Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

Trump Waged a Multi-Front Blitz on EVs

Among other actions, he overturned an electric vehicle mandate that, well, doesn’t exist.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Ding dong, the electric vehicle “mandate” is dead.

President Donald Trump fulfilled his longtime campaign promise on Monday by functionally ending former President Joe Biden’s tailpipe emissions standards, which had aimed to “accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.”

As part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed Monday night in the Oval Office, Trump specifically demanded the elimination of “the electric vehicle mandate,” ordered a “level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles,” and directed the termination of “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,” as well as the elimination of “unfair subsidies … that favor EVs.”

Though the finer details of how this will be implemented aren’t clear in the executive order, there has never been an actual electric vehicle mandate. The rules under Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency would have required a gradual reduction in fleetwide average carbon emissions by up to 56% by 2032. To meet that goal, electric vehicles would have needed to make up 35% to 56% of new car sales by 2032, up from 8% in 2024. According to the Biden administration, the rule would have cut more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions through 2055, or “roughly equal to four times the emissions of the entire transportation sector in 2021.”

Trump’s executive order also appeared to target the Biden administration’s fuel economy standards. Back in June, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a rule that raised the fleetwide average fuel economy of passenger cars for model years 2027 through 2031 by 2% each year — that is, to 47 miles per gallon in 2026 and to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2031. (The current average is around 39.1 miles per gallon.)

Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the rules, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE Standards, arguing they “effectively mandate EVs while at the same time forcing the internal combustion engine out of the market.” The GOP has insisted that the CAFE Standards should be “market-driven” rather than “limit availability of and access to vehicle and fuel options.” Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s playbook for the Trump administration, called for a fuel efficiency standard of 35 mpg.

CAFE Standards have long been a political football between administrations; Trump previously rolled back President Barack Obama’s standards, while Biden’s NHTSA brought even stricter rules.

Monday’s executive order additionally appeared to target the EPA’s waiver for California to set its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act in its language targeting “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” Trump previously revoked California’s right to include greenhouse gases in its emissions considerations and barred other states from adopting its criteria. Biden reversed that decision in March 2022, on the grounds that the Trump administration’s withdrawal was based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Since then, California released its Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which 11 other states have adopted and requires all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission.

It had been no secret that the California waiver would be a target of the incoming Trump administration, despite the program being a secret profit center for Tesla and supported by Elon Musk. California has also quietly been working to Trump-proof its standards, reaching an agreement recently with Stellantis (the parent automaker of Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram) to comply voluntarily with its electrification mandates through 2030. (As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has noted, the nationwide EPA rules for tailpipe emission reductions “follow a different model than the California standards,” and are not an electric vehicle mandate.)

By directing the EPA to revoke the California waiver, Trump has started a process that could lead to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Justices declined to consider whether or not California has the right to set its own aggressive tailpipe standards, but if Trump indeed attempts to rescind the waiver, it will likely face further legal challenges.

Taken together, the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order seems designed to deliver on Trump’s frequent campaign attacks on EVs on the 2024 campaign trail, where he argued that “under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear.” Heatmap’s own investigation found little evidence to suggest that making electric vehicles will result in fewer jobs. Trump’s tune on EVs had changed in recent months, however, as he grew closer to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

It’s true, also, that executive orders are not the automatic rule of law; many of the policies will face time-consuming new rulemaking processes or legal challenges. More clarity about what the “Unleashing American Energy” order does precisely, and how it will be implemented, will become clear in the weeks and months ahead.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Adaptation

The ‘Buffer’ That Can Protect a Town from Wildfires

Paradise, California, is snatching up high-risk properties to create a defensive perimeter and prevent the town from burning again.

Homes as a wildfire buffer.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The 2018 Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire in California’s history, wiping out 90% of the structures in the mountain town of Paradise and killing at least 85 people in a matter of hours. Investigations afterward found that Paradise’s town planners had ignored warnings of the fire risk to its residents and forgone common-sense preparations that would have saved lives. In the years since, the Camp Fire has consequently become a cautionary tale for similar communities in high-risk wildfire areas — places like Chinese Camp, a small historic landmark in the Sierra Nevada foothills that dramatically burned to the ground last week as part of the nearly 14,000-acre TCU September Lightning Complex.

More recently, Paradise has also become a model for how a town can rebuild wisely after a wildfire. At least some of that is due to the work of Dan Efseaff, the director of the Paradise Recreation and Park District, who has launched a program to identify and acquire some of the highest-risk, hardest-to-access properties in the Camp Fire burn scar. Though he has a limited total operating budget of around $5.5 million and relies heavily on the charity of local property owners (he’s currently in the process of applying for a $15 million grant with a $5 million match for the program) Efseaff has nevertheless managed to build the beginning of a defensible buffer of managed parkland around Paradise that could potentially buy the town time in the case of a future wildfire.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

How the Tax Bill Is Empowering Anti-Renewables Activists

A war of attrition is now turning in opponents’ favor.

Massachusetts and solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, Getty Images

A solar developer’s defeat in Massachusetts last week reveals just how much stronger project opponents are on the battlefield after the de facto repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Last week, solar developer PureSky pulled five projects under development around the western Massachusetts town of Shutesbury. PureSky’s facilities had been in the works for years and would together represent what the developer has claimed would be one of the state’s largest solar projects thus far. In a statement, the company laid blame on “broader policy and regulatory headwinds,” including the state’s existing renewables incentives not keeping pace with rising costs and “federal policy updates,” which PureSky said were “making it harder to finance projects like those proposed near Shutesbury.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Midwest Is Becoming Even Tougher for Solar Projects

And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewables.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Wells County, Indiana – One of the nation’s most at-risk solar projects may now be prompting a full on moratorium.

  • Late last week, this county was teed up to potentially advance a new restrictive solar ordinance that would’ve cut off zoning access for large-scale facilities. That’s obviously bad for developers. But it would’ve still allowed solar facilities up to 50 acres and grandfathered in projects that had previously signed agreements with local officials.
  • However, solar opponents swamped the county Area Planning Commission meeting to decide on the ordinance, turning it into an over four-hour display in which many requested in public comments to outright ban solar projects entirely without a grandfathering clause.
  • It’s clear part of the opposition is inflamed over the EDF Paddlefish Solar project, which we ranked last year as one of the nation’s top imperiled renewables facilities in progress. The project has already resulted in a moratorium in another county, Huntington.
  • Although the Paddlefish project is not unique in its risks, it is what we view as a bellwether for the future of solar development in farming communities, as the Fort Wayne-adjacent county is a picturesque display of many areas across the United States. Pro-renewables advocates have sought to tamp down opposition with tactics such as a direct text messaging campaign, which I previously scooped last week.
  • Yet despite the counter-communications, momentum is heading in the other direction. At the meeting, officials ultimately decided to punt a decision to next month so they could edit their draft ordinance to assuage aggrieved residents.
  • Also worth noting: anyone could see from Heatmap Pro data that this county would be an incredibly difficult fight for a solar developer. Despite a slim majority of local support for renewable energy, the county has a nearly 100% opposition risk rating, due in no small part to its large agricultural workforce and MAGA leanings.

2. Clark County, Ohio – Another Ohio county has significantly restricted renewable energy development, this time with big political implications.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow