Market Trends

The Impact of CAFE on Fleet Procurement

May 31, 2011

SHARING TOOLS        | Print Subscribe

I foresee fleet procurement patterns changing due to impending federal-mandated corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. In 2016, CAFE standards will increase to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon. It is estimated it will cost the OEMs $52 billion cumulatively to be in compliance and add an average of $1,000 to the cost of manufacturing a new vehicle.

However, CAFE standards will not remain static. They will increase again in 2025. Last May, the Obama administration proposed increasing CAFE standards to between 47 to 62 mpg by 2025. There is no guarantee this proposal will be mandated as there will be powerful forces advocating against it. However, it is a safe assumption that the next CAFE standard will be higher than 35.5 mpg. OEMs will continue to improve the fuel efficiency of gasoline-powered engines and enhance horsepower performance of smaller displacement engines. However, these improvements, although impressive, may not be sufficient to comply with future CAFE requirements with an OEM’s current product portfolio, especially if it is a major seller of full-size pickups and SUVs.

In the final analysis, complying with government mandates for fuel efficiency or emission reductions, no matter how beneficial, costs money. Someone has to pay these increased costs, and invariably it will be the end user, namely the fleet buyer. Witness what happened to the diesel truck market in 2007 and 2010. EPA regulations dramatically decreased tailpipe emissions, but they also increased diesel truck acquisition costs by $6,000 to $9,000, introduced all-new operating cost expenditures for diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) and diesel particulate filters (DPF), and forced users to buy more expensive ULSD and CJ-4 motor oil.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ultimately, these escalating federally mandated fuel-efficiency standards will have far-reaching ramifications for both the OEMs and fleets. Future OEM product portfolios will be discernibly different than today’s mix of vehicles, which, in turn, will be reflected in the types of vehicles placed in fleet service. These vehicles will most likely be smaller, weigh less (built of more expensive light-weight composite materials), have increasingly complex engine electronics/software to optimize fuel efficiency, and will, in all likelihood, include an expanded number of models incorporating a hybrid powertrain to eliminate idling and enhance the performance of smaller displacement gasoline engines, which will be more prevalent. On a parallel track, OEMs will continue to pursue diversified strategies for alternative-fueled vehicles, along with vehicle electrification technologies, which will dovetail with future hybrid development.

I believe future CAFE mandates (and other market forces, such as pricing pressures due to escalating commodity prices) will converge to stimulate a long-term shift in new-vehicle procurement patterns. One change I foresee is a proliferation of hybrid models in fleet operations through the balance of this decade and next. I know this prediction will cause many readers to scoff, citing a multitude of reasons (many valid) as to why this will not happen, such as higher acquisition costs, lengthy ROI (which sometimes exceeds the anticipated service life of a hybrid), the inability of current hybrid models to fulfill many fleet applications, and a doubt about the “true” fuel/emission reductions, especially when analyzed from a “well-to-wheels” perspective. Examining the statistics in this year’s Fact Book, you will see that hybrids continue to represent a very small percentage of fleet vehicle acquisitions. Also, from a lifecycle cost perspective, many fleet managers continue to lament it is difficult to get hybrids to “pencil out.” Nevertheless, there are emerging market forces at play, which support my prognostication.

Forthcoming ‘Hybridization’ of Fleet

As hybrids proliferate in terms of vehicle sizes and classes, I foresee a growing “hybridization” of fleet. This doesn’t mean corporations will mandate all-hybrid fleets, although a few fleets have stated this is their ultimate goal. Rather, I foresee a larger percentage of a company’s fleet asset composition comprised of hybrids to fulfill corporate initiatives based on fuel spend reduction, attainment of sustainability metrics, portrayal of  positive corporate citizenship, or to take advantage of aggressive OEM incentive programs.

Today, interest in hybrids is directly proportional to the price of fuel. This bodes well for future hybrid acceptance. Most observers, but not all, agree with the long-term forecast that the price of fuel will continue to trend upward. For the skeptics among us, consider this: China currently consumes 10 percent of all the fuel in the world. There are 88 million barrels of oil consumed every day in the world, which means 8 million barrels are consumed daily by Chinese consumers. Currently, there are 85 million vehicles on the road in China. By 2021, China is forecast to have 200 million vehicles in operation, which will easily double its annual consumption of fuel. Based on today’s market dynamics, the supply and demand fundamentals for this finite resource suggest strong upward pricing pressure in the future.

Past history has repeatedly shown that higher fuel prices influence the types of vehicles fleets acquire. For the past four years, corporate fleets have been downsizing to four-cylinder engines. Many fleets have completely converted to four-cylinder engines. What next? Other fleets are migrating to smaller vehicle classes. However, there is a limit as to how far you can downsize before a vehicle is unable to accomplish its fleet mission.

As time will tell, government CAFE mandates for higher fuel economy, coupled with higher fuel prices, will change the vehicle portfolio mix offered by many OEMs, which in turn will ultimately change the asset composition of tomorrow’s fleets.
Let me know what you think.

[email protected]

Comments

  1. 1. Therese Langer [ June 03, 2011 @ 03:02PM ]

    While much of this article is valid, it contains two important fallacies: 1) that increased fuel economy standards will impose net costs on consumers; and 2) that increased fuel economy standards will reduce vehicle size. While there is uncertainty about several relevant parameters such as future technology costs and fuel prices, the standards have been, and will continue to be, devised so that vehicle purchasers will realize a return on investment quite quickly -- and in particular those leasing or financing would typically realize a monthly cost reduction from day one. So a statement such as "In the final analysis, complying with government mandates for fuel efficiency or emission reductions, no matter how beneficial, costs money. Someone has to pay these increased costs, and invariably it will be the end user" does not properly capture the economic impact of the standard on consumers. With regard to the effects of the standards on vehicle size: because the standard becomes more stringent with decreasing vehicle size, moving to smaller vehicles will not help a manufacturer comply. So it is not correct to say that the standards will lead to smaller vehicles.

  2. 2. Christopher D. Amos, CAFM [ June 10, 2011 @ 01:12PM ]

    What Mike Antich forsees as a result of higher CAFE standards coupled with higher fuel prices changing the fleet mix I'm sure is true. However, it is also true that forcing automakers to employ more fuel efficient technology together and denying fleets and the public alike the opportunity to select cheaper fuel hogs keeps the playing field level and helps this country move forward in reducing our imports and all those costly ancillary expenses like wars to ensure access. Using less oil and finished fuel products also reduces price pressures as the commodities become more scarce over time making it possible for lower fuel costs to help pay for the increased up-front cost of the fuel-efficient technology. In short, fuel-economy standards is one place where the Federal government needs to take the lead for the benefit of all its citizens. Left to our own devices, too many would opt for cheaper up-front costs instead of focusing on lifecycle costs and no progress would be made until the oil runs out and we are literally forced to a different transportation technology.

Comment On This Story

Name:  
Email: (Email will not be displayed.)  
Comment: (Maximum 2000 characters)  
Leave this field empty:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.

Author Bio

Mike Antich

Editor and Associate Publisher

Mike has covered fleet management and remarketing for more than 20 years and entered the Fleet Hall of Fame in 2010.

Sponsored by

Newsletter

We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.



GotQuestions?

LUBRICANTS

The expert, Mark Betner from Citgo will answer your questions
Ask a question

Sponsored by

Magazine