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.

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.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Waiver goodbye?

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

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

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

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

Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

The house of cards is starting to fall.

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

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

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

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

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

Ram jammed

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

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

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

Hemi roars back

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

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

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

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Jeep hedges bets

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

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

This is Stellantis choosing consumers over politicians.

Survival mode

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

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

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

White flags

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

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

Drivers take the wheel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Stop CARB Act?

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

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

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

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

Why do we need it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

CARB counting

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

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

California may defy Trump with new statewide EV credits

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

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

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

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

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

Emissions mission

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

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

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

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

Better red than fed

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

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

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

Forever ZEV?

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

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

Different strokes

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

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

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

Justin Sullivan/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Electric slide

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowing to the bear

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

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

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

Off the market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad bet?

California muscle

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

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

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

Locked in

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

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

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

Federal trumps state

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

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

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

Photo by Bill Pugliano / Stringer via Getty Images

Consumer retorts

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

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

Read 'em and weep?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Trump Admin Sues California, Alleging Electric Truck Mandate Illegal

The Department of Justice is charging the state of California with defying federal law by enforcing its electric truck mandate, according to complaints filed in California and Illinois on Thursday evening. The complaints ask the federal courts to declare California's mandate illegal and to block the state from implementing it any further.

The post Trump Admin Sues California, Alleging Electric Truck Mandate Illegal appeared first on .

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.

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.