Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption



For more than two decades, California’s electric vehicle drivers enjoyed a privilege that millions of traditional commuters envied: the ability to glide into the carpool lane while driving solo.

That perk, created under the state’s Clean Air Vehicle program, was meant to reward early adopters of electric cars and hybrids while encouraging the broader public to embrace cleaner transportation. But after September 30, that advantage comes to an end.

When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed it stopped accepting new applications for Clean Air Vehicle decals on August 29, and existing decals will no longer be valid beginning October 1.

Fuel me once

That means a Tesla, Chevy Bolt, or Toyota Prius Prime with a single driver will be treated the same as a gas-powered sedan in traffic. Use the high-occupancy vehicle lane alone, and you risk a ticket of up to $490.

The reason behind this abrupt shift is not state policy but federal law. The Clean Air Vehicle program was last authorized through the 2015 federal transportation law, which included a sunset clause requiring Congress to extend it. That extension never happened. Without Washington’s approval, California cannot legally continue granting carpool lane access to EV drivers.

This has sparked frustration among both state officials and drivers who had come to view the privilege as a key reason to purchase an electric vehicle. Since the program’s inception in 2001, California has issued more than 1.2 million decals, with about 512,000 still valid this summer. The scale of adoption made California a national model for incentivizing EV use. For many, skipping bumper-to-bumper traffic was just as important as lower fuel costs or environmental benefits.

Grumblin’ Gavin

Governor Gavin Newsom (D) sharply criticized the lapse, blaming congressional inaction. His office warned that revoking EV access to HOV lanes will worsen traffic congestion and increase air pollution.

California already struggles with air quality, hosting five of the nation’s 10 smoggiest cities, according to the American Lung Association. State officials argue that taking incentives away from EVs could discourage adoption at a time when they want more drivers behind the wheel of battery-powered cars.

But the politics of EV incentives have shifted dramatically in recent years. Bipartisan support has fractured, and federal priorities have moved away from programs like California’s Clean Air Vehicle initiative. Under President Donald Trump, environmental waivers that California used to set its own strict emissions standards were revoked.

He also signed an executive order halting federal EV incentives, such as the $7,500 tax credit, and moved to eliminate the state’s zero-emissions vehicle mandate. More recently, his administration backed several resolutions overturning California’s regulations, including its 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

RELATED: Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?

Kevin Carter/Yana Paskova/Getty Images

EV does it

California, for its part, has doubled down on electrification. Electric vehicles accounted for 25% of new car sales in 2024, the highest in the nation. The state now has more EV chargers than gas stations, and its climate policies require automakers to meet aggressive EV sales quotas if they want to continue selling gasoline-powered models. To bridge the gap, state lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 to extend the Clean Air Vehicle program until 2027. But because federal approval was necessary, that effort has now hit a wall.

The loss of carpool lane access raises serious questions about the balance between incentives and mandates. Many Californians purchased EVs with the expectation of long-term access to HOV lanes, and for commuters in areas like Los Angeles or the Bay Area, the time savings are significant. Taking that away could undermine consumer confidence in state-backed incentives. If benefits can vanish overnight, will drivers think twice before making the leap to an electric car, especially with prices still higher than many gasoline vehicles?

There’s also the issue of traffic itself. With over half a million cars losing carpool access at once, HOV lanes may open up — but the general flow of traffic could get worse. California has long promoted these lanes as a way to reduce congestion and emissions. Yet now, drivers who purchased EVs expecting relief from gridlock will be back in the same stop-and-go conditions as everyone else.

Fair fare

Some critics argue that carpool incentives were always meant to be temporary. When the program launched in 2001, the idea was to kick-start adoption of a new technology, not to create a permanent class of special drivers. EV sales are now far higher than expected when the program began, and some transportation analysts suggest that the incentives have already served their purpose. In their view, it’s time to reassess whether carpool perks are fair, especially as EVs become mainstream.

Still, the political framing remains contentious. California officials see the lapse as part of a broader pattern of federal resistance to their climate policies. They argue that while EVs have become more popular, the fight against pollution requires every possible tool, including access incentives. Without federal cooperation, the state faces limits on how far it can go.

Tolled off

Drivers, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. A Tesla owner who counted on the decal as part of their daily commute could soon be facing hundreds of dollars in fines. Discounts on toll programs, such as those tied to FasTrak Clean Air Vehicle tags, will also vanish unless drivers meet normal occupancy rules.

This moment highlights a broader tension in the transition to electric vehicles: the clash between ambitious state-level initiatives and shifting federal policy. California wants to lead the nation in electrification, but it cannot do so entirely on its own.

As EV adoption accelerates, the question becomes whether incentives should keep pace — or whether it’s time for the market to stand on its own.

For now, the result is clear. Starting in October, California’s EV drivers will no longer be able to rely on their clean-air decals to speed through traffic. Instead, they’ll have to join the same lanes as everyone else, while the larger policy debates play out in Washington and Sacramento.

What happens next will depend on how lawmakers balance environmental goals, commuter realities, and political priorities. But one thing is certain: The end of California’s Clean Air Vehicle program marks a turning point in how America incentivizes electric cars. For drivers, it’s a reminder that government programs can change overnight — and the road ahead may be more complicated than expected.

Can the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act save America’s auto industry from California?



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.

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

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.

RELATED: Can a new CEO save Stellantis from bankruptcy?

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.

RELATED: EV mandate killed in 'biggest day of deregulation in American history'

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.

RELATED: How female crash-test dummies could save thousands of lives

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.

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.

RELATED: Little Deuce Prius?! California's shocking plan to ban classic cars

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.

RELATED: Introducing 'Quick Fix': Practical answers to all your car questions

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.

Ford shifts gears, leaves EVs in the rear view



Ford is stepping back from an all-electric future and leaning hard into gasoline and diesel vehicles.

This is a huge pivot, setting the stage for a potential profit surge starting in 2026. This isn’t just a corporate maneuver — it’s a move that could redefine the American automotive landscape.

If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of the EV mandate

For years, Ford’s profits took a hit from federal regulations pushing electric vehicles. The U.S. government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions rules forced automakers to sell an increasing share of EVs, with mandates aiming for near-100% EV sales during the 2030s.

These policies brought steep fines and costly carbon credits, requiring Ford to subsidize unprofitable EVs with revenue from gasoline vehicle sales. The result? Higher prices for consumers and fewer of the vehicles Americans actually wanted.

That’s all changing. In July 2025, a budget reconciliation bill became law, easing these regulatory pressures. The Environmental Protection Agency is also moving to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a step expected to eliminate GHG fines and credits by late 2025.

During a recent earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley highlighted the financial windfall, projecting $1.5 billion in savings for 2025 alone, with billions more to follow in 2026 if these credits disappear. These savings far outweigh potential tariff-related costs, positioning Ford for a profitability boom.

Why EVs haven’t won over America

EVs aren’t vanishing entirely, but their role in Ford’s U.S. lineup is shrinking. The reason is straightforward: Most Americans aren’t interested. Despite heavy subsidies, EVs remain unprofitable for automakers. Consumers face high up-front costs, rapid depreciation, and low residual values, making gasoline vehicles a more practical choice. Ford’s sales data confirms this, showing EVs as a small fraction of demand while gasoline engines remain popular.

To comply with EV mandates, Ford had to inflate gasoline vehicle prices to offset losses. Technologies like start-stop systems, turbochargers, and electrification added thousands to production costs, which were passed on to buyers. Production quotas also limited how many profitable gasoline vehicles Ford could build. The outcome was a market where consumers paid more for vehicles they didn’t fully want, and Ford’s bottom line suffered.

RELATED: Were Biden’s strict fuel economy standards illegal? Sean Duffy says yes.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Back to what works

With regulatory constraints fading, Ford is realigning production to match consumer demand. The company is phasing out costly technologies like start-stop systems and turbochargers, which were required to meet fuel economy standards.

Without CAFE fines, these features are no longer necessary, paving the way for lower prices. Ford is also bringing back naturally aspirated engines, which are cheaper to produce and known for their reliability — qualities American buyers value. The 5.0-liter V-8, found in the F-150 and Mustang, is a standout example, and Ford may expand its use to models like the Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, Ranger, and Bronco.

While Ford isn’t abandoning EVs entirely, its focus will shift. EVs will remain for international markets, niche applications, and research to stay competitive if they become viable without subsidies. This strategic shift allows Ford to prioritize affordable, reliable vehicles that align with what Americans want.

Profits in sight

Ford’s second-quarter 2025 financials offer a glimpse of the road ahead. The company reported a record $50.2 billion in revenue but a $36 million net loss due to special items.

Its EV division, Ford Model e, recorded a $1.3 billion loss, up $179 million from last year. However, Ford is optimistic. By redirecting resources from EVs to commercial trucks and full-size SUVs, the company sees a multibillion-dollar opportunity.

To brace for potential challenges, Ford secured a $3 billion line of credit from JPMorgan Chase, despite holding $20 billion in cash and $14 billion in liquid securities. This cautious move signals confidence in its long-term strategy. If Ford’s focus on gasoline vehicles delivers, its stock price could climb as profits grow.

The end of EV mandates is a win for affordability. New vehicle prices have soared in recent years, with basic models jumping from $16,000 six years ago to much higher today, partly due to EV-related costs. As Ford shifts to naturally aspirated engines, gasoline vehicle prices could drop by thousands. Meanwhile, EVs will reflect their true cost, likely making them less competitive without subsidies.

This shift restores consumer choice. Whether you prefer the reliability of a gasoline truck, the power of a Mustang, or the utility of an SUV, you’ll find more options at better prices. Ford’s emphasis on commercial trucks and SUVs also caters to businesses and families, key drivers of demand.

Driven by demand

Ford’s pivot underscores a fundamental truth: markets thrive when they reflect consumer preferences, not government mandates. The EV push forced automakers to prioritize unprofitable products, raising prices and limiting choice. Its rollback lets Ford invest in what Americans want — affordable, dependable vehicles. This could spark a revival for the U.S. automotive industry, with Ford at the forefront.

Other automakers are likely watching. If Ford’s profits soar, competitors may follow, reinforcing the trend toward gasoline and diesel. EVs will continue to evolve where they make economic sense, but for now, the U.S. market is hitting the gas.

Ford’s decision signals lower prices, more choices, and a market that listens to consumers. Whether you’re a truck driver, a family on the go, or a car enthusiast, this shift could mean better vehicles at better prices. Share this story with friends who love cars or hate high costs — they’ll want to know.

Why we still need car dealerships



When you think about buying a car, you probably picture the final step — walking into a dealership, shaking hands, and driving off in something new.

But what you might not think about is the incredibly complex process that got that vehicle into your hands. And even more overlooked? The vital role that middlemen like car dealerships play in making that possible.

Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle?

We live in an era obsessed with “cutting out the middleman.” The phrase gets thrown around like it’s inherently virtuous. Tech companies promise lower costs and better service by eliminating dealers and distributors.

In defense of the middleman

Some automakers, especially those in the electric vehicle space, push hard for direct-to-consumer sales, arguing that it's the modern way to sell cars.

But that narrative skips over something critical. Without middlemen — like your local car dealer and the shipping company that brought the car to your part of the world — the entire automotive experience would be slower, more expensive, and far less accountable.

Let’s admit it: Americans use middlemen every day. Whether it’s Amazon getting packages to your door or your grocery store stocking fresh produce, these companies act as connectors. They’re the ones that bring products from point A to point B — efficiently, reliably, and at scale. Amazon may be seen as a tech giant, but it’s really a supply chain company, built on logistics and distribution.

Adding value

It's the same with the auto industry. Cars don’t go straight from the factory to your driveway, nor do you have to drive to Detroit to buy from the manufacturing plant. They move through a massive network — raw materials, parts suppliers, assembly plants, transportation hubs, and finally, your local dealer. Each step adds expertise, accountability, and value to the customer.

This stands in sharp contrast to direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla, which operate without traditional dealerships. Instead, customers place orders online or in company-owned showrooms, often without ever driving the vehicle first.

The company controls everything — from pricing to delivery to service — which might sound efficient, but it removes the local relationship and accountability that dealerships offer. When problems arise, buyers are often left waiting for corporate to respond on its own timeline, without any local recourse or advocacy.

Local connection

And here’s where it matters most to you: the dealership.

Dealers aren’t just there to hand you the keys. They’re your local connection to a global system. When you walk into a showroom, you’re gaining access to a support system. Dealers offer real-time comparisons between different trims and models. You can see the options, test drive them, ask questions, and get answers from someone who knows the product and knows your local driving needs.

You’re not left clicking through an app or talking to a call center on the other side of the country. You're dealing with someone who wants your repeat business — which is why they also help you navigate the often-complicated world of financing and paperwork.

You’re not navigating the labyrinth of paperwork and regulations for loans, titles, warranties, and insurance on your own. From the time you walk in the door to the time you leave the lot, dealers are making sure your investment is protected. And you’re supporting local businesses, which means jobs and improving the economy around you.

Help desk blues

That’s something direct-to-consumer models can’t replicate. Sure, the idea of ordering a car online sounds sleek. But what happens when there’s a defect? What if your title gets lost in the shuffle? What if you need help when the battery range underperforms in winter driving?

Without a local dealer, you’re often stuck dealing with a corporate help desk, hoping for a response, with no one nearby to step in. Or you're waiting for weeks to get your vehicle serviced if it can’t be repaired remotely.

There’s also a bigger issue here — consumer choice. Dealers create competition. When you can walk into several dealerships in your area, compare prices, and negotiate, that gives you leverage. When everything is sold directly through the manufacturer, there’s no competition — only a fixed price and a one-size-fits-all approach.

RELATED: Looking to save big on a car? Dealerships have never been more desperate to sell

David Goddard/Getty Images

Good jobs

Let’s not forget the economic role dealerships play. They employ over a million Americans, often in communities where good jobs are hard to come by. Many are family-owned, multigenerational businesses that reinvest in their towns through local sponsorships, community events, and charitable giving. When you remove them from the equation, you're not just changing how cars are sold — you're pulling economic activity away from local communities and concentrating it in corporate headquarters and tech platforms.

At a time when so much of life is becoming impersonal and centralized, local dealerships remain one of the last industries where consumers can actually engage face-to-face, get personalized service, and make informed decisions. This contrasts sharply with Tesla, where a car that doesn’t run gets the “we’ll repair it when we can” treatment.

So the next time you hear someone say we should “cut out the middleman,” stop and think about what that really means. Because in the auto industry, the middleman — your local dealer — isn’t just a convenience. He's your advocate, your partner, and your safety net.

Eliminating dealers may streamline the process, but in doing so, it strips away the layers of protection and personal service that American car buyers have come to rely on for over a century.

Let’s not make that mistake.

Trump’s EPA set to scrap Biden’s $1 trillion EV mandate



The Environmental Protection Agency has just set off what may be the most consequential policy shift in the auto industry in over a decade.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to rescind the controversial 2009 Endangerment Finding, the legal foundation that has been used for 16 years to justify greenhouse gas emissions regulations impacting every car, truck, and bus sold in the U.S.

If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

If finalized, this proposal would dismantle more than $1 trillion in regulatory mandates, including President Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle requirements, and restore consumer choice to a market long constrained by unelected bureaucrats. It would also put the brakes on unpopular mandates like engine start-stop systems and costly EV infrastructure requirements that automakers say have driven up vehicle prices.

Why this proposal is so significant

The Endangerment Finding gave the EPA unprecedented power to regulate six greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It asserted that these gases — carbon dioxide among them — posed a threat to public health and welfare, opening the door for sweeping emissions mandates on the auto industry.

Since then, the EPA has used the finding to justify a series of regulations designed to force automakers toward electric vehicles and away from gasoline-powered cars. Biden’s 2024 standards, for example, require automakers to cut tailpipe emissions in half by 2032 and predict that between 35% and 56% of all new vehicles sold will be electric within the next decade.

California and 11 other states have piggybacked on these standards with even stricter rules, including outright bans on gasoline-only cars by 2035.

Critics say these mandates amount to a de facto EV requirement that Congress never approved. They also argue that the Endangerment Finding was based on flawed legal reasoning and exaggerated climate risk assumptions.

Under Obama and Biden, the EPA "twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year,” Zeldin said at the announcement, which was held at a truck dealership in Indiana.

$1 trillion at stake

According to EPA estimates, rescinding the Endangerment Finding would roll back regulations totaling more than $1 trillion in compliance costs. Automakers have spent years re-engineering vehicles to meet complex emissions targets, often passing those costs on to consumers.

The American Trucking Associations estimates that Biden’s electric truck mandate alone would have “crippled our supply chain, disrupted deliveries, and raised prices for American families and businesses.” ATA President and CEO Chris Spear welcomed the EPA’s move.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R), who joined Zeldin at the event, echoed that sentiment: “We can protect our environment and support American jobs at the same time."

Legal foundations and next steps

The EPA argues that recent Supreme Court rulings — including West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo — make it clear that major regulatory decisions of this scale must come from Congress, not federal agencies. These decisions limit the ability of the executive branch to unilaterally impose sweeping economic mandates without explicit legislative approval.

Here’s what happens next.

Public comment period: The proposal is now open for public comment until September 21, 2025. Americans, automakers, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders can weigh in via regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194).

Final rulemaking: After reviewing comments, the EPA will finalize the rule. This process must also pass through the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval.

Legal challenges: Environmental groups and states like California are expected to sue, arguing that rescinding the Endangerment Finding violates the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

It’s likely the issue could end up before the Supreme Court again, prolonging uncertainty for automakers and consumers.

RELATED: $8 gas: The real cost of the EV agenda

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

What this means for you

If the proposal is finalized and withstands legal challenges, it would reshape the entire automotive landscape.

The end of Biden’s EV mandate: Automakers would no longer be forced to prioritize EV production at the expense of gasoline-powered vehicles.

Lower vehicle costs: With fewer costly compliance requirements, manufacturers could pass savings on to consumers.

Restored consumer choice: Drivers could decide for themselves whether they want to buy EVs, hybrids, or gasoline-powered vehicles.

The end of California's outsized influence: The EPA could revoke California’s ability to set stricter emissions rules than federal standards, affecting 11 other states that follow California’s lead.

However, the process will take time. Automakers must plan years in advance, and environmental groups and states are are expected to fight every step of the way.

How to make your voice heard

The public comment period gives everyday Americans a rare chance to influence federal policy. If you’re concerned about start-stop technology, EV mandates, or the regulatory costs built into the price of your next vehicle, now is the time to speak up.

You can submit your comments directly through the Federal eRulemaking Portal by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. Comments must be received by September 21, 2025.

The EPA will also hold a virtual public hearing on August 19 and 20, with an additional session on August 21 if needed. Details are available on the agency’s website.

The bigger picture

This isn’t just about EVs. The Endangerment Finding has been the legal backbone for every major greenhouse gas rule in the last 16 years. Rolling it back would not only upend Biden’s climate agenda but also shift power back to Congress and the states.

Supporters of the rescission say it’s about restoring accountability. Opponents, however, argue that eliminating these regulations would stall progress on climate change and undermine the transition to cleaner technologies. They vow to fight the proposal in court.

This move by the EPA could fundamentally change the future of the auto industry and the vehicles available to American drivers. Whether you support or oppose it, this proposal deserves your attention. Over the next 45 days, the agency is accepting feedback from the public — and your input can help determine whether these costly and controversial mandates remain in place or are rolled back for good.

You have a voice in this process. Make sure it’s heard.

For more information and to view supporting documents, visit the EPA’s official docket page.