The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year 2017-2025 vehicles was finalized at 54.5 miles per gallon today. The official rules document, though, is a whopping 1,230 pages long, and it take a while to decipher what in there. Things like the incentives for what the Environmental Protection Agency calls "game changing" advanced vehicle technologies. You can download the whole thing in PDF, but here are the pertinent points when it comes to the incentives.

First off, they're not incentives for consumers, the way you can get a $7,500 tax credit for buying a high-capacity plug-in vehicle. Instead, they are corporate credits, which allow electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles (rules for natural gas credits are in the works) to give the company making the cars a bit of breathing room with its gas-only vehicles by acting as "incentive multipliers." It turns out, Businessweeks says, that Honda, which was one of the automakers not in favor of these higher standards, could benefit greatly from them because of the fact that it sells the Civic Natural Gas, which qualifies for the incentives. Here's how the incentives work:

This multiplier approach means that each EV/PHEV/FCV/CNG vehicle would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's compliance calculation. EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that EVs and FCVs start with a multiplier value of 2.0 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.5 in MY 2021, and that PHEVs would start at a multiplier value of 1.6 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.3 in MY 2021. EPA is finalizing multiplier values for both dedicated and dual fuel CNG vehicles for MYs 2017-2021 that are equivalent to the multipliers for PHEVs. All incentive multipliers in EPA's program expire at the end of MY 2021 (page 57).

There is also this:

For EVs, PHEVs and FCVs, EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, to set a value of 0 g/mile for the tailpipe CO2 emissions compliance value for EVs, PHEVs (electricity usage) and FCVs for MY 2017-2021, with no limit on the quantity of vehicles eligible for 0 g/mi tailpipe emissions accounting. For MY 2022-2025, EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that 0 g/mi only be allowed up to a per-company cumulative sales cap, tiered as follows: 1) 600,000 EV/PHEV/FCVs for companies that sell 300,000 EV/PHEV/FCVs in MYs 2019-2021; or 2) 200,000 EV/PHEV/FCVs for all other manufacturers. Starting with MY 2022, the compliance value for EVs, FCVs, and the electric portion of PHEVs in excess of individual automaker cumulative production caps must be based on net upstream accounting (page 57).

So, basically, if you sell an advanced powertrain vehicle, it can count more toward your CAFE requirements than your high-mpg gas-powered car. The EPA is obviously trying to balance a lot of different powertrain types in this document, and that's a good "all of the above" strategy. Since yesterday's announcement, the Electric Drive Transportation Association issued a relatively positive statement about 54.5 mpg, but is reserving a bit of judgment:

EDTA is conducting further analysis of the rule and looks forward to continuing our communication with the EPA and DOT on the best ways to achieve our common goals.

We'll see where things go from here.

Show full PR text
Electric Drive Transportation Association Responds to 2025 Fuel Standards Rule

Washington, DC-August 29, 2012-Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), issued the following statement in response to today's release of the Obama administration's final rule on fuel economy standards for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025:

"EDTA is encouraged by the recognition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) of the importance of electric drive in achieving the nation's fuel economy goals and of its "game-changing" potential. While we are just beginning to analyze the full details, the rule does establish critical regulatory incentives to help manufacturers build their electric drive fleets.

"Battery, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric drive technologies are critical tools in reducing our nation's dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions while bolstering the economy. These technologies utilize ample, affordable and domestic electricity which can be used in many configurations, in combination with conventional and alternative fuels, giving automakers flexibility in meeting these new standards. EDTA is conducting further analysis of the rule and looks forward to continuing our communication with the EPA and DOT on the best ways to achieve our common goals."

###

About EDTA
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) is the preeminent trade association promoting battery, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric drive technologies and infrastructure. EDTA conducts public policy advocacy, education, industry networking, and international conferences. EDTA's membership includes vehicle and equipment manufacturers, energy companies, technology developers, component suppliers, government agencies and others. For more information about EDTA and its members, visit ElectricDrive.org. For information about owning and operating electric vehicles, please visit GoElectricDrive.com.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 55 Comments
      Rick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Using more LPG Autogas in cars/trucks folk can afford to buy cut pollution, rather than expensive hybrids. It should right the massive US trade imbalance deficit in Arab oil and give them the 1 fingered salute goodbye. Good news at last.
      Vlad
      • 2 Years Ago
      Constitution, by its very definition, only outlines the most basic broad principles. And then there are tomes and tomes of laws that expand on it. It's not very honest to compare regulation that deals with very concrete and technical details to a Constitution.
      transpower
      • 2 Years Ago
      1230 pages long? These commie-bureaucrats need to find real work....
      Mart
      • 2 Years Ago
      "You give them a game, and all they want to play is the rules." One car, one vote.
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      This sounds about right for rewarding car companies for the extra dollars it costs them to build these new alternative fuel vehicles. It is pay for performance, so they have to actually sell in significant volume compared to their gas cars in order to earn these rewards. The United States has a number of Strategic Interests in getting alternative fuel vehicles sold above and beyond just getting better mpg from gas cars in significant numbers, so the policy is justified.
      diffrunt
      • 2 Years Ago
      Gobbelygook
      craigt
      • 2 Years Ago
      Yeah, let's not learn from Spain or the government distorted housing market. This will crush the car industry and make decent used cars worth a bunch of money. Government distorted markets make no economic sense. The government passes a law and thinks it has solved a problem without being smart enough to see the unintended consequences, and the dummies who believe in this type of thing applaud. People will drive old cars forever. We will be like Havana. The poor will be hurt the most by these policies.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @craigt
        You forget to mention safety and emissions standards. It's not just CAFE that's increasing the price of cars. But cars have definitely been jumping in price / dropping in quality lately. It's not just inflation - we have seen big staggered jumps in price, or a reduction in quality to attempt to keep things at the same price ( Toyota and Nissan are great examples of this downward slope of quality. ) My mid 90's nissans have gone up in price since i bought them 2 years ago and put 5k miles on them according the KBB; despite starting to get kinda stinky, not being able to crack 30mpg highway anymore, and both would probably fold up like an accordion in a highway speed crash. Given all the multi decade old cars you see on the road, i'd say that higher costs are bad for the consumer. i'd like to see less cars and more bikes ( hence my screen name ) and less oil usage but i think this round of CAFE increases is a little over the top.
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          I would disagree on a couple points. First off CAFE isn't increasing car prices, since it's been static since 1990. Since I haven't actually shopped for a new car, I won't argue on quality lacking firsthand experience. However I can say that the cars are much safer now, and those safety features come at a price. And about folding like an accordian, although you were making an attempt at humor, in actuality cars are mean to fold like an accordian to disperse the kinetic energy of an impact and improve passenger survivability. These days the passenger compartment is the most rigid part of the car, but the rest is designed to mash into a crumpled mess.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @craigt
        "government distorted housing market" Damn, Fox News and Glenn Beck certainly got to you. It was De-Regulation of mortgage backed securities and derivatives in general... that destroyed the housing market. It was a glaring example of how an unregulated financial services private sector could be far worse than government.
          Ele Truk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Wasn't really unregulated, rather it went unenforced. The crap that those financial institutions pulled was outright fraud, and the SEC did nothing, even when it was brought to their attention.
          PR
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Wow, I guess there is no problem too big nor too small to blame on brown-skinned people, right Nerd? Yea, it must have been all those illegal field workers and dish washers and construction workers who bought all those million dollar houses and high rise condos that went belly up in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Miami and went into foreclosure. Every one of these foreclosures did 5 times the damage to the housing market than the median home. Get real. But let's see, who WAS buying all these properties who walked away the fastest? Oh, that's right, it was the property speculators who would go into new construction sites and buy up entire blocks of houses, or entire floors of luxury high rises before they even broke ground -- with the expectation that they would flip the units as new without ever occupying them. Oh, those must have been those evil illegals' fault, right? The foreclosures prior to Aug. 08 themselves weren't bad enough to cause the crash of our banking system. There were nowhere near enough foreclosures to trigger the problems we saw. But the banks took those loans, and leveraged them at outrageous ratios, sometimes at 20 to 1 or even 30 to 1 (Lehman). So when there were losses, they hit the banks 20 to 30 times harder than the cost of the actual foreclosure itself! It is the illegals' fault that the banks leveraged at 20 or 30 to 1, right? And the whole reason the banking crash happened was that the banks bundled all these individual loans into investment devices that lacked sufficient transparency for even the banks to be able to place a real value on them. The ratings agencies had used ratings numbers that assumed that there was no housing bubble, and that there was zero chance of there being a major market correction. (The fault of illegals too, right?) Now none of the banks believed that the collateral that the other banks were putting up for their nightly inter-bank lending was worth what they said it was worth. Since they couldn't put accurate values on their Mortgage CDO's that they were leveraging at 20 or 30 to 1, all the banks were on the hook for coming up with the difference in the old perceived value of the CDO's, and the new value, times 20 or 30. When it came to the point that none of the banks would trust the other banks could afford to pay these leveraging costs, they all stopped loaning to each other, and the entire banking system came grinding to a halt. It became damn near impossible for anyone to borrow from any bank, because banks didn't have enough cash to pay off the 20 and 30 to 1 leveraging they had done. Let's be very clear here. Had the banks not leveraged these mortgages, the banks would have had MORE than enough cash to cover the actual losses. The problem was the leveraging that multiplied the impact by 20 or 30 times. It was only after that happened that the housing foreclosures REALLY spiked. It is amazing what illegals can do all by themselves!
          PR
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          So you are still standing by your race-baiting lies? You think this is just a debate between sources? OK. The two sources I posted earlier established the timeline of when the rules were in place. Now here is HUD's own website showing the exact same rules: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_11749.pdf That is primary source documentation. Do you have something better than primary source documentation? You can post all the discredited Lou Dobbs and nutter Michelle Bachman nutter crap all you want. Isn't this the point where Marco steps in to say you can't debate with liberals, advising you not to bother? Isn't that Marco's traditional signal that you are just making a fool of yourself, and you should stop?
          lasertekk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Even with the two official Federal Reserve reports I've read on the topic, among others, people will still take the ideological path and blame it on some nonsense of certain people not deserving loans. Crap 'investment' engines, crooked credit reports, bogus asset sheets, banks afraid to loan money to one another, and the list goes on. Blame the right people.
          PR
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Nerd, When you mumble all this false right-wing bullsh!t, do you face an empty chair too? Yet again, you have wrongly conflated LEGAL resident immigrants with people who are in the country without legal status. I absolutely support the HUD's stance that FHA lenders and HUD program landlords cannot discriminate against otherwise qualified applicants just because of they are LEGALLY residing in the United States. Why don't you? HUD does NOT stop lenders or landlords from checking the legal status before lending or renting to immigrants. Non-U.S. Citizens with no lawful residency in the U.S. are NOT ELIGIBLE for HUD's FHA-insured mortgages! Here are two links documenting both processes: "When a mortgage loan applicant indicates on the loan application that he or she holds something other than U.S. citizenship, the lender must determine residency status from the documentation provided by the borrower.... Lawful Permanent Resident Aliens: For those borrowers with lawful permanent resident alien status, FHA will insure the mortgage under the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens. The lender must document the mortgage file with evidence of permanent residency... Non-U.S. Citizens with no lawful residency in the U.S. are not eligible for FHA-insured mortgages." http://www.fhaloanpros.com/2007/06/could-borat-get-an-fha-loan/ "Documentation of Eligible Immigration Status Non-citizens claiming eligible immigration status must provide all of the following evidence: • The signed declaration of eligible immigration status; • One of the INS documents specified in the rule. (See Exhibit 5-1, Non-Citizen Rule – Summary of Documentation Requirements.); • A signed verification consent form describing transmission and use of the information obtained." http://www.fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=hud_resources_sept11 Take your race-baiting bullsh!t somewhere else. This is no place for this kind of dog-whistle blame-the-brown-people hate politics. Mumble your lies back as some empty chair, not here.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          So why did SoCal, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Miami have the highest number of foreclosures and biggest drop in home values? Why was there no investigative reporting ? In fact, why have we not had good investigative reporting on the housing collapse in general ? The liberal media is biased and agenda driven. It is not in their best interest to report the truth. If Fox News had done a story on the subject; they would have immediately been labled racist - as they already are on almost a daily basis on any story different from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, ad nauseum. So, if you disagree with someone; just call them racist. That will shut them up. Who loses? We all do. I've never met a liberal who when you mention Fox News - you can see the fur standing on their neck as they start rolling their eyes and saying; "Fox News? they should shut down Fox News immediately". I'd like to ask who 'they' are; the thought police? For a group that claims they're the intelligencia, the open-minded ones, the informed, the unbiased, the ones that welcome diversity, , , Wow, what bigots.
          krona2k
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          At the height of the madness I too was offered about 50% more than I eventually borrowed for my mortgage. I'm glad I thought the mortgage adviser was crazy. Yes definately g'mint regulation that caused that /sarcasm
          PR
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Nerd, My sources are from 2007 and 2001, respectively. Nothing has changed. It has been this way since 1977 when HUD agreed to a federal court concent decree making the rules exactly what they are now. What source do you have for your dog-whistle blowing, race-baiting lies? Drudge? Beck? Or is So which are you, the outright racist starting these stories, or just the mindless dup who's ears perk up when you hear the dog whistle, and think everyone else will swallow blaming brown people as easily as you do (without bothering to do a single ounce of fact checking)? So, put your sources on the table, or immediately appologize for which of these two things you are guilty of. Sources, sources, sources!!
          PR
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Nerd, Seriously? Only become curious and ask questions NOW after you realize that your race-baiting dog-whistle blame it on the brown people theory has no basis in fact? Since you love Fox News, take it from them back in 2006 as to why California forclosures were so high, before blaming brown people became the favorite way to deflect attention to the role of lax regulation and bad banking practices:: "Turns out, the biggest predictor of an increase in foreclosures is an area’s unemployment rate." "California, which saw multiple years of double digit increases in home prices and where many of the more “exotic” mortgages were popular. " Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218359,00.html#ixzz25T5L4kTr So it wasn't brown skinned people. It was because these were the states where prices went up the most durring the housing bubble, which automatically triggered the biggest fall in prices where the bubble was blown up the most. Most people who's ears don't perk up when they hear right wing race-baiting dog whistles understand this, and don't dump logic and reason and intellectual curiosity at the tweet of the whistle. It was the sheer number of non-traditional mortgages in these markets, the bubble being inflated more in these states, and the drop in employment in these states. Huh. All very logical. Imagine that. So now are you retracting your blame the brown folks race-baiting bullsh!t, or is your mental attitude against minorities just so deeply ingrained that you will never give up on that lie?
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          peeR I lived in Southern California during the housing boom and bust. Saw X00,000 homes abandoned, most of them them in good shape except all the plumbing, kitchen appliances, and wiring were ripped out of them. Friends in the real estate and mortgage business. Everyone was talking about it before and after the bust. Papa and Momma, 4 kids, making $30k per year total, buying $350k to $600k houses. Buy the American dream. FHA guaranteed loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Derivatives sliced and diced by a mortgage industry and investment bankers under the keen eye of so many government agencies and bureaucrats - surfing for porn on their computers all day long or writing senseless dribble on Autoblog Green. I could probably find some obscure sources, just like you can find obscure sources for anything in your idiotology. We can both ask why the mainstream media never did investigative reporting (before or after). The real truth may come out in another generation or two when writing about the fall of the American Empire. Thank you lib media. Thank you libs.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          HUD made it illegal to ask loan applicants of their citizenship or immigration status. 4 markets with biggest affects of the mortgage fiasco: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami What do these markets have in common ???????????? Huge illegal immigrant populations. Yes. our friggin' government policies caused the housing collapse. Dumb-asses squared.
          Vlad
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          It is astonishing how people believe what they believe more than what they see. It all happened very recently, right before our eyes. Mortgage ads claiming "no income - no problem" were everywhere. No documentation loans were the norm, mortgage industry did anything to lend you money, all on the belief that housing prices will rise forever. I myself was offered about twice the amount I could (by my layman calculations) afford - and both my RE agent and mortgage broker looked at me like I was insane when I refused. Free market was freely and enthusiastically running full speed towards the cliff, as it did multiple time throughout human history when bubbles burst. And now all that's forgotten.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          peeR I never said it was completely the illegals fault. I just gave one example, of dozens, that the government (government policies) are as much or more to blame as the banks. You will have to admit that not allowing lenders to ask immigration status was a pure-D stupid libs-gone-wild policy. no, you already know it all
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          PompousRetard The background checks for housing loans (liar loans) have indeed changed since the mortgage fiasco. Here's a dumb question for you libs: With real unemployment at well over 10%, and well over 15 million illegal aliens in this country; wouldn't it seem logical that to lessen unemployment - wouldn't it be wise for the administration in power to enforce our Federal laws by saying something sweet like: "if you are here illegally, it is time to leave" ? Lib friend of mine: I said; "illegal immigration." She said; "you mean immigration?" I said; "no, I mean people that came in this country illegally - you know without our permission, stealing jobs, and overburdening our social services." What part of illegal don't you libs get ? Smartest thing Sonny Bono ever said - when asked what he thought about illegal immigration; "well, it's illegal isn't it."
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          moron completely missed my point as usual Our government's policies were the leading cause of the housing collapse. Where's the investigations? Who went to jail? Yet libs want the government in control of more and more. Nuff said.
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      Nerd Are you claiming that if bills and regulations are short, that they are sue-proof? Evidence? Any? At all? Seems to me that relatively short sections of the Constitution like the 1st and 2nd amendments have been at the center of more lawsuits than any long detailed law ever has. So the evidence seems to be exactly the opposite of what you claim.
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      "The official rules document, though, is a whopping 1,230 pages long, and it take a while to decipher what in there" Not surprising, government agencies are incapable of brevity and simple language.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        The voters force the government to create crazy regulations. They won't accept the simple solution of "Gasoline and diesel shall henceforce have a $2/gallon tax added to each sale."
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        I don't think any of us voted on this. Did you? I don't remember having a vote here either. Someone voted on us. We put the blindfold on and voted for some guy/gal to vote for us, most people just looking at (D) or (R) and making the decision best, based on that. What happens as a result is some insane stuff.. BTW you don't need to add a gasoline tax to make the price go up. Just remove the subsidies. If you must pay someone extra money unnecessarily, then i have a paypal address.. :)
          Ele Truk
          • 3 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          You do understand that the United States of America is a Democratic Republic? We elect people to do that stuff for us. If enough people don't like it, then you get a Referendum and then the population votes on it.
          EVnerdGene
          • 3 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " Joe Goebbels Sorry Marco, American students have been indoctrinated in our lib-run schools.
          Marcopolo
          • 3 Months Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          @ 2 Wheeled Menace Why do you keep repeating a myth ? If all the 'subsidies' identified by President Obama were removed, it wouldn't affect the price of gasoline at the pump by even 1cent per gallon ! Increasing gasoline tax, would hurt the poor and affect the economy adversely, but if spent wisely the revenue raised would provide sufficient economic stimulus in the long run to compensate the initial shock and provide a real incentive for alternate fueled vehicles. By increasing the price of gasoline by $1 dollar per gallon, the US would still have the cheapest gasoline in the industrialized world, but the federal government would have a daily revenue of approximately $350,000,000 per day, or $127,000,000,000 per year. The advantage of this money coming in on a daily basis, increases it's value to the national economy many times over. One American's got over the initial shock, the effect's of an increase in gasoline tax would prove very beneficial !
      EVnerdGene
      • 2 Years Ago
      You've proved your own point. As many times as the radical left has tried to overturn both the first and second amendments ? Still standing, thank God. Brilliant men that wrote the Constitution. Notice that practically all amendments got longer and longer, weaker and weaker. I sat on a Carb rule-making panel about ten years ago for my employer. ZEV credits. Couldn't follow the original ZEV goals, so they came up with convoluted rewards for early (which was already late) adopters. NEVs times 4, and actual pure EV times 16, ULEV times ?, PZEV times ? FCEV times ? Little man (and women) bureaucrats sitting around making rules to patch the unobtainable goals that they had come up with just a few years earlier. State spending billions, each manufacturer spending billions chasing our tails. State employees using tweezers and magnifying glasses to find their pud making laws - absorbed in self-importance ? (now sounds so similar to this new law? - is it a law? I thought Congress passed laws ????????????? WTF ? Why or how can the EPA and DOT do this ??? Smells like a dictator is involved. Oh, he is, he is.
      TPGIII
      • 2 Years Ago
      You would think that diesels would get some multiplier, in the negative direction. Even if they meet the 54.5mpg they put out much more C02 and other pollutants. Maybe this will help CNG, and we will see some more offerings. I guess I don't get FCVs. They run on electricity. Why would I want to buy, maintain and carry around a power plant to get electricity. To me it's just more logical to put the research into storage of electricity and leave generation to large plants with more opportunity for large scale efficiencies and a wider variety of fuels.
        Dave
        • 3 Months Ago
        @TPGIII
        "Why would I want to buy, maintain and carry around a power plant to get electricity." Ask Volt buyers why they didnt buy a Leaf. Or a Tesla. They will tell you that the battery in the Leaf doesnt take them far enough. And the battery in the Tesla is too expensive.
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      Regardless if the Healthcare bill was written in 2 sentences, or in 75 volumes of books... it was going to court. The controversial nature of a Universal Healthcare Plan, is going to demand litigation, no matter how well, or short you would like it to be written. But like PR said... the shorter the bill, it seems, the more we are arguing 200 years later, what the hell it is supposed to mean. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Most of the gun-toting 2nd amendment fanatics are NOT part of "a well regulated militia".
    • Load More Comments