CBS News:  Trump administration moves to roll back fuel economy standards set under Biden

If finalized, the plan would relax fuel economy standards by setting the industry average for light-duty vehicles at roughly 34.5 miles per gallon through the 2031 model year, lower than the 50 miles per gallon outlined by a Biden-era rule.

For fifty years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) set fuel economy standards that car companies had to meet.  It was a type of magical thinking.  The NHTSA would issue a new fuel economy standard, and like Captain Picard on Star Trek, say, “Make it so.” 

The NHTSA didn’t have to worry about physics, they just had to wish for it.  The engineering teams had to figure out how to pull another rabbit out of the same old hat.  The rabbits were getting smaller and harder to find.

The stringent fuel economy standards aren’t Biden’s fault.  Not because he was dotarded and generally unaware of what the government was doing.  The authorizing legislation was passed during President Ford’s time in office, and the NHTSA just kept tightening the screws.

When the NHTSA started setting fuel economy standards, domestic cars had to get 18 miles per gallon.  Now, fifty years later, it’s 42 miles per gallon.  The fuel economy standards were supposed to drive automotive innovation to curtail fuel consumption.  That sounds good, but there were negative consequences.

  • It’s unconstitutional.  Mandating fuel economy is not an enumerated power of the federal government.  This was resolved by holding car companies responsible, instead of consumers, under the ‘interstate commerce ‘ clause.
  • It reduced customer choice.  All cars in a class have essentially identical profiles based on aerodynamics.
  • Manufacturers had to cut vehicle weight, making cars less robust, and more expensive.
  • Manufacturers had to add safety technology to make up for the less safe, light-weight vehicles. 

It would be charitable to say it was the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’, but since these consequences were easy to foresee and it happened over fifty years, perhaps these were the intent.

A gallon of gasoline has 120 million Joules of energy (120 MJ).  A gas engine is about 35% efficient.  In the last fifty years, tailpipe emissions have decreased by 90%, indicating that the engines are nearing their maximum theoretic efficiency.  To be more efficient, engines would need much higher compression ratios.  That would add weight, increase cost and reduce reliability. 

It takes 1 MJ to get a 2200 kg Ford F-150 from a stop, up to highway speed.  The vehicle mass is the only aspect of the vehicle that matters.  To meet the fuel efficiency standards, F-150 are now made with body panels made of an aluminum alloy.  That reduced the weight of the truck by about 500 lbs, or about 10%.  With less weight, the payload increases.

F-150’s switched to aluminum for the 2015 model year.  The 2014 F-150 had a combined fuel efficiency of 19.0 mpg.  The 2015 F-150 had a combined fuel efficiency of 20.5 mpg.

The downside to aluminum body panels on the F-150, is it added about $1000 to the cost of the truck, and aluminum is more difficult to repair and weaker than steel.

Driving 10,000 miles per year with gas selling at $3 per gallon, the aluminum F-150 saves $115 in fuel cost in a year.  That gives an 8.5 year return on investment if we ignore the higher car insurance rates to accommodate the higher repair cost for aluminum body panels.

To improve the physics, hybrid vehicles make sense.  The 1 MJ to accelerate the F-150 to highway speeds, is lost when the driver brakes to a stop.  A hybrid vehicle captures that kinetic energy, and stores it as electrical energy in a large battery.  When the vehicle accelerates, it can use some of the energy that would have been lost. 

Ford offers F-150 hybrids, so the comparison is easy.  F-150 XLT starts at $45,000, while a F-150 XLT Hybrid starts at $56,000.  The hybrid has an EPA-combined fuel efficiency of 23 mpg.  The F-150 with the standard engine gets 19 mpg.  The driver saves $270 per year, with a ROI of 40 years.

The hybrid may provide better acceleration because the battery can provide a boost.

The result is that fuel efficiency standards and government incentives, distort the market to nudge consumers in a particular direction.  That is disrespectful to consumers and not good for the economy.

For a restrained driver who does a lot of city driving, a hybrid may make sense.  Car companies will offer a model to fill the need.   A retired guy like me doesn’t drive nearly as much as I did, so fuel savings aren’t relevant. 

Congress should move to eliminate fuel efficiency standards, so car manufactures are free to innovate to satisfy their customers.  The market will sort it out.  Over-regulation is one reason that technological progress hasn’t lifted everyone’s quality of life.