Connect with us

Published

on

The EPA has finalized its proposed 2027-2032 emissions rule, which is expected to result in a large increase in zero emission vehicle sales as vehicle exhaust limits rise rapidly through the end of the decade, on top of a separate rule yesterday from DoE about EV mpg-equivalents. Both rules were softened from their original proposals just like automakers asked for, but the largest automaker lobbyist is still complaining.

The regulations have been somewhat softened from the original proposal to allow more time for compliance, while maintaining roughly the same targets for 2032.

This softening is in accordance with requests from both the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI), the main auto industry lobby group which has routinely lobbied to torpedo emissions standards in the past, and the United Auto Workers union (UAW), who worried that domestic auto production, which focuses disproportionately on high-polluting trucks and SUVs, would be disproportionately affected by the new rule.

UAW has repeatedly stated its support for a “just transition” to electric vehicles, as long as good-paying manufacturing jobs are retained. EPA projects that these rules will result in an increase in auto manufacturing employment.

The final rule also comes hot on the heels of a false media narrative that EV sales are slowing, which they are not. But this narrative has been seeded in the media over the course of the past few months, likely in an attempt to influence these very regulations. It seems that industry lied hard enough, successfully enough, and media blindly took the bait often enough, to successfully create a false narrative that may have influenced a softening of the regulations.

The rule sets emissions targets that would likely result in a 60% EV new car market share in 2030, rising to 67% in 2032. But the rule did not and does not mandate an EV share – it merely sets emissions targets which would likely necessitate that level of zero emission vehicle penetration to meet.

The rule is “technology neutral” in that those emissions limits can be met with a higher mix of more-efficient hybrid vehicles, or with fuel cell vehicles, or with battery electrics, or with whatever else. It is expected that the vast majority of zero emission vehicle production to help meet the rule will be battery electric, though.

But the proposal included multiple “alternatives” accounting for different adoption scenarios, with some accelerating more quickly in earlier years, and some curving upwards later on. AAI and UAW favored delayed adoption curves, while Volvo, Tesla, Rivian and Lucid all supported stronger alternatives. You can see what each automaker supported here.

AAI preferred “Alternative 3,” which would allow many more gas cars to be sold from 2027-2032, and continue to pollute for decades down the line

And of course, doctors, nurses, scientists, environmental groups, many businesses, people who recognize that they have lungs which they would like to continue using, and so on, generally support the strongest regulation possible. But who listens to those idiots anyway?

EPA has landed roughly on alternative 3, which is the alternative that was requested by AAI, the industry lobby group who has previously utilized lies in the process of lobbying for more death and higher fuel costs for Americans, rather than the alternative requested by public interest organizations who have not tried to kill you.

This alternative means significantly less savings, significantly more pollution and significantly more death than the proposed rule in the short term, but it does still represent enormous progress over the status quo, and even a big improvement from President Biden’s 2021 executive order targeting 50% EV sales by 2030. And the administration says that it still cuts the same amount of emissions in the long term, over 30 years.

This improvement was possible due to the rapid growth in EV sales, availability of EV technology, and widening of available EV models, all of which gave EPA the confidence to offer a reasonably strong tailpipe rule.

See EPA administrator Michael Regan and White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi announce the rule here

And the finalized rule will still save Americans $100 billion dollars in fuel costs and health and climate benefits per year, save some 2,000 lives per year, and cut 7 billion tons of climate pollution in total, among many other benefits. Though the savings per vehicle seems to be down from $12,000, which was the number quoted in the original rule, to $6,000, which is the number quoted by the administration’s press release today (we’re not sure why, if the 2032 regulations are the same as in the proposed rule).

And quite importantly, there is one line in the finalized rule which suggests the EPA understands it has made mistakes in the past by separating emissions regulations for cars and “light trucks” (SUVs). This favorable treatment for light trucks has been credited with helping to cause ballooning vehicle sizes, which has swallowed up any progress we could have made on auto emissions.

By making a rule to “narrow the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves,” EPA intends to reduce favorable treatment for light trucks, which means we might actually be able to buy a normal f%&*ing sized vehicle in America again in a decade or two (save us R3, you’re our only hope).

And so, despite the weakening of the rule, it was still praised by the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Consumer Reports, the League of Conservation Voters, BlueGreen Alliance, and Ceres, among many other organizations due to the significant health, consumer and environmental benefits it will bring.

Sierra Club and Public Citizen also recognize the improvement the regulations represent, but point out how intense lobbying from automakers and auto dealers worked to water down the rules at the expense of our climate.

DoE Petroleum Equivalency rule also released, despite auto lobby complaints

In addition to today’s EPA rule, the Department of Energy released a separate rule yesterday, concerning a “Petroleum Equivalency Factor” which decides how EVs are treated in fuel economy calculations. Currently, EVs get a tremendous benefit, meaning that automakers have to make a comparatively low number of EVs to bring their fleet average up to required levels.

The new PEF rules reduce the benefit that EVs get in this calculation. This is not because EVs aren’t clean, but rather so that automakers can’t build a bunch of polluting vehicles and a few clean vehicles just to pump their averages up. The new PEF will ensure that automakers need to make suitable amounts of EVs, instead of just a few compliance cars that give them a lot of bonus points.

This is in contrast to what AAI said about the new PEF rule, suggesting that it is a bad change which will disincentivize EV production because it reduces the benefit EVs get. This is not correct, relies on a misunderstanding of how averages work, and seems simply to be an attempt to get the mathematically-ignorant to go along with AAI’s anti-environment stance. Either that or John “does your head hurt?” Bozzella, president of the AAI, really can’t figure out how to do Junior High-level mathematics.

But the PEF rule, too, was loosened before implementation, reducing EV fuel economy calculations by 65%, rather than the 72% requested by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club. This means that EVs will still get probably a little more credit than they deserve, allowing automakers to still make a few more polluting vehicles than they would have with a stricter cut (though EVs will still have enough benefit to encourage their use over, say, gas hybrid vehicles).

Sierra Club and NRDC still praised the new PEF rule even after its weakening. Pete Huffman, senior attorney at NRDC, said “The automakers’ free ride is over. This important update from the Department of Energy will curtail automakers’ use of phantom credits they used to keep selling gas guzzlers. They now need to hit the accelerator on more fuel-efficient vehicles, saving consumers money at the pump.”

There is one more rule still coming, an update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rule, which will incorporate the PEF rule into its mileage calculations. We’re not sure quite when that will come out, but it will likely show up by the end of the month, which will help protect it from potential legal challenges should the US elections in November result in a leading party that is hostile to human existence, and wants to continue to force pollution down our throats rather than ensure Americans have the choice to drive better and cleaner vehicles.

Electrek’s Take

I and many other people who have lungs are disappointed by the softening of these regulations today.

These are still very good regulations. After reading the initial proposed rule, I was impressed and refreshed by how exceedingly well-reasoned it was. Especially compared to the previous four years of lying incompetence under former EPA leadership (which is back on the table as a possible option come November, so you might want to get your ballots ready to oppose that). 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.

And, in particular, I’m over the moon about the inclusion of the part about “narrow[ing] the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves.”

But why is it that every single time we have to hear the same story:

  • Public interest groups beg for an eminently achievable improvement that will help everyone.
  • Industry screams about how impossible that improvement would be (it isn’t) and spends a ridiculous amount of money that only they have in order to influence it.
  • Government (at least serious government, which is to say, not the lying incompetents at the helm of the EPA from 2017-2021) examines the two cases and compromises to come up with a rule that is achievable, but isn’t as much in the public interest as it could be since it has been watered down by expensive lobbying efforts by polluting industry.
  • Public interest groups still say that it would be nice for everyone if the rule was made a little better.
  • Industry says there’s absolutely no way they can possibly do the compromise, and you need to make it “better” (aka, worse for living beings).
  • Government compromises again, always away from the direction of public interest groups, and gives industry exactly what they wanted.
  • Industry whines anyway and sues to stop the rule entirely, despite already getting two compromises in their favor, because those compromises still don’t kill nearly as many people or cost the public as much money and misery as industry desperately needs. And then begs for a reversal of the rule entirely come the next change in government (again, get your ballots ready for November).

We all recognize this pattern, right? This is not the first time it has happened, and it won’t be the last. But I contend that we have to stop negotiating with these environmental terrorists. They’re the ones who led us here, so I see no reason that they should have a greater seat at the table than those of us who have to breathe in the garbage that they keep pumping into the air without consequence. The EPA has made a fundamentally good rule, but watering-down its implementation was not the right choice.

But in the end, maybe it doesn’t matter. The current rise in EV sales has come well in excess of the underlying environmental regulations. This rule sets a floor, not a ceiling (Bozzella, in contrast, characterized the final rule as “a stretch goal” – no it’s not, it’s the rules), and the market can exceed these targets as more and more consumers recognize the superiority of electric vehicles, and that it’s probably a pretty poor idea to buy a gas car when the technology doesn’t have much of a future going for it.

We’ve seen it happen elsewhere, with Norway well above 90% plug-in car sales in advance of its 2025 target, and with China’s EV penetration rising incredibly rapidly, which caught foreign automakers by surprise.

These regulations are important and ensure that everyone gets on the same page – and, frankly, laggard automakers should probably thank the government for encouraging them to get on board. If emissions progress continues to exceed regulatory minimums, as it so far has, laggard companies are going to be left out even more if they just aim for the absolute minimum. And in that respect, weakening of the standards is bad for these laggard companies who lobbied for it, not good.

By raising that minimum, government is giving the likes of Toyota or Stellantis the kick in the pants they might need to get their act in gear. Because the industry is going to be upended, and laggards will be left behind.

Or maybe they’ll just sit on their hands and sue. Again. Oh well. We tried to save you and you just didn’t listen.

Featured Photo by Billy Hathorn

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Ford beat every supercar at Goodwood with a truck because EVs are just better

Published

on

By

Ford beat every supercar at Goodwood with a truck because EVs are just better

The Goodwood Festival of Speed happened this weekend, and Ford’s electric SuperTruck managed to beat every other vehicle, gas or electric, to the top of the hill.

The Goodwood Festival of Speed is a yearly event on the grounds of Goodwood House, a historic estate in West Sussex, England. The event started in 1993, and has become one of the largest motorsports festivals in the world.

Many companies attend Goodwood to debut new models, and enthusiasts or race teams will show off rare or customized vehicles or race unique cars.

One of the central features of the event is the Goodwood hillclimb, a short one-way race up a small hill on the property. The track is only 1.17mi/1.89km long, with a 304ft/92.7m uphill climb. It’s not a particularly taxing event – merely a fun way to show off some classic or unique racing vehicles.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

As is often the case, companies brought out several interesting EVs to the event, including Honda’s Super EV concept, the recently-unveiled Hyundai Ioniq 6N, and the upcoming Porsche Cayenne EV, still in camouflage after recently setting an SUV record at another UK hillclimb.

Many of these cars came just to show off, to do a demonstration run up the hill and join the company of the world’s most exotic hypercars.

But some cars show up for the glory, and join “the shootout,” the sprint up the hill for the best time.

And Ford didn’t come to show off, it came to win. And in order to win, it brought…. a truck.

The F-150 “SuperTruck” / Source: Ford

Ford’s SuperTruck is a one-off, 1,400+ horsepower prototype electric vehicle, supposedly based on the F-150 Lightning, but in fact bearing almost no similarity or even resemblance.

It’s been festooned with aerodynamic elements all about, lowered, equipped with race tires, and power output has been boosted to the aforementioned 1,400hp. It was driven by Romain Dumas, who Ford have been using since 2022 to drive their electric prototypes.

For the purposes of a hillclimb, perhaps the most important aspect is the Ford’s electric drive. Hillclimbs are a popular form of racing in Britain, and often consist of a short sprint up a small hill, showcasing acceleration and nimbleness more than anything.

Electric cars do well in this sort of racing due to their instant low-end torque, being able to jump off the line faster than the gas competition. They also tend to have plenty of torque, which helps with carrying them up the hills involved.

EVs do well on longer hillclimbs too, because as races reach higher and higher altitudes, gas cars suffer from reduced power due to less oxygen being available for combustion. EVs don’t suffer from this, so they tend to do well at, say, Pike’s Peak hillclimb – which, incidentally, Ford also brought its SuperTruck to, and also beat everybody at.

This year was not the first time Ford has brought a ridiculous electric chonker to Goodwood. Last year, it brought the SuperVan, which has a similar powertrain to the SuperTruck, and also beat everybody.

The SuperVan’s main competition last year was Subaru’s 670hp “Project Midnight” WRX, piloted by Scott Speed, who Dumas handily defeated by over two seconds, 43.98 to 46.07. And this year, the SuperTruck’s main competition was… the same Subaru, piloted by Speed, who Dumas handily defeated by just under two seconds, 43.23 to 45.03.

Ford did not, however, set an all-time record with the SuperTruck, in fact coming in fifth on the list of fastest runs ever. In front of it are two gas cars and two electric – the gas-powered Gould GR51, a tiny open-wheel race car, with a 42.90; an F1 car driven by Nick Heidfeld that set a 41.6 in 1999; the electric VW ID.R, also piloted by Dumas with a 39.90 (which broke Heidfeld’s 20-year record); and the all-time record holder the electric McMurtry Spierling “fan car,” with a mind-blowing 39.08 in 2019.

You’ll notice something similar about all of these – they’re all small racecars that are actually built for speed, whereas the truck is… a big truck. And yet, Ford still managed to beat every single challenger this year, with its big honker of an EV, because EVs are just better.

Watch the run in full below, starting at 9:34. Blink and you’ll miss it.

And now, if Ford continues its pattern, we’re looking forward to seeing the Super Mustang Mach-E at Goodwood next year, which did well this year at a tough Pike’s Peak, getting first in its class and second overall, likely due to inclement conditions that limited running to the lower portion of the course, limiting the EV’s high-altitude advantages.

Given the Super Mustang is a real racecar, and not a chonky truck, it might even give VW’s ID.R time a run for its money (but, frankly, really has no shot at the overall record, because the Spierling’s “fans” give it an absurdly unbeatable amount of downforce).


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

GM gears up to build low-cost LFP EV batteries in Tennessee after announcing new upgrades

Published

on

By

GM gears up to build low-cost LFP EV batteries in Tennessee after announcing new upgrades

GM is preparing to begin converting production lines at its battery plant in Tennessee later this year for low-cost LFP EV batteries. GM’s joint venture, Ultium Cells, announced additional upgrades at the facility on Monday as it prepares for a new era.

GM will build low-cost LFP EV batteries in the US

After beating out Ford and Hyundai last year to become America’s second-best EV seller, GM is widening its lead in 2025.

Ultium Cells, GM’s joint venture with LG Energy Solution, announced plans to upgrade its Tennessee battery plant on Monday as it prepares to introduce lower-cost lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) battery cells.

The upgrades build on the $2.3 billion investment announced in April 2021 to convert the facility into a key EV and battery hub. The company initially said the Tennessee plant was “at the heart of GM’s EV strategy,” but that was also when GM was still committed to an all-electric future.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

GM will begin converting production lines to accommodate the lower-cost LFP batteries at the facility later this year. By late 2027, the company expects to start commercial production.

GM-low-cost-EV-batteries
Ultium Cells Spring Hill, Tennessee plant (Source: Ultium Cells)

With LFP batteries, GM said it’s “targeting significant battery pack cost savings compared to today’s high-nickel battery pack while increasing consumer EV choice.”

The Spring Hill, Tennessee, plant currently employs around 1,300 employees. With the ability to produce multiple chemistries, GM said the facility will “guide the next phase of” its battery strategy.

GM-low-cost-LFP-EV-batteries
2025 Chevy Equinox EV LT (Source: GM)

After choosing Spring Hill for its LFP batteries, the next step, according to GM, is finding a home for lithium manganese-rich batteries. GM recently announced plans to become the first company to produce LMR prismatic battery cells at commercial scale.

GM-low-cost-EV-batteries
GM plans to build a “next-gen affordable EV) in Kansas (Source: GM)

Meanwhile, GM’s Warren, Ohio, plant will continue producing NCM batteries, which it says have helped it unlock over 300 miles of range.

Electrek’s Take

GM’s electric vehicle sales more than doubled in the second quarter, led by the hot-selling Chevy Equinox EV. The company sold nearly 46,300 EVs in Q2, up 11% from last year.

Chevy is currently the fastest-growing EV brand in the US, while Cadillac claims to have already achieved “EV leader” status in the luxury segment this year. However, that does not include Tesla.

Even GMC is building momentum with the new Sierra EV, seeing strong initial demand, and Hummer EV sales are picking up.

With new, lower-cost batteries on the way, GM aims to continue narrowing the gap with Tesla. GM offers 13 electric vehicles, covering nearly every segment of the market. It already calls the Chevy Equinox EV “America’s most affordable +315 range EV,” but GM has even lower-priced models on the way, including the next-gen Chevy Bolt EV.

Ready to test drive one for yourself? You can use our links below to find Chevy, Cadillac, and GMC EVs in your area.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk says Tesla is going to have ‘the most epic demo ever’, but we heard that before

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says Tesla is going to have 'the most epic demo ever', but we heard that before

Elon Musk is teasing Tesla doing “the most epic demo ever”, but we heard him claim that before and nothing came of it.

On X last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that he was shown something at the Tesla Design Studio and that the company will hold the ” most epic demo ever by the end of the year”:

Just left the Tesla Design Studio. Most epic demo ever by the end of the year. Ever.

I used to get excited about Musk making statements like that, but I was burned one too many times.

In 2016, Musk said this:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York … by the end of next year.

The end of 2017 came and went without this demonstration and now in 2025, Tesla can’t do it either.

However, since Musk referenced being at Tesla’s Design Studio, where it mostly works on car designs and advanced features, people are speculating that it’s something else.

A possibility is the next-gen Tesla Roadster, as Musk has made similar comments about it in the past, but they were again about demonstrations that never happened.

Shortly after the unveiling of the next-gen Roadster in 2017, Musk talked about adding cold air thruster to the supercar to allow it to have unprecedented racing performance and even possibly hover over the ground.

In 2019, Musk told me that Tesla aimed to do a demonstration of that by the end of 2020:

5 years later, it never happened, and the Roadster was initially supposed to come to market in 2020. It has never launched.

In 2024, Musk claimed that Tesla would unveil and demo the new Roadster by the end of the year:

It also didn’t happen, and the CEO instead said that Tesla was “close to finalizing design” at the end of 2025.

Electrek’s Take

The comment about the demo makes me think of the Roadster, but it could be something else. Maybe a bot, but I’m not sure out of the design studio.

Either way, for the reasons listed above, it’s hard to get too excited.

You can’t just believe what Musk says these days. Historically, he has been wrong or lied too often, especially about upcoming demonstrations like this new comment.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending