Customers looking for the most fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles at the M.J. Sullivan Automotive Corner in New London will soon have another car to consider along with the Chevrolet Cruzes, Volts and Hyundai Elantras now on the sales lot.

The Bolt, an electric vehicle that will be able to travel 234 miles on a single charge, is scheduled to arrive this spring, according to dealership owner William Sullivan. Between a range nearly six times that of other electric models and a state rebate of $3,000 available on the $36,995 purchase price, he’s expecting it to be a big seller.

“That’s going to be a home run for us,” he said Tuesday.

The introduction of the Bolt, along with more than two decades of steady increases in the average fuel efficiency of standard gasoline-burning cars with each new model year, gives Sullivan confidence that Connecticut’s decision to continue piggybacking on California’s ambitious standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation won’t hurt his business or consumers.

“The factories do what they have to do to meet the standards,” he said. “Every new model that comes out is more fuel efficient. They keep getting better.”

On Friday, California announced it will continue its commitment to upholding standards set in 2012, and to enhancing incentives to increase sales of electric vehicles, also called ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles), as well as to pursuing further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline-burning cars.

It is a decision that could set the nation’s most populous state, and the 12 other states, including Connecticut, that follow its standards, on a collision course with the Trump administration, which last week announced plans to reopen review of national fuel efficiency standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration.

Connecticut and the other states that follow the California standards are supporting that state’s decision, with state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Robert Klee among those testifying in favor at the meeting of the California Air Resources Board meeting Friday, where the unanimous vote was taken. Together, the 12 states, with a combined population of about 130 million people, cover about one-third of the car market.

“Connecticut and the other states that have adopted California’s greenhouse gas standards have done so because motor vehicles are a major contributor to our GHG emissions and reductions from the California standards are key to meeting our climate goals,” Klee told the board.

He noted that analysis by the EPA and the California board both confirmed that the standards are “achievable at lower costs than originally projected, so the federal government should keep its promise to the states, the auto makers and most importantly, the American people who will benefit from the electrification of our transportation systems by breathing cleaner air and paying less at the pump.”

At issue was an announcement by the Trump administration regarding EPA fuel-efficiency standards, which now require manufacturers to produce cars that average 36 miles to the gallon, and to increase that to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Now, in response to pressure for automakers that that standard is too tough to achieve, the Trump administration has agreed to reopen review of the standard, even as Trump vowed last week to loosen it as part of a broader agenda to roll back initiatives aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change.

Under a Clean Air Act waiver granted to California, that state has set more ambitious goals than the EPA for reducing greenhouse gases based on emissions targets rather than on average miles per gallon. The waiver was needed because the EPA is the only entity legally allowed to set fuel-efficiency standards, said Dave Clegern, spokesman for the California Air Board.

A complicated formula is used to determine the emissions levels and future targets, but the bottom line, Clegern said, is that California and the other states are sticking with their emissions reductions programs that will in the end require carmakers to continue improving fuel efficiency and offering more electric vehicles in order to sell cars in these 13 states.

If the Trump administration decides to cancel California’s waiver, however, the state is expected to sue, according to experts.

James Fleming, president of the Connecticut Auto Retailers Association, said his group supports this state’s decision to continue following California’s standards both for increasing sales of electric vehicles and reducing emissions.

“Our 14,000 employees worry as much about clean air as anyone else,” said Fleming, whose group represents 270 new car dealers. “This is a states’ rights issue. It should be their choice.”

Even if the new review of the federal fuel-efficiency standards results in a lowering of the future targets, he said, he believes carmakers will adapt to having to make one set of vehicles that comply with the federal standards and another that meet those of California and the 12 states.

“The reason this works,” he said, “is that California is such a giant part of the market. The manufacturers have to make vehicles that will comply with that standard.”

But Daniel Gage, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, noted that the Trump administration’s actions thus far only restarted the review process. No actual change in the federal fuel efficiency standards has happened yet.

“None of us should prejudge its outcome,” he said. “Instead, we should all be committed to a serious, transparent, updated analytic exercise that will guide decisions to optimize the important environmental and economic objectives at stake. We look forward to working with all parties as this real work begins.”

He added, however, that automakers would prefer one national standard rather than two — one followed by California and 12 other states and another followed by the rest of the country. Such a system, he said, could end up raising car prices.

“There would be differences and obvious associated added costs to consumers,” he said.

j.benson@theday.com