Underpinning this whole regime is California’s Clean Air Act waiver, granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, which allows the state to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those at the federal level due to the “compelling and extraordinary circumstances” it faces when it comes to air quality. During his first term, Trump sought to rescind portions of this waiver related to greenhouse gas emissions and the ZEV mandate, and his campaign stated that he will do so again. While the federal government’s comparably weaker emissions standards ensure that the credit market won’t disappear completely, eliminating the waiver would cause it — and Tesla — to take a major hit.
“Given that Tesla has no new major high-volume product that they’ve announced, not having access to these credits is only going to be harmful,” Corey Cantor, an EV analyst at BloombergNEF, told me.
Tesla understands this — or at least it used to. The company strongly opposed the first Trump administration’s efforts to decrease penalties for automakers that fell short of federal fuel economy standards. “Tesla was in there in all those lawsuits arguing that the Trump administration was wrong and the penalty should be increased,” Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA, told me. As she explained, this is “evidence of how important that market is to them.” The higher the emissions penalties, the more automakers will rely on credits to avoid them.
Right now, California’s emissions targets are quite ambitious, and they’re poised to get even more so over the next decade, which would cause the credit market to heat up, too. With the introduction of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, 35% of all 2026 models sold must be ZEVs. These new vehicles, which include passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs, will start hitting production lines next year. The targets ramp up quickly from there — 68% of 2030 models must be ZEVs, while a full 100% of 2035 models must be zero-emissions. Besides California, 11 other states, plus Washington D.C. have signed onto these regulations.
Under Trump, all of these goals are likely gone — though it’s probable that they wouldn’t have been met anyway. Based on total retail sales so far this year, no states are selling a large enough percent of EVs and hybrids to comply with California’s forthcoming standards — not even California itself, which CNBC reports is sitting at 27% EV and plug-in hybrid sales. Toyota came out and called these standards impossible to meet, but there’s no indication that California is backing down.
The first time a Trump administration rescinded the state’s waiver, a number of automakers, including BMW of North America, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen Group of America, and Volvo agreed to abide by California’s original standards anyway, in exchange for an extra year to meet emissions targets and increased flexibility overall. The waiver ordeal ultimately got tied up in courts, and California’s regulations ended up being inactive for just two-and-a-half years, until Biden reinstated the waiver in 2022. Litigation is still ongoing, however, with a suit from an Ohio-led coalition of red states expected to end up in the Supreme Court.
Carlson told me we should know whether the court decides to accept this case in the next few months. At the heart of the argument is a question about whether California’s “compelling and extraordinary circumstances” extend to limiting climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions and not just smog-causing air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides or particulate matter.
“All states are affected by climate. [California]’s not unique in the way that it had unique air pollution problems,” Carlson told me, explaining the argument Trump and red state allies will likely make. “California is going to retort by saying, We have very compelling and extraordinary circumstances. We have drought, we have higher temperatures, our ozone pollution is going up. We have wildfires, we have water supply issues.”
While we know that the conservative Supreme Court is relatively hostile to aggressive greenhouse gas regulation, which side of the debate Tesla winds up on is anyone’s guess. Now that Musk is within Trump’s inner circle, he apparently has a number of personal business interests that he’d like to pursue. These include federal funding for SpaceX and Starlink, but perhaps most importantly regulations around Tesla’s autonomous driving system, which he views as the future of the company. Despite findings that these systems have caused hundreds of crashes and a number of fatalities, Musk said on an October earnings call that he is seeking a federal approvals process for autonomous vehicles. This could expedite the current system, which requires lengthy applications for every state.
Cantor thinks it’s possible that Musk might be making strategic decisions about what fights to pick. “I wonder if there’s been so much focus on the autonomous vehicle regulations at the national level that it’s like, EV stuff be damned, I don’t really care, as long as I get my national AV authorization.“
After all, Tesla isn’t kicking up a fuss about Trump’s plan to go after the consumer EV tax credit, which Musk seems to think would cement the company’s dominant market position, on the assumption that less-experienced-makers will suffer more from the subsidy’s repeal. While looser emissions standards for Tesla’s competitors and reduced income from compliance credits seem like more of a clear-cut loss for Musk, perhaps it’s a hit he’s willing to take in pursuit of his broader goals.
At any rate, Carlson told me that an enduring rollback of California’s waiver will depend on competent administrators that are familiar with the complexity of the legislative process — not something Trump appointees are exactly known for. “The one thing that I can’t quite wrap my mind around is what the effect of Lee Zeldin combined with Project 2025 means,” Carlson said. Zeldin, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, has no experience running a government agency and little expertise in environmental policy.
“The effect of an inexperienced administrator, combined with potentially freezing out or even firing some of the most competent and skilled economists, scientists, etc, could totally undermine the ability to do this in a way that is legally sustainable and fast,” Carlson told me.
If you squint hard enough, maybe that’s the silver lining, here.
