After Trump Win, Toyota Executive Criticizes “De Facto” U.S. EV Mandate
Trump plans to begin by rescinding California’s authority to dictate emission levels, which Biden reinstated after Trump’s first term. Trump is also going to explore tariffs to help the US automotive industry.
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that in 20222, I reported that Toyota Motor chief Akio Toyoda was very skeptical of moving to only producing electric vehicles (EVs). Toyoda also indicated that most people in the auto industry agree with him.
“People involved in the auto industry are largely a silent majority,” Toyoda said. “That silent majority is wondering whether EVs are really OK to have as a single option. But they think it’s the trend so they can’t speak out loudly.”
Then, this fall, I noted that Now BMW’s CEO Oliver Zipse argued that Europe’s 2035 ban on internal combustion engines (ICE) is unrealistic and could increase reliance on Chinese batteries.
The re-election of President Donald Trump is now sending a signal to other concerned automotive officials about the rush to EVs.
Toyota Motor Corp.’s North American chief operating officer criticized the US’s policies promoting speedy adoption of electric vehicles, calling them “de facto mandates” out of sync with consumer demand.
Noting government support for EVs has been a hotly debated issue in the US presidential election, Toyota North America COO Jack Hollis said sales of all-electric vehicle should grow organically, without rules penalizing gas-powered car sales.
“The whole EV ecosystem is ahead of the consumer,” Hollis told reporters Friday, pointing to tailpipe emission rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and California. “It’s not in alignment with consumers. It’s just not.”
It is interesting to note that Toyota recently revealed plans to cut EV production by a third to its suppliers. These new plans cut the production of EVs by 500,000 in 2026 than originally planned.
Japan’s largest automaker is lowering its global EV production goal to 1 million by 2026. The update comes after Toyota announced plans last May to sell 1.5 million EVs by 2026.
The new plans call for building 400,000 electric cars in 2025, doubling that number to 1 million by the following year.
Although Toyota is cutting EV production, it still expects a big jump in sales from the 104,018 electric cars sold in 2023. Through the first seven months of 2024, Toyota has sold about 80,000 EVs.
Toyota and other like-minded automakers likely feel empowered to share honest observation on market forces. President-elect Trump has said he wants to scrap the “Green New Scam,” otherwise known as the Inflation Reduction Act, that was essentially the Green New Deal dressed-up as economic policy.
Trump is targeting Biden’s climate insanity “on day one“:
“And I will end the electric-vehicle mandate on day one,” Trump said during his speech at the Republican National Convention in July, adding that he would save “the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration.” There is no nationwide U.S. electric-vehicle mandate, but some states, led by California, have implemented their own rules to phase out fossil fuel-powered vehicles.
Although rolling back environmental regulations would give automakers more wiggle room to continue selling gas-powered vehicles, which account for the bulk of many automakers’ revenues, it would rattle their EV plans.
Trump plans to begin by rescinding California’s authority to dictate emission levels, which Biden reinstated after Trump’s first term. Trump is also going to explore tariffs to help the US automotive industry.
The American Trucking Associations on Wednesday called on Trump to replace the EPA’s tighter tailpipe emissions with national emission standards that were “technologically achievable and account for the operational realities of our essential industry.”
Trump plans to rescind California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions rules, as he did in 2019. President Joe Biden reinstated California’s authority. Trump will also decide how to spend billions of dollars in EV charging grants.
Trump has repeatedly warned he will impose tariffs of 200% or more on vehicles imported from Mexico and could also impose them on Asian and European vehicles.
Trump wants to prevent Chinese auto imports, but is open to Chinese automakers building vehicles in the United States.
The EV market may expand naturally, as Team Trump plans to pare back or eliminate EV tax breaks and other incentives.
In the end, Toyota and other car manufacturers can now make strategic decisions based on consumer preference and not on the whims of eco-activist bureaucrats.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Trump plans to begin by rescinding California’s authority to dictate emission levels”
This is great, and it should go beyond emissions. California has been getting away with foisting their craziness on all Americans. They deserve major B slapping.
Why doesn’t Trump just eliminate CAFE and let manufacturers sell whatever customers will buy irrespective of mileage per gallon? They might wind up selling more cars and fewer pickup trucks. But who cares?
He probably can’t. CAFE was established by congressional statute, so it can only be repealed by congressional statute. It’s hugely unlikely Republicans could get them repealed so long as the filibuster exists. BUT, I think the Secretary of Transportation (or maybe it’s Energy, not sure) enjoys broad authority to establish – or change – the standards.
Thanks, TargaGTS. I thought it might be a legislated mandate but didn’t want to take the time to look it up. If the Secretary of Whatever can tinker with it, well, let’s have at it! Just gotta make sure it complies with Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
Ethanol has a somewhat similar mandate,
The legislation might be ripe for challenge. Arguably, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce (and therefore the articles that move in IC), and this constitutional grant of authority isn’t transferable to any other authority. The right challenge could produce a decision that Congress’ delegation of authority to the States in this matter of IC is unconstitutional.
I’ve been saying this for years about California’s (and other States’) firearms regulations (e.g., bans on “assault weapons” & “high-capacity” magazines, and requiring firearms to meet certain standards, such as a requirement for manual safeties). These regulations intrude upon Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction over IC, and in the case of firearms regulation, California has no such cut-out from Congress authorizing it to meddle in IC matters. It’s particularly egregious because one of the purposes of granting exclusive authority over IC to Congress was to prevent one or more states from interfering with manufacturing in other States, which is exactly what many of CA’s firearms regulations (as well as their auto emission regulations) do. Effectively, requirements for a product to meet a State’s standard for sale in that State extends the State’s legislative jurisdiction into those States where the articles are manufactured.
One might grant that a State has legislative jurisdiction over manufacturing within the geographic boundaries of the State. But California has even managed to distort IC with such regulations. For instance, it created new regulations for the keeping of egg-laying chickens, raising the cost of CA-produced eggs. This would have put CA egg producers at a disadvantage to egg producers in other States who could sell their product in CA for less. So CA crafted the legislation so that it required all sellers of eggs in CA to abide by the regulations. The State intentionally hamstrung its own producers, then leveled the field by extending their legislative reach to include producers in other States. I see this as an unconstitutional intrusion into IC, and an infringement of the authority that belongs exclusively to Congress. (Yes, out of state producers could just stop selling eggs in CA. But this would favor CA producers by effectively keeping competitors out of the CA market. And this is exactly the type of protectionism the Constitution’s commerce clause was meant to prevent.)
Just to be clear, we’re talking about two different things. The OP inquired about CAFE standards, the federal fuel mileage standards that auto producers must hit for their respective fleets of cars, You’re talking about about environmental regulations – tailpipe emissions – that California is adding beyond what the feds establish. California has separate and distinct CAFE and tailpipe emissions beyond what’s implemented by Congress. I honestly don’t know much about the EPA regs. But, your hypothesis sounds plausible. On its face, it seems like California is manipulating market pressures on the national automotive market which is almost certainly prohibited by the Commerce Clause.
Sure he can. He can remove the NHTSA’s rule making authority over this and subject it to review by OMB. That would hamstring it. He could also terminate the bureaucrats within it that are increasingly insane with their rules over tailpipe emissions making them more and more stringent for less and less gain in an obvious attempt to eradicate ICE vehicles and push the nation into EV’s
IIRC, Trump slowed the implementation of stricter CAFE standards to give time for the ability of the industry to catch up to those stricter standards. I think this is a good idea so everybody can get used to the idea of cars getting 40 MPG, crossovers 35 MPG, and pickup trucks 30 MPG – if they ever can. Give the manufacturers time to figure out how to do it and the public time to accept it. Mandating design by bureaucrats who have no idea how the industry works is just stupid.
.
“They might wind up selling more cars and fewer pickup trucks. But who cares?”
They actually should encourage that. People buy / factories sell pickup trucks in large part to evade CAFE standards and prices for roomy vehicles. Allowing them to go back to buying cars at a much older CAFE standard would positively affect aggregate national fuel usage and improve consumer wealth retention.
Great news for consumer choice. Things are looking up.
If the auto manufactures cut back on EV’s Elon wins big.
Toyota was one of the few manufacturers smart enough to hedge their bets on the whole electric vehicle thing. They’ve been very good with hybrids and now it seems the rest of the industry is kind of going all in on hybrids because they offer some of the advantages with none of the drawbacks.
Here’s another one for Team Trump:
The price of air conditioners is expected to increase significantly in 2025 due to new EPA regulations and changes in refrigerant requirements. Here are the key points to understand:
Reasons for Price Increase
New EPA Regulations: Starting January 1, 2025, new EPA rules will require air conditioning units to be more energy-efficient and use new types of refrigerants. This is part of the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act aimed at reducing environmental impact.
Refrigerant Changes: The current R-410A refrigerant will be phased out in favor of new, more environmentally friendly refrigerants like R-454B and R-32. These new refrigerants have a lower global warming potential.
Manufacturing Costs: Manufacturers will need to redesign and produce entirely new units to meet the new specifications, leading to increased production costs.
Expected Price Increase
While estimates vary, the general consensus is that air conditioning prices will rise significantly:
15-20% increase according to some industry experts
20-25% increase predicted by others
Some sources suggest prices could potentially double, though this seems to be on the higher end of estimates.
Impact on Consumers
The price increase will affect both residential and commercial air conditioning systems. Homeowners considering an AC replacement may want to act before 2025 to avoid the higher costs12. However, it’s important to note that while current models may be cheaper, the new systems coming in 2025 will be more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.
Additional Considerations
The supply of current R-410A systems may become limited as manufacturers transition to new models.
The cost of maintaining existing systems may also increase as R-410A refrigerant becomes scarcer and more expensive.
New safety protocols and technician training will be required for the new refrigerants, potentially affecting service costs.
Given these impending changes, homeowners with older AC systems may want to consider replacing their units before 2025 to avoid the price increase and potential supply issues. However, those who can wait might benefit from more efficient and environmentally friendly systems, albeit at a higher initial cost.
Have the patents run out on the current refrigerants? Isn’t that why the previous generation of refrigerants were phased out? Requirements for new refrigerants seems to be a racket to keep patent holders in charge of the market.
No, that was just a coincidence. /sarc
I have a friend who jumped on that bandwagon. He replaced his AC for one of those fancy environmentally friendly super advanced systems.
He explained all the advantages, trying to convince me. for my own good. That’s his intentions and he believe(d) it, I am sure.
I asked my AC guy. He said “Don’t bother” and he gave me the reasons why.
When I told my friend, he countered: “That’s because your AC guy is not that good and he does not know how to properly work the newer models.”
Long story short, we have not talked about it anymore, but I know that he has had to call his “expert” at least 2 times since we last talked about it.
And by the way, I have a bigger house and still a lower electric bill.
The new refridgerants have a slight trace of flamable liquid (propane as I recall). They also operate at higher pressures on the high pressure line (400-450 psi vs 380 psi as I recall), thus more prone to leakage. Whether you have a gas furnace or electric furnace, you have greater fire hazard risk. I chose to replace my unit last winter so that I got the 410 instead of the newer refrigerant.
The old r22 systems operated at 220-240psi.
Dollars. Dollars are the ultimate hammer. Like when jimmy carter came up with the national 55mph speed limit. “Implement this insane policy, or lose all federal highway funding.” Montanans: “Have you ever driven across our state at 55 mph? I bet, “NO YOU HAVEN’T NOR WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO.”
The point. Every state, or any state that allows any one of their jurisdiction to implement an EV MANDATE, cut off all federal highway funds, or severely limit said funds. If they sue and are successful, great, we find out the threat of cutting off federal funds (by democrat and Republican administrations) for any reason is saber rattling full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
H’,mm. Tariffs to help the US Auto industry. Will those tariffs apply to Chinese Lincolns and Buicks? Will that apply to Korean? Chevrolets?
They will apply to imported vehicles and imported parts. The goal is to provide incentives for manufacturing to come back to the USA. The Southern auto plants are the example; BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai, VW and so on who’ve built plants in the US.
I have a 1987 Ford diesel 4×4 F250. 6.9l, totally non computerized any thing. Not a lot of power–about 175 hp– but indestructible.
Every time I read about these EV’s, I make a note to never sell it. I have a wall covered with sticky notes saying the same thing.
I am not anti EV. We have three Teslas in the family. If you have excess solar they are a great commute vehicle. Tow a 10k lb trailer? Forget about it,
Toyota is world’s largest automaker now. It will continue to make bank building ICE cars for the asian market which is growing at faster rate than US market. While detroit down-sizes its way to bankruptcy.
Leave a Comment