The Biden Administration is pulling back on a proposed rule that would require automakers to build fewer combustion engine vehicles or face hefty fines.
On Tuesday, the Department of Energy decided to slow down the phase-out of existing rules that give car companies extra fuel-economy credits for the EVs they sell. The goal was to help U.S. car companies meet federal fuel efficiency standards while maintaining the ability to sell gas-powered pickups and SUVs that are big money makers.
The Biden White House decided to pull back the rules after meeting with automakers who said they could not meet the aggressive goals for a widespread EV transition.
The previous rules aimed to have 67 percent, or roughly two-thirds, of all new cars be electric by 2032. The new rules now allow for 30 to 56 percent of all new car sales to be EVs.
BREAKING
You might not own an electric vehicle by 2032, after all.
The EPA is *easing* its emissions rule ramp-up after major concerns from the car industry.
Percentage of EVs by 2032:
Previous plan: 67%
Current plan: 30-56%Dealers and consumers – how do you feel about…
— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) March 20, 2024
Last year, the U.S. EV market share was under 8 percent.
Tesla wants the U.S. to enact stricter fuel efficiency standards
The backpedaling comes as President Biden is attempting to bolster his re-election campaign. Reuters, in its report, points out that the move could be an attempt to sway some votes in his direction as the battleground state of Michigan, where General Motors and Ford, two legacy automakers, are based.
The Biden Administration’s concession comes as Donald Trump has stated that the heavy EV policies could cost millions of jobs and help Chinese EV makers dominate the growing U.S. EV sector.
The now-pulled-back proposal would have lowered “petroleum-equivalent fuel economy” ratings for EVs by 72 percent in 2027. By 2030, they would have been reduced by a total of 65 percent, giving companies more time to adjust to the strict standards.
Companies supported the announcement after they disclosed to the White House that meeting these standards would become increasingly difficult.
The Reuters report also states that GM would have faced $6.5 billion in fines, Stellantis would have been stuck with a $3 billion penalty, and Ford would have had $1 billion in fines.
The EPA also announced on Wednesday that it would implement revised standards for vehicle emissions from 2027 to 2032.
These new rules will require emissions reductions in every new car sold starting in 2027. To meet the new standards, automakers will be able to utilize cleaner technologies for gas-powered cars and add more zero-emissions EVs to their lineups.
The final rule would help the industry meet the limits of 56 percent of new vehicle sales being all-electric by 2032. It would also see at least 13 percent of new car sales be hybrid vehicles.
“Let me be clear: Our final rule delivers the same, if not more, pollution reduction than we set out in our proposal,” the EPA’s Michael Regan said, according to NBC.
“Today’s announcement will shift the trajectory of the automobile market and put us on a path to real emissions reductions, with an estimated 7.2 billion tons of global warming pollution avoided by 2055,” Steven Higashide, Director of the Clean Transportation Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. “These rules are the strongest standards ever finalized and vital for meeting U.S. climate goals. This rule is technology-neutral and won’t mandate electric vehicles, but it will encourage this growing market. New cars sold in the coming years will be on the road for a decade or more, so it’s vital that these rules cut emissions from gasoline cars as well as encourage zero-emission electric cars.”
The new regulations are more aligned with the automotive industry’s beliefs. Dealers and the UAW saw previous plans from the EPA as unrealistic.
However, climate groups believe these standards will help eliminate emissions.
“These standards will help clean up emissions from transportation—the biggest source of global warming pollution in the U.S. To achieve their full potential, these rules must be accompanied by other investments in a cleaner, more accessible transportation system,” Higashide added.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
