CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Regulations Must Die… Still

Justin Berkowitz
by Justin Berkowitz

The United States operates special courts to deal with taxes and bankruptcies. The issues are considered too complex and specialized for regular courts to adjudicate. So if the judiciary accommodates its own intellectual shortcomings, why can’t Congress do the same? The branch of the government with the lowest approval ratings (a whopping 25 percent according to this week’s Newsweek poll) spent this week contemplating an issue it does not, cannot fully comprehend: CAFE standards.

The U.S. Senate is allegedly the “smarter” chamber of Congress. Last Thursday, by a 65-27 vote, this august body passed a piece of automotive-related legislation fit only for a press release: “We love the environment!” In so doing, they raised the CAFE requirement from 22.7 miles per gallon to a seemingly stratospheric 35 miles per gallon.

This sounds good, if like most members of Congress, your knowledge of automobiles is restricted to driving them into bodies of water (Ted Kennedy D-MA) or barricades (Patrick Kennedy D-RI), being indicted for stealing them (Darrell Issa, R-CA) or careening into utility poles (John Sweeney, R-NY). For anyone who knows anything about cars, the CAFE legislation is at best meaningless; at worst, it’s God awful.

The new legislation represents the first raise of the CAFE standards since 1989. That would make it 18 years, if it went into effect today. But it doesn’t. Under the bill’s supposedly strict provisions, the 35 mpg standard kicks-in in 2020.

Of course, the thirteen year delay gives the automakers, car manufacturers, lobbyists, legislators and presidents thirteen years to put the issue on the back-burner, to find a new hot issue in need of “reform,” over which our elected representatives can posture, preen and prevaricate. The story may not even make news in 2014, when a clever page slips the postponement into a defense contract adopted at 3AM.

But the legislation’s failure isn’t related to the headline mpg provisions. As always, the devil’s in the details.

As this website has mentioned before, the agency in charge of the law’s implementation has changed the official formula used to establish a manufacturer’s light truck (pickups, SUVs) fleet averages. Instead of the current calculations (a simple fleet average), the mpg requirement will soon be based on an average spread across a number of vehicles, based on each model’s “footprint” (wheelbase x track width/144 = square footage), combined in whatever way the manufacturer sees fit, provided the combined average reaches the required overall number.

Like I said, it's a tax code on wheels. But basically, manufacturers can now create their own formula to arrive at the mandated overall average. Even more basically, if The Big 2.8 builds more big fuel-efficient pickup trucks and SUVs, they don’t have to sell a bunch of smaller fuel efficient pickup trucks and SUVs. Vehicles they’re not particularly good at making. Vehicles they can’t sell.

What’s wrong with that? Cheating. More specifically, the legislation maintains the E85 loophole that credits vehicles that can run on the ethanol blend with higher mpg— even though the vast majority of these SUV’s can’t access an E85 pump and get FEWER mpg when they do so.

And now the kicker: according The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) website, “The agency is seeking information in anticipation of obtaining statutory authority to reform the passenger car CAFE program and to set standards under that [footprint] structure for MY 2010 – 2017 passenger cars.”

What’s the bet they’ll get that authority? What’s the bet the manufacturers will E85 their way to compliance, and find other ways to play the system? Meanwhile, the new legislation contains another Detroit-friendly provision: the elimination of the “two fleet” rule.

Under current regulations, manufacturers’ fleets are separated into two distinct groups: imported and domestic vehicles. So Chevrolet can’t use frugal Korean-made Aveos to “average out” less-fuel efficient American and Canadian-made Corvettes and Impalas. If the legislation becomes law, they can.

This is a huge change: a mitzvah for Detroit and a calamity for the United Auto Workers (UAW). Simply put, you can kiss American small car production goodbye. Given The Big 2.8’s UAW labor costs, there is no way on God’s green Earth Ford, GM or Chryslerberus will continue building low-margin small cars on U.S. soil. They will import them from Korea, China, India or any other low-cost country they can find.

Needless to say, this is madness. At the risk of agreeing with GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz, the CAFE law is designed to force Americans into fuel efficient cars they’ve proven time and time again they don’t want (50k Prii month? Big whoop.) While that idea may prove no impediment to many legislators, the more important truth is that it simply doesn’t work.

If you accept the goal, the only fair and effective way to get Americans to choose more fuel efficient automobiles, and thusly “incentivize” manufacturers to build them, is to raise the price of fuel.

Justin Berkowitz
Justin Berkowitz

Immensely bored law student. I've also got 3 dogs.

More by Justin Berkowitz

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 77 comments
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Oct 29, 2014
    ASICS along with other people within the Arabic parts as well as grabbed your promote of those promotes, developing lots of books. Jordanian authorities grew to be really serious rivals versus various other Arab-speaking nations which often acquired in the p…
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Oct 30, 2014
    air Yeezy site this is actually the observe so that you can start and also browse. Your weather, a water, the particular bushes, perhaps each and every specific can be lovely significantly. When you unique your eye for you to chose the magnificence, you'll farr…
  • SCE to AUX Range only matters if you need more of it - just like towing capacity in trucks.I have a short-range EV and still manage to put 1000 miles/month on it, because the car is perfectly suited to my use case.There is no such thing as one-size-fits all with vehicles.
  • Doug brockman There will be many many people living in apartments without dedicated charging facilities in future who will need personal vehicles to get to work and school and for whom mass transit will be an annoying inconvenience
  • Jeff Self driving cars are not ready for prime time.
  • Lichtronamo Watch as the non-us based automakers shift more production to Mexico in the future.
  • 28-Cars-Later " Electrek recently dug around in Tesla’s online parts catalog and found that the windshield costs a whopping $1,900 to replace.To be fair, that’s around what a Mercedes S-Class or Rivian windshield costs, but the Tesla’s glass is unique because of its shape. It’s also worth noting that most insurance plans have glass replacement options that can make the repair a low- or zero-cost issue. "Now I understand why my insurance is so high despite no claims for years and about 7,500 annual miles between three cars.
Next