After Musk commits $180m, Trump says he’ll end EV mandate that doesn’t exist

At tonight’s Republican National Convention speech, Donald Trump declared that he’ll “end the electric vehicle mandate.” The only problem is, there is no electric vehicle mandate.

The regulations he’s talking about are probably the EPA regulations, which notably do not mandate electric vehicles at all. Those regulations were supported by Tesla – whose CEO just committed $180 million to the same person who seems to know nothing about the industry Tesla operates in.

Earlier this year, the EPA finalized significant exhaust regulations which will save Americans $100 billion dollars in fuel, health and climate costs per year, and save 2,000 lives per year and cut 7 billion tons of climate pollution in total.

Needless to say, these are great regulations all around. Everyone wants to save money on fuel and health costs, and fighting climate change and saving lives sure is a big benefit too.

They could have been better, but after lobbying from the auto and oil industries, those regulations were softened compared to the original proposal. In the end, the compromise was favored by groups across the spectrum – scientists, public interest groups, environmental activists, unions, and the auto industry all were reasonably satisfied with the regulations, even if the first few groups would have liked them to be stronger.

One notable group that got involved in lobbying for these regulations was Tesla. Tesla, Lucid and Rivian all filed briefs supporting “alternative 1,” the strongest option which was actually stronger than the original proposal, while other automakers supported much worse sets of regulations.

In the end, the regulations are “technology-agnostic,” which means that automakers can choose to meet these regulations using whatever engine technology they can. There is no mandate on how automakers must meet them, and several proposed pathways to act as an example of how automakers might make it.

This includes more efficient gas engines, more hybrids, a heavy EV mix, use of hydrogen vehicles, smaller vehicles, and so on. At no point do the regulations mandate any technology, and they in fact explicitly point out that no technology is mandated.

But, that reality didn’t stop an ignorant political candidate from speaking yet more lies about how electric vehicles or how government regulations work. Neither did the $45 million per month (~$180 million in total) committed this week by the CEO of the company that lobbied for stronger regulations.

Trump’s speech shows ignorance on EVs & government regulations

In Trump’s speech accepting the republican nomination, attempting for a third time to finally win majority support from the country he seeks to lead, there was a short segment about electric vehicles:

I will END the Electric Vehicle Mandate on Day One — thereby saving the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration which is happening right now, and saving U.S. customers thousands and thousands of dollars per car.

This passage, as is the case with most of the things Trump says about electric cars (and, uh, many other topics), is all false.

First, as covered above, there is no EV mandate. He is probably talking about the new EPA regulations, and those regulations do not require EVs.

Second, it is unlikely that he can end the EPA regulations on day one. As we covered recently, the “Supreme” Court opined in June that executive agencies should have less leeway to interpret law than they have historically been operating with. This opinion is phenomenally stupid from an openly corrupt court, but it also means that an executive, even one who claims himself as a dictator, will have less power to change the rules willy-nilly than Trump is claiming here.

Even under the actual law, before it was misinterpreted by this court, day one regulations are not possible. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, regulations must not be “arbitrary and capricious.” This means that there must be proper notice and thought given to regulatory changes, and there must be public comment periods for those changes.

And this was a major issue the first time Trump found his way into the White House, when his illegitimate attempts at haphazard regulation were thrown out in court over and over. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that undertakes legal challenges to protect the environment, won 92% of their cases against the Trump EPA due to their incompetence.

So – the “day one” promise is simply not possible. Lie number two.

Third, setting regulations that will drag the auto industry, kicking and screaming, into modernizing their vehicles, is much more likely to save the industry than it is to “obliterate” it.

This should be incredibly apparent to anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the global auto industry today. Over the last few years, Chinese companies have drastically improved their quality and are now exporting EVs worldwide at a rapid pace – with China becoming the largest car exporting country this year, overtaking Japan.

There are several reasons for this, but a large chunk of it is because China has undertaken a concerted national effort to build up its EV industry at every level – from securing mineral partnerships through its Belt & Road Initiative, building up mineral refining capacity which it leads the world in, and subsidizing domestic manufacturing leading to a boom in Chinese EV companies which has now borne fruit (and in fact, China is now pulling back on some of its subsidies, considering the job done).

Given that EVs are the future (and present) of the auto industry and no serious person denies this, then it is quite apparent that China’s concerted effort to become the best suppliers of EVs has been an important strategic move.

If America wants to compete with that, it’s not going to compete by putting its head in the sand and pretending nothing is happening. No company has ever won by ignoring the competition, or ignoring the status of the market as it is.

Surrendering and refusing to progress is in fact the best way to ensure obliteration of the American auto industry – and this is what the industry would do if left to its own devices. As shown by their lobbying, they want slow action, and the EPA’s new regulations force them to get up and actually compete in the market as it exists, not as they want it to exist. Reversing those regulations would lull those companies into a false sense of security, and be their downfall.

You can read more about this point, and how it’s related to Biden’s recent tariff decision (and Trump’s similar tariff proposal – both of which are bad ideas), here: Tariffs on China aren’t the way to win the EV arms race – getting serious on EVs is.

And not only that, Trump has separately declared that he wants to end the Inflation Reduction Act, and his running-mate has declared he wants to give EV credits to gas cars instead. Since the Inflation Reduction Act’s passage, automakers have committed $200B in investment, creating 237k jobs in EV-related manufacturing, largely due to the law’s onshoring provisions. Ending it sure sounds like it would obliterate a lot of investment and jobs.

So lie number three – it is much more likely that Trump’s stated regulatory and legislative efforts would lead to a downfall of American auto than the Biden Administration’s will. (And that’s not even taking into account the incompetence that Trump seems to attract, leading to really stupid regulations).

And, fourth, the regulation in question saves Americans over a hundred billion dollars annually, and $6,000 per car, in reduced fuel, health and climate costs. So ending that regulation would not “save US customers thousands of dollars per car,” it would in fact cost US customers thousands of dollars per car.

So – nearly every word of this passage is a lie, or relies on a lack of understanding of the regulation in question. Not much of a surprise, but, might as well document it.

More lies about EV chargers later in the speech

Trump later went on to show more ignorance of the way that federal EV charging funds work, and to lie about them as well. Here’s that passage:

So instead we’re spending – places where they recharge electric cars – they built 8 chargers at a certain location toward the midwest, 8 chargers for 9 billion dollars. Think of them as a tank for filling up your gas, think of it, they spent 9 billion dollars on 8 chargers – 3 of which didn’t work. And if you are going to do this all over the country, this crazy electric mandate – and by the way I’m all for electric, they have their application – but if somebody wants to buy a gas powered car, gasoline powered car, or a hybrid, they’re gonna be able to do it. And we’re gonna make that change on day one.

Again, virtually all of this is incorrect.

The program in question totals $7.5 billion, not $9 billion. $5 billion comes from a program called NEVI (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) in the Inflation Reduction Act and $2.5 billion comes from a program called Charging and Fueling Infrastructure from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, otherwise known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (something which Trump was never able to pass).

And that program did not spend that amount of money on 8 chargers, either.

The way the program works is that the funds are made available by the federal government, and then states can submit plans to receive their portion of charger funds. If those plans meet the standards set out by the federal government, then the project can start.

The first stations to open using NEVI funds have opened in the last several months, with the first site opening in Ohio in December, and sites in other states since then (including Maine and Vermont – not quite the midwest).

There are indeed 8 charging sites open right now, but they are across six states, with 33 total charging ports. So there are not “8 chargers” and the assertion that “3 of them didn’t work” is not only incorrect, but nonsensical. There is no indication that 3 of the entire sites “didn’t work” – maybe it’s some rumor Trump got tricked by on social media (as seems to happen to him often).

There are however many other sites where plans have been submitted or ground has been broken, where chargers will open in the future. There is room to suggest that these projects should happen faster, which we’d agree with, but we’ve seen plenty of projects take months or years to open before, even from companies that are known for nimbleness like Tesla (just… don’t ask about vehicle of FSD release timelines).

And billions in funds are still available for states to use, but some states are actively blocking the money’s use, harming their residents in order to make some sort of boneheaded political point. So if Trump is so angry about inefficiency, perhaps he should contact some of the clowns in his own party and ask them to stop causing it.

But there is also the consideration of the shift to NACS. Since NEVI was first passed, Tesla has proposed a new standard and basically the whole industry has shifted over to it. Tesla was inspired to offer this standard due to NEVI itself – which means Tesla has Biden to thank for its takeover of the industry.

This shift to NACS means that there are discussions about what proportion of NACS vs. CCS chargers should be opened, since CCS is effectively a “dead” standard from here on out. Previously, projects had been planned to include CCS, but now that NACS is taking over, it would be the better plug to use. So that’s going to cause some delays as plans change.

Which brings up another potential reason that NEVI has taken time to get moving: major republican donor Elon Musk, who just fired the entire charging team at the company where he made all his money. This unplanned move caused chaos, forcing Tesla to send an email to all the contractors working on chargers indicating that nobody has any idea what’s going on. Given that Tesla is the leading EV charging company in America, that tends to put a damper on development.

And that brings up one more point, referred to earlier in this article and in its title. Just this week, Tesla CEO Elon Musk donated a huge sum of money to Mr. Trump, wanting to elect this anti-EV candidate to the presidency. Some at the time said that this was an attempt to get Trump to stop his attacks on EVs, or to get Tesla a space at the table for preferential treatment.

However, even though Trump rewrote his speech after that donation was made, the portions targeting electric vehicles, and showing tremendous ignorance about them, were still included. In particular, Trump mischaracterized and then promised to repeal regulations that Tesla themselves lobbied to strengthen. (Great job, Elon. Real smart move, once again. 7 dimensional chess or something, surely).