"Tech Neutral" Mileage Rules Sound Good, but Detroit Wants to Tip the Scales
The phrase "technology neutrality" has a nice clean ring to it, and auto executives love to invoke it in debates over new mileage standards. (It means the government shouldn't favor some fuel-efficiency improvements over others.) But their fealty to the cause is deeply hypocritical, because in reality, American carmakers want governments to favor whatever technology they happen to be putting in their own cars -- especially if the foreign competition doesn't have it.
The most recent CEO to invoke tech neutrality was Chrysler's Sergio Marchionne, who, after disparaging the high cost of electric vehicles (EVs) at a management briefing last week, declared:
We believe government regulations will have the greatest technological impact if they are technology neutral. The cost of electrification versus the installed capacity for conventional powertrains is going to make a large conversion to electrification cost prohibitive.Marchionne praised his engineers for getting the 2012 Chrysler 300's V-6 from 27 to 31 mpg, and he called on regulators to "let them do their jobs." What he's really saying is that Chrysler doesn't have any EV technology worthy of mention, other than an electric version of the Fiat 500 that it's been giving scant attention. It hates, specifically, electric car mandates. But it does have a full range of trucks and SUVs, and it wants the government to favor them.
According to Dan Becker, the climate campaigner at the Center for Auto Safety:
When the Big Three say they want technology neutrality on CAFE, what they're really saying is that the government should ignore the fact they don't use any modern technology in their pickup trucks.CAFE, unmolested, would be tech neutral
The federal CAFE process that set 54.5 mpg as the 2025 goal was, at least on the surface, tech neutral. It set a fuel economy goal, and it didn't dictate how it will be met. But in setting the standards, the Big Three demanded -- and got -- a last-minute loophole big enough to drive a truck through. It specifically exempted SUVs from meeting the tough standards from 2017 to 2020.
That's certainly a technology pick -- one that favors big engines and heavy platforms -- and it's just one of the concessions automaker lobbyists clamor for all the time. They kept the CAFE process stalled in place with barely perceptible improvements for decades, largely because advancing it would favor the technology on more fuel-efficient imports.
The Auto Alliance lobbyists praised CAFE for "encouraging manufacturers to pursue a wider variety of technology pathways," but in fact its automaker members want to go down some pathways and not others.
The 2025 CAFE plan is so full of loopholes and specific technology concessions favoring Detroit (for air conditioning, "active grille shutters" and a transmission warm-up gimmick) that 54.5 mpg is really 40 mpg. To make those calls, government regulators definitely had to cherry pick technology, creating both winners and a few losers (including diesel engines and fuel cells, favored by German carmakers).
It sounds good
Automakers will continue to talk about this, because (even if they don't actually practice what they preach) the notion that governments shouldn't be picking technology winners resonates with the public. And indeed it has validity in some cases. California's Air Resources Board, for instance, was forced to revise its 10 percent "zero emission" electric vehicle mandate for 2003 when it became clear that hybrid cars would be ready for the market a lot faster that full-on electric vehicles.
A European Commission plan calls for removing half of all internal-combustion engines from city streets by 2030, and all of them by 2050. But the European Unon is already setting really strict carbon emission standards, letting automakers meet them anyway they can. That approach embraces the concept of technological neutrality, and it makes the most sense.
That said, automakers need to get off their high horse about governments adhering to technological neutrality. It doesn't really exist, and they wouldn't want it if it did.
Related:
- An SUV-Friendly 54.5 MPG Standard Looks Increasingly Likely
- For the Record: Chrysler is Clueless About Green Cars
- CAFE Losers VW and Mercedes are Fighting Back, but Lack Leverage