REPORT: New CAFE standard has 'loopholes big enough to drive an SUV through'
by Jonathon Ramsey on May 22nd 2009 at 10:58AM 
There are miles per gallon... and then there are miles per gallon. How do you tell the difference? One is labeled "CAFE mpg" and the other is labeled "EPA mpg." What's the difference? Well, Edmunds is taking pains to illuminate the large discrepancy that exists between the two figures: the issue, as initially laid out by Edmunds' John O'Dell in 2007, is that CAFE and EPA mileage numbers were initially based on the same formula in 1975. When consumers complained that the number didn't correspond to real-world gas mileage, the EPA determination formula was changed – twice – yet the CAFE formula wasn't.
The change meant that when a customer bought a car that listed 26 combined mpg (EPA) on the window sticker, the CAFE mpg rating for that car remained at around 35 mpg. And if you've been paying attention to the myriad CAFE stories over the past year, you'll know that the government is tweaking CAFE numbers, not EPA numbers. The NHTSA oversees CAFE numbers, the EPA keeps track of "vehicle fuel efficiency."
But the gap between the two sets of computations means, according to Edmunds:
"a vehicle that scores an EPA combined rating of 29 miles per gallon actually contributes 39 MPG to its manufacturer's CAFE average. There are 29 car models and 36 truck models that already achieve the new standard, and about a third of the cars and half of the trucks are produced by a domestic automaker."Ultimately, it means that the formerly punitive mpg numbers that the government mandated can now be considered for what they really are: Meh. You can read Edmunds' full press release after the jump.
[Source: Edmunds]
PRESS RELEASE
Edmunds.com Discovers CAFE Discrepancy; New Goals Not What They Seem
SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Even supporters of CAFE might be surprised to learn that the standards announced this week will actually require automakers to make much less progress than implied.
"Turns out that there are loopholes almost big enough to drive an SUV through," quipped Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl to AutoObserver.com.
One might think the government would use a single set of ratings for both CAFE and vehicle window stickers. But the well-known EPA mileage ratings are not used to calculate CAFE, and the difference can be significant. For example, a vehicle that scores an EPA combined rating of 29 miles per gallon actually contributes 39 MPG to its manufacturer's CAFE average. There are 29 car models and 36 truck models that already achieve the new standard, and about a third of the cars and half of the trucks are produced by a domestic automaker.
Edmunds.com Director of Vehicle Testing Dan Edmunds explained, "CAFE miles per gallon ratings and EPA window sticker MPG ratings were originally generated simultaneously through government lab testing. Window sticker ratings have been downrated twice in the last 25 years to make them more realistic for consumers, while CAFE mpg methods remained the same. So, with each EPA revision, EPA window sticker MPG and CAFE MPG drifted further apart."
Edmunds' GreenCarAdvisor.com Editor John O'Dell originally reported on this discrepancy in December 2007, in an article entitled Fuel Economy: Doublespeak at its Best (at http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2007/12/fuel-economy-doublespeak-at-its-best.html.) In that piece, he wrote, "Most people have been trained to think only of the EPA numbers when talk turns to fuel economy, and they aren't aware of the differences between the EPA and CAFE figures. That makes the standard a little misleading."
# # #
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Sea Urchin 11:03AM (5/22/2009)
I am sure D3 lobbyist had nothing to do with it.
I read that Chevy Tahoe with flex fuel has better CAFE MPG than a Civic.
Now THAT'S criminal.
Reply
JR 11:17AM (5/22/2009)
"and about a third of the cars and half of the trucks are produced by a domestic automaker"
So about 2/3 of the cars and about half of the trucks are produced by non-domestic automakers. Thats about in-line with current market share for both cars and trucks. This is an equal opportunity loophole - don't make it about the D3 if its not.
Sea Urchin 11:24AM (5/22/2009)
I am sure everyone benefits, but i'd like to know who asked for it?
I saw total MPG ratings in USA for 2008, D3 were DEAD last,Toyota was #1, i believe Ford was the last one.
So you see why i came to this conclusion.
I hope this link works, this is the proof of who is the real MPG criminal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278337592937493.html
JR 11:45AM (5/22/2009)
I'm sure no one asked for it. Its a matter of 2 gov''t agencies not coordinating their testing standards. EPA has twice reacted to consumer complaints that they don't get the mileage on their window stickers. But since thats just informational requirements on the stickers, that system can be changed without throwing any of the automakers under a costly development bus.
NHTSA could have reflected the change in the rating procedure to match the EPA's, but that would have lowered the CAFE numbers for every manufacturer, leaving 2 choices - change the mandated mpg requirements accordingly and suffer public outrage or just change the formula for the calculation with the same mpg requirement and push every automaker into a costly penalty.
At the end of the day, the new CAFE targets will drive better mileage across the fleet, which was the goal in the first place. On a percentage basis, it doesn't matter - the only question is whether or not you measure with the CAFE yardstick or the EPA yardstick.
nardvark 11:09AM (5/22/2009)
It gives automakers an excuse to keep making hybrids to pad their CAFE numbers. Hybrids suffered the most under the new system, because it included more realistic (ie faster) acceleration and greater load on the car's electrical system via accessories like air conditioning.
If we were accurately measuring fuel efficiency for CAFE, there would be less incentive for the automakers to make hybrids, and then what would the political class tell us what to drive?
Reply
calebe 11:23AM (5/22/2009)
So that's why the auto companies all cheered for this. It does not actually raise the actual mpg that far
Reply
Sea Urchin 11:41AM (5/22/2009)
How should i put it.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
PeterG 11:14AM (5/22/2009)
So the big news is CAFE works the same as it always did?
This is exactly the same as before. Same loopholes, same usage of old EPA mpg numbers.
Yeah it sucks. But it isn't new suck, it is the same old suck.
Reply
zamafir 11:17AM (5/22/2009)
no no, we need to go crazy about these ridiculous new numbers being proposed that dozens of cars already meet. oh no, the end is near!
Cougs 11:15AM (5/22/2009)
Even though the law barely mandates a change at all, the flat fact is that the Federal Government has no place in setting emissions standards. Hell, even if they mandated 10 mpg as a standard, it is still not within their power to do so. Again I repeat, what enumerated powers?
Reply
Sea Urchin 11:17AM (5/22/2009)
Federal Government has no place in setting emissions standards---who has?
No one? If that is the case can the federal government mandate anything? I am sure you would be happy if raw sewage was dumped in lakes and rivers, but most Americans won't, we are weird like that.
BoxerFanatic 11:28AM (5/22/2009)
Come on, Urchin...
Sometimes people give you too much grief for some of the things you say, but then sometimes you say things like this...
Cougs was talking about responsible government, not anarchy. There are basic bed-rock principles that the government is a necessary cost to take care of in a public sphere.
Preventing or prosecuting gross malfeasance and abuse would be that, along with promoting and providing reasonable law and order without loss of liberty.
But meddling around with arbitrary numbers, based on emotionalism about a political correctness issue that is not borne out by repeatable science, while interrupting and diluting the business cycle and free enterprise activity, and limiting the freedom of economic choices of the people is well beyond the federalist limits that the US Constitution places on the government, to protect the people's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
This isn't an all or nothing game. The government is the one who is trying to make it all for them, and nothing else for the people to choose.
the government isn't promoting or incentivizing the market to be responsible, by clearing obstacles out of the market's path toward responsible efficiency, the government is regulating and mandating, which flouts the market entirely.
And when I say "the market", what a market is, is natural human transactional behavior. When you flout that, you make people behave contrary to their own intentions by regulating them by force. That NEVER ends well. Letting the people behave in a free market fashion is their natural relational behavior.
Economics is not a box that people are forced into. Economics is the study of people in their natural behavioral setting. Money is the fluid flow of the value of people's efforts being traded for the results of other people's efforts. Obstruct that at your peril.
Cougs 11:28AM (5/22/2009)
Sea Urchin:
Technically it should be local law or state law that regulates the emissions of vehicles sold within its boundaries. States rights allow them to do that, something that our country was founded on, rather than one over-arching government telling every individual what to do at a level that they can barely influence. See, our founding fathers didn't like tyranny too much...guess the were weird like that.
Sea Urchin 11:33AM (5/22/2009)
@ Couhs, but when states and localities act some complain that we have too many different standards, ala CAFE with California.
PeterG 12:00PM (5/22/2009)
Having it done at the state level would be completely FUBAR. Some things to be done sanely need national standards.
BoxerFanatic 12:10PM (5/22/2009)
@PeterG.
Anything done at the federal level is very difficult to repeal, and the farther from local things get, the less accountable they get. All politics is local politics, it is said...
So, a less accountable government, passing laws that are less likely to get repealed if they are bad laws, that cover everyone, and cost everyone...
Do you see where Tyranny can easily creep in there?
Government isn't setting weights and measures with this legislation, and they aren't clearing obstacles to create incentive to become more efficient. Government is asserting itself as a regulator under force of law, and influencing business and consumers by extension.
This easily becomes an infringment on liberty for the consumer, and pursuit of happiness by the business practitioner being able to do business better, and thus improve other aspects of life.
Those are violations of the US constitution, which everyone in government swears an oath to protect and defend.
There are ways to encourage good goals. This sort of thing, and government control in general, is not the way to do that.
Cougs 1:10PM (5/22/2009)
Sea Urchin and Peter:
I know where you are coming from - I am all about simplification. The key is that business and politics should remain seperate entities and we as citizens and consumers should not confuse the two.
In the cases you bring up, if the states make a bunch of crazy mandates than there is the possibility that manufacturers will have to be extremely nimble about what they make to meet all of the regulations. The first step would be to create a vehicle based off of the most difficult standards and to weigh out what markets they can profitably compete in. If you live in a state that requires 60mpg standards and it can't be done by any company, then no cars will be able to be sold there...and then the market will correct itself because the consumers will either a) have the local governments repeal the crazy laws because they feel they really need the product, or b) they will go without and find an alternative.
Free Market enterprise is not merely continuing to sell current products or modifying them slightly - it means filling the needs of individual consumers. If Californians really want a 60mpg car, then they have every right to ask for one and see if producers can make it...if not, then a private business will thrive producing electric go carts or breeding horses or making Tesla profitable. In all cases people will eventually get what they want, but it needs to be at the state level and not at the Federal where regulation will only unfairly penalize groups that frankly don't care what California wants.
The problem is that we are increasingly seeing minority groups (by that I mean those not in the majority...I am not talking in race-related terms) being able to leverage Federal Government mandate (through lobbying and Congress/POTUS) to effect the majority group, which infringes upon the rights of all citizens. This time around it is cars...what if the next time around it is those that have computers at home? Or who like to enjoy Corona beer instead of Guinness (crazy as that may be)? By allowing minority groups to have a say in the places where they are closer to being the majority (such as in a state by state situation) then they are excercising the rights that they are allotted by the Consitution.
Some people say "Why don't we have limits on terms for Congress? Why weren't they in the Constitution?" - the reason is that the decisions we now lament Congress making were never and should never be in their hands to decide. And most assuredly, it was never meant that one man (i.e. the President) should have a say in it at all - the President's role is minimal at best within in the framework of our government (veto, CinC if Congress decides we must go to war)...but we as a culture have adopted a need for a savior/scapegoat because we proscribe to a lack of involvment in politics and need someone to point to as our team or theirs.
Mike 2:19AM (5/25/2009)
Of course the federal government can set emission standards.
I suppose you don't think governmemt should make laws on if can be drunk while driving.
Cougs 10:27AM (5/26/2009)
@Mike
Of course they don't...that is state law, not federal. Do I think we should have laws that protect innocents against the dangers of drunk driving? Of course. Do I think that those laws are not within the Constitutional powers of the Senate (let alone the President and his various illegal commissions) to produce? Of course.
The President is CinC and is in control of the military (during a time of actual declared war) and he has the power to veto measures from Congress. That's it...the rest is just smoke and mirrors and bs that has been added on over the years by various presidents who thought that they were smarter than those that created our country. And, in addition, they didn't even have it done in the manner that was provided for in the Constitution, using Amendments.
BoxerFanatic 11:17AM (5/22/2009)
The government. SNAFU. FUBAR.
Same as it ever was.
That doesn't mean that the status quo is a good thing, or should be tolerated by the people REALLY paying the bill... current taxpayers, parents and grand-parents of the future wage-slave debt-holders of the US Government.
Reply