Ok MPGe...
Typically the "intention" of regulation is to ensure that both producers and consumers are offered protection under an act of government, so that all parties involved are offered the same opportunities without one being benefited more than another, or that one is not subjected to forceful participation to anothers benefit.
In the scheme of things economic "customer is king". Sometimes a foolish king. There is a valid argument to be made that consumers should be educated, so that they can make valid decisions based on facts, or at a minimum the best of the current knowledge. To that end a regulation, or the specific "intentional management" under guidance of government can be helpful, if also the body governing is of equal statue in competence as the state of the art. Sadly this is seldom the case, as one needs not to be qualified for a public position. Most consumers hold equal qualifications.... ;-)
On that basis I'd postulate that "regulations" are of poor value overall and only offer very little education or appropriate control, let alone are not cost effective in any form.
Despite that, when it comes to physics, and the definition of efficiency and how that compares between similar products, there is most definitely a reason to have standards, that are agreed on, (like kg, pound, kW etc) in order to evaluate their effectiveness. And to persuade consumers that should know better.
In the case of MPGe, I'd like to assert the position that a standard of measurement already exists for all forms of transport, both fuel or battery powered etc in the form of wh/mile (or km).
How we incorporate life cycle costs is of a completely different magnitude, and to do that you first have to define cost and also pollution. Nature, nor physics, operate under those terms and ignores them both with equal disdain.
(By definition C02 is not pollution if measures are taken to cycle it)
For example solar PV has more embodied emissions than fossil natural gas used in a CHP generator. Or the primary cause of heat retention in the atmosphere is water vapor. The largest heat store are our oceans, which are poorly understood and monitored. Further solar PV is only affordable because cheap fossil are still subsidizing its cost of manufacturing and distribution, mostly from China that leverage their currency to maintain dominance. Let alone government subsidies for industry, or taxes that promote unethical behavior, by producing levers that profit certain industries over another.
The point is that there are so many convoluted and co-dependant systems that it is nearly pointless to pursue a accurate model of lifecycle costs so that a effective determination can be made. Be that for either fuel or electric vehicles. And we haven't even started on the reasons for human behavior, like the fallacy of ownership to incite trade, or the lack of environmental cost on corporate balance sheets, the aging world population, fiat currency, debt bubbles, cyberwarfare, deep fakes, AI or that Netflix produces 5-6% of the worlds pollution etc etc...
IMHO all this has nothing to do with the proposed aerodynamics of the cybertruck, and needs its own thread. Happy to discuss CT Cd calculations here...and the validity of regulation on another thread.
