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 flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
