New Cleaner Gas Proposal by EPA Fought by Officials, Executives

As we know in the business of automotive transport, it’s true there are two sides to every coin. Efforts focused on the finances of a situation – reducing costs or improving the economy, for example – are often pitted against factors such as safety, reliability, and consumer protections. That’s the crux of the debate with a new proposal by the EPA to place further restrictions on cars and gasoline.

Executives for the fossil fuels industry and members of US Congress spoke out recently against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) suggestions. They believe the regulations would be damaging to the business of oil refineries and would also bump up the price at the pump by 2 cents per gallon on average throughout the country.

These types of codes and regulations are, of course, not limited to the EPA. Similar protections seen by our company are those by the DOT and its subsidiary, the FMCSA, both of which protect all roadway users but hinder the operations of commercial drivers such as automotive shipping companies.

What the EPA Proposal Entails

The EPA asserts the following changes should be made to the current laws on gasoline and auto transportation standards:

  1. A reduction in sulfur in fuel down to one-third of its current acceptable levels
  2. Further restrictions on allowable pollution created by cars and fleets of commercial vehicles (which would be felt by our company and others offering services to transport cars throughout the nation).

The argument made by the EPA, in contrast to that made by its opposition, is twofold:

  1. Increase in fuel prices would be less than one cent, not two cents
  2. Health impact for American citizens would be substantial – estimated by the EPA to amount to $23 billion of savings by 2030.

Another way we see customers balancing security or safety versus cost is in determining whether to ship an automobile between doors or have it transported between two storage facilities (which can mean the vehicle is out of their hands a little longer).

Statement by the Opposition

Sen. David Vitter, a member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, believes the effects of these codes on the American economy would be far-reaching. He listed the following three elements as examples of the consequences:

  1. More importation of fuel from outside the country
  2. Raising of the US’s continuing trade deficit
  3. Decrease in our energy security.

It’s always difficult to make a decision with complex variables, whether it’s an individual choice (by a person or business) or a public policy one. Maybe we can be of help: If you’re
transporting a car to Los Angeles or anywhere else throughout the US, we can provide you up to 8 comparison quotes. All are from companies we’ve pre-vetted for credibility and have partnered with for over 20 years. Simply fill out the form at the top of this page or call us for assistance.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day.


Washington Post