The economics of CAFE credits on the EV market.

Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
11,946
Location
Atlanta,GA
In case you ever wondered why a car company in the past would build a loss making EV. Tough times ahead for Tesla et al. Here's an excerpt per a WSJ opinion piece.

"On Sept. 14, the day before the United Auto Workers launched its strike, the Energy Department sent letters to Ford, General Motors and
Stellantis asking for help understanding “specific challenges” to its proposed rule that would reduce the credits under the corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standards for producing electric vehicles.

The issue is technical, but bear with us because this is a tale of regulation at crazy cross-purposes. Congress’s 1979 Chrysler bailout required the Energy Department to impute a “petroleum equivalency factor” for EVs they might produce to give Detroit auto makers a means of complying with Cafe standards besides making more fuel efficient trucks.

In 2000 the Clinton Administration sweetened the regulatory subsidy for EVs by assigning them a fuel economy multiplier of 6.67. Ergo, an EV calculated to get 40 miles per gallon would receive credit for 266.8 mpg under the Cafe standards.

Although Congress had limited this multiplier credit to cars that run on biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen, the Clinton Administration said it was only fair to give the bonus to EVs too. Subsequent Presidents kept this EV fillip because it has let Detroit auto makers churn out profitable gas guzzlers while meeting ever-rising fuel economy mandates.

Enter the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, which petitioned the Biden Administration in 2021 to scrap the 6.67 multiplier for EVs. They note that its legal justification “is questionable, as the statute expressly provides for different treatment” between electric vehicles and those that run on so-called alternative fuels. They’re right.

But their real goal is to force auto makers to manufacture more EVs to meet Cafe standards, which the Administration has also proposed ratcheting up. “Excessively high imputed fuel economy values for EVs means that a relatively small number of EVs will mathematically guarantee compliance,” they noted.

The Energy Department in the spring proposed to eliminate the 6.67 multiplier while softening the impact with other changes. As a result, a Ford-150 Lightning would only be credited with 67.1 mpg, down from 237.7 mpg. But taken altogether, the Administration’s proposed revisions would in effect mandate that EVs make up 100% of new vehicles by 2032."
 
Last edited:
I believe that EV's should not get the credit that they get. The industry needs to be stand alone and not funded with government subsidies. I am against all gov't subsidies BTW.

I'm waiting for someone to help me understand the environmental impact of lithium and other precious metals required in battery manufacturing. I understand that short term MPG's need to be increased and long term fossil fuels need to be reduced or replaced but IMO, current EV's are pretty harmful to the environment long term.

On a side note with some of the consolidation in the oil industry the last few months, I believe fossil fuels will be around longer than many think including the EPA and other politicians / regulators. Here is a link to an article that Chevron bought Hess LINK

Just my $0.02
 
I believe that EV's should not get the credit that they get. The industry needs to be stand alone and not funded with government subsidies. I am against all gov't subsidies BTW.

I'm waiting for someone to help me understand the environmental impact of lithium and other precious metals required in battery manufacturing. I understand that short term MPG's need to be increased and long term fossil fuels need to be reduced or replaced but IMO, current EV's are pretty harmful to the environment long term.

On a side note with some of the consolidation in the oil industry the last few months, I believe fossil fuels will be around longer than many think including the EPA and other politicians / regulators. Here is a link to an article that Chevron bought Hess LINK

Just my $0.02
That's fine but remember that the multiplier for EV's subsidized the manufacturing of gas guzzler SUV's and Trucks because jobs.
 
There is no direct tax credit given to purchasers of ICE vehicles. Without the EV tax credit EVs would exist smaller than even at the small numbers that they do now.
It's a credit towards an automakers CAFE score. Without the multiplier on EV's the CAFE score would be worse which may force automakers to produce less of the higher margin but low efficiency vehicles. This meets the definition of a subsidy.

EDIT: There are multiple subsidies at work when it comes to EV's. There's the direct and indirect tax subsidies for the consumer/automaker, carbon credits, and then there is the CAFE subsidy which is the topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:
As always, the idea that a big EV achieves 70+MPGe is nonsense. The ratings and calculations will trend towards reality Over time.

A model S, charged by a 44% efficient diesel genset achieves 26MPG highway. Best Case
 
3 ways to counter this as an automaker: more affordable fuel efficient cars, cheaper EV's or add the CAFE tax to the gas guzzlers sale price. I don't see this as a bad thing as such.
This. Something needs to happen. Not every vehicle has to be a crossover or SUV. Why did the Highlander get so big for one? That used to be a smaller crossover. Personally I want EVs, but I don’t want towered over by massive vehicles because I don’t want a heavy inefficient car.
 
As always, the idea that a big EV achieves 70+MPGe is nonsense. The ratings and calculations will trend towards reality Over time.

A model S, charged by a 44% efficient diesel genset achieves 26MPG highway. Best Case
That’s a poor way to make power. That’s why it’s only that efficient. That said the 100 MPGe numbers are looney.
 
That’s a poor way to make power. That’s why it’s only that efficient. That said the 100 MPGe numbers are looney.
A diesel genset that is 44% thermally efficient is more efficient than the national grid average of 35%.

So, while my point is kind of silly, as nobody charges with a diesel genset, it does illustrate just how much energy is consumed (somewhere) to push that Model S down the highway. Also of note, if the Model S goes over 80MPH, the MPG is 19.

As always, the stack of losses from powerplant, to grid, to transformer, to charger, to battery, from battery, to controller, to motor, to transmission to wheel, each take a bite, and we will see a correction to the absurd MPGe numbers.

The MPGe numbers reflect how much energy the electric motor uses. But don't reflect how much energy the power plant consumes to propel an EV that mile.
 
A diesel genset that is 44% thermally efficient is more efficient than the national grid average of 35%.

So, while my point is kind of silly, as nobody charges with a diesel genset, it does illustrate just how much energy is consumed (somewhere) to push that Model S down the highway. Also of note, if the Model S goes over 80MPH, the MPG is 19.

As always, the stack of losses from powerplant, to grid, to transformer, to charger, to battery, from battery, to controller, to motor, to transmission to wheel, each take a bite, and we will see a correction to the absurd MPGe numbers.

The MPGe numbers reflect how much energy the electric motor uses. But don't reflect how much energy the power plant consumes to propel an EV that mile.
We don’t figure in refining and transporting fuel in the mpg of ICE cars either.
 
We don’t figure in refining and transporting fuel in the mpg of ICE cars either.
Being as that refining is in the 3%-4% range, it is reasonably meaningless. Same goes for transport. It is a trivial number around 1 to 2%. Even so, we must remember that the power plants consume coal, nuclear fuel, natural gas and solar/wind, which all have energy costs.

My point remains. The fuel industry is very efficient. And consuming that fuel efficiently "on location" is always better. Even the lowly Toyota Camry is now 40% thermally efficient.
 
Being as that refining is in the 3%-4% range, it is reasonably meaningless. Same goes for transport. It is a trivial number around 1 to 2%. Even so, we must remember that the power plants consume coal, nuclear fuel, natural gas and solar/wind, which all have energy costs.

My point remains. The fuel industry is very efficient. And consuming that fuel efficiently "on location" is always better. Even the lowly Toyota Camry is now 40% thermally efficient.
+1 Reality is a heck of a concept for some people to understand.
 
Back
Top