Connect with us
Ford-general-motors-10-billion-fuel-economy-fine Ford-general-motors-10-billion-fuel-economy-fine

News

Detroit 3 estimated to face ~$10B in fuel economy fines through 2032

Published

on

The Detroit 3—Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis—are estimated to face up to $10 billion in fuel economy fines under U.S. President Joe Biden’s proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). 

In a letter seen by Reuters, The American Automotive Policy Council—which represents General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford—wrote to the United States Energy Department (DOE) about the Biden administration’s CAFE requirements. The Council proposed that the DOE revise its “Petroleum Equivalency Factor” as it would result in “disproportionately higher compliance costs for U.S. automakers

In July, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed a boost in the CAFE requirements, covering the 2027 to 2032 model years. In 2022, the agency finalized rules for 2024-2026 model years, which required a fleet average of 49 mpg by 2026. The recently proposed boost would increase fuel economy standards by 2% per year for passenger cars and 4% per year for light trucks. It also proposed an increase of 10% per year in fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans from model years 2030 to 2035.

The Council calculated that General Motors would pay $6.5 billion in fines. Meanwhile, Stellantis—formerly Fiat-Chrysler—would be fined $3 billion, and Ford would need to pay $1 billion in fuel economy fines under CAFE requirements. Volkswagen would also need to pay $1 billion in fines, the largest among foreign automakers. 

In its letter to the DOE, the Council argued that the Detroit three automakers would face compliance costs of $2,151 per vehicle compared to $546 per car on average sold by other automakers. The Council states that the policy “would reward those auto manufacturers resisting the transition to a fully electric future the most.” 

Advertisement

The NHTSA calculated that its new fuel economy standards would save 2032 vehicle owners about $1,043 per vehicle in lifetime fuel costs and increase vehicle costs by $932. The agency stated the new rules would “encourage manufacturers producing (internal combustion engine) vehicles during the standard-setting timeframe to achieve significant fuel economy, improve energy security, and reduce harmful pollution by a large amount.”

Meanwhile, the DOE wants to revise how it calculates petroleum-equivalent fuel economy ratings for electric vehicles in the NHTSA’s CAFE program. The DOE sent a letter to the Detroit 3 requesting information on the challenges of production development lead time. 

“Encouraging adoption of EVs can reduce petroleum consumption, but giving too much credit for that adoption can lead to increased net petroleum use because it enables lower fuel economy among conventional vehicles,” stated the DOE earlier this year.

The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via X @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement

Maria--aka "M"-- is an experienced writer and book editor. She's written about several topics including health, tech, and politics. As a book editor, she's worked with authors who write Sci-Fi, Romance, and Dark Fantasy. M loves hearing from TESLARATI readers. If you have any tips or article ideas, contact her at maria@teslarati.com or via X, @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

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.”

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Q1 Earnings: What Elon Musk and Co. will answer during the call

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.

With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.

These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:

  1. When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
  2. What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
  3. How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
  4. When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
  5. When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?

Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:

  1. Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
  2. What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
  3. Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?

The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.

This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.

Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.

The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.

Continue Reading