The EPA is announcing expected new emissions rules today that will save Americans trillions of dollars in health and fuel costs, avoid nearly 10 billion tons of emissions, and result in an EV market share of about 60% by 2030 and 67% by 2032.
The rules are an improvement from President Biden’s previous commitment of 50% electric by 2030. But they’re also far ahead of what many automakers are planning, leaving millions of EV sales up for grabs come 2030.
On a press call in advance of the announcement, White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi noted that the auto industry has progressed significantly since Biden’s original executive order targeting 50% EVs was signed two years ago. The number of available EV models has doubled, charging stations have doubled, and total EV deployments have tripled.
As a result of the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Bill, there has been significant public and private investment into electric car infrastructure and manufacturing. Zaidi said this will enable the production of 13 million vehicles’ worth of batteries in the US in 2030 – more than enough to meet today’s targets.
The investment and spending from these laws enabled the EPA to set more stringent targets with today’s rules than it might have been able to otherwise. While today’s regulations are stronger than previous targets, projections for BEV market share have been continually increased in recent years, such that an additional increase from today’s estimate seems feasible.
The new EPA rules do not mandate a certain percentage of EV sales, but rather mandate rapidly decreasing average fleet CO₂ emissions. Between 2026 and 2032, fleet emissions will need to drop by an average of 13% per year, until reaching 82g CO₂ per mile by 2032. By comparison, the average new vehicle in 2021 emitted 347gCO₂/mi – about four times as much as the 2032 rule.
They also target emissions of several other pollutants such as NOx, PM2.5, VOCs, SOx, and so on, reducing each by about half in the long term.
Watch EPA Administrator Michael Regan’s formal announcement of the new rule below, at 11 a.m. EDT:
Automakers can meet these mandates with whichever technology they choose, whether battery electric vehicles or otherwise. However, it is likely that most automakers will lean heavily on BEVs as they emit nothing at the tailpipe and are more easily scalable than other technologies like hybrids, fuel cells, or attempting to wring more efficiency out of gasoline engines.
The new rules cover not only passenger cars but also medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, with additional targets specific to those sectors. These standards will result in greater deployment of “vocational vehicles” like electric delivery trucks, dump trucks, transit, school buses and more – EPA estimates 50% of these will be electric by 2032.
EPA calculated costs and benefits from the new rules and estimates that the benefits of the new standards would exceed costs by at least $1 trillion, potentially much more in optimistic scenarios. The average consumer will save $12,000 over the life of a vehicle, in addition to hundreds of billions of health and climate benefits and reduced dependence on foreign oil to the tune of tens of billions of barrels.
And most importantly, EPA says that these new guidelines should contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2ºC,” which is important to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
In addition to these emissions guidelines, the regulations seek to establish a minimum warranty period for EV batteries of at least 8 years and 80,000 miles and to require onboard battery health monitors. They will also reduce the gap between passenger car and “light truck” (SUV/pickup) emissions requirements, which could reduce some incentive that automakers currently have to build bigger and deadlier SUVs.
While the EPA’s guidelines do not match California’s new ACC2 regulations which ban sales of new ICE cars by 2035, EPA does acknowledge that a number of states have or will adopt ACC2, and a number of other countries are targeting similar all-EV timelines. Regions representing about 25% of global auto sales have already adopted goals banning new ICE cars by 2035, which establishes the global trend towards electrification. EPA also acknowledged that the largest US automaker, GM, requested an all-electric by 2035 target, but still decided to limit its rulemaking to model year 2032, rather than 2035.
The proposed regulations will go up for public review in the Federal Register, where the EPA also seeks feedback on three additional alternatives. These alternatives are 10gCO₂/mi more or less stringent than the proposed standards, with “Alternative 1” being the most stringent of the three. You can probably guess which of those alternatives we as Electrek would prefer.
Electrek’s Take
Reading through these regulations is quite a relief for someone who has been advocating for stronger emissions standards for so long, especially through four years of lying incompetence with previous EPA leadership. It’s nice to read government speak plainly about the necessity of a regulation, how it will help, how it will be achieved, and that it is achievable, all supported with real science.
With so much of our political discussion these days centered around 140-character regurgitations vomited uncritically from one talking head to another, sitting down to dig into (*checks notes*) 1,475 pages (oh-god-I’m-not-sleeping-tonight-am-I) of competent regulation is actually a bit of a breath of fresh air.
Whatever, call me a nerd. I accept it.
Importantly, these regulations are a significant increase from current automaker commitments, so we will need to see updates on those coming soon. As I argued after NYTimes leaked the upcoming rules over the weekend, the auto industry is up for grabs with these new rules.
I estimated that there will be a gap of roughly 2 million electric vehicles between this new EPA regulation and current automaker commitments for 2030 (EPA included a similar table in their proposed rule today, with similar numbers). That gap will need to be filled, and the most likely companies to fill it are the EV-only brands who have jumped in cannonball-style, instead of testing the water one toe at a time like some incumbent automakers have.
While these rules may be challenged, they still give industry a baseline that they need to target, and that they need to start working on now given the length of car development timelines. Any company that isn’t ready to meet these guidelines will be in a tough spot if the rules do survive inevitable challenges, or alternately, if the rules get strengthened over time.
And they just might, because we think there’s a good chance nobody’s going to want a gas car well before 2035 anyway. So automakers better get to work, and a swift kick in the pants by government might be just the motivation they need to save themselves.
If I’m going to criticize, I would like to have seen the EPA just copy California’s ACC2, unifying emissions rules across the US. This last happened when current President Biden was Vice President back in 2012, when CARB and the EPA worked together on emissions targets.
CARB intentionally set ACC2 targets a little lower than what California is probably capable of in the hopes to bring other states along, perhaps with the hope that the whole nation might adopt these standards. And 2035 is achievable nationwide, so we should do it, especially since it’s necessary to keep warming to 1.5ºC. But maybe, when it comes time to propose 2035 rules (since EPA stopped at 2032), we’ll be ready to ratchet things up a bit more, just as today’s rules did from the previous 50% target.
The proposed rules lag behind public opinion as well. According to a recent poll, a majority of US voters support a requirement that 100% of new cars sold be electric starting 2030. The idea was “strongly” or “somewhat” supported by 55% of respondents, and opposed by just 35%. This is another reason we ask “why not sooner?” about a 2035 target for 100% electric car sales.
But despite our misgivings, these actions taken today are still enormously important, a huge step forward for EVs, for Americans’ health and pocketbooks, and for the climate. It’s great to see.
Russian President Vladimir Putin tours an exhibition at the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War on Poklonnaya Gora in Moscow, Russia, April 30, 2025.
Alexander Kazakov | Via Reuters
Russia has shown little appetite for peace negotiations with Ukraine, despite Moscow making a show of what war experts described as “performative ceasefires,” and a number of attempts by U.S. President Donald Trump to persuade Russian leader Vladimir Putin to talk to Kyiv.
In fact, Moscow is widely believed to be planning a new summer offensive in Ukraine to consolidate territorial gains in the southern and eastern parts of the country, that its forces partially occupy. If successful, the offensive could give Russia more leverage in any future talks.
While Russia seems reluctant to pursue peace now, increasing economic and military pressures at home — ranging from supplies of military hardware and recruitment of soldiers, to sanctions on revenue-generating exports like oil — could be the factors that eventually drive Moscow to the negotiating table.
“Russia will seek to intensify offensive operations to build pressure during negotiations, but the pressure cannot be sustained indefinitely,” Jack Watling, senior research fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, said in analysis Tuesday.
Russian stockpiles of military equipment left over from the Soviet era, including tanks, artillery and infantry fighting vehicles, will be running out between now and mid-fall, Watling said, meaning that Russia’s ability to replace losses will be entirely dependent on what it can produce from scratch.
“At the same time, while Russia can fight another two campaign seasons with its current approach to recruitment, further offensive operations into 2026 will likely require further forced mobilisation, which is both politically and economically challenging,” Watling surmised.
CNBC has contacted the Kremlin for a response to the comments and is awaiting a reply.
Economy slowing
In the meantime, dark clouds are gathering on the horizon when it comes to Russia’s war-focused economy, which has labored under the weight of international sanctions as well as homegrown pressures, also largely resulting from war, such as rampant inflation and high food and production costs that even Putin described as “alarming.”
Russia’s central bank (CBR) has stood the course of keeping interest rates high (at 21%) in a bid to lower the rate of inflation, which stood at 10.2% in April. The CBR said in May that a disinflationary process is underway but that “a prolonged period of tight monetary policy” is still required for inflation to return to its target of 4% in 2026. In the meantime, a marked slowdown in the Russian economy has surprised some economists.
“The sharp slowdown in Russian gross domestic product growth from 4.5% year-on-year in the fourth quarter, to 1.4% in the first quarter is consistent with a sharp fall in output and suggests that the economy may be heading for a much harder landing than we had expected,” Liam Peach, senior emerging markets economist at Capital Economics commented last week.
“Such a sharp drop in GDP growth has surprised us, although we had expected a slowdown to take hold this year,” he noted, adding that “a technical recession is possible over the first half of the year and GDP growth over 2025 as a whole could come in significantly below our current forecast of 2.5%.”
In this pool photograph distributed by Russian state agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin visits Uralvagonzavod, the country’s main tank factory in the Urals, in Nizhny Tagil, on Feb. 15, 2024.
Ramil Sitdikov | Afp | Getty Images
The growth that remains in the Russian economy is concentrated in manufacturing, specifically the defense sector and related industries, and is being fueled by state spending, according to Alexander Kolyandr, senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
“After three years of militarizing the country, Russia’s economy is cooling,” he said in online analysis for CEPA, noting that the slowdown in inflation, less borrowing by companies and consumers, declining imports, industrial output and consumer spending all pointed to the slowdown continuing.
That’s not disputed by Russian officials, with the Economic Development Ministry predicting that economic growth will slow from 4.3% in 2024 to 2.5% this year.
“The economy is not demobilizing; it is just running out of steam. That said, a drop can easily become a dive. Bad decisions by policymakers, a further dip in oil prices, or carelessness with inflation, and Russia could find itself in trouble,” Kolyandr said.
Sanctions and oil price bite
What’s particularly starting to hurt Russia are factors beyond its control, including tighter sanctions on Russia’s “shadow fleet” (vessels illicitly transporting oil in a bid to evade sanctions enacted following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine) and a decline in oil prices as a result of Trump’s global tariffs policy that is hitting demand.
On Thursday, benchmark Brent futures with a July expiry stood at $64.94 a barrel while frontmonth July U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude was at $61.65. The last spot price of a barrel of Urals crude oil, Russia’s benchmark, was at $59.97, according to LSEG data.
At the start of 2025, Brent was trading at $74.64 per barrel, while WTI and Urals crude were trading at $75.13 and $70.04, respectively.
FILE PHOTO: Crude oil tanker Nevskiy Prospect, owned by Russia’s leading tanker group Sovcomflot, transits the Bosphorus in Istanbul, Turkey September 6, 2020.
Yoruk Isik | Reuters
A lower oil price will “severely limit Russian revenue while its reserves are becoming depleted,” RUSI’s analyst Watling remarked.
“More aggressive enforcement against Russia’s shadow fleet and the continuation of Ukraine’s deep strike campaign could reduce the liquid capital that has so far allowed Russia to steadily increase defence production and offer massive bonuses for volunteers joining the military,” he said.
If Western allies can maintain and strengthen efforts to degrade Russia’s economy, and Ukraine’s forces “deny Russia from reaching the borders of Donetsk [in eastern Ukraine] between now and Christmas,” then “Moscow will face hard choices about the costs it is prepared to incur for continuing the war.”
“Under such conditions the Russians may move from Potemkin negotiations to actually negotiating,” Watling said.
U.S. President Donald Trump sits next to Crypto czar David Sacks at the White House Crypto Summit at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 7, 2025.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
President Donald Trump‘s top crypto and AI advisor David Sacks said Wednesday that the administration expects the stablecoin legislation moving through the Senate to pass with “significant bipartisan support,” and claimed it could unlock demand for U.S. Treasuries.
“We already have over $200 billion in stablecoins — it’s just unregulated,” Sacks told CNBC’s “Closing Bell Overtime.” “If we provide the legal clarity and legal framework for this, I think we could create trillions of dollars of demand for our Treasuries practically overnight, very quickly.”
The GENIUS Act — a bill to regulate stablecoins — cleared a key procedural vote in the Senate. With 15 Democrats voting for the bill to pass the cloture threshold this week, the proponents have the votes necessary to avoid a filibuster.
“We have every expectation now that it’s going to pass,” added Sacks, though he didn’t answer a question about concerns from Democrats that there aren’t sufficient safeguards in place to keep the president and his family from profiting from legislation.
Read more about tech and crypto from CNBC Pro
Democrats previously rejected the GENIUS Act in part on concern that President Trump’s personal cryptocurrency ventures, including his own meme coin and a stablecoin from his family’s crypto business, created an unprecedented conflict of interest.
Unlike digital assets such as bitcoin, which can trade wildly, stablecoins are a subset of cryptocurrencies whose value is tied to that of a real-world asset, like the U.S. dollar. Bitcoin hit a new record on Wednesday, nearing $110,000.
Tether, which is banked by Cantor Fitzgerald in the U.S., controls more than 60% of the stablecoin market. Deutsche Bank found that stablecoin transactions hit $28 trillion last year, surpassing that of Mastercard and Visa, combined.
Sacks, who has emerged as a powerful policy voice inside Trump’s inner circle, framed the GENIUS Act not just as a crypto breakthrough but as a national economic strategy.
“Stablecoins offer a new, more efficient, cheaper, smoother payment system — new payment rails for the U.S. economy,” he said. “It also extends the dominance of the dollar online.”
The White House has aggressively backed the effort, even as concerns mount over the president’s potential conflicts.
Abu Dhabi’s MGX investment fund recently pledged $2 billion in USD1 to Binance, the world’s largest digital assets exchange. It’s the company’s largest-ever investment made in crypto.
Still, the path to passage isn’t entirely smooth. Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., added a controversial rider to the bill that would cap credit card late fees — what’s seen as a poison pill that could alienate banking allies and stall final approval.
The Trump administration wants to pull the plug on ENERGY STAR, the federal program behind those familiar blue labels on energy-efficient appliances, homes, and buildings. Launched in 1992, ENERGY STAR has saved Americans more than $500 billion in energy costs while slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
To dig into what this means for everyday Americans, we spoke with Rebecca Foster, CEO of clean energy nonprofit Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), which has spent decades working to make homes, schools, and businesses more energy efficient.
Electrek: What is the ENERGY STAR program, and what are the benefits for consumers?
Rebecca Foster: It’s simple: ENERGY STAR helps customers and businesses save energy and reduce costs. The program does this by clearly labeling which products are energy-efficient options. It’s a certification of confidence – it does not dictate efficiency standards. The program was created in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and has enjoyed decades of bipartisan support.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The brand has become the backbone of energy efficiency across the country. ENERGY STAR is a recognized and reliable mark of efficient appliances and electronics that lower costs and improve indoor air quality. The ENERGY STAR label has also expanded to include efficiency standards for weatherizing homes and certifying when new buildings are constructed to high efficiency standards. Utilities benefit from ENERGY STAR, too – with more efficient appliances and systems plugged in, they are better able to manage the grid and decrease costs for customers.
The main benefit to consumers is significant savings through energy efficiency. A typical home can save around $450 a year on their energy bills by choosing ENERGY STAR-certified products, according to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimate. Lower-income households spend a greater proportion of their budget on energy, so losing that savings will be felt especially hard by these families. Energy efficiency programs that VEIC administers, including Efficiency Vermont, Efficiency Smart, and the DC Sustainable Energy Utility, have incorporated ENERGY STAR certifications into their rebates and educational materials for decades. The ENERGY STAR certification is an easy way to let people know which products are eligible for rebates and encourage folks to choose the more efficient option by making it more affordable with incentives. Combined, these programs have delivered more than $694 million in customer incentives since 2000, resulting in over $5.6 billion in lifetime customer savings.
Evaluations of the ENERGY STAR program show it saves US households about $40 billion a year nationwide – and has delivered about $500 billion in savings since it began. All for a program that costs the government just $30 million annually. According to the Consortium for Energy Efficiency‘s 2022 survey, where I worked for over a decade prior to joining VEIC, nearly 90% of US households report recognizing the ENERGY STAR label and almost half (45%) report knowingly purchasing an ENERGY STAR-certified product or home within the last 12 months.
Electrek:How would ending the ENERGY STAR program hurt consumers at a national and regional level?
Rebecca Foster: Efficiency labels and education from ENERGY STAR leads to more affordable energy bills for customers. Ending the program means less clarity and guidance for how to choose the more efficient option, which means higher costs month after month. Households are increasingly opting for more efficient, all-electric clean technologies like cold climate heat pumps for heating/cooling and EVs for their transportation needs. That means efficiency will become even more important for households to maintain lower electricity use. So, losing ENERGY STAR now will really cost Americans more in the short and long term.
Regionally and on a local level, getting rid of ENERGY STAR could disrupt energy efficiency programs run by states, utilities, and third-party administrators that rely on the ENERGY STAR label for rebates. It could also hurt manufacturers, distributors, and contractors who have built their businesses around providing and installing more efficient equipment. Existing lists of qualified products will quickly become out of date as new models and new technology enter the market. We could see programs in different states or run by different entities come up with confusing or competing standards for their rebates, making it more difficult for people to save energy.
All of these impacts hurt consumers, especially at a time when families and businesses are already struggling to keep up with rising costs.
Electrek:What sort of impact would ending this program have on the grid?
Rebecca Foster: A stable electric grid is more important than ever as we see growing electricity demand due to data centers and AI and an increasing reliance on electricity to meet more of our daily needs. ENERGY STAR has been the backbone of energy efficiency across the country for decades, and it’s delivered the more efficient lighting, appliances, and heating systems that are in use today in countless homes. Efficiency is a major reason why US electricity demand has been flat for the last two decades, according to the EIA.
Losing ENERGY STAR would slow down and complicate management of the grid because efficiency contributes to a stable and optimized grid. It also helps avoid the costly expansion of transmission projects by reducing demand without asking customers to make large behavioral changes.
A more efficient grid can also avoid investing in new fossil fuel power generation, like natural gas power plants, helping meet state and regional goals for clean energy and emissions reductions. ENERGY STAR is a great tool for realizing an efficient, electrified future. Ending the program will put a greater burden on grid operators and utilities by taking away one of the most effective tools in the toolbox for addressing rising energy demand: customer participation.
Rebecca Foster is VEIC’s CEO. Heading up the executive leadership team, Rebecca guides the nonprofit’s strategic planning, business development, and performance across its contracts nationwide. With nearly 25 years of experience in the clean energy industry, Rebecca is a seasoned leader dedicated to the organization’s mission of generating the energy solutions the world needs.
VEIC is a national clean energy nonprofit that delivers high-impact energy solutions focused on equity and innovation. Since 1986, VEIC has been recognized as a leader in decarbonization strategies, working with governments, utilities, foundations, and businesses to reduce GHG emissions and create a sustainable energy system that benefits everyone.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.