Daily Podcast: CAFE Culture

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: July 28th, 2009

The list of CAFE violators ( in PDF form) reads like a valet’s to-do list: Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati. These firms pay CAFE fines because, well, they can. CAFE fines are calculated by multiplying each tenth of a mile per gallon of average non-compliance by $5.50, then multiplying that dollar amount by the number of vehicles sold. As a result, luxury firms pay the highest fines when they try to go mass market: Merecedes paid about $30 million for 2007. But if CAFE is already weighted to let small companies off the hook, why are we hearing about new rules which seem to relax standards for firms selling fewer than 400k vehicles per term? Aren’t the regular loopholes enough?

The answer takes a little digging to find, but it explains everything. Proposed rules for the 2011-2015 standard ( PDF) reveal that

EPCA authorizes increasing the civil penalty up to $10.00, exclusive of inflationary adjustments, if NHTSA decides that the increase in the penalty—

(i) will result in, or substantially further, substantial energy

conservation for automobiles in model years in which the increased

penalty may be imposed; and

(ii) will not have a substantial deleterious impact on the economy of the

United States, a State, or a region of a State.

Doubling the CAFE fine would force the small firms to finally get serious about efficiency . . . unless there were a loophole. Hence the loophole.

Of course, that’s not going to be enough come the day when greenhouse gasses become a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As proposed rules for CAFE/GHG coordination explain:

failure to meet the standards after credit opportunities are exhausted would ultimately result in the potential for penalties under [Energy Policy and Conservation Act] (CAFE), and under the [Clean Air Act] as well. The CAA allows considerable discretion in assessment of penalties. Penalties under the CAA are typically determined on a vehicle-specific basis by determining the number of a manufacturer’s highest emitting vehicles that caused the fleet average standard violation. This is the same mechanism used for EPA’s National LEV and Tier 2 corporate average standards, and to date there have been no instances of noncompliance.

In short, fines are going to double, and the risk of a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit means non-compliant firms face double jeopardy.

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 6 comments

Dean on Jul 28, 2009

Like we've said before, this an exceptionally complex way of getting the same thing you can get out of a simple gas tax.

Like Reply
- Golden2husky on Nov 11, 2009
  
  Except that with a gas tax, you pay a penalty regardless of mileage of your car and do so every time you fill your tank. Other methods (CAFE, mileage based registration surcharges) only penalize those who choose to purchase a lower efficiency vehicle...a proposition that I find more fair.
  
  Like
50merc on Jul 28, 2009

Correct, dean, and under this law the bureaucracy has the "discretion" to be judge, jury and executioner.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.