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.

  • IBx1 Any "cloud" hardware (cloud is just someone else's computer) that gets mandated into e-waste like this should have its software open-sourced by law so it can continue to be used at the owner's choice.If you have one of these and they don't give you a refund, issue chargebacks for as many months of your subscription as will add up to the cost of the device.
  • Zerofoo This is my worry with ALL in-car technology, including tech provided by auto OEMs. What happens when the manufacturer of your car decides not to provide updates or repair parts for the giant tablet stuck to your dashboard that runs your HVAC controls? This is a way different problem than the manufacturer opening up the CAD files for the water pump in your car to the aftermarket.
  • Carson D Has the energy storage fire in San Diego burned itself out yet?
  • JMII I think most are missing the point. This is not to power your house, the way I read it the concept is store electrons when production of them is not in demand, IE: over night. Then when everyone walks up and turns on the blender, coffee maker, toaster, TV, etc and electrons are suddenly in high demand you can sell them back from the storage location which is your EV just sitting in the garage. This way the grid is not overwhelmed. It could work, you would be paid to let someone "borrow" your electrons at peak until you could recharge during downtime. Due to surge / demand pricing you would buy low and sell high. I see this working best for people working from home or accessing a plug at work. After all your vehicle spends 90% of its time parked doing nothing and going nowhere. Why not get paid for that idle time? A simple app would could be programmed to cut off the transfer at a predetermined level, lets 30-50% charge so you could still drive home.The lack of outside the box thinkers on this site is getting depressing. Everything regarding EVs is always the worst idea ever 🙄
  • 1995 SC It runs Linux. Why brick it? Just let the open source community have at it.
Next