would think it was focused on tax exemptions for data centers. But no – a yes vote supports cutting the state income tax, a proposal backed by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe.
  • The ad is misinformation and a mind-blowing use of a confusing conversation around tech infrastructure most were unfamiliar with before this year. Per reporting by the Missouri Independent, the state’s existing tax exemptions for data centers would stay in place if the amendment was adopted.
  • My gut tells me this is only the beginning of the data center industry’s transformation into an election year villain.

2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.

Keep reading...Show less
Q&A

Why Data Center NDAs Are a Big Mistake

A conversation with Grant Gutierrez of Carbon Direct

Why Data Center NDAs Are a Big Mistake
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less