California, your days driving U.S. emissions policy are numbered.

That's the message behind House Bill H.R. 4117, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act — and it's shaking up the automotive world.

Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

First introduced on June 24, 2025, and now under review by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the legislation seeks to repeal federal and state motor vehicle emission and fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act and related laws.

Its stated goals? Lower costs for consumers, simplify compliance for automakers, and revive U.S. competitiveness. But behind the legal jargon lies a direct challenge to one of the most powerful forces in U.S. auto regulation: California.

Game changer

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Roger Williams of Texas and co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Michael Cloud (Texas), Brandon Gill (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), takes aim at Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (federal emissions standards) and portions of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (CAFE standards).

But the sharp end of H.R. 4117 is pointed directly at state-level mandates like California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which requires 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035. If passed, the bill would prevent California — and any other state following its lead — from setting their own emission or fuel rules, putting Washington and Sacramento directly at odds.

FEFA fix

Supporters argue the current system of EPA rules layered with California’s mandates and CAFE standards create a regulatory maze that raises costs and limits choice.

The Fuel Emissions Freedom Act promises to fix this by:

Lowering prices for drivers: Meeting the EPA’s 2023 rules, which require a 49% emissions cut by 2032, could raise new car prices by thousands. Repealing these standards would ease costs for buyers and keep more affordable gas-powered vehicles on the market.

Simplifying regulations: Automakers currently juggle federal requirements and California’s dictates, plus a patchwork of states copying California. The result? Confusion, higher compliance costs, and supply chain strain. H.R. 4117 promises a single, unified system.

Strengthening U.S. industry: Instead of funneling billions into forced EV development, manufacturers could refocus on consumer demand, job growth, and homegrown production.

Restoring choice to consumers: With California mandating EV adoption, critics argue consumers are losing the freedom to buy the cars they actually want — trucks, SUVs, or traditional sedans. This bill restores that choice.

Sounds promising, but make no mistake: California is not about to give up its power without a fight.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Waiver goodbye?

Crucial to that power is the state's unique authority under the Clean Air Act to set its own emission standards, with other states free to follow its lead. For decades, this waiver has allowed California to dictate national auto policy by sheer market size.

H.R. 4117 would revoke that authority, ending California’s role as the de facto regulator for the entire U.S. auto market. Supporters call this a win for fairness and consumer freedom; opponents call it an assault on states’ rights and climate progress.

As of September 2025, the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act sits in committee, facing heavy opposition from Democrats, environmental groups, and California lawmakers. Even if it clears Congress, lawsuits are certain. California has never been shy about using the courts to defend its regulatory turf.

The sheer viciousness of the fight ahead is a testament to how much is at stake: this is about nothing less than who controls America’s automotive future — Washington, Sacramento, or the free market.

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

The house of cards is starting to fall.

Stellantis, one of the world’s biggest automakers, just pulled the plug on its all-electric Ram 1500 REV pickup. Chrysler is scaling back its EV-only promises. Jeep is leaning back into hybrids and even reviving the Hemi V8.

The reality is simple: People want options. Some may choose EVs. Others will stick with hybrids or V8s. That’s how a free market works.

What’s happening here isn’t just a business decision. It’s a rebuke of the political agenda that tried to force Americans into an all-electric future, whether they wanted it or not.

For years, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Brussels dictated what automakers “must” build. Billions of taxpayer dollars were funneled into subsidies and charging infrastructure. Regulations made gas-powered engines harder to produce, and deadlines were set for their elimination. Automakers fell in line — publicly touting bold EV promises, while privately worrying that the market wasn’t there.

Now the truth is impossible to ignore: Consumers aren’t buying the vision.

Ram jammed

Ram’s 1500 REV was supposed to be the brand’s answer to the Ford Lightning and Chevy Silverado EV. But months of delays, weak demand, and slow sales across the full-size EV pickup segment forced Stellantis to cut its losses.

Instead of an all-electric truck, Ram is pivoting to a range-extended version — essentially a hybrid that can drive on gas when the battery runs out. The “Ramcharger” name is being dropped, and the range-extended truck will simply carry the 1500 REV badge.

Congrats to Ram for finally admitting that the electric pickup fantasy doesn’t match the real-world needs of truck buyers.

Hemi roars back

Stellantis made headlines earlier this year when it admitted it “screwed up” by killing the Hemi. The replacement, a turbocharged inline-six called Hurricane, might have been efficient, but it lacked the soul, sound, and the brute force that Ram owners expect.

Even customers of the high-performance RHO complained. Stellantis listened. The Hemi is coming back, and Ram partnered with MagnaFlow to offer aftermarket exhausts that restore the roar that regulators tried to silence.

Truck buyers demanded power and personality, and Stellantis is delivering it, even if it flies in the face of government mandates.

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

Chrysler had once promised to go fully electric. Not anymore. Its 2027 crossover, built on the STLA Large platform, will now offer hybrid options instead of being EV-only.

Jeep is doing the same. The Cherokee is returning as a hybrid, the Grand Wagoneer will get range-extending tech, and the brand is reintroducing the Hemi across multiple models. Even with its new Wagoneer S EV, Jeep isn’t gambling everything on one technology.

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

Antonio Filosa, the new Stellantis CEO, is making a strategic shift: Forget rigid EV deadlines, and instead build flexible platforms that can support gas, hybrid, electric, or even hydrogen drivetrains.

It’s a survival move. EV mandates weren’t written with consumers in mind; they were written by regulators trying to engineer a market from the top down. But when customers walked into showrooms, they didn’t buy the hype. They saw higher prices, long charging times, weaker towing, and shorter range.

The politicians assumed the public would play along with their games. They didn’t.

White flags

Stellantis isn’t the only automaker waving the white flag. Ford has slashed production of the F-150 Lightning. GM has delayed the Silverado EV and rethought its timeline. Even Tesla’s Cybertruck (hyped as a revolution) is struggling to gain traction.

Billions in subsidies can’t change the fact that EVs still don’t deliver what most Americans need. And now, automakers are being forced to admit it.

Drivers take the wheel

The moral of the story? Automakers can’t build cars for regulators and expect consumers to fall in line. Politicians can’t legislate demand into existence.

The EV mandates weren’t about innovation — they were about control. But control only works until consumers push back. And now they are, with their wallets.

Stellantis may have “screwed up,” but its decision to return to engines, hybrids, and flexibility shows it learned a lesson that Washington still refuses to hear: The future of driving should be decided by drivers, not bureaucrats.

Save THOUSANDS on your next car with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is looking especially attractive for car buyers.

For the first time in decades, taxpayers can deduct up to $10,000 in auto loan interest for new vehicles assembled in the United States. Welcome relief after being stretched thin by high borrowing costs and inflation.

A family financing a $40,000 SUV can save several hundred dollars in the first year, depending on their tax bracket.

Bonus: It helps strengthen American manufacturing.

Above the line

Unlike most tax deductions, this one is above the line, which means taxpayers can claim it without itemizing. That simplicity makes it available to millions of middle-class Americans.

To qualify, buyers must purchase a new personal-use vehicle. Cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, vans, or motorcycles under 14,000 pounds qualify, but the final assembly has to be completed in the United States. This is a direct remedy for the skewed global competition and supply chain pressures that have been hurting many car companies that build in the USA.

The law requires lenders to issue a new IRS form, the 1098-Q, reporting interest paid on qualifying loans. Borrowers will also need to provide their vehicle identification number on their tax return to confirm eligibility. If a loan is refinanced, the deduction typically still applies, provided the vehicle meets the original requirements. These safeguards give taxpayers the benefit of American-assembled vehicles. And I’ll leave a list of all the vehicles that should qualify below.

The deduction is targeted at middle-income car buyers. For single filers, it begins phasing out at $100,000 in income and is fully eliminated at $150,000. For couples, the phase-out starts at $200,000 and ends at $250,000. That structure puts the greatest benefit in the hands of households struggling most with high interest rates. With the average new car loan now topping $42,000 at more than 7% APR, first-year interest charges alone can reach $1,600 or more. For those families, the deduction can provide a meaningful tax refund without pushing them anywhere near the $10,000 cap.

Crucial savings

Dealerships have wasted no time highlighting this change. Sales teams are using the tax break as a tool to overcome sticker shock. A family financing a $40,000 SUV can save several hundred dollars in the first year, depending on their tax bracket.

For buyers weighing whether to purchase now or wait, that savings often makes the decision. This could especially benefit dealerships unloading mid-range U.S.-built vehicles like Ford, Chevrolet, and Tesla’s American-assembled models.

By designing loans to capture the greatest benefit from the law, dealerships also get to emphasize their role in saving the buyer money -- a way to build trust at a time when consumers are increasingly cautious about debt.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also includes other provisions, such as restoring 100% bonus depreciation for qualified business property through 2028. This helps small-business owners and independent contractors (like rideshare drivers) who can now deduct vehicle interest while expensing their assets. It also helps dealerships manage inventory more efficiently.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

EV rider

One of the most consequential changes, however, is the phase-out of federal electric vehicle tax credits. As of September 30, 2025, the long-standing subsidies that handed buyers $7,500 for new EVs and $4,000 for used EVs will be gone. For years, EV sales have been artificially boosted by taxpayer-funded incentives. That era is ending. Buyers who want an EV will now need to evaluate them on real-world value, just like gas-powered vehicles. U.S.-assembled EVs will still qualify for the auto loan interest deduction, but the days of federal handouts at the point of sale are coming to a quick end.

This change creates urgency. Dealers are moving EV inventory quickly before credits expire, while at the same time promoting the deduction for all qualifying vehicles. For buyers, the message is clear: If you want a subsidized EV, act quickly. If you want lasting tax savings, look to U.S.-assembled cars, trucks, or SUVs under the new deduction.

Because the auto loan deduction sunsets after 2028, buyers and dealers are preparing for a surge in purchases over the next two years. The goal is to drive a temporary spikes in auto sales; this incentive will create a wave of demand for a short period of time. The difference this time is that the benefit is tied to supporting American factories and workers, not just moving inventory off lots.

Straightforward steps

For buyers, the steps are straightforward. Confirm that your vehicle is new, assembled in the U.S., and purchased after December 31, 2024. Check income limits, work with your lender to ensure proper reporting, and keep the VIN on hand for tax filing. With interest rates high and the average new vehicle price pushing past $48,000, the potential savings are substantial. Over the course of a multiyear loan, some buyers could save thousands of dollars in taxes while keeping more of their household budget intact.

The law's auto loan deduction is more than a line in the tax code. It rewards those who buy American, gives relief to the middle class, and reduces reliance on subsidies that distort the marketplace. For car buyers balancing inflation, high interest rates, and everyday expenses, it delivers something rare in Washington: practical help that makes life a little easier.

These cars meet the requirements for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act loan deduction.

Acura: Integra, MDX, RDX, TLX, ZDX
BMW: X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, XM
Buick: Enclave, Encore GX, Envista
Cadillac: Celestiq, CT4, CT5, Escalade, Escalade IQ, Lyriq, Vistiq, XT4, XT5, XT6
Chevrolet: Colorado, Corvette, Express, Malibu, Silverado 1500, Silverado 2500, Silverado EV, Suburban, Tahoe, Traverse
Dodge: Durango
Ford: Bronco, Escape, Expedition, Explorer, F-150, F-150 Lightning, Mustang, Ranger
Genesis: GV70, GV80
GMC: Acadia, Canyon, Hummer EV SUT, Hummer EV SUV, Savana, Sierra 1500, Sierra 2500, Yukon, Yukon XL
Honda: Accord, Civic, CR-V, Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline
Hyundai: Santa Cruz, Santa Fe, Tucson, Ioniq 5, Ioniq 9
Jeep: Gladiator, Grand Cherokee, Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer, Wrangler
Kia: EV6, EV9, Sorento, Telluride
Lincoln: Aviator, Corsair, Navigator
Lucid: Air, Gravity
Mazda: CX-50
Mercedes-Benz: EQE SUV, EQS SUV, GLE, GLS, Sprinter 2500, Sprinter 3500
Nissan: Altima, Frontier, Pathfinder, Rogue, LEAF
Polestar 3
Rivian: R1S, R1T
Subaru: Ascent, Impreza, Legacy, Outback
Tesla: Cybertruck, Model 3, Model Y, Model S, Model X
Toyota: bZ4X, Camry, Corolla, Corolla Cross, Grand Highlander, Highlander, Sequoia, Sienna, Tundra
Volkswagen: Atlas, Atlas Cross Sport, ID.4
Volvo: EX90, S60
Heavy-Duty Vehicles (8,501–13,999 lbs GVWR)
Ford: Super Duty F-250, Super Duty F-350 (SRW configurations), Transit 350 HD
Chevrolet: Express 3500, Silverado 3500HD (select configurations under 14,000 lbs)
GMC: Savana 3500, Sierra 3500HD (select configurations under 14,000 lbs)

Brake dust: A hidden threat to your respiratory health

Let’s dive into a driving-related danger you've probably never considered: brake dust.

That gritty, black buildup on your wheels isn’t just an eyesore — it’s also a health hazard. New research is pulling back the curtain on how this stuff is quietly damaging our respiratory systems. Buckle up — this is worth your attention.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

Every time you hit the brakes — whether you’re driving a gas-powered SUV or an electric vehicle — tiny particles from your brake pads get launched into the air. A study from the University of Southampton took a close look at this dust and found it’s not just grime — it’s a toxic mix that might be worse for your lungs than unfiltered diesel exhaust. We’ve spent years blaming tailpipes for dirty air, but the real troublemaker could be hiding on your wheels.

Copper stoppers

So what’s in this brake dust? Most brake pads in the U.S. are classed as non-asbestos organic, a change made decades ago to ditch the cancer-causing asbestos of older brakes. Progress, right?

There is a catch, however. Today’s brake pads rely on copper fibers to manage the heat and friction of stopping your car. As they wear down, those copper particles — mixed with other nasty stuff — float into the air. Breathe them in, and they don’t just hang out. The Southampton study shows this dust sparks inflammation in your lungs, kicking off a chain reaction that’s bad news for your breathing.

Slow smolder

Here’s the deal: Inflammation is your body’s distress signal. But when it’s constant — like from inhaling brake dust every day — it’s like a slow smolder in your airways. Over time, that irritation can make breathing harder, worsen conditions like asthma, or even set the stage for bigger problems.

Researchers are starting to talk about possible links to lung cancer. And if you’re already dealing with allergies or smog, this is just another hit to your chest.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

This hits close to home. Picture kids playing near busy roads, commuters stuck in gridlock, or even washing your car in the driveway — you’re all in the path of this stuff. Unlike tailpipe emissions, which face extensive regulation, brake dust and other non-exhaust pollutants are still flying under the radar globally.

Jonathan Nackstrand/Getty Images

Fuel to flames

So how does this affect your lungs daily? If you’re healthy, it might just be a slight cough. But for the millions with asthma or COPD, it’s like adding fuel to the flames. Those copper-laced particles are tiny enough to slip deep into your lungs, where they linger and cause trouble.

Over years, that could mean more doctor visits, extra inhalers, and a higher chance of lung scarring — damage that sticks around.

What can you do about it? Next time you need brake pads, opt for low-copper or copper-free ones. Keep your wheels clean to cut down on what’s swirling around your garage. But the real solution? Automakers and regulators need to step up — clean air shouldn’t end at the tailpipe.

Brake dust may be small, but its impact on your lungs is anything but. Stay aware, breathe easier, and let’s keep this discussion moving.

How female crash-test dummies could save thousands of lives

The She DRIVES Act, formally known as the She Develops Regulations in Vehicle Equality and Safety Act, is a bipartisan push in the U.S. Senate to make car safety testing more inclusive and effective.

This legislation addresses a critical gap in how vehicles are designed and tested, with the potential to save thousands of lives — particularly women’s — and reduce injuries on American roads. As this bill moves closer to becoming law, it’s sparking conversations about fairness, safety, and innovation in the auto industry.

By mandating female crash-test dummies and tailored injury criteria, the bill could prevent over 1,300 female fatalities annually.

Real-world data

The She DRIVES Act, introduced as Senate Bill S. 4299 in May 2024 and reintroduced as S. 161 in January 2025, mandates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration update its crash-test standards to better reflect real-world drivers.

Specifically, the bill requires the use of advanced female crash-test dummies, such as the fifth percentile adult female, alongside male models like the 50th percentile adult male in both front and side impact tests. It also calls for injury criteria based on real-world data, ensuring that safety assessments account for female occupants in both front and rear seats. Safety for drivers no matter your size is the bottom line.

On February 5, 2025, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee unanimously advanced the bill to the full Senate, where it awaits a floor vote. If passed, it will move to the House and, if approved, to the president for signature.

The bill’s bipartisan support, led by Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Katie Britt (R-Al.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine), signals a rare consensus on the need for change in vehicle safety standards.

Higher risk

For decades, U.S. crash testing has primarily relied on male-based dummies, designed to represent the average male body. While these tests have improved overall vehicle safety, they’ve left a critical gap: women and smaller people face significantly higher risks in crashes.

Studies reveal that women are up to 17% more likely to die and 73% more likely to sustain serious injuries in vehicle collisions compared to men. This disparity stems from differences in body size, seating position, and biomechanics, which current testing standards often fail to address.

Stark numbers

The numbers are stark. Each year, approximately 1,300 women die in crashes who might have survived if safety tests accounted for female-specific models. Tens of thousands more suffer serious injuries, from broken bones to traumatic brain injuries, due to designs optimized for male occupants. The She DRIVES Act aims to close this gap by ensuring that crash tests reflect the diversity of drivers and passengers, ultimately making vehicles safer for everyone.

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers, safety advocates, and industry experts, argue that modernizing crash-test standards is long overdue. By mandating female crash-test dummies and tailored injury criteria, the bill could prevent over 1,300 female fatalities annually. Safer vehicles mean fewer families mourning preventable losses.

A broader push

Requiring advanced testing pushes automakers to refine safety technologies. From adjustable seatbelts to smarter airbag deployment, these changes could lead to breakthroughs that benefit all drivers, not just women, while keeping U.S. manufacturers focused on safety.

The She DRIVES Act reflects a broader push to make America’s roads safer. Vehicle safety has come a long way since the introduction of seatbelts and airbags, but gaps remain. By addressing the specific risks women face, this bill sets a precedent for new designs in an industry that touches every American’s life.

St. Lucie Co. Sheriff's Office /@PPV_Tahoe, Instagram

The way forward

The road to implementation won’t be instant. The NHTSA will need to develop new testing protocols, and automakers will need time to adapt. But the potential payoff — thousands of lives saved, billions in economic benefits, and a fairer approach to safety — makes this a cause worth championing.

This bill could make your next car safer and save lives. It’s a reminder that small changes in policy can have massive impacts on our daily lives.

This affordable dashcam may just pay for itself

Across the United States, staged crashes, road-rage incidents, and hit-and-run damage are on the rise. Unfortunately, if you get sideswiped, brake-checked, or bumped, you have little legal recourse if you can't prove what happened.

This is where a dash camera comes in handy. In recent years the category has evolved from a niche gadget to an essential everyday driving tool. The primary value of a dashcam is simple: It provides evidence that both law enforcement and insurance companies can use in deciding your case.

In case you haven't seen one for a while, modern dashcams have advanced far beyond the single-lens models of the past. One affordable option I recommend is the VIOFO A329S 3CH dashcam.

It features a true 4K front camera, rear camera, and a infrared fish-eye cabin camera with a 210-degree ultra-wide view -- sufficient coverage to ensure that everything from road collisions to interior activity is captured in detail.

The Sony STARVIS 2 sensors under the hood allow the A329S to deliver sharp, balanced footage in both bright daylight and low-light conditions. The cabin camera includes four infrared LEDs, enabling clear recording even at night — a feature especially valuable for rideshare drivers or anyone frequently on the road after dark.

Other advanced features include Wi-Fi 6 for fast file transfers, hybrid parking surveillance with impact detection, support for external SSD storage up to 4TB, a built-in GPS logger, CPL filter, and Bluetooth remote.

Taken together, these tools make it more than a camera — they provide a comprehensive security system for your vehicle. .

At under $500, the dashcam provides protection that often outweighs its cost. Minor parking lot dents or fender benders can cost $1,000 or more to repair, and insurance disputes can increase premiums for years. For families, drivers, or businesses, dash cameras offer peace of mind and a financial safeguard.

Check out the video review for more on the VIOFO A329S 3CH:

The company profiles and product recommendations that Align publishes are meant solely to inform and edify our subscribers. Unless explicitly labeled as such, they are neither paid promotions nor endorsements.

The Stop CARB Act: A bold move to rein in California’s control over emission rules

Big news: California's iron grip on the automotive market could finally be over!

The Stop CARB Act, introduced in the U.S. Senate as part of larger legislative efforts to address vehicle regulations, is generating a lot of buzz for its aim to curb the influence of the California Air Resources Board on national auto standards.

Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life.

This bill seeks to limit CARB’s ability to set stringent emission rules that impact not just California but 17 other states. As debates over vehicle costs, consumer choice, and environmental regulations heat up, the Stop CARB Act could reshape how cars are built and sold across America.

What is the Stop CARB Act?

The Stop CARB Act is a proposed piece of legislation focused on restricting the California Air Resources Board’s authority to enforce its own vehicle emission standards, particularly those stricter than federal regulations.

While the bill is often discussed in connection with the Transportation Freedom Act (S.711), introduced on February 25, 2025, by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), the Stop CARB Act specifically targets CARB’s waivers under the Clean Air Act. The bill aims to eliminate these waivers, preventing California from dictating emission policies beyond its borders and blocking other states from following its lead.

Currently, S.711, which includes provisions aligned with the Stop CARB Act’s goals, is pending in the Senate Committee on Finance, with no floor vote scheduled as of September 3, 2025.

Sponsored by Sens. Moreno, Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), and Jim Justice (R-W.V.), the broader Transportation Freedom Act also seeks to repeal federal emission standards, such as the EPA’s Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 2027 and later model years and Phase 3 heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rules, while offering tax deductions for auto manufacturing wages. The Stop CARB Act’s focus on CARB makes it a key component of this larger deregulation effort.

Why do we need it?

CARB’s influence stems from a unique provision in the Clean Air Act, which allows California to request waivers to set stricter emission standards than the federal government. Since the 1970s, CARB has used this authority to implement rules like the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which mandates zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

Seventeen other states, representing over 40% of the U.S. population, have adopted CARB’s standards, effectively giving California outsized influence over national auto markets — even though it arguably violates the Constitution.

The Stop CARB Act argues aims to remedy this in a few key ways:

Reducing costs for consumers: CARB’s strict standards require automakers to invest heavily in technologies like electric vehicles or advanced combustion engines. These costs often raise vehicle prices, with estimates suggesting compliance could add thousands to the sticker price of new cars. By limiting CARB’s waivers, the bill aims to lower these costs, making vehicles more affordable for everyday Americans.

Streamlining regulations: The patchwork of federal, California, and state-adopted CARB standards creates complexity for automakers. Companies must design vehicles to meet multiple requirements, increasing production costs and delaying innovation. The Stop CARB Act seeks to establish uniform federal standards, simplifying compliance and fostering a more predictable market.

Preserving consumer choice: CARB’s push for zero-emission vehicles by 2035 limits the availability of gas-powered cars, trucks, and SUVs, which many drivers prefer for their affordability, range, or utility. The bill aims to protect consumer choice by preventing California’s mandates from dominating national markets.

Supporting U.S. manufacturing: Companies like General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota — as well as the National Automobile Dealers Association — argue that CARB’s rules strain manufacturers, particularly smaller suppliers. By curbing CARB’s influence, the bill could reduce compliance costs, boost domestic production, and create jobs.

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

CARB counting

The bill’s progress is uncertain, given the polarized views on environmental policy and state rights. If scheduled and it passes the Senate, it must clear the House and gain presidential approval. Legal challenges from California or environmental groups could also delay implementation if the bill becomes law. The next goal is to get this bill on the floor to vote on it.

Whether you’re a truck enthusiast, a daily commuter, or an auto industry worker, this bill touches your life. Will it lower vehicle costs and preserve your choice of gas-powered cars? Or will California continue to tell you what to drive? It’s time to reach out to your senators and representatives to tell them to get this bill to the floor.

California may defy Trump with new statewide EV credits

California is once again at the center of the nation’s automotive and energy policy debate. With federal electric vehicle tax credits set to expire this September, the state is considering whether to create its own replacement program.

This would not only affect car buyers but could also reshape the national conversation on emissions rules, vehicle affordability, and the balance of power between state and federal regulators.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a report on August 19 recommending that the state consider “backfilling” the federal credits with its own point-of-sale rebates, vouchers, or other incentives to keep EV sales moving.

The details remain vague, but the intention is clear: California wants to keep its aggressive zero-emission vehicle goals on track, even as Washington scales back related programs.

Emissions mission

But California has been here before. This is not the first time the state has clashed with the federal government over vehicle regulations — and it likely won’t be the last.

California has a unique history when it comes to vehicle emissions. Decades before the federal government created the Environmental Protection Agency, California was already regulating air quality in response to its smog problem.

When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, California was granted a waiver that allowed it to set its own stricter emissions standards. Other states were given the option to adopt California’s rules, and some states have done so. Today, 11 states follow California’s lead.

This waiver authority has made California an outsize force in shaping vehicle propulsion. Automakers cannot ignore a market of this size, which means California’s rules often become de facto national standards.

Better red than fed

California’s regulatory independence has not always sat well with Washington. Under different administrations, the federal government has either supported or resisted the state’s authority. During the Obama years, California partnered with the federal government to create a unified fuel economy and emissions program, giving automakers a single set of national rules.

Under the Trump administration, the EPA rolled back certain emissions standards, sparking legal battles with California, which insisted on enforcing its own tougher rules. The state formed alliances with other states and even some automakers to defend its position.

Today, with federal EV tax credits expiring at the end of September and policy focus shifting, California is again stepping into the driver’s seat by proposing its own financial incentives. These ongoing disputes highlight a deeper question: Should environmental and automotive policy be driven by national uniformity or by one state acting as the policy leader?

Forever ZEV?

The discussion over tax credits cannot be separated from California’s ZEV mandate. Under CARB’s plan, automakers must steadily increase the percentage of EVs they sell, with the ultimate goal of phasing out new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035.

This is one of the most ambitious policies in the country, and automakers are scrambling to meet the targets. Some states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have pledged to follow California’s lead, while others remain skeptical. For consumers, this means that vehicle availability will increasingly be shaped by government mandates and not by market demand. Even if gas-powered cars remain popular, automakers will need to balance that demand with regulatory compliance.

Different strokes

The CARB report suggests that any new program would differ from the federal credits in key ways. Instead of tax credits, buyers could receive point-of-sale rebates, allowing them to benefit immediately rather than waiting until tax season.

Incentives may also vary depending on income level, vehicle type, or price, so luxury EVs could receive lower rebates while affordable models get more support.

Additionally, any new program would be tied to yearly funding availability, meaning that if budgets tighten, rebates could shrink or disappear. This approach could make the system more flexible, but it also introduces uncertainty for buyers trying to plan their purchases. In the past, the state of California and other states have run out of money in the EV fund and left buyers with nothing.

Justin Sullivan/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Electric slide

The promise of continued incentives may be welcome news for some California drivers, but the reality is more complicated. EVs still come with challenges beyond sticker price. Even with rebates, EVs are often thousands of dollars more expensive than comparable gasoline cars.

California has built more chargers than any other state, yet many regions remain underserved, and home charging is not always an option, particularly for renters.

EVs also tend to depreciate faster than gas vehicles due to rapid advances in technology and concerns about battery life. Insurance rates are higher on electric vehicles as well.

And let’s not forget a major expense: Electricity rates are rising at double the rate of inflation.

One of the key criticisms of EV subsidies is that they often benefit wealthier households. Data from federal programs has shown that a large percentage of credits went to buyers in higher income brackets because these households are more likely to purchase new cars, and EVs remain disproportionately concentrated in the premium market segment.

California may attempt to address this with scaled incentives, but questions remain about whether the system can truly deliver benefits to everyone. Meanwhile, working-class families who rely on affordable used cars may find themselves subsidizing programs that they cannot realistically take advantage of.

Bowing to the bear

For automakers, California’s decisions carry immense weight. The state accounts for nearly 12% of U.S. auto sales, and when you include the other states that follow its rules, the market share becomes impossible to ignore.

Manufacturers that fail to meet California’s requirements face penalties, while those that comply can earn credits to sell or trade. This system has created an uneven playing field, favoring companies with strong EV lineups.

Tesla, for instance, has profited significantly from selling ZEV credits to competitors in the past. If California establishes a robust new rebate system, it could further tilt the market toward EVs, encouraging automakers to prioritize them even more, take greater losses on each vehicle.

Off the market

At its core, this debate is about whether government policy should drive technology adoption or whether the market should dictate the pace.

California argues that aggressive incentives and mandates are necessary to address climate goals and push the auto industry forward. Critics counter that these policies distort the market, forcing automakers and taxpayers to shoulder costs that may not align with consumer demand. They also warn of unintended consequences, such as reduced affordability, lack of charging stations, and strained electrical infrastructure.

California’s proposal to replace expiring federal EV tax credits with state-funded incentives is the latest chapter in a decades-long story of the state asserting its role as the nation’s automotive regulator.

With its ZEV mandate and aggressive environmental policies, California is pushing automakers, consumers, and policymakers to adapt — whether they’re ready or not.

For some wealthier car buyers, this could mean continued financial support when purchasing an EV, but it also raises questions about long-term effectiveness. For taxpayers, it means another debate about where funds should be directed and increased taxes for residents. For the auto industry, it underscores more losses on vehicles that are designed by one state’s demands.

As history shows, when California moves, the rest of the country often feels the impact. The next few months will reveal whether the state can successfully design a program that keeps EV sales going without overburdening its citizens with more increased taxes. But one thing is certain: California still has significant power over the U.S. auto industry.

84-month car loans: Smart move or financial trap?

Car buying has never been more complicated — or more expensive. The average new car price has climbed to nearly $49,000, compared to just under $34,000 a decade ago, according to Kelley Blue Book. That kind of sticker shock leaves many buyers asking: “How can I possibly afford this?”

Dealers are quick to provide an answer: the 84-month car loan.

For years, the buyer will owe more than the vehicle is worth. If they try to sell or trade in the car, they’ll need to pay the bank just to get out of the loan.

It sounds simple at first, but it’s a trap. Spread across seven years, the monthly payments shrink to a number that feels manageable to most people. A $50,000 vehicle suddenly seems affordable when the cost is sliced into smaller installments, but is this really a smart solution, or does it carry consequences that can trap buyers in years of financial frustration?

No accident

The rise of 84-month loans is no accident. Dealerships benefit enormously from pushing buyers into longer financing terms. Smaller monthly payments make it easier for salespeople to convince customers to move up to pricier trims, tack on optional packages, or select luxury features that would otherwise be out of reach.

For the financing office, stretching out the term makes it easier to close deals with so-called payment shoppers — those who focus only on whether they can afford the monthly bill, not the total cost of the vehicle. In addition, a lower monthly car payment improves the buyer’s debt-to-income ratio, which helps more customers qualify for loans they might not have secured under traditional 36-month terms.

On the surface, this seems like a win-win arrangement. The buyer gets the car they want at a payment they can afford, while the dealer locks in a bigger sale. But what feels like an opportunity on day one quickly becomes a burden as the true cost of the loan takes shape. And in the end, you will pay a bigger price.

Costly trade-off

Why? The most obvious issue is interest you pay. When a car loan stretches across seven years, there are far more months for interest charges to accumulate. Only the finance company wins.

Consider a buyer who finances $40,000 at 7% interest with a traditional 60-month loan — they’ll pay roughly $7,500 in interest. With an 84-month loan, that interest expense number climbs to more than $10,700.

In other words, the buyer pays over $3,000 more for the privilege of lowering their monthly bill. For most households, that’s a costly trade-off.

And higher interest rates themselves don’t remain equal. Lenders know that a seven-year loan carries more risk than a five-year loan, so the rate is higher. Over that longer period, economic conditions could change, inflation could rise, or the borrower’s financial situation could deteriorate. To protect themselves, banks and credit unions often attach higher rates to longer loans. That means buyers aren’t just paying interest for more years — they’re paying higher interest rates, and the only one that makes out is the financial institution.

Blaze Media

Much depreciated

The financial pitfalls don’t stop there. Vehicles are depreciating assets. The moment a new car leaves the dealership, it loses about 20% of its value. Within the first year, that loss can climb to 30%.

With long-term loans, the first several years of payments go mostly toward interest, with very little progress made on the loan principal. The result is what’s known as negative equity, or being “upside down.” For years, the buyer will owe more than the vehicle is worth. If they try to sell or trade in the car, they’ll need to pay the bank just to get out of the loan. This forces you to keep the vehicle for a longer period of time or take the big financial penalty.

Warranty warning

This problem is compounded by warranties. Most new vehicles come with a bumper-to-bumper warranty that lasts three years or 36,000 miles, and a powertrain warranty that typically extends to five years or 60,000 miles.

Those timelines don’t come close to covering a seven-year loan. That means a buyer still making monthly payments could face a transmission or engine failure with no warranty protection. They would be paying for expensive repairs on top of paying down the car itself, a double hit that can wreck household budgets. And these extended warranty companies are not worth the money either, which would increase your monthly payment on top of the car payment.

With prices rising for both new and used vehicles, long loan terms are more than just a temptation — they are, for many families, the only way to fit a car payment into the monthly budget.

But while the appeal is easy to see, the long-term risks are just as clear. Stretching a loan to seven years often leaves buyers paying thousands more in interest, trapped in negative equity, and financially vulnerable if their circumstances change. In the event of job loss, medical bills, or an unexpected expense, they may be stuck with a car they can’t afford to keep but also can’t afford to sell.

Making it make sense

This doesn’t mean long-term loans are never justified. There are a few situations where they can make sense. Some automakers offer 0% financing for qualified buyers, which eliminates the concern over accruing interest. Others may find themselves on a fixed budget where the choice is either a longer loan or no car at all. And in cases where a buyer plans to keep a reliable, higher-quality vehicle for a decade or more, the extra interest paid over time may balance out in the long run. You have to be honest and consider the true costs.

Still, for the majority of consumers, financial experts consistently recommend avoiding 84-month loans. The smarter move is to aim for 48- or 60-month loan terms, which not only save on interest but also keep buyers closer to a car’s actual value throughout the life of the loan. Car shoppers should also consider more affordable vehicles, make larger down payments, or explore certified pre-owned options to keep their finances in check.

Cars may be getting more expensive, but debt traps don’t have to be part of the deal. Buyers who look beyond the monthly payment and focus instead on the total cost of ownership will be far better positioned to protect both their wallets and their peace of mind.

The finance manager at any dealer is going to try and close the sale. That’s their job. Yours is to understand just what you’re getting into when you sign a long-term loan.

Ride or die: How Ford, Honda, VW, and 3 more got stuck with California's strict emission standards

Electric or gas? The battle over the future of the automobile is far from over. Trump may have killed the federal EV mandate, but California’s still pushing hard for zero-emission vehicles, with a plan to phase out new gas-powered car sales by 2035.

While most of the industry is taking a wait-and-see approach, six major automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, Aston Martin, and Volvo — are firmly on Team California, whether they like it or not. That's thanks to contracts they signed in 2019 locking them into the state's strict emissions rules through 2026.

Are Ford, Honda, and the others at a disadvantage, stuck with more costly standards? Or are they ahead of the curve, ready for a future where emissions rules only get tougher?

Bad bet?

California muscle

To be fair, the odds may have looked a little better six years ago. California isn’t just the land of beaches and Hollywood — it’s a regulatory powerhouse in the auto world. Thanks to Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, the Golden State has a unique privilege: It can set tougher vehicle emissions standards than the federal government as long as the Environmental Protection Agency gives it a thumbs-up.

Why? Decades ago, California started battling smog in cities like Los Angeles, and it’s been a trailblazer in clean air policy ever since. More than a dozen states — New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon among them — follow California's emissions standards, impacting about a third of the U.S. auto market.

Back in 2019, things got messy. The Trump administration pulled California’s EPA waiver, aiming to enforce one federal standard for fuel economy and emissions under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. This move was like throwing a wrench into the auto industry’s engine. California pushed back hard, and automakers were caught in the crossfire, facing a patchwork of rules. Enter the California Framework Agreements — a deal that would tie six automakers to California’s standards, no matter what happened in Washington.

Locked in

In July 2019, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW stepped up to the plate, signing voluntary but ironclad agreements with the California Air Resources Board. Aston Martin and Volvo later jumped on board. These Framework Agreements committed the automakers to boosting fuel efficiency by roughly 3.7% annually and slashing greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles sold in California and its allied states, all the way through the 2026 model year.

Why sign on to such a deal? For these companies, it was a calculated move. The 2019 revocation of California’s waiver created a regulatory nightmare — automakers faced the prospect of designing cars for two different sets of rules. By aligning with California, these six sidestepped potential lawsuits, gained a clear roadmap for compliance, and scored some eco-friendly street cred.

It was a bet that California’s influence would outlast federal flip-flops. But here’s the thing: These contracts are binding, no matter what the feds do. Even when the Biden administration restored California’s waiver in 2022, these automakers were still on the hook for the 2019 terms.

Federal trumps state

Not every company was ready to tie itself to California’s control. Big players like General Motors, Toyota, and Stellantis leaned toward the Trump administration’s push for a single federal standard, hoping to simplify their lives. This split has created a fascinating divide in the industry as well as some potential nightmares.

Imagine the auto market as a chessboard. The six signatories are playing a long game, betting on California’s standards becoming the industry benchmark. Meanwhile, their rivals have more flexibility, aligning with federal rules that might be looser or stricter depending on the political winds.

This raises a big question: Are Ford, Honda, and the others at a disadvantage, stuck with more costly standards? Or are they ahead of the curve, ready for a future where emissions rules only get tougher?

Photo by Bill Pugliano / Stringer via Getty Images

Consumer retorts

So what does this mean for the cars you drive? Meeting California’s standards is no small feat. It demands serious cash for research and development for hybrid systems, electric vehicles, and cutting-edge engines that sip fuel. For Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, Aston Martin, and Volvo, these costs are locked in through 2026. That could mean pricier vehicles for buyers in California and its partner states, as automakers pass on the expense of compliance to customers.

For you, the consumer, it’s a mixed bag. Cars meeting California’s standards might save you money at the pump with better fuel economy or lower emissions. But upfront costs could sting, especially for budget-conscious buyers. If you live in a state following California’s rules, your car options might differ from those in, say, Texas or Ohio, where federal standards apply. It’s a patchwork market, and these six automakers are navigating it under stricter rules than their rivals.

Read 'em and weep?

California’s ability to set its own standards has sparked heated debates. Supporters say it’s a vital check on federal inaction, pushing automakers to innovate and clean up the air. Critics argue it’s a bureaucratic headache, forcing companies to juggle conflicting rules and driving up costs. The Framework Agreements tilt the scales toward California, proving its influence even when federal policy wavers.

It's not such a great deal for the six automakers who signed those agreements. If federal standards get tougher, they might face overlapping rules. If they loosen, their competitors could gain an edge. The outcome will shape the industry for years to come.

In the meantime, the six are already gearing up, pouring billions into EVs and hybrids even with lower sales and losses. Ford’s betting on electric vehicles with its new manufacturing processes, Honda’s refining its hybrid tech and continuing its partnership with GM, and BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, and Aston Martin are trying to figure out how to balance electric cars with what car people want. It's a tough situation.

If you want an electric vehicle, I suggest you move quickly and buy one before the end of September 2025, where the tax credit for new and used EVs disappears.