Cummins Agrees to Pay $1.6 Billion in U.S. Emissions Fines

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

The United States Department of Justice has accused Cummins of installing emissions defeating devices on diesel motors and decided to fine the company $1.67 billion for violating the Clean Air Act. Cummins has agreed to pay the fine in principle, which Attorney General Merrick Garland said would resolve any allegations that the "company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of engines” to circumvent emissions regulations.


“The types of devices we allege that Cummins installed in its engines to cheat federal environmental laws have a significant and harmful impact on people’s health and safety,” Garland stated, adding that "preliminary estimates suggest that defeat devices on some Cummins engines have caused them to produce thousands of tons of excess emissions of nitrogen oxides."


The Justice Department has alleged that Cummins installed devices that allowed the engines to pass emissions during testing. But said those same devices allowed the vehicles increased performance during regular use — increasing pollution and violating the Clean Air Act.


Claims state that Cummins may have installed the units on roughly 630,000 motors equipped to Ram 2500 and 3500 pickups from the 2013-2019 model years. Another 330,000 taboo emissions controlling devices were also said to have been installed on newer diesel pickups built through 2023. It apparently performed the same function but was of a different design as the unit installed on older trucks.


Cummins is expecting to take a $2 billion loss this quarter from the fallout (which includes recalls) and will undoubtedly continue spending through 2024 as it settles the fine issued by the DOJ. But it has not admitted guilt, nor will it need to now that it has agreed to pay off the government.


"The company has seen no evidence that anyone acted in bad faith and does not admit wrongdoing," Cummins stated.


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan praised the Justice Department’s actions. The EPA head stated that "vulnerable communities are more likely to reside near highways where these harmful emissions are concentrated, making this agreement critical to advancing our environmental justice agenda."


Viewed from an emissions standpoint, it’s hard to make a case for diesel motors. We can visibly see them emitting more pollution than vehicles equipped with gasoline engines, though Europe had previously championed diesels as the cleaner option and even subsidized them due to diesel emitting less carbon dioxide. Still, particulate matter output tends to be significantly higher and has been attributed to exacerbating respiratory illnesses.


Things get a little more complicated when you take a wider view of the issue, however. Diesel engines tend to be highly efficient, resulting in lower average fuel consumption, and are typically longer lived than their gasoline counterparts. Simply keeping an older vehicle around usually results in less pollution than supplanting it with a newer model that happens to be more efficient. Physical waste is still waste and building new vehicles (including all-electric models) results in additional emissions spewing out of the required factories.


While we are a far cry from claiming that diesels are clean, the issue is more nuanced than many would have you believe.


It may not even be possible for modern diesel motors to pass emissions anymore. Whenever I ask engineers why so many automakers have pivoted away from offering diesel motors, the answer usually involves how difficult it is for them to pass modern emissions requirements. This may even have contributed to the rash of emissions cheating we’ve seen since 2015, when Volkswagen was likewise faulted for installing defeat devices.


Companies spend a fortune developing engines and need to keep them in service for a while to recoup the expense. But that’s tricky when a motor that was compliant a couple of years ago and needs to remain in production several more years cannot meet emission standards as they change. This leaves the impacted manufacturers with a few options.


Businesses can neuter the motors in an attempt to appease regulators. But this annoys the customer base and diesel owners have already had it with Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), restrictive exhaust systems, and modern particulate-sensing equipment complicating what used to be very simple powertrains. Businesses can also try to get around emissions testing and simply hope they don’t get caught. Ironically, with the exorbitant amount of money required to develop new engines, it may actually be more cost effective for large manufacturers to simply cheat and pay the fine later.


Cummins’ agreement in principle is with the U.S. and the State of California. The settlement is still subject to final approvals before everything can be squared away.


[Image: Stellantis]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 60 comments
  • Jeffmete Jeffmete on Dec 27, 2023

    So it’s all software. The poor wording of the first article is confusing talking about devices. Nobody seems to be going to jail and Cummins is saying they didn’t do anything wrong.

    • MaintenanceCosts MaintenanceCosts on Dec 28, 2023

      Software can be a "device" and defeat emissions controls just as easily as hardware. Cummins may not admit wrongdoing, but actions speak louder than words here. If there were not a defeat device, they wouldn't have had any basis for the recall, and the government wouldn't have had leverage to drive such a large settlement.


  • Jeffmete Jeffmete on Dec 28, 2023

    Like I said, this is an interpretation problem of the government regulations and a money grab by the government.

  • Redapple2 All this BEV investment. A bigger impact (less oil consumption) would have been made if we had made PIG UP trucks smaller since 2000 and not HUGEr. (And raised gas tax by $2-3/gallon.)
  • ChristianWimmer One of my clients is a company that is actually producing eFuels in Leipzig. Yes, they require a lot of energy to produce but this would not be an issue if Germany had nuclear energy or used the excess energy from wind and solar to produce these fuels. In such a scenario the energy losses wouldn’t really matter.Also, I am told that nations like Spain or the North African nations like Morocco or Tunisia could be ideal places to produce eFuels/Hydrogen due to their abundance of solar power. Again, the energy loses here would not matter since the energy used to produce these fuels is essentially “free”. If this path were pursued, Morocco and Tunisia could become wealthy nations and exporters of eFuels and Hydrogen. Countries with an abundance of solar or wind or hydro energy could be producing eFuels for their domestic consumption and export.Another argument which to me is irrelevant these days ist the poor thermal efficiency of ICE engines (25-35% gasoline, 40-45% diesel). One long trips with cruise control set to 130 km/h and even the occasional venture into the 180-200 km/h zone, my fully loaded (with my gear) A250 (2.0 4-cylinder 224-hp Turbo) can achieve an impressive gas mileage of 6 L / 100 km. That’s phenomenal - I am looking at six 1 liter bottles of water right now and that’s all my car needs to travel 100 km… amazing.So, I am a supporter of eFuels. I love internal combustion engines and if we want to use them in a climate neural way, then eFuels are a must. Also, to me every ICE car is way more sustainable and longer-lasting an an EV. Mazda, Toyota etc. are making the right move IMO.
  • Blueice Once you infuse governmental unit regulation & [marketing] and taxpayerfunding, one knows quite well, dat the product or service isdestine to fail; which includes battery vehicles. Just axe yourself how revolutionary have your home batterydevices become ??? I am still waiting. after three decades, for a battery shaver whichonly requires charging two or three times per year.I am glad that I do not have a plug in Frau.
  • Tassos Such a heavy breadvan on stilts, with so much HP, AND with ONLY 100 KWH Battery, I doubt if you will ever see 250 miles, let alone 300, under the best of conditions. In the winter, count on 150 miles range.And NO, it looks TERRIBLE. The only SUV that looks great is the RANGE ROVER.
  • Tassos They sure are doing the right thing in the SHORT and MEDIUM term.As for the long term, in the long run, YOU'LL ALL BE DEAD, so WHO CARES.
Next