Lobbyists Estimate Billions in Fines If New Fuel Economy Rules Adopted

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

A letter from talking heads at an outfit called the American Automotive Policy Council outlines what it estimates billions of dollars in fines could be levied at companies like General Motors and Stellantis if a government proposal to hike fuel economy standards through 2032 is adopted.


Reuters is reporting the concerns were sent to the U.S. Energy Department last week, citing “alarming” expected penalties for companies not meeting proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. In a nutshell, the DOE is seeking to revise how it calculates petroleum-equivalent fuel economy ratings for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids under CAFE. Currently known as MPGe, efficiency numbers for these machines use a byzantine morass of values for national electricity, petroleum generation, distribution efficiency, and even driving patterns.


Proposed rules would change these calculations and likely saddle EVs and PHEVs with MPGe values far below the digits they garner today. Examples cited by Reuters suggest machines like the Chrysler Pacifica plug-in hybrid could fall from 88.2 MPGe to 59.5 MPGe, potentially putting companies in a bind if they are relying on these vehicles to boost fleet numbers. Automakers tend to buy credits or pay fines if they cannot meet CAFE requirements.


Without delving into too much of their math, the American Automotive Policy Council is suggesting GM could be on the hook for $6.5 billion under the new rules, while the bill at Stellantis would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.0 billion. Companies like Ford and VW could also get dinged for about a billion bucks, apparently.


If you’re wondering, the AAPC bills itself as AAPC is an association based in Washington, D.C. which helps American Automakers deliver on commitments by representing Ford, GM, and Stellantis on “common public policy interests” at the federal and international levels. In broader terms, going to bat for them when the gubmint wants to change something. Matt Blunt is the group’s president and a former governor of Missouri.


[Image: Siripatv/Shutterstock]


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.

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 19 comments
  • Dukeisduke Dukeisduke on Oct 03, 2023

    Meanwhile, the Automotive Alliance for Innovation, that represents the Big 3, blasted NHTSA's CAFE proposal, stating it "exceeds maximum feasibility", and will cost the automakers $14b in fines between 2027 and 2032.


    NHTSA's reaction: Lol, just build more EVs, you silly gooses.


    What happens if consumers revolt, won't buy EVs, and hold on to their old cars instead?

    • See 3 previous
    • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Oct 05, 2023

      @Lou

      Too early to tell, but Ford may not make it based on it's current BEV missteps.


      "Oh and science just stopped functioning?"

      That happened in 2020, did someone turn it back on?


  • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Oct 05, 2023

    "Reuters is reporting the concerns were sent to the U.S. Energy Department last week, citing “alarming” expected penalties for companies not meeting proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. In a nutshell, the DOE is seeking to revise how it calculates petroleum-equivalent fuel economy ratings for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids under CAFE. Currently known as MPGe, efficiency numbers for these machines use a byzantine morass of values for national electricity, petroleum generation, distribution efficiency, and even driving patterns."


    Its hard to keep track but didn't some unelected technocracy already decree the CAFE standards for 2024ish to be 49mpg? So now we're going to go full retard for 2030ish and tinker with our CAFE formula while simultaneously going to I think 58mpg? I have a better plan, you're all fired.

  • SCE to AUX Here's a crazy thought - what if China decides to fully underwrite the 102.5% tariff?
  • 3-On-The-Tree They are hard to get in and out of. I also like the fact that they are still easy to work on with the old school push rod V8. My son’s 2016 Mustang GT exhaust came loose up in Tuscon so I put a harbor freight floor jack, two jack stands, tool box and two 2x4 in the back of the vette. So agreed it has decent room in the back for a sports car.
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh so what?? .. 7.5 billion is not even in the same hemisphere as the utterly stupid waste of money on semiconductor fabs to the tune of more than 100 billion for FABS that CANNOT COMPETE in a global economy and CANNOT MAKE THE US Independent from China or RUSSIA. we REQUIRE China for cpu grade silicon and RUSSIA/Ukraine for manufacturing NEON gas for cpus and gpus and other silicon based processors for cars, tvs, phones, cable boxes ETC... so even if we spend trillion $ .. we STILL have to ask china permission to buy the cpu grade silicon needed and then buy neon gas to process the wafers.. but we keep tossing intel/Taiwan tens of billions at a time like a bunch of idiots.Google > "mining-and-refining-pure-silicon-and-the-incredible-effort-it-takes-to-get-there" Google > "silicon production by country statista" Google > "low-on-gas-ukraine-invasion-chokes-supply-of-neon-needed-for-chipmaking"
  • ToolGuy Clearly many of you have not been listening to the podcast.
  • 1995 SC This seems a bit tonedeaf.
Next