US Automakers are planning to ask Mr. Trump to retain President Biden’s EPA exhaust rules, in the face of signs that Mr. Trump might try to reverse them. If the rules are reversed, it would cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of deaths per year.
Interestingly, this is the opposite of what big auto did the last time a reality TV show came to the White House – signaling that they have perhaps learned their lesson this time ’round.
First, some history.
In the middle of the 20th century, the effects of human activity on the atmosphere became readily apparent. Certain cities – with Los Angeles among the forefront – were choked by smog, and it was soon found out that vehicle pollution was the primary reason for this smog.
Since Los Angeles was one of the most smog-choked cities, California led the way on clean air regulation, creating the California Air Resources Board in 1967 (under then-Governor Ronald Reagan).
The federal government gave California special dispensation to set stricter regulations than the rest of the country, in recognition that it had a unique smog problem in its primary metropolis. California has retained this dispensation, in the form of a “waiver,” since then. And other states can follow California’s rules, but only if they copy all of the rules exactly.
Thus, there have been two separate sets of clean air regulation in this country since then – the federal rules, and then the “CARB states” which follow California’s rules.
In 2012 that finally changed, when President Obama’s EPA negotiated with California to finally harmonize these standards and also implement higher fuel efficiency nationwide. This would have been a huge boon for both industry and consumers, saving money and giving regulatory certainty to the auto industry.
But then, in 2016, the candidate who got the 2nd most votes in the presidential election was headed for the White House. And automakers responded by immediately lobbying to torpedo these standards, even before inauguration.
Now, you might think that asking a profoundly ignorant individual, who ended up staffing the EPA with bought-and-sold science deniers (huh, that would never happen again would it?), to change rules which had already been set through years of negotiation and lobbying was not a great idea. And you’d be right.
Not long after automakers had the dumb idea to ask an idiot to fix something that wasn’t broken, that idiot went and broke things further, fracturing the agreement between California and the federal government and ensuring less regulatory certainty for automakers.
But it was too late, and we are now back in the era of disparate regulatory regimes – something which John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (formerly called Global Automakers), keeps complaining about these days, despite having lobbied for exactly this in the first place.
The US EPA and California are still not fully harmonized, but both released recent new standards which do have somewhat similar targets. If a manufacturer builds towards one set of rules, they’ll probably not be too far off from meeting the other.
So in the end, we did get better emissions regulations and California has continued to push forward with clean air regulations, thus signaling a failure on the part of Mr. Trump to cause the long term harm to Americans that he and his oil industry solicitors so desperately seem to desire.
The most recent EPA standards, finalized in March (after being softened at the auto industry’s request), do not mandate any particular powertrain, but rather require steep emissions cuts – and EVs are the easiest way to achieve lower emissions.
Notably, Tesla lobbied in favor of making this last set of standards stronger, and they also lobbied against ruining the Obama/CA standards in 2016 – being one of very few automakers who were on the correct side of that discussion.
Despite that the President Biden EPA’s rules do not mandate any particular powertrain, Mr. Trump, in his usual ignorance, has said that he will end the nonexistent EV mandate. And now that he has received more votes than his opponent for the first time (after three tries, and despite committing treason in 2021 for which there is a clear legal remedy), it looks like the upcoming EPA might be directed to end these emissions cuts and fuel/health cost savings for Americans.
But in this instance, it sounds like the automakers might actually do the right thing for once, and ask the government not to do any rollbacks, and instead let them continue on with the plans without disruption from a convicted felon who seems determined to cede a US EV manufacturing boom back to China.
Detroit’s Big Three automakers – GM, Ford and Stellantis – are all reportedly trying to figure out how to ensure that these rules stay in place. The mentality is that constantly changing regulations are not beneficial for companies – particularly in the auto realm, where models take on the order of 7 years to plan and execute. Long-term planning is important for the hundreds of billions in manufacturing investment that EVs have attracted in the US during Biden’s EV push.
These attitudes are notable, given that this is not what automakers did in 2016/2017. That time, they compulsively pushed for fewer regulations, and now they are asking for regulations to remain in place.
It’s further notable that Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company lobbied strongly in favor of emissions cuts and makes more use of the federal EV tax credit than any other company, is now allied with the very entity that’s looking to harm EVs. It seems that we have entered opposite world.
On the other hand, a former reality TV host – tagged along with by the CEO of the company that has sold more electric cars than any other – seem determined to kill electric cars, despite the harm that would cause to Americans’ pocketbooks and health insurance premiums. And that famously vindictive character may be even more spurred towards this harmful course of action after failing in his efforts the first time.
Who ya got?
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.
President Donald Trump‘s attack on solar and wind projects threatens to raise energy prices for consumers and undermine a stretched electric grid that’s already straining to meet rapidly growing demand, renewable energy executives warn.
Trump has long said wind power turbines are unattractive and endanger birds, and that solar installations take up too much land. This week, he said his administration will not approve solar and wind projects, the latest salvo in a campaign the president has waged against the renewable energy industry since taking office.
“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”
Trump’s statement this week seemed to confirm industry fears that the Interior Department will block federal permits for solar and wind projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum took control of all permit approvals last month in a move that the American Clean Power Association criticized as “obstruction,” calling it “unprecedented political review.”
The Interior Department blocking permits would slow the growth of the entire solar and wind industry, top executives at renewable developers Arevon, Avantus and Engie North America told CNBC.
Even solar and wind projects on private land may need approvals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if, for example, a waterway or animal species is affected, the executives told CNBC. The three power companies are among the top 10 renewable developers in the U.S., according to energy research firm Enverus.
The Interior Department “will not give preferential treatment to massive, unreliable projects that make no sense for the American people or that risk harming communities or the environment,” a spokesperson told CNBC when asked if new permits would be issued for solar and wind construction.
Choking off renewables will worsen a looming power supply shortage, harm the electric grid and lead to higher electricity prices for consumers, said Kevin Smith, CEO of Arevon, a solar and battery storage developer headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, that’s active in 17 states. Arevon operates five gigawatts of power equivalent to $10 billion of capital investment.
“I don’t think everybody realizes how big the crunch is going to be,” Smith said. “We’re making that crunch more and more difficult with these policy changes.”
Uncertainty hits investment
The red tape at the Interior Department and rising costs from Trump’s copper and steel tariffs have created market instability that makes planning difficult, the renewable executives said.
“We don’t want to sign contracts until we know what the playing field is,” said Cliff Graham, CEO of Avantus, a solar and battery storage developer headquartered in San Diego. Avantus has built three gigawatts of solar and storage across the desert Southwest.
“I can do whatever you want me to do and have a viable business, I just need the rules set and in place,” Graham said.
Engie North America, the U.S. arm of a global energy company based in Paris, is slashing its planned investment in the U.S. by 50% due to tariffs and regulatory uncertainty, said David Carroll, the chief renewables officer who leads the American subsidiary. Engie could cut its plans even more, he said.
Engie’s North American subsidiary, headquartered in Houston, will operate about 11 gigawatts of solar, battery storage and wind power by year end.
Multinationals like Engie have long viewed the U.S. as one of the most stable business environments in the world, Carroll said. But that assessment is changing in Engie’s boardroom and across the industry, he said.
“The stability of the U.S. business market is no longer really the gold standard,” Carroll said.
Rising costs
Arevon is seeing costs for solar and battery storage projects increase by as much as 30% due to the metal tariffs, said Smith, the CEO. Many renewable developers are renegotiating power prices with utilities to cover the sudden spike in costs because projects no longer pencil out financially, he said.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act ends two key tax credits for solar and wind projects in late 2027, making conditions even more challenging. The investment tax credit supported new renewable construction and the production credit boosted clean electricity generation.
Those tax credits were just passed on to consumers, Smith said. Their termination and the rising costs from tariffs will mean higher utility bills for families and businesses, he said.
The price that Avantus charges for solar power has roughly doubled to $60 per megawatt-hour as interest rates and tariffs have increased over the years, said CEO Graham. Prices will surge again to around $100 per megawatt-hour when the tax credits are gone, he said.
“The small manufacturers, small companies and mom and pops will see their electric bills go up, and it’ll start pushing the small entrepreneurs out of the industry or out of the marketplace,” Graham said.
Renewable projects that start construction by next July, a year after the One Big Beautiful Act became law, will still qualify for the tax credits. Arevon, Avantus and Engie are moving forward with projects currently under construction, but the outlook is less certain for projects later in the decade.
The U.S. will see a big downturn in new renewable power generation starting in the second half of 2026 through 2028 as new projects no longer qualify for tax credits, said Smith, the head of Arevon.
“The small- and medium-sized players that can’t take the financial risk, some of them will disappear,” Smith said. “You’re going to see less projects built in the sector.”
Artificial intelligence power crunch
Fewer renewable power plants could increase the risk of brownouts or blackouts, Smith said. Electricity demand is surging from the data centers that technology companies are building to train artificial intelligence systems. PJM Interconnection, the largest electrical grid in the U.S. that coordinates wholesale electricity in 13 states and the District of Columbia, has warned of tight power supplies because too little new generation is coming online.
Renewables are the power source that can most quickly meet demand, Smith at Arevon said. More than 90% of the power waiting to connect to the grid is solar, battery storage or wind, according to data from Enverus.
“The power requirement is largely going to be coming from the new energy sector or not at all,” so without it, “the grid becomes substantially hampered,” Smith said.
Trump is prioritizing oil, gas and nuclear power as “the most effective and reliable tools to power our country,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.
“President Trump serves the American people who voted to implement his America First energy agenda – not solar and wind executives who are sad that Biden’s Green New Scam subsidies are ending,” Kelly said.
But new natural gas plants won’t come online for another five years due to supply issues, new nuclear power is a decade away and no new coal plants are on the drawing board.
Utilities may have to turn away data centers at some point because there isn’t enough surplus power to run them, and no one wants to risk blackouts at hospitals, schools and homes, Arevon’s Smith said. This would pressure the U.S. in its race against China to master AI, a Trump administration priority.
“The panic in the data center, AI world is probably not going to set in for another 12 months or so, when they start realizing that they can’t get the power they need in some of these areas where they’re planning to build data centers,” Smith said.
“Then we’ll see what happens,” said the University of Chicago MBA, who’s worked in the energy industry for 35 years. “There may be a reversal in policy to try and build whatever we can and get power onto the grid.”
Over the weekend, Tesla began offering many Cybertruck trade-in estimated values above the original purchase price, apparently due to a glitch in its system.
Tesla offers online trade-in estimates for individuals considering purchasing a vehicle from them.
Over the last few days, Cybertruck owners who submitted their vehicles through the system were surprised to see Tesla offering extremely high valuations on the vehicle, often above what they originally paid for the electric truck.
Here are a few examples:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
$79,200 for a 2025 Cybertruck AWD with 18,000 miles. Since this is a 2025 model year, it was eligible for the tax credit and Tesla is offering the same price as new without incentive.
Here Tesla offered $118,800 for a 2024 Cybertruck ‘Cyberbeast’ tri-motor with 21,000 miles.
In this example, Tesla offers $11,000 more than the owner originally paid for a 2024 Cybertruck.
So, trade in the Foundation Series Cybertruck AWD for $11k more than I paid for it originally, re-buy an AWD with FSD for $79,490 after the tax credit.
I’d lose free supercharging for life, Cyberwheels, and white interior.
The trade-in estimates made no sense. Tesla has been known to offer more attractive estimates online and then come lower with the official final offer, but this is on a whole different level.
Some speculated that Tesla’s trade-in estimate system was malfunctioning, while others thought Tesla was indirectly recalling early Cybertrucks.
It appears to be the former.
Some Tesla Cybertruck owners who tried to go through a new order with their Cybertruck as a trade-in were told by Tesla advisors that the system was “glitching” and they would not be honoring those prices.
Tesla told buyers that it would be refunding its usually “non-refundable” order fee.
Electrek’s Take
That’s a weird glitch. I assume that it was trying to change how the trade-in value would be estimated and the new math didn’t work for the Cybertruck for whatever reason.
It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
The Cybertruck’s value is already quite weird due to the fact that Tesla still has new vehicles made in 2024, which are not eligible for the tax credit incentive, while the new ones made in 2025 are eligible.
There’s also the Foundation Series, which bundles many features for a $20,000 higher price.
All these things affect the value and can make it hard to compare with new Cybertrucks offered with 0% interest.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Like a 90s “gifted” kid that was supposed to be a lot of things, the electric Jeep Wagoneer S never really found its place — but when dealers started discounting the Jeep brands forward-looking flagship by nearly $25,000 back in June, I wrote that it might be time to give the go-fast Wagoneer S a second look.
Whether we’re talking about Mercedes-Benz, Cerberus, Fiat, or even Enzo Ferrari, outsiders have labeled Jeep as a potentially premium brand that could, “if managed properly,” command luxury-level prices all over the globe. That hasn’t happened, and Stellantis is just the latest in a long line of companies to sink massive capital into the brand only to realize that people will not, in fact, spend Mercedes money on a Jeep.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
That said, the Jeep Wagoneer S is not a bad car (and neither is its totally different, hideously massive, ICE-powered Wagoneer sibling, frankly). Built on the same Stellantis STLA Large vehicle platform that underpins the sporty Charger Daytona EVs, the confusingly-named Wagoneer S packs dual electric motors putting out almost 600 hp. That’s good enough to scoot the ‘ute 0 to 60 mph in a stomach-turning 3.5 seconds and enough, on paper, to convince Stellantis executives that they had developed a real, market-ready alternative to the Tesla Model Y.
With the wrong name and a sky-high starting price of $66,995 (not including the $1,795 destination fee), however, that demand didn’t materialize, leaving the Wagoneer S languishing on dealer lots across the country.
That could be about to change, however, thanks to big discounts on Wagoneer S being reported at CDJR dealers in several states:
Jeff Belzer’s in Minnesota has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $39,758 ($28,032 off)
Troncalli CDJR in Georgia has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,590 MSRP for $42,697 ($24,893 off)
Whitewater CDJR in Minnesota has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $43,846 ($23,944 off)
Antioch CDJR in Illinois has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $44,540 ($23,250 off)
“Stellantis bet big on electric versions of iconic American brands like Jeep and Dodge, but consumers aren’t buying the premise,” writes CDG’s Marcus Amick. “(Stellantis’ dealer body) is now stuck with expensive EVs that need huge discounts to move, eating into already thin margins while competitors focus on [more] profitable gas-powered vehicles.”
All of which is to say: if you’ve found yourself drawn to the Jeep Wagoneer S, but couldn’t quite stomach the $70,000+ window stickers, you might want to check in with your local Jeep dealer and see how you feel about it at a JCPenneys-like 30% off!
Jeep Wagoneer S gallery
Original content from Electrek; images via Stellantis.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. The best part? No one will call you until after you’ve elected to move forward. Get started, hassle-free, by clicking here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.