Key Takeaways
- Corporate Captured Retreat: The retroactive reset for model years 2022–2025 functions as a multi-billion dollar bailout for legacy automakers: a classic case of Lemon Socialism where penalties for refusing to innovate are erased by administrative fiat.
- Fossil Fuel Subsidy: By excluding EVs from the “Maximum Feasible” calculation, the NHTSA is artificially lowering the technological bar to accommodate inefficient internal combustion engines.
- Credit Market Sabotage: Prohibiting credit trading by model year 2028 is a direct strike at the business models of pure-play EV manufacturers like Tesla and Rivian.
- Competitiveness Risk: While the administration claims $900 in consumer savings, the long-term cost of oil dependency and falling behind the global EV race remains uncalculated.
Regulatory Relapse: Rewriting the History of Efficiency
On December 5, 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that signals a total capitulation to the legacy internal combustion lobby. Titled the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule III,” the document proposes a sweeping rollback of the efficiency standards essential for decarbonizing the transport sector. This is not just a policy shift; it is a “Regulatory Relapse” that attempts to use administrative law to freeze time.
The proposal attempts to rewrite the history of the last four years. By resetting the baseline for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards back to the start of model year 2022, the NHTSA is effectively nullifying what Secretary of Transportation Sean P. Duffy characterizes as an “Illegal EV Mandate”—a political branding of the previous administration’s Clean Car standards. For legacy automakers like Ford and General Motors, this provides immediate relief from billions in pending penalties for failure to meet efficiency targets. For the environment, it represents a deliberate step backward into oil dependency.
At the heart of SAFE III is a fundamental reinterpretation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975. The NHTSA’s new legal theory argues that including EVs in the calculation of “maximum feasible” standards was a statutory overreach. By removing EVs from the math, the agency isn’t just “reducing regulation”: it’s creating a bespoke reality where the most efficient technology in history is excluded from the benchmark.
Background: The Politics of Petroleum Protection
To understand SAFE III, one must view the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program not as a simple safety standard, but as a battleground between energy autonomy and the petroleum status quo. Originally designed in 1975 to reduce oil reliance, CAFE has been weaponized by successive administrations to either accelerate or sabotage the energy transition.
The constant shifting of goalposts has created a “Capital Expenditure Crisis” for manufacturers, but this instability is a feature of a system that prioritizes short-term stock buybacks over long-term industrial planning. SAFE III is the administrative response to a market that was finally beginning to threaten the petroleum hegemony. By setting a fleet average target of just 34.5 MPG by model year 2031, the NHTSA is effectively guaranteeing that US-made vehicles remain tethered to the gas pump for another decade. This is not “market breathing room”; it is the managed decline of the American automotive worker, trapped in a technological cul-de-sac while the rest of the world advances.
Cui Bono? The Material Interest Behind the Math
Every regulatory move has a “Real Motive” hidden beneath its technical pretext. In SAFE III, the stated goal is “affordability,” but the material interest belongs to two specific groups: legacy automakers and the mid-stream oil lobby.
The Legacy Capital Bailout
By retroactively lowering standards for model years 2022-2025, the government is effectively handing Ford, GM, and Stellantis a “get out of jail free” card worth billions. These companies knowingly over-produced inefficient vehicles while accruing massive potential liabilities. SAFE III erases these debts, rewarding the very executives who lobbied against the transition they now claim is too expensive to manage.
The Fossil Fuel Delay
Under the previous interpretation, EVs served as a benchmark for what technology could achieve. By removing them from the “Maximum Feasible” calculation, the NHTSA creates an “Efficiency Floor.” This ensures that the demand for petroleum remains artificially high for longer. It is a “Two Birds” strategy: it satisfies the ideological goal of attacking Green Energy while serving the strategic goal of securing the domestic oil market.
The Physics of Stagnation: The 0.25% Goal
The stringency delta in SAFE III is essentially a freeze. While previous standards required 5% annual efficiency increases, SAFE III proposes increases as low as 0.25%. This isn’t efficiency; it’s stagnation.
The SUV Problem: Reclassifying the Fleet
One of the most impactful mechanics in SAFE III is the reclassification of “light trucks.” Over the last decade, manufacturers have successfully marketed “Crossover” vehicles (CUVs) that are functionally passenger cars but are legally classified as light trucks because of their ground clearance or interior volume. Because light trucks have much lower fuel economy requirements than cars, this “SUV Loophole” became the dominant strategy in Detroit.
SAFE III closes this loophole; but not in the way enthusiasts hoped. It reclassifies many small SUVs and crossovers back into the “Passenger Car” category to “align with Congressional intent.” However, because the overall stringency of the car category is being slashed by 0.5% to 0.25% annually, this reclassification actually makes it easier for automakers to meet the new targets without investing in expensive hybrid powertrains.
The Mathematical Delta
The stringency delta between the Biden-era standards and SAFE III is staggering. While the former required a ~5% annual increase in efficiency, SAFE III proposes:
- model year 2026: 0.5% increase
- model year 2027: 0.35% increase
- model year 2028–2031: 0.25% increase
To put this in perspective, the kinetic energy () required to move a vehicle is defined by: Where is mass and is velocity. Efficiency is essentially the ability to minimize the energy wasted in overcoming aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance. By requiring only a 0.25% increase, the NHTSA is essentially allowing automakers to stop optimizing for aerodynamics or mass reduction, focusing instead on consumer features like larger screens and heavier safety equipment.
The Credit Trading Freeze: Cutting the Tesla Pipeline
Perhaps the most controversial part of the SAFE III proposal is the elimination of inter-manufacturer credit trading starting in model year 2028. Since the inception of the current CAFE credit system, companies that exceed their requirements (primarily Pure EV makers like Tesla and Rivian) have been allowed to sell their “excess points” to companies that fail to meet them (like Stellantis or Ford).
For Tesla, this has been a windfall of epic proportions. In 2023 alone, Tesla reported $1.8 billion in regulatory credit revenue. This money is essentially pure profit, as it requires zero marginal cost to generate once the EVs are sold. SAFE III ends this practice.
The NHTSA’s logic is that the credit market has become a “regulatory fiction” that allows legacy automakers to delay the improvement of their ICE fleets by simply writing a check to Tesla. By ending the trade, every manufacturer must stand on its own feet. If a company can’t build a fleet that meets a 34.5 MPG average by 2031, they cannot buy their way out of it through a competitor. However, since CAFE penalties were also effectively nullified for model year 2022+ by the Omnibus Budget and Border Security Act (OBBSA) passed earlier in 2025, the “punishment” for failing to comply is now virtually non-existent, making the entire credit system a vestigial organ of the old regime.
Industry Impact: Winners and Losers
The Big Three (Ford, GM, Stellantis)
Legacy capital secures a reprieve. The retroactive reset for 2022-2025 eliminates the multi-billion dollar liability that served as the only real catalyst for modernization. By removing the regulatory “stick,” the administration has essentially allowed Detroit to stop trying, ensuring a future where American cars are unexportable to an electrified global market.
Pure EV Makers (Tesla, Rivian, Lucid)
The “Boutique” EV makers are in a precarious position. Not only have they lost the $7,500 federal tax credit (which expired on September 30, 2025), but they are now facing the loss of credit trading revenue by 2028. For Rivian, which is still struggling for gross margin profitability, the loss of credit sales could be the difference between survival and bankruptcy. Tesla is better positioned due to its scale, but a $1-2B hit to the bottom line remains a significant headwind for its AI and robotics R&D budgets.
The Consumer
The NHTSA claims the average consumer will save $900 on the upfront price of a new vehicle. This is achieved by removing the expensive particulate filters, specialized lightweight materials, and hybrid systems that would have been required under the old rules. However, the trade-off is higher “Lifetime Fuel Cost.” By freezing efficiency at roughly 34-35 MPG, consumers will be more exposed to oil price volatility over the next decade.
Challenges & Limitations: The Legal Minefield
The biggest obstacle to SAFE III isn’t political—it’s legal. Administrative law generally prohibits retroactive rulemaking. Agencies are supposed to set the “rules of the road” for the future, not change them for actions that have already occurred.
When the NHTSA says it is “resetting the baseline” for 2022–2025, it is essentially telling companies that their past behavior, which was measured against one yardstick, will now be measured against a shorter one. While this “benefits” the legacy automakers, it creates a “Reliance Interest” problem for those who invested billions based on the old rules. A coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia has already filed suit, arguing that the federal government cannot retroactively alter congressionally approved targets that manufacturers have already used to make multi-year investment decisions.
What’s Next? The 2026 Road Map
- January 7, 2026: Public hearings begin. Expect intense testimony from environmental groups (Sierra Club, NRDC) and the “New Detroit” coalition (EV startups).
- January 20, 2026: Public comment period closes. The NHTSA is expected to move with “unprecedented speed” to finalize the rule by Q1 2026.
- July 1, 2026: The USMCA Review deadline. Mexico and Canada may use the SAFE III rollback as bargaining power to demand changes to auto parts tariffs, arguing that the U.S. is “de-harmonizing” North American standards.
What This Means for You
If you are a Car Buyer:
- Carbon Lock-in: The administration is attempting to sell “affordability” by lowering standards, but the $900 upfront savings is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands in lifetime gasoline costs. This is a classic case of predatory pricing: lowering the entry barrier to lock the working class into a century-old energy monopoly.
- The Efficiency Betrayal: By freezing standards, the NHTSA is ensuring that the most “affordable” cars remain the most expensive to operate, leaving the most vulnerable drivers exposed to any future energy crisis.
If you are an Investor:
- The Innovation Lull: If you hold shares in legacy auto, the immediate removal of regulatory fines is a tailwind. However, consider the “Competitiveness Cliff”: if Ford and GM stop innovating in efficiency while the rest of the world accelerates, their long-term viability in export markets is severely compromised.
- The Pure EV Headwind: Pure-play EV startups are facing a double blow: the loss of consumer tax credits and the elimination of their most predictable revenue stream—regulatory credit sales. Evaluation of these companies must now rely entirely on their ability to achieve gross margin profitability without government assistance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the fuel economy of a 2023 vehicle going to change?
No. The CAFE standards apply to the manufacturer’s fleet average, not individual existing vehicles. Your car’s performance depends on its design and maintenance, not the NHTSA’s latest proposal.
Why is it called SAFE III?
It follows the naming convention of the first Trump administration’s “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient” rules (SAFE 1 and SAFE 2), which also sought to freeze or reduce Obama-era standards.
Will states like California still have their own standards?
The “Preemption Battle” is still raging. SAFE III attempts to assert federal authority over all fuel economy and emission standards, but California’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” mandate currently protected by a separate EPA waiver. Expect this to be the next major Supreme Court case of 2026.
Conclusion: A Costly Delay in the Inevitable
The SAFE Vehicles Rule III is a masterpiece of regulatory avoidance. It attempts to convince the American public that efficiency is a “tax” and that backward-looking technology is “freedom.” But while the NHTSA can rewrite the rules for 2022–2025, it cannot rewrite the laws of physics or the global economy.
Batteries are becoming cheaper and more energy-dense every month. The global market, led by China and Europe, is moving toward 100% electrification. By freezing US standards at a dismal 34.5 MPG, the administration is not “saving Detroit”; it is trapping it in a technological cul-de-sac.
Fossil fuel entrenchment is a delay tactic, not a strategy. The “Bombshell” of SAFE III will eventually clear, leaving a US automotive industry that is less competitive, more dependent on volatile oil markets, and fundamentally misaligned with the technological inevitability of the renewable age. The road to 2030 remains electric; SAFE III just ensures the US will take the longest, most expensive route possible.
🦋 Discussion on Bluesky
Discuss on Bluesky