Diesel under attack: EPA targets engines that power America



America runs on diesel. From freight haulers and farm equipment to fire trucks and snowplows, diesel engines are the torque behind our economy.

Yet the same engines that built the nation’s backbone are now in Washington’s crosshairs — strangled by layers of federal regulation that threaten the people who keep America moving.

Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk.

The Environmental Protection Agency insists it’s cleaning the air. But for those who live and work beyond the Beltway, these mandates aren’t saving the planet — they’re shutting down livelihoods.

Cost of clean

Since 2010, every diesel engine sold in the U.S. has come fitted with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems — components meant to capture soot and neutralize nitrogen oxides. In theory, they’re good for the environment. In practice, they’re crippling the very trucks that keep shelves stocked and first responders rolling.

DPFs clog, SCR units freeze, and when that happens, engines “derate” into limp mode — losing power until the system is fixed. A single failure can leave a truck stranded for days and cost upwards of $5,000 to repair. For independent owner-operators, who haul 70% of the nation’s freight, that can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Even worse, under the Clean Air Act, simply repairing or modifying those failing systems can make a mechanic a federal felon.

Tamper tantrum

Meet Troy Lake, a 65-year-old diesel expert from Cheyenne, Wyoming. For decades, Lake kept his community’s fleets running — farm trucks, snowplows, ambulances, and school buses. But when emissions systems began failing in subzero temperatures, Lake found himself forced to choose between obeying Washington’s regulations or keeping critical vehicles on the road.

His fix? Remove the faulty components and reprogram the engine to restore performance — a commonsense solution that kept essential services moving. But the EPA saw it differently. Under federal law, “tampering” with emissions controls carries up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines per vehicle.

In June 2024, Lake pleaded guilty to one count of emissions tampering. By December, a federal judge sentenced him to a year in prison. His shop was fined $52,500 and shut down. Ironically, during his sentence, Lake worked on the prison’s own diesel equipment — the same skills that, outside those walls, had made him a criminal.

Now home but barred from his trade, Lake carries a felony record that cost him his business, his rights, and his reputation — all for keeping his community’s engines running.

Endless repair cycles

No one disputes that diesel exhaust can harm air quality. The EPA’s emission rules dramatically cut pollution over the past decade. But these results have come at an unsustainable cost to the people who depend on diesel most.

According to the American Trucking Associations, emissions-related repairs account for roughly 13% of total maintenance costs for Class 8 trucks. Each incident costs an average of $1,500 and countless hours of downtime. Multiply that across millions of trucks, and the burden on small businesses and rural economies is staggering.

Farmers, truckers, and local governments can’t afford the endless repair cycles. For them, Washington’s mandates translate to fewer working trucks, higher consumer costs, and dangerous response delays in emergencies.

Senator Lummis fights back

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) sees what’s happening. She’s watched the federal government criminalize working Americans while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rules. In October 2025, she introduced the Diesel Truck Liberation Act — legislation designed to restore sanity and balance.

The bill would:

  • Remove mandatory federal requirements for DPFs, SCRs, and onboard diagnostics;
  • Limit the EPA’s enforcement powers over diesel tuning and emissions deletes;
  • Protect mechanics and operators from prosecution for performing practical repairs; and
  • Provide retroactive relief — vacating sentences, clearing records, and refunding fines for past convictions.

A call for flexibility

Environmental advocates warn that such legislation could reverse decades of progress under the Clean Air Act.

That’s a legitimate concern. Clean air matters. But it’s also true that today’s engine tuning and filtration technologies are far more advanced than those available when these mandates were written. Recent research shows that advanced, model-based engine controls and “virtual sensors” can significantly cut nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions and help engines stay within strict tailpipe limits while reducing dependence on extra physical sensors and minimizing urea and fuel penalties.

Even current EPA leadership has acknowledged the need for flexibility and modernization. The question isn’t whether we should protect the environment — it’s whether rigid, outdated enforcement is the best way to do it.

And the impact doesn’t stop at the loading dock. Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk. A snowstorm doesn’t care about EPA compliance, and neither does a heart attack.

Who makes the rules?

Opponents of the Diesel Truck Liberation Act argue that removing emissions hardware would increase pollution, disproportionately harming urban and low-income communities. Supporters counter that Washington’s policies have already created economic inequality by crushing rural economies and small operators.

The divide isn’t really about clean air — it’s about who gets to make the rules. Should unelected bureaucrats in D.C. dictate how a farmer in Wyoming runs his truck? Or should local communities have the flexibility to balance environmental goals with economic reality?

RELATED: Trucker perfectly dismantles electric vehicle narrative in 2 minutes: 'You would need to pack 50,000 pounds of batteries!'

Image via @MusicScarf/X (screenshot)/Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Common sense prevails

The Diesel Truck Liberation Act doesn’t aim to destroy the Clean Air Act. It aims to reform it. It recognizes that environmental protection must work hand in hand with reliability, safety, and economic survival.

For people like Troy Lake, it’s about justice — not just for one man, but for thousands of mechanics and operators who’ve been punished for solving real problems in real America.

And there’s already a hopeful sign: President Trump recently issued a full pardon for Lake, acknowledging that enforcing broken regulations against hardworking Americans is not justice — it’s overreach.

The next step is whether Congress will follow through. The bill currently sits in the Senate Environment Committee, with hearings expected later this year. If it passes, it could set a precedent for rethinking how environmental policy is enforced — and how to protect the people who keep America running.

America’s diesel fleet isn’t the enemy. It’s the engine that powers our nation — from coast to coast, farm to factory, and every highway in between. Reasonable environmental goals are achievable, but not through criminalizing those who fix the equipment that keeps this country alive.

The question facing lawmakers is simple: Will they choose common sense — or continue punishing the very people who make modern life possible?

'A uniquely American industry': SEMA CEO urges EPA to scrap emissions regs



The automotive world is bracing for a decision that could rewrite the rules of the road.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, a policy that for more than a decade has given regulators federal and state-level authority to impose sweeping vehicle emissions mandates.

The EPA’s proposed move is not an anti-environment position — it’s about shifting the strategy from top-down control to open competition among propulsion technologies.

If finalized, this move could restore a level playing field for innovation, uphold consumer choice, and revitalize industries that have been shackled by narrow environmental policy objectives.

For the automotive aftermarket, represented by the Specialty Equipment Market Association, this decision is about more than regulatory rollback — it’s about empowering engineers, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs to compete on ideas, not on government-mandated technology paths.

SEMA, an organization representing more than 7,000 members and a $337 billion industry, sees this as a chance to return the Clean Air Act to its original scope, protect jobs, and unleash market forces to drive progress.

Why this matters now

Since the 2009 finding, greenhouse gas regulations have tightly intertwined climate policy with vehicle design, pushing automakers aggressively toward electric vehicle production — regardless of consumer demand or infrastructure readiness. This approach has fragmented the automotive market, caused affordability concerns, and arguably sidelined other promising propulsion technologies such as hydrogen, advanced hybrids, and synthetic fuels.

SEMA’s position is clear: Technology-neutral policies yield better, more diverse innovations and avoid imposing limits that stifle creative engineering.

As SEMA president and CEO Mike Spagnola put it in comments submitted to the EPA:

The specialty automotive aftermarket is a uniquely American industry built on ingenious innovation, vibrant consumer enthusiasm, and unmatched entrepreneurial spirit. The EPA’s reconsideration of the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding presents an opportunity to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and allow market forces to guide technological progress in a way that is consumer-driven.

The alternative, warns SEMA, is a patchwork regulatory landscape where California or other states set rules drastically different from federal standards, creating instability for businesses and confusion for consumers. Rescinding the finding would return policymaking power to Congress — the branch intended to weigh competing priorities and reflect the will of the people.

Innovation and consumer choice

The EPA’s proposed move is not an anti-environment position — it’s about shifting the strategy from top-down control to open competition among propulsion technologies. SEMA’s membership includes companies working on EVs, hybrids, hydrogen vehicles, and more.

The association’s argument centers on the belief that all technologies should compete without government favoring one pathway over another. That opens the door for the market to incentivize breakthroughs in lowering emissions from internal combustion engines through efficiencies, synthetic fuels, and advanced filtration. This benefits consumers who may want cleaner cars without sacrificing performance, affordability, or utility.

RELATED: 'Leno’s Law' could be big win for California's classic car culture

CNBC/Getty Images

Tesla pushes back

Not everyone agrees with the EPA’s proposal. Tesla, the electric vehicle industry’s flagship brand, has urged the administration to keep the 2009 finding intact, calling it “lawful” and “based on a robust factual and scientific record.” Tesla argues that rescinding the finding would disrupt established emissions measurement, control, and reporting frameworks. They say the change could retroactively excuse manufacturers from compliance responsibilities, undermining environmental progress.

Tesla also contends that repealing vehicle emissions standards would remove one of the key regulatory drivers that has accelerated EV adoption. Its comments reflect concerns that without the finding, the EPA may step away from enforcing rules that have been instrumental in bringing lower-emission vehicles to market.

The divide is stark: One side sees government policy as the cornerstone of transformative environmental action, while the other views market-driven innovation as the more sustainable engine of technological growth.

Ripple effects

The stakes are enormous. SEMA estimates that one-third of its members rely heavily on internal combustion technology — a subset that underpins a multibillion-dollar aftermarket economy and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Removing mandates that inherently disadvantage certain propulsion methods could stabilize the market, restore consumer confidence, and reinvigorate small businesses.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced plans to return more than $13 billion in unclaimed clean energy funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.

These funds, originally intended to support wind, solar, batteries, and EV infrastructure, will be rescinded under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump earlier this year — a legislative move that sharply reduced renewable energy incentives. This suggests that the administration is aligning its broader energy policy with the recalibration of vehicle emissions rules.

Choosing choice

At its core, this debate centers on choice — choice for consumers, choice for innovators, and choice for an industry that thrives on diversity of ideas. Environmental stewardship remains critical, but the question now is whether the U.S. can achieve it without sacrificing market freedom.

Advocates of rescinding the finding say yes: Let the engineers push boundaries and deliver solutions people actually want to buy. Opponents warn that weakening greenhouse gas regulation could slow progress toward emissions reduction targets.

The EPA’s move signals a new era of environmental policy — one where power shifts back toward legislative decision-making and away from regulatory agencies. Whether this will unleash a wave of innovation or stall environmental gains will depend on how industry and consumers respond when restrictions loosen.

The comment period has closed, with more than 140,000 responses filed. Now the EPA must sift through sharply divided opinions before issuing a final decision. Whatever the agency decides, the ruling will be a defining moment for the future of America’s automotive landscape. If the finding is rescinded, the aftermarket industry stands ready to prove that when Americans are free to innovate, the road ahead can be cleaner, faster, and more exciting — without anyone being forced into a one-size-fits-all ride.

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.

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 to sue Trump to force radical, costly emissions rules on Americans



California leaders are battling to impose the state's radical, costly emissions standards on Americans — potentially across the country.

California's regulatory power, large market, and partnerships with other aligned states give it significant influence over national vehicle emissions standards.

'We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California's waivers.'

On Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced that the state plans to file yet another lawsuit against President Donald Trump.

The announcement follows a morning U.S. Senate vote, 51-44, to pass a measure that would revoke three of California's vehicle emissions waivers approved last year under the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency.

RELATED: Newsom dips into massive anti-Trump legal fund to sabotage tariffs

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Two of the waivers concern tailpipe emissions for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and truck smog requirements. The third requires all new vehicle sales in California to be zero-emissions by 2035.

The state standards are more strict than the federal regulations.

The Clean Air Act granted California the ability to set more stringent standards. However, Republican lawmakers contended that the Congressional Review Act gives Congress the authority to overrule measures implemented by federal agencies like the EPA.

Senate Democrats argued that the Government Accountability Office and Senate parliamentarian found that the act does not give Congress the power to revoke the waivers.

Bonta accused Senate Republicans of "bending the knee" to Trump as the president attempts to slash red tape and unleash American energy.

"The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California's waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California's efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution," Bonta continued. "As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California's waivers."

RELATED: Trump challenges California's emissions standards dictatorship

Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Newsom called the Senate's vote "illegal."

"Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won't stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We're going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court," Newsom remarked.

Since January, California has taken legal action against Trump's administration 22 times. Newsom set aside $50 million in taxpayer funds to file lawsuits against the administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EPA Targets Obama-Era Rules That Let Climate Zealots Hold America Hostage

The Endangerment Finding will be reconsidered, a move that will shake the very foundation of the climate change movement.

A belated valentine to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy



Valentine's Day snuck up on me this year, and I never did get around to sending Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy a box of chocolates.

So consider this article a love letter on behalf of American drivers everywhere.

'The American people deserve an efficient, safe, and pro-growth transportation system based on sound decision-making, not political ideologies.'

Duffy won our hearts on his very first day, when he removed stringent fossil fuel emission standards instituted by the Biden administration a little more than a year ago.

“The rescission reflects the Administration’s commitment to unleashing American energy and eliminating unlawful regulatory burdens,” he said in a Jan. 29 statement.

Sheer poetry!

Give gas a chance

In December 2023, the Biden administration's DOT and Federal Highway Administration finalized a rule that established a method to measure and report transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The rule required state-level agencies to establish targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles traveling on national highways. These targets were intended to become more stringent over time, to the tune of a 50%-52% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

This was part of a plan to reach “net-zero emissions by no later than 2050,” according to a 2021 Biden White House fact sheet. In other words, to dump gas-powered vehicles altogether.

Fortunately, the American people announced their conscious uncoupling with the Biden administration back in November. And like his boss, Duffy has been quick to prove we made the right choice.

CAFE date

He's also issued a memorandum related to “fixing the CAFE program.” First enacted in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards are a metric by which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates the distance vehicles are required to be able to travel per gallon of fuel.

Duffy said they're way too high.

“These fuel economy standards are set at such aggressive levels that automakers cannot, as a practical matter, satisfy the standards without rapidly shifting production away from internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to alternative electric technologies,” he stated.

Duffy also pointed out that “artificially high” fuel economy standards imposed considerably larger costs, which rendered “many new vehicle models unaffordable for the average American family and small business owner.”

Duffy directed the NHTSA to begin reviewing and reconsidering all existing fuel economy standards immediately, rescinding or replacing any not in compliance with the Trump administration’s policies.

He said: “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are focused on eliminating excessive regulations that have hindered economic growth, increased costs for American families, and prioritized far-left agendas over practical solutions. ... The American people deserve an efficient, safe, and pro-growth transportation system based on sound decision-making, not political ideologies. These actions will help us deliver on that promise.”

Over our ex

Just when you thought you couldn't swoon any harder, Duffy went ahead and canceled former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's programs to rectify "racist" highway design. Instead, he intends to focus on bringing car consumers greater choice at lower prices.

Now, that's the kind of guy you know is a keeper.

Not to sound ungrateful, but let's hope this is just the beginning. Our country still needs to ditch kill switches and speed limiters — and it's high time we broke up with California and its Air Resources Board. No need to draw it out, either, Mr. Secretary — we've been ready to move on for long time.

Trump challenges California's emissions standards dictatorship



California's days of telling the country what kind of car it can drive may be numbered.

The story so far, for those just joining us: The Biden administration's EPA granted the state a waiver to adapt its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, standards stricter than those imposed federally.

Trump’s return to office has intensified efforts to roll back regulations that many view as detrimental to traditional energy sectors.

In fact, these standards are so strict that they amount to a mandate to phase out gas-powered cars altogether.

Moreover, other states are free to adapt California's standards as their own. To date, 16 states and the District of Columbia have done so.

In other words, you have one state creating laws for other states. Can you say "unconstitutional"?

Exceeds authority

Fuel producers contend that the waiver exceeded the EPA’s authority and harmed their businesses by lowering demand for liquid fuels. So they sued.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the lawsuits, stating that the challengers lacked the necessary legal standing. Now, the case is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Or was. On January 24, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed a request with the court to pause its review of the case, signaling that the Trump administration plans to reassess the 2022 EPA decision.

This is exciting to see.

The big rollback

Meanwhile, with its 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has shown skepticism toward expansive regulatory authority.

Recent rulings have limited the EPA’s powers, including decisions restricting its ability to address water pollution, regulate coal and gas emissions, and enforce the “Good Neighbor” rule to curb cross-state ozone pollution.

Trump’s return to office has intensified efforts to roll back regulations that many view as detrimental to traditional energy sectors. On his first day back, he issued an executive order targeting California’s waiver to ban the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, calling on the EPA to end state emissions waivers that limit sales of gas-powered vehicles.

The administration’s request to reassess California’s emissions waiver reflects a broader ideological shift that aligns with the court’s conservative majority and prioritizes deregulation.

Newsom's folly

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who often touts California’s leadership on climate policy, said the EPA’s approval of the advanced clean-cars rules was a vote of confidence in California’s accomplishments in “protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

Of course, he loves the power.

Automakers are producing electric vehicles, but there’s a huge gap between these EV sales mandates and a customer’s reasonable expectation that they can still choose what kind of vehicle to drive. Trump's actions are another step toward restoring that freedom of choice.

Climate Protestors Disrupt Chris Wright Hearing For Energy Secretary

Any honest examination of the Los Angeles wildfires indicts incompetent government leadership rather than climate change.

Toyota, Jeep, and the big emissions scam



Impossible!

That's what Toyota North America COO Jack Hollis calls the demand by California and 16 other states that 35% of 2026 model year vehicles be zero-emission or electric.

California also added a tax of 68 cents per gallon that is going into effect at the first of the year. The state is making gas and hybrid vehicles unaffordable.

Said Hollis, “I have not seen a forecast by anyone … government or private, anywhere, that has told us that that number is achievable. At this point, it looks impossible.”

He continued, “Demand isn’t there. It’s going to limit a customer’s choice of the vehicles they want.”

Welcome to the party. This is what we've been saying for years.

Automaker Stellantis — which owns Jeep — no doubt agrees. Stellantis made gasoline-powered non-hybrid Jeeps available only as a special-order vehicle in California and other states that have adopted California Air Resources Board Standards.

This has hurt Stellantis, which last week announced it would lay off 1,100 UAW-represented employees at the automaker’s Toledo South Assembly Plant in Ohio. This is where the company built the Jeep Gladiator.

Under California’s Advanced Clean Cars mandate, automakers must either sell enough cars or buy enough credits for the equivalent of 35% of their vehicles sold in California to qualify as zero-emission vehicles.

What's more, only 20% of these can be plug-in hybrids; the other 15% must be all-electric.

Automakers will pay a $20,000 fine per ZEV credit they are short, meaning carmakers will have to either buy credits from other automakers with excess credits or sell fewer non-ZE vehicles. Which means cars will get more expensive.

The Advanced Clean Cars mandate applies to Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington for model year 2026 and Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C., for model year 2027.

As we often point out, no carmaker will make cars for one state, so expect prices to rise in all 50.

And why isn't demand there? One strike against EVs in California is the high cost of electricity.

Energy prices in California are so high that the California Air Resources Board says the state is near the point at which it’s cheaper to propel a car on gasoline than it is on electricity. Last week, the CARB voted to create a $105 billion credit for EV charger operators, to be paid for with rising carbon emissions fees on the petroleum refineries that produce gasoline and diesel. The CARB estimates the measure will create a 47 cent-per-gallon pass-through cost for gasoline in 2025.

California also added a tax of 68 cents per gallon that is going into effect at the first of the year. The state is making gas and hybrid vehicles unaffordable.

The state believes that by raising the price of gasoline and subsidizing electric vehicle charging, the CARB’s new Low Carbon Fuel Standard can incentivize more Californians to get out of gasoline-powered cars and either acquire electric vehicles or take public transportation.

What it will accomplish in reality is to infuriate California drivers. I expect it to go about as well in any other state foolish enough to try it.

California is able to pass its own emissions standards via a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency, first granted to deal with Los Angeles' smog problem in the latter half of the 20th century.

The Obama administration ordered an expansion of California’s waiver beyond just pollution to include emissions as well. In 2019, the Trump administration revoked California’s EPA waiver, a move that was held up in courts until the Biden administration put the waiver back into place in 2021.

It’s likely that the second Trump administration could revoke California’s EPA waiver once it takes office in January, which would — if upheld in court — invalidate many of the emissions programs created by California and the other states that follow.

We will be watching and reporting as this develops.