New Car Prices Hit $49,766 in October. Rolling Back Fuel Economy Regulations Could Bring Relief.
Here's a Trump reform that could actually make something more affordable.
Car prices have been climbing for years. In September, Kelly Blue Book reports, the average transaction price of vehicles reached $50,000 for the first time ever. This was partly due to consumers rushing to purchase more costly electric vehicles (E.V.s) before federal tax incentives ran out, and the average transaction price has fallen slightly since then. But it remains stubbornly high, hitting $49,766 in October.
President Donald Trump's trade wars certainly haven't helped automobile consumers. But on Wednesday, his administration did something that could actually bring car prices down: It moved to loosen the federal government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
These standards, which are set by the Transportation Department, regulate how far a vehicle must travel on a gallon of gasoline. Under the proposed rule, a manufacturer's fleet of light-duty vehicles and SUVs will be required to average 34.5 miles per gallon by model year 2031, as opposed to the 50.5 miles per gallon target adopted under former President Joe Biden. The Transportation Department also intends to stop allowing automakers to "buy credits from competitors to offset fines," reports The Wall Street Journal. That system meant windfalls for E.V. manufacturers like Tesla.
The new rule is the latest development in a Republican campaign to roll back vehicle regulations. In May, Republicans overruled the Senate parliamentarian to kill California's E.V. mandate. And in July, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act removed fines for automakers who fail to comply with CAFE standards.
Predictably, Democrats and environmentalists are raising alarms about the proposed rule. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) has called it "terrible" and predicted that if it's finalized, it will saddle the U.S. "with more pollution, higher costs, and worse vehicles." The Climate Justice Alliance called it "a reckless step backward " for the economy and environment. These sentiments track with public opinion; a January poll from Consumer Reports found that 64 percent of drivers supported the government increasing fuel economy standards.
But just because a policy is popular doesn't mean it's good. CAFE standards have long outlived whatever usefulness they might arguably have once had.
Established in response to the oil shocks of the '70s, these standards are the product of a bygone era. Since the inception of CAFE, the U.S. has transitioned from a net importer of energy to the world's largest energy exporter.
The options that drivers have have also drastically changed. In 1978, the first year these standards were implemented, the top-selling car in the United States was the Oldsmobile Cutlass. (The Cutlass was phased out in 1999, and General Motors discontinued Oldsmobile in 2004.) In 2024, the top-selling sedan was Japanese—the Toyota Camry—and the top-selling vehicle was the Ford F-Series trucks. Closely behind Ford, and a few spots ahead of Toyota, was the Tesla Model Y, whose technology was something that could only be dreamed of in the 1970s.
Yes, the fuel efficiency standards are themselves partially responsible for that shift. But market forces were more important. The influx of Japanese vehicles during the '70s was caused by people wanting to avoid lines at gas stations and save money at the pump. Similarly, E.V.s have grown in popularity over the last few years because people want to reduce gas costs and reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.
Even if consumer choice hadn't been the driving factor in improved fuel efficiency, there would be good reasons to scrap CAFE standards. A 2013 study in the American Economic Journal estimated that in their first year, these regulations are 28 times more expensive than a gasoline tax. A 2017 policy brief for Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website, found that "Fuel economy standards like CAFE cost three to four times as much to achieve similar gains in fuel economy and emissions reduction as a fuel tax."
In addition to not being a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these regulations have added to the sticker price of cars. Before the Obama administration ramped up CAFE standards in 2009, "vehicle prices, adjusted for quality, had been falling," according to a 2016 report by the Heritage Foundation. In the years after, the car costs rose "to $6,200 above the previous trend."
Repealing the Biden-era CAFE standards will probably not reduce car costs immediately, but it will be a good first step in reducing the government's involvement in our decisions—and hopefully it will be a step toward ending these antiquated regulations for good.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Repealing the Biden-era CAFE standards will probably not reduce car costs immediately..
Oh, well then, forget it.
If it doesn't pay off 37 trillion in debt why bother.
Emissions should be rolled back too.
tReason never says anything about regulations. They ignore regulations and only complain about tariffs, and when Trump does anything about regulations Reason defends Democrats.
The fact that this article contradicts the narrative means that either the things that people who hate Reason say are wrong, or that this article doesn't exist.
The only obvious conclusion is that the article doesn't exist, or that it is secretly praising Democrats.
The only obvious conclusion is that
the article doesn't exist,sarc has serious problems.Maybe he’ll die soon (crosses fingers).
How many articles on regulations have they had buddy? Im glad you form arguments all from strawman though.
Quite a lot - do the Search dumbass. But you won't because for you being wrong makes your scrotum itch.
Plus, "from strawmen though".. it's plural, son. Your welcome.
Oh fuck off, you retarded bitch. Your comments are just idiotic moronic garbage derailing discussion from your betters.
“Your welcome.”
It’s not possessive, son. You’re welcome.
Lol. Idiot.
He really is an idiot. A weak, limp wristed one at that.
Why is reason acting like this is the first deregulation made?
You could've admitted months-if-not-years ago you don't read the articles, and saved everyone the heartburn.
Most people just go straight to the comments. Thats where you actually learn things. Which is something you don’t understand as you don’t learn anything.
Retarded, democrat, and willfully obtuse is not way to go through life.
Fair comment. +1
Thank you.
Poor sarcsock just wants attention.
It’s just sad.
Have we ever seen a government money infusion into an industry not inflate prices?
Housing?
Education?
Transportation?
Welfare?
Nah. Just coincidence.
Best of intentions.
Space program, microelectronics, the internet.
I think we need new caloric intake standards for former elected officials. In order to keep the plant green they shouldn't be allowed to consume more than say 500kc per day? Seems similar enough to a 50mpg limit. If they can manage to eat even less they can sell the food credits.
Pritzger will buy all of the food credits on the market. He can afford it.
I wonder if he is Jeffy’s benefactor for the 55 gallon drums of Ben & Jerry’s he receives.
Jesse has maybe 1/10th of a point - it would be nice if Reason would talk more about all of the regulatory burden associated with transportation, but this would necessarily have to include public roads themselves and how these represent an implicit subsidy on owning a vehicle and driving.
There is some of that - esp. from Cato. But much of the regulatory burden takes place at the state and local levels, and it makes sense that Reason along with most other news outlets are going cover issues and events at a more national scale.
But libertarians rag on regulations and their tradeoffs far more than anyone else.
Is that the ChiCom position on this subject. Comrade Fatfuck?
But [D]emocrats spent years making it 'affordable'.
Doubling in 10-years is just a good start of 'affordable' for [d]ipsh*ts.
And they aren't far-off from making everything 'affordable'.
What's that called when one thinks the opposite of reality? Delusional? Stupid? [D]emocrat.
Let's get rid of CAFE altogether. It's always been a silly regulation. Why shouldn't some automakers specialize in larger vehicles that use more fuel (which are necessary and useful) and others on making efficient vehicles (for which there is demand even without regulation as many people like to spend less on fuel or care about emissions). And safety regs too. That's another huge cost-adder.
There are times when EV's make sense and times when they are foolish. The common people are much smarter than what politicians believe and politicians are much more idiotic that what the voters believe. If an EV make sense for the particular circumstances, the the person will purchase one, and if it doesn't then the person will not. When government gets into the mix, they distort the market and influence counter-productive decisions.
For example a battery powered mower and snowblower makes sense for my circumstances. It make my life more convenient than my previous gas powered versions were. However a EV is not practical for me due to range.
Eliminate the interference and let the marketplace sort it out. 350 million decisions will more accurately reflect reality than our current centrally controlled system of market manipulation does. We should slash government by 75% and return to the essentials.
Oh but you are arguing for mob rule. Because if the majority don't buy it, it will no longer exist.
Some things experts believe they must force down our throats because we are too stupid to decide for ourselves and they do not like the decisions we make not purchasing what the fuck they are hedging their futures on.
Ending the nonsensical assault of hydrocarbons and removing the delusional mandates for everything electric in 5 years can only be positive.
Removing what caused the price increases to begin with however does not necessarily mean prices will drop afterward.
Why wouldn't they? Without all the BS regulation people could build their own cars in their backyard. How would the industry monopolize that?