Stellantis is on the hunt for a new CEO — and whoever it is better be a miracle-maker.

I've talked about the company's recent woes before. Stellantis has reported a steep 70% decline in net profit, falling from 18.6 billion euros ($19.5 billion) in 2023 to 5.5 billion euros ($5.77 billion) in 2024.

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the 'Cuda name for performance versions.

On top of that, the company is in the midst of a leadership transition following the sudden departure of CEO Carlos Tavares late last year. Until a successor is named — expected in the first half of 2025 — Chairman John Elkann is overseeing operations alongside an interim executive committee.

Big enough to fail

The future seemed a lot brighter back in 2021, when Stellantis was formed from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA. Now the world's fourth-largest automaker, the company was ready to throw its weight around.

But with size came lack of focus. Stellantis' broad brand mix — which includes names like Jeep, Peugeot, DS, Lancia, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo — has proven difficult to manage efficiently.

Investing big in EVs hasn't helped, either.

Nonetheless, Stellantis is confident the right CEO will be able to turn things around. Whoever it is will have to make some tough decisions when it comes to some heritage brands. It's doubtful all will make it through.

A better Barracuda?

On the other hand, we could see some iconic names coming back. A smaller, twin-turbocharged, all-wheel-drive V8 coupe Barracuda, anyone?

It could happen if rumors are true that performance guru Tim Kuniskis will return to the company. There are a lot worse strategies than putting Kuniskis behind the wheel of the Stellantis portfolio of brands.

Cooking with gas

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the 'Cuda name for performance versions, as the company has in the past, all with a V8 version that is smaller, lighter, and more sophisticated than its predecessors.

They'll sell like hotcakes.

The syrup and whipped cream on top will be if the U.S. Federal EV mandate truly goes away. When that happens, automotive stocks for companies making gasoline cars will see a dramatic revaluation.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

Trump pulls plug on government's 8,000 EV chargers

The word has come down from on high: Shut down the power, and sell the fleet.

The Trump administration's General Services Administration is set to pull the plug on all EV charging stations in federal buildings nationwide. In addition, the agency plans to off-load newly purchased EVs from the federal vehicle fleet.

Shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

Tell me again how Trump's in the tank for Elon?

Fleet cheat

The GSA is the agency that keeps the federal government’s buildings humming and manages a massive fleet of about 650,000 vehicles.

Under Biden, the GSA went all in on EVs — ordering over 58,000 zero-emission rides and installing thousands of charging ports nationwide. The goal? Electrify everything by 2035.

But now, with Trump back in the driver’s seat, the GSA is hitting the brakes hard. It is pulling the plug on hundreds of charging stations — think 8,000 plugs going dark — and off-loading those brand-new EVs faster than you can say "range anxiety."

The reasoning? These assets aren’t "mission critical." Translation: The GSA doesn’t think EVs fit the government’s real priorities.

Free ride

Let’s break this down. These chargers weren’t just for government vehicles and federal employees; they were being used for personal EVs, too. We’re talking Denver Federal Center, VA sites, military bases, and other places where federal employees could cop a complimentary charge for their personal vehicles.

The free ride is over. And GSA is unloading its electric vehicle fleets, too. No word yet on whether the government is selling them cheap or just parking them in some giant government lot. Either way, this is a seismic shift. The Biden administration spent billions of your tax dollars to push this green dream, and now the GSA has yanked the emergency brake.

And let’s not kid ourselves — shutting this down isn’t just about saving pennies; it’s a signal. The Trump administration is pumping the brakes on the whole EV push, big time.

War on the green agenda

It's no secret that President Trump is not a fan of Biden’s EV mandate. He’s already paused $5 billion in public charger funding and nixed plans for more federal EVs. This is war on the green agenda. Biden’s team dropped BILLIONS of dollars of your money to electrify everything by 2035.

The GSA is responsible for managing federal assets including a fleet of approximately 650,000 vehicles. Under the Biden administration, it embarked on a plan to transition to zero-emission vehicles. That included the procurement of over 58,000 EVs and the installation of more than 25,000 charging ports. It never came anywhere close to achieving those figures though, and this new directive puts that plan to a swift end.

It's not clear where all those unwanted EVs will go. Technically, the GSA could simply take the vehicles out of the fleet and put them into storage rather than sell them at a loss.

It’s also uncertain how the agency will replace the vehicles being phased out; possibilities include purchasing new gas-powered models or reallocating older ones from retirement. I hope they reuse the older ones and stop wasting our tax dollars.

Waste management

Three years ago, the Biden administration gave out a total of $7.5 billion in grants for states to develop EV charging infrastructure; since then, only about a dozen charging stations have been built nationwide.

This is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Carmakers need to shift gears and stop cranking out EVs that are not selling and sitting on dealer lots. Making what their customers want rather than what is mandated will return the profits they once enjoyed.

So what’s your take? Is the GSA right to ditch EVs and chargers? Hit me up in the comments. I want to hear your opinions!

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

"The greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen."

That's what Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin said of today's announcement that the onerous fuel efficiency standards opponents have called a de facto electric vehicle mandate will be rescinded.

'The American auto industry has been hamstrung by the crushing regulatory regime of the last administration.'

That includes 31 specific regulatory rollbacks designed to unleash American energy, lower the cost of living, boost the domestic auto industry, and give more power back to the states.

Putting the brakes on inflation

The first step: using the Administrative Procedures Act to re-evaluate policies enacted last year by the Biden administration to reduce emissions for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. This would have increased the costs of shipping goods, with estimated regulatory and compliance costs of over $700 billion.

That gets passed on to the consumer.

On day one, President Trump signed a series of executive orders on energy policies that he said would tackle inflation after consumer costs soared by 22% during former President Biden’s term in office.

Protect consumer choice

One of President Trump’s executive orders also included reversing a policy that pushed carmakers to make 50% of their output electric vehicles by 2030, which would increase costs and limit consumer choices.

The ultimate goal was to go 100% EV by 2032 — something our power grid simply cannot support.

In March 2024, the Biden administration finalized a rule to require carmakers to dramatically reduce carbon emissions beginning for model year 2027 light- and medium-size vehicles. This is why car prices have increased to an average of $50,000 for gas cars and $66,000 for electric vehicles.

“The American auto industry has been hamstrung by the crushing regulatory regime of the last administration,” Zeldin told the New York Post.

President Trump campaigned on scrapping Biden’s fuel efficiency rules by arguing that consumers should have the options of buying hybrid, gasoline-powered, or diesel-powered vehicles without government interference or mandate.

Waiver bye-bye?

On February 15, 2025, Lee Zeldin, chair of the EPA, sent the California's Clean Air Act waiver (which is directly connected to the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation) to Congress for review.

We are waiting for this to go to a vote, and we will report to you on the votes and results.

The CRA states that if this is passed, the EPA and federal government cannot reattempt to approve this rule. The process allows the vote to come to the floor in an expedited fashion, forcing all members to go on the record with their votes.

If Congress votes to undo a rule, the agency cannot propose a similar regulation. It would require an act of congress to override the CRA.

To summarize:

The EPA takes its biggest action ever to help President Trump save Americans trillions of dollars, lower the cost of living, and make it more affordable to buy a car, heat a home, or operate a business. And it will boost job growth!

Welcome to the golden age of America!

Bernie Moreno wants to give American car buyers their freedom back

Finally — a politician who knows something about the car business.

I'm talking about Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican who spent decades building a car dealership empire. That experience has led him to introduce legislation that would repeal emissions rules and give tax breaks to car manufacturers.

'Thanks to liberal bureaucrats who want to mandate what cars Americans can drive, states like mine are riddled with car lots filled with expensive EVs people simply don’t want.'

Moreno, along with a few other GOP senators, introduced bill S.711 — named the Transportation Freedom Act — to the floor on February 25, 2025.

CAFE break

This bill would repeal the multi-pollutant emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles, repeal the next phase of heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards; and repeal the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules.

It would also eliminate vehicle emissions waivers and establish new passenger automobile standards.

This a glimmer of hope for the U.S. auto industry, which has been struggling to thrive in the face of inconsistent regulations, massive foreign competition, and misguided federal policies that hurt autoworkers, automakers, and consumers.

The Transportation Freedom Act seeks to make cars more affordable by eliminating government mandates that have caused vehicle prices to surge.

'The only winner is China'

In introducing the bill, Moreno said: “Thanks to liberal bureaucrats who want to mandate what cars Americans can drive, states like mine are riddled with car lots filled with expensive EVs people simply don’t want and dormant factories that once employed millions of American workers. The only winner is China.”

Moreno says his bill would lower vehicle prices by “slashing onerous mandates that have made cars unaffordable to everyday Americans, like the EPA ‘tailpipe rule’ and California’s zero-emission vehicle mandate.”

The bill would revoke the California rule to ensure that "all Americans — not just California politicians — have a say in our country’s transportation future."

He says it would also end “arbitrary” CAFE fuel economy standards that require manufacturers to build vehicles "consumers simply do not want," and it provides a six-month window for their replacement with tough but achievable standards.

Higher wages

It would also give carmakers a 200% tax deduction for wages paid to U.S. autoworkers, up to $150,000 per worker, and block companies from using the money they save for stock buybacks.

Deductions would be limited to producers of vehicles with at least 75% U.S. content and those that did not transfer production outside the United States in the past taxable year. To get the deduction, carmakers would also have to offer health insurance, profit-sharing plans, and retiree benefits to workers and remain neutral in labor organizing campaigns.

The bill is cosponsored by three other freshman Republican senators: Indiana’s Jim Banks, Montana’s Tim Sheehy, and West Virginia’s Jim Justice. It is backed by General Motors, Stellantis, Toyota, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and American Trucking Associations.

'A commonsense approach'

His bill is likely to face opposition from environmental organizations that said the fuel efficiency and emissions standards set during the Biden administration would fight climate change and protect public health.

A statement from Toyota executive Mark Templin called Moreno’s bill a "commonsense approach that will provide regulatory predictability" and allow the auto industry to invest in emission-reduction technology while providing affordable choices for consumers.

"The auto industry has been whipsawed by shifting emission regulations for decades. These swings have hurt auto companies, auto dealers, and autoworkers, ultimately driving up the cost of automobiles in America."

A statement from Mark Stanton, NADA trade group president and CEO, said his group strongly supports Moreno’s proposed national fuel economy standard as something "achievable, affordable, and maintains consumer vehicle choice."

Out of juice: Only 5% of US car buyers want an electric vehicle

Electric vehicles and the American driver: a match made in heaven. At least, that's the story Democrats have been telling for a while.

In reality, sparks are definitely not flying.

Deloitte suspects that some of this push against EVs 'could be due, in part, to lingering affordability concerns.'

In fact, only 5% of U.S. consumers want their next car to be an EV, according to a new survey from Deloitte — with almost two-thirds explicitly stating their preference for an internal combustion engine (ICE).

The consulting company gathered data from more than 31,000 people across 30 countries as part of its 2025 Global Automotive Consumer Study. It makes for some interesting comparisons — especially when it comes to powertrains, connectivity, and artificial intelligence.

Among U.S. consumers, ICE remains number one, with 62% indicating that their next car will not be electrified. Another 20% would like a hybrid for their next vehicle, with a further 6% desiring a plug-in hybrid.

By contrast, only 38% of Chinese consumers want to stick with ICE; meanwhile, 27% of them intend for their next automotive purchase to be a battery electric vehicle (BEV). That's a much higher percentage than in other large nations — in Germany, only 14% want a BEV; in the U.K. and Canada, only 8%; and in Japan, the number is a mere 3%.

Meanwhile, hybrids are far more attractive to consumers in most countries. Sixteen percent of Chinese consumers want hybrids, 12% of Germans, 23% of Canadians, 24% of U.K. consumers, and 35% of Japanese consumers replied that they were looking for a hybrid for their next car.

Deloitte suspects that some of this push against EVs "could be due, in part, to lingering affordability concerns." U.S. consumers said they did not want to pay more than $35,000 for their next car.

Interestingly, the price of an EV was not a major sticking point for Chinese or Korean consumers. Cold-weather performance (including temperature-related range reduction) ranked higher, with 37% of Chinese consumers and 38% of Korean consumers considering it an issue.

Range also proved important to American consumers surveyed. Forty-nine percent said it concerned them, while 46% worried about charging times. U.K. drivers were slightly more concerned about range (52%) than price, with similar results in Germany (54% range).

Deloitte also surveyed consumers about their reasons for wanting or not wanting an EV.

In the U.S., saving money on fuel costs came in at number one. A common reason cited for avoiding an EV was concern over the state of the public charging infrastructure.

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.

Meet the dealership owner turned senator out to save the auto industry

"At the end of the day, the $7,500 incentive is catastrophically stupid."

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio isn’t pulling any punches when it comes to government support for electric vehicles.

'If China is dramatically ahead of us on EVs, good for them. But we’re dramatically ahead of them in combustion and hybrids.'

Elected last year, Moreno immigrated from Colombia with his family when he was 5. Before entering politics, he worked in auto sales, eventually building an empire of luxury car dealerships.

Dealer's choice

Moreno is the first-ever senator with experience in automobile sales, which he says makes him the perfect person to be president Trump's "car czar."

One of his main targets is the $7,500 tax credit for EV purchases and leases, which has been a major driver of EV sales. Trump himself has agreed with removing the tax credit and the mandates.

The tax credit, says Moreno, is a way for the government to do what it has no business doing: “tell companies what to do and how to have a strategy.”

The results of this meddling speak for themselves.

The tax credit, along with other incentives and benefits included in president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, has forced automakers to sell EVs at a loss, as well as to increase their investments in EV-related technology.

Fuel me once ...

Needless to say, this has been very bad for the bottom line.

Take Ford Motor Co., which took a $1.22 billion loss in its EV division last quarter.

Removing the incentive should help manufacturers in the long term by allowing them to focus on what their customers want: gas-powered vehicles. As Moreno puts it, "There’s never been a case in time where consumers have been more clear about what they want and don’t want."

Still, this change may be painful in the short term, as unsold inventory piles up.

In October, industry trade association the Alliance for Automotive Innovation asked Congress to keep the EV tax credits to help them sell the EVs they've already produced.

Hyundai Motor Co. recently accelerated its plans to build a new factory in Georgia to take advantage of the tax credits. Now the company will pivot to hybrid, plug-in hybrids, and gas-powered cars.

Like many Republicans, including Trump, Moreno also supports scrapping Biden’s rules on tailpipe emissions, which opponents say amount to a de facto EV “mandate."

And while it is true that there has been a bump in EV sales, the rate of growth is winding down. In the face of that, many automakers have pulled back or delayed investments in order to lower costs and develop more profitable vehicles.

Hybrid theory

Several automakers, including Ford, see a major benefit in investing heavily in new hybrid vehicles and plan to keep both hybrid and traditional gas-powered cars as part of their sales mix for the next several years.

Moreno says this is good for the automakers — and good for the country, as it plays to our strategic advantages.

“If China is dramatically ahead of us on EVs, good for them. But we’re dramatically ahead of them in combustion and hybrids.”

Not that China isn't trying to close the gap — especially with the emergence of European tariffs on EV imports.

Hybrid vehicle exports made up 18% of China’s total to Europe last quarter, compared to 9% in the first quarter of 2024. Several companies, including Geely and BYD, have developed new hybrid cars, with Tesla rival XPeng planning to launch its first hybrid in early 2025.

Chinese carmakers are also still selling a lot of gas-powered vehicles, especially abroad in countries where EVs aren’t popular yet.

Will Tesla create a range extender for its vehicles or remain a purely electric car company? In order to increase market share, Tesla may pivot to compete. We shall see.

As the industry adapts, automakers are shifting focus toward diversified lineups, including hybrids, rather than adhering to aggressive all-electric mandates of going all electric by 2035.

Additionally, Moreno advocates for reducing government intervention in the automotive market. He stated, “We will establish a favorable environment for car companies with good taxes, regulations, and skilled workers. Let the marketplace operate without government interference.”

Gas car ban by 2035? EPA sets stage for electric-only future

Is this the end of gas-powered cars?

California wants to ban new gas car sales by 2035 — and on Wednesday, the EPA gave them the all clear, announcing that it would approve two waivers under the Clean Air Act allowing the state to do just that.

Approving the waivers will cripple the auto industry, as companies funnel zero-emission vehicles to the states that have adopted California’s rules, severely limiting consumer choice.

As I've said before, as California goes, so goes the nation — no manufacturer is going to build different cars for different states.

Just who wants an all-EV, all-the-time future? Not the car companies — they currently lose money on every EV they sell.

What we're watching here is the destruction of the American auto industry by its own government.

The industry is pushing back.

In a statement, the National Automobile Dealers Association said that it was “disappointed the Biden administration has granted CARB’s vehicle-emissions waiver allowing it to institute a ban on gas-powered vehicles beginning in 2026. NADA has long supported a single, national fuel economy standard that is technologically feasible, economically practicable, and does not restrict consumer choice. We urge the incoming Trump administration to revoke this anti-consumer mandate.”

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson also weighed in:

Contrary to claims on the campaign trail that they would never tell Americans what kinds of cars we have to drive, the Biden-Harris EPA just did exactly that by green lighting California’s ban on sales of all new gas and traditional hybrid vehicles. EPA’s authorization of the California ban and California’s ban itself are unlawful.

These policies will harm consumers — millions of whom don’t even live in California — by taking away their ability to buy new gas cars in their home states and raising vehicle and transportation costs. They will also undermine U.S. energy and national security. Americans want nothing to do with gas car bans, EV mandates, or California radicalism, which they just made abundantly clear at the polls. I suspect this is why EPA waited until after the election to issue this decision.

Let's be clear about what this ban means: No gas, diesel, or traditional hybrid passenger cars and trucks meet California’s definition of “zero emission.”

And only a small percentage (a maximum of 20%) of plug-in hybrid cars and trucks will be able to be sold.

It's no coincidence that the news of the EPA’s decision broke just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States granted a case from a coalition of energy, agriculture, and biofuel groups challenging California’s EV sales mandate.

Make no mistake, this is a direct attack on the American consumer.

The California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars II waiver has set a zero-emission vehicle mandate starting in 2025 that requires 35% of all new model year 2026 vehicle sales be zero-emission vehicles, with a majority of those being battery-electric. That percentage will continue increasing, and by 2035, 100% of new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California and 17 other states must be zero-emissions.

While these states have adopted California’s rules, most of them are not selling anywhere near the 35% level required next year.

In fact, nationally, the U.S. is tracking at approximately 9% BEV sales, November YTD. Within the 12 “ZEV states” (plus Washington, D.C.), the average is less than 13% YTD. Approving the waivers will cripple the auto industry, as companies funnel zero-emission vehicles to the states that have adopted California’s rules, severely limiting consumer choice.

Japanese automaker Toyota, the top-selling car brand in America, also objected to the proposed waivers. In a statement, a spokesperson said:

By requiring one out of three sales be zero-emission vehicles, California's regulation undercuts the sale of other alternative electrified powertrains that can also help reduce carbon emissions as much as and as quickly as possible. In addition, to achieve the California mandate, it would require dealers selling over three times as many ZEVs as they currently do.

If a customer cannot afford a zero-emission vehicle or it doesn't meet their needs, there may not be a non-electric vehicle on the lot to purchase for their mobility needs. Instead of adjusting to that reality, California is doubling down and pulling 11 other states and their residents with them.

Americans should be infuriated. This is not what they voted for last month; the EPA is doing all it can to undermine the second Trump presidency before he even gets into office.

The good news is the EPA's time is running out. Trump takes office in less then a month. When he does, he is reportedly planning to rescind both federal EV requirements and any waiver issued for California by the Biden administration.

If the ban sticks, expect drivers to vote with their wallets and keep driving their old gas-powered cars. That would be very bad news for the auto industry.

Who let California drive? 17 states challenge EV mandate in Supreme Court showdown

When it comes to car emissions standards, there's one big question: Who put California in charge?

We may finally get an answer — courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.

The drastic impacts of California’s EV mandates on consumers, national security and electricity reliability are major questions in need of immediate resolution.

SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case that challenges whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can let California impose emission standards that are stricter than those enforced by the federal government.

The case is being brought by Ohio and 16 other Republican-led states, which claim the EPA allows California to operate as a “quasi-federal regulator” regarding global climate change.

CARB cutting

How did we get here, anyway?

In a nutshell, it's all because California began regulating car emissions before the federal government — or any other state, for that matter.

In an effort to combat the state's growing smog problem, in 1966, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan approved the establishment of the nation's first tailpipe emissions standards. A year later, the California Air Resources Board, was established to set and oversee air quality regulations.

When the federal government enacted its own, more lenient emissions standards with the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, it allowed California to maintain its stricter regulations.

Auto manufacturers balked, claiming it was prohibitively expensive to deal with unique emissions standards for each state.

Waive bye-bye?

The government offered a compromise, enabling states either to adhere to the federal standards or adopt their own emissions standards that were identical to those enforced in California. This was accomplished through a waiver system established by the EPA, which later became known as the "California Waiver."

Since then, California has been granted some 100 waivers. Under the Obama administration, the EPA essentially adapted California greenhouse gas emissions standards as federal policy — along with the state's push for all new vehicles to be zero-emissions by 2035.

In 2020, the Trump administration rolled back these regulations, only to have President Biden reinstate them.

In addition to Ohio, the other states participating in the lawsuit include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Fuel for the fire

Fuel producers are also challenging the waiver. In June, trade association American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers joined a coalition of 15 energy, agriculture, and biofuel groups to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS. The coalition argues that the Clean Air Act's "California Exemption" does not empower one state to restrict consumer access to internal-combustion vehicles.

In a statement, AFPM CEO and President Chet Thompson said:

We are very pleased that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to grant cert on this very important case. The drastic impacts of California’s EV mandates on consumers, national security, and electricity reliability are major questions in need of immediate resolution as California and the ... EPA continue to stretch and abuse the limits of Congress’ Clean Air Act waiver provision. Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales — all of which the state is attempting to do through its intentional misreading of statute. We look forward to our day in court.

California has been steering the nation's emissions policy for far too long. Let's hope SCOTUS can finally kick them out of the driver's seat.