As 2025 unfolds, the United States automotive industry finds itself at a pivotal juncture, grappling with a complex tapestry of federal emissions regulations designed to accelerate a transformative shift towards a greener future. These policies, spanning updated EPA mandates to ambitious carbon emissions standards, are not merely incremental adjustments; they represent a fundamental redefinition of how vehicles are engineered, marketed, and ultimately sold across the nation. This regulatory evolution places a heightened emphasis on environmental compliance while simultaneously challenging automakers to innovate at an unprecedented pace.
This landscape presents both formidable challenges and significant opportunities for manufacturers. The tightening of emission rules demands substantial reorientation of production strategies, considerable financial outlays for research and development, and the forging of new strategic alliances, particularly in critical areas like battery production and electric drivetrain technology. Understanding the multifaceted implications of these policies—from their underlying rationale to anticipated market impacts and the shaping of future mobility—is essential for all stakeholders in this dynamic sector.
This in-depth analysis delves into the initial wave of these sweeping reforms, examining the specific regulatory frameworks, the compelling drivers behind their implementation, and the varied, often contrasting, responses from an industry in the throes of profound change.
1. **The EPA’s 2025 Mandate: Redefining Vehicle Emissions**In early 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new emission rule, marking a decisive move to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. This updated regulatory framework is a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s broader commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, signaling a clear national direction for environmental policy within the transportation sector. The rules are designed to be comprehensive, targeting a wide array of pollutants and vehicle types.
Under the provisions of these new regulations, automakers face stringent new targets. They are mandated to achieve a fleetwide average of 58 miles per gallon (mpg) for light trucks and passenger vehicles by the year 2030. Concurrently, the fleet-wide average emissions from new light-duty cars and trucks must be reduced by 50% by 2032, benchmarked against the 2021 emission levels. These requirements are not static; they begin to phase in midway through 2025 and are structured with annual increases in stringency, ensuring a continuous progression towards cleaner vehicles.
The overarching intent of these EPA regulations is twofold: to significantly accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) across the market and to hold manufacturers accountable for technologies that contribute to pollution. Beyond just tailpipe emissions, the standards comprehensively address evaporative emissions and even idling emissions, covering both light-duty and heavy-duty fleets. This holistic approach underscores a commitment to tackling all facets of vehicle-related air pollution.
2. **The Imperative for Stricter Regulations: Climate, Health, and Innovation**There is a prevailing sentiment that the need for environmental reform in the transportation sector has never been more urgent. With transportation accounting for nearly 29% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, car emission regulations have emerged as a critical policy instrument in the broader fight against climate change. The proposed updates for 2025 are designed to achieve multiple, interconnected objectives that extend beyond mere carbon reduction, aiming for wide-ranging societal benefits.
A primary driver for these stricter regulations is the imperative to meet established climate goals, including international obligations such as the Paris Accord. These commitments underscore a global responsibility to mitigate climate change, with vehicle emissions identified as a significant area for intervention. By setting aggressive targets, the regulations aim to ensure the U.S. contributes meaningfully to these global efforts, fostering a cleaner global environment.
Beyond climate, public health concerns play a crucial role. The regulations seek to minimize pollutants known to cause asthma and other respiratory diseases, thereby improving air quality and safeguarding the well-being of communities. Furthermore, the increased viability of emerging technologies such as electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, and advanced hybrid systems demonstrates the technological feasibility of cleaner transportation. These advancements provide the necessary tools for industry to meet the new standards. The federal government also anticipates that these reforms will stimulate green innovation, leading to the creation of new industries and jobs dedicated to clean transportation solutions.
3. **New Fuel Economy Standards: Setting the Bar for Fleet Efficiency**Among the most impactful components of the 2025 emissions policy update are the new fuel economy standards. Automakers are now faced with the requirement to meet progressively higher miles-per-gallon (mpg) targets across their entire vehicle fleet. These escalating benchmarks represent a significant challenge, compelling manufacturers to re-evaluate their vehicle lineups and production strategies to achieve compliance or face financial penalties.
The phased implementation of these fuel efficiency requirements dictates a clear trajectory. For 2025, a fleet-wide average minimum of 49 mpg is established. This target then increases to 54 mpg by 2027, culminating in a mandatory average of 58 mpg by 2030. Failure to achieve these 2030 benchmarks will result in penalties for manufacturers, providing a strong financial incentive for compliance. The escalating targets reflect a strategic push to optimize energy consumption across the entire automotive sector.
To meet these rigorous fuel efficiency requirements, manufacturers are being driven to adopt a range of advanced technologies and design principles. This includes the development of more efficient internal combustion engines, alongside substantial investment in electric and alternative fuel technology. Concurrently, automakers are incorporating lighter materials, advanced aerodynamic designs, and sophisticated AI-enabled fuel optimization systems into their vehicles. However, this transition is not without its difficulties, particularly for legacy carmakers that have historically invested heavily in gas-powered vehicles, necessitating massive expenditures and the formation of strategic alliances, especially for battery production and electric drivetrain technology.
Read more about: The Enduring Formula: 14 Reasons Why Toyota’s Proven Engine Designs Remain a Powerhouse in New Models
-updates-market/automotive-over-the-air-(ota)-updates-market-1753246043456-major-players.webp)
4. **Automaker Response: Leaders Embracing Innovation**The response from automakers to the 2025 car emission limitations has been bifurcated, ranging from aggressive transformation to outright resistance. A segment of the industry has proactively embraced these new standards, signaling a commitment to innovation and a fundamental shift in their long-term strategic visions. These industry leaders are not merely aiming for compliance but are striving to position themselves at the forefront of the clean transportation revolution.
Among the notable innovators, Ford has made a significant commitment to electrifying its vehicle lineup, aiming for electric vehicles to constitute 50% of its sales by 2030. This ambitious target reflects a strategic pivot towards a future dominated by electric mobility, requiring substantial investment in product development and manufacturing capabilities. General Motors (GM) has similarly outlined aggressive plans, intending to offer 30 EV models globally by 2025, with an even bolder aspiration for all-zero emissions across its portfolio by 2035. These commitments highlight a deep-seated belief in the inevitability of electrification.
Tesla, a pioneering force in the electric vehicle market, stands as an example of inherent compliance. Already operating with low-emission standards, the company is uniquely positioned to benefit from the regulatory landscape, enjoying favorable tax credits and a solidified market presence. The proactive stance of these manufacturers demonstrates a strategic alignment with the regulatory push, viewing the shift as an opportunity for market leadership and future growth, rather than merely a regulatory burden.
5. **Navigating Transition: Legacy Automakers’ Resistance and Challenges**In contrast to the innovative leaders, a significant portion of the automotive industry, particularly legacy automakers, has expressed concerns and, in some cases, actively resisted aspects of the 2025 car emission limitations. While acknowledging the need for environmental progress, these companies face substantial hurdles in retooling extensive production infrastructures and adapting deeply entrenched business models centered on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
Toyota and Stellantis, for instance, have publicly voiced concerns regarding the preparedness of the national charging infrastructure to support a sudden and widespread transition to electric vehicles. Their arguments highlight potential bottlenecks in consumer adoption and practical challenges in integrating a fully electric fleet without robust support systems. This perspective suggests a desire for a more gradual, infrastructure-driven transition rather than a mandated accelerated pace.
Honda and Nissan are navigating this transition by focusing on hybrid models as an interim compliance strategy, while gradually planning for a shift towards full electrification. This approach allows them to meet emissions targets in the near term by improving efficiency, without immediately divesting from ICE technology. For smaller manufacturers, however, the costs of compliance are often enormous, prompting them to seek joint ventures and government subsidies to cushion the financial impact of the regulatory changes. The industry’s varied response also involves significant lobbying efforts aimed at establishing credit systems, where low-emission vehicles can offset higher-emission units, providing a degree of flexibility in meeting fleet-wide targets.
6. **Beyond the Tailpipe: The Economic and Societal Benefits of Carbon Reduction**At the core of the 2025 emission rules lies an unequivocal impetus to drastically lower carbon emissions from every vehicle sold in the United States. These standards are meticulously designed to extend beyond mere tailpipe CO2 emissions, also factoring in upstream emissions associated with fuel production, thereby encompassing a more comprehensive lifecycle assessment of carbon footprint. This broad scope reflects a deeper commitment to environmental stewardship.
The EPA’s projections underscore the profound economic and societal payoffs anticipated from these carbon reduction efforts. Estimates indicate that more than 7.3 billion tons of CO2 emissions will be avoided by 2050, representing a substantial contribution to mitigating climate change. Complementing this, health benefits totaling an impressive $120 billion are expected to accrue due to cleaner air, translating into improved public health outcomes and reduced healthcare burdens across the nation.
Furthermore, consumers are slated to realize significant financial advantages, with savings on fuel amounting to almost $1.7 trillion over the lifecycle of vehicles. These compelling figures highlight the broader economic dividends of reducing carbon emissions, benefiting not only the environment but also public health and the long-term sustainability of the economy. The automotive industry is thus tasked with delivering on these ambitious targets, operating within a framework of incentives for exceeding goals and sanctions for falling short.
7. **Catalyzing Change: Green Policies Supporting the EV Revolution**To facilitate the automotive industry’s transition and ensure the economic viability and technological feasibility of compliance, the 2025 car emission regulations are buttressed by a comprehensive suite of green policies. These supporting measures are critical in providing manufacturers with the necessary framework and consumers with the incentives to embrace cleaner transportation solutions, thereby catalyzing the shift towards electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
Among the major supporting policies are significant EV Tax Credits, offering up to $7,500 per vehicle, with additional incentives available for U.S.-manufactured models. These credits are instrumental in offsetting the potentially higher upfront costs of electric vehicles, making them more financially accessible to a broader consumer base. Concurrently, the Federal Charging Infrastructure Initiative has allocated $7.5 billion to develop over 500,000 charging stations nationwide, a crucial investment aimed at alleviating range anxiety and improving EV accessibility across various regions.
Further reinforcing this ecosystem are Battery Recycling Initiatives, which are designed to eliminate waste of raw materials and promote their reuse, addressing sustainability concerns associated with EV battery production. Complementing these federal efforts are Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates implemented by states such as California and New York, requiring 100% of new vehicle sales to be zero-emission by 2035. These combined green policies provide a clear blueprint for manufacturers to transition from traditional gas engines to electric, hydrogen, and hybrid platforms, while simultaneously encouraging consumer adoption through both financial incentives and enhanced infrastructure.
8. **Legal Pushback and Industry Lawsuits: A Balancing Act**Despite the clear environmental and economic justifications presented for the 2025 car emission rules, their implementation has not been without significant controversy. A notable segment of the automotive industry, including various manufacturers and trade associations, has engaged in legal challenges. These lawsuits primarily target the accelerated rate of implementation and the considerable costs associated with achieving compliance, reflecting a profound disagreement on the feasibility and burden of the new mandates.
Frequent legal disputes have centered on several key issues, which underscore the practical challenges faced by the industry. Among these, the overall lack of a robust national EV charging infrastructure is consistently cited as a major impediment to widespread electric vehicle adoption. Concerns also arise regarding the substantial cost of purchasing EVs and their batteries, alongside consumer reluctance to embrace electric vehicles, particularly in rural and lower-income markets where charging access may be scarce and traditional vehicle preferences are strong.
However, it is noteworthy that U.S. courts have generally upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in these matters. These rulings consistently reaffirm the federal government’s legal ability, derived from the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This consistent judicial stance suggests that manufacturers may be strategically disadvantaged by continuing to push back against changes, as the current political and legal environment offers little prospect for significant regulatory rollbacks.
The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) has expressed strong enthusiasm for potential deregulation, viewing it as a positive shift. SEMA, representing companies often in conflict with government enforcement of the Clean Air Act, has vocally opposed electric vehicle production mandates. The organization asserts that internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are fundamental to the American way of life, and any move to ban them is an affront to consumers and businesses, thanking Administrator Zeldin for reforms that prioritize vehicle choice.
Conversely, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major automakers like BMW, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, and Volkswagen, acknowledges the need for review. While they are assessing the implications of any changes to the ‘endangerment finding,’ the Alliance has maintained that the emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration are “simply not achievable.” Their president and CEO, John Bozzella, emphasized the need for revised standards that accurately reflect current market conditions, preserve the competitiveness of the American auto industry, and allow for continued vehicle choice alongside lower emissions.
9. **Consumer Implications: What Car Buyers Can Expect**As the automotive industry navigates this period of significant regulatory transformation, consumers are positioned at the forefront of the shift, facing direct implications in their vehicle choices and ownership experiences. The new car emissions regulations, designed to drastically reduce tailpipe pollutants and promote cleaner alternatives, are expected to ripple through various aspects of the car buying process.
One of the most immediate effects for consumers revolves around vehicle pricing and availability. While electric vehicles (EVs) may initially carry a higher upfront purchase cost compared to their gasoline counterparts, federal policies like tax credits—offering up to $7,500 per vehicle, with additional incentives for U.S.-manufactured models—are designed to alleviate this financial burden. Furthermore, the long-term savings from reduced fuel consumption and lower maintenance requirements are projected to significantly offset the initial investment, making EVs more economically attractive over their lifespan.
Concurrently, consumers can anticipate a substantial expansion in model availability. Showrooms are expected to feature an increasingly diverse array of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fully electric vehicle choices, offering more options than ever before. This broader selection will cater to varying preferences and driving needs, allowing buyers to select vehicles that align with both their environmental consciousness and practical requirements. Additionally, the second-hand market is expected to evolve, gradually equalizing the prevalence of low-emission vehicles as they become more widespread.
Beyond purchase and availability, the shift promises tangible benefits for vehicle ownership costs. Lower reliance on traditional fuels translates directly into reduced spending at the pump, particularly given the volatility of gasoline prices. Electric vehicles, with fewer moving parts than internal combustion engine vehicles, also typically incur lower maintenance expenses. In the broader sense, consumers will benefit from improved fuel efficiency across the board, more advanced technological features integrated into vehicles, and the profound advantage of purer, healthier air quality in their communities.
Read more about: Mastering Your Auto Loan: Expert Strategies to Negotiate a Better Interest Rate and Save Thousands
10. **The Looming Shadow of the ‘Endangerment Finding’ Repeal**A significant political effort to alter the regulatory trajectory has emerged with the Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the landmark 2009 “endangerment finding.” This finding, established by the EPA under President Barack Obama, detailed evidence that greenhouse gases, including those emitted by cars, harm human health. It has served as the fundamental legal basis for the federal government’s ability to regulate the greenhouse gases that fuel climate change, underpinning many ambitious emissions reduction efforts.
Initial details of this proposal were announced by Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in early 2025. Speaking at an Indiana auto dealership, Zeldin framed the repeal as a move to end 16 years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers. He argued that greenhouse gas rules constituted “the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods,” claiming the repeal would eliminate “hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year” on American businesses and families, effectively positioning it as a major deregulatory action.
However, the scientific community largely disagrees with this perspective, asserting that the underlying science behind the endangerment finding remains robust and, if anything, has strengthened since 2009. Scholars of vehicle emissions and climate change highlight that evidence of global warming and its threats to human health and safety—such as increased heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise, and wildfires—has only intensified. They point out that while regulations have successfully cut emissions from power generation, transportation has emerged as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., making vehicle regulation ever more critical.
The implications of repealing the endangerment finding extend far beyond car emissions. Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules, warned that its repeal could severely limit the federal government’s overarching power to regulate all greenhouse gas emissions. Such a move would potentially make future attempts to tackle climate change significantly harder across various sectors, placing the agency on a precarious legal footing that could hinder long-term environmental protection efforts.
11. **Economic Impacts of Repealing Emissions Standards**The economic implications of repealing the existing emissions standards, particularly in conjunction with the proposed rollback of the ‘endangerment finding,’ are complex and subject to intense debate. The EPA’s own draft impact analysis, a document significantly shorter than previous assessments, presented varied scenarios, highlighting the challenge of accurately quantifying costs and benefits. Critics, such as Joseph Goffman, have suggested that the agency might be “trying to cook the books” to present the plan as economically beneficial, depending heavily on specific assumptions and what economic factors are included in the calculations.
One significant projection within the EPA’s modeled scenarios estimated that repealing both the endangerment finding and the car emissions standard for greenhouse gases could result in a net cost of $350 billion annually for the nation. This particular scenario incorporated the elimination of tax credits for new electric cars, which were a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act. Such a massive projected cost underscores the potential economic downside if consumer incentives for cleaner vehicles are removed while environmental regulations are simultaneously dismantled.
Conversely, some projections within the analysis suggested that the repeal could lead to overall savings, but these estimates were contingent on highly specific and arguably optimistic market conditions. For instance, one scenario predicted annual savings of $490 billion, but only under conditions where the price of a gallon of gasoline became a dollar cheaper than previously forecasted. Joseph Goffman critiqued this, stating that “an unrealistically low price for gasoline” was the only way the Trump administration could present the plan as having broad economic benefits, a view an EPA spokesperson partially corroborated by calling such projections “highly speculative.”
Trump administration officials have enthusiastically promoted figures like $54 billion in annual savings for Americans. However, further clarification from an EPA spokesperson revealed that this figure primarily included benefits from expected new vehicle technology, but notably excluded critical costs such as long-term maintenance. When these essential costs were factored in, the initial touted savings transmuted into a net cost increase of $18 billion a year for the nation, illustrating how different accounting methodologies can significantly alter the perceived economic impact of such policy changes.
Read more about: Donald J. Trump: A Comprehensive Examination of a Singular Political and Business Trajectory
12. **Shifting Costs and Benefits: Public Health and Consumer Savings**The debate over emissions regulations is fundamentally a discussion about the allocation of costs and benefits across society, profoundly impacting public health and consumer finances. Under President Biden’s administration, the car pollution standards finalized in 2024 were accompanied by an 800-page analysis projecting significant societal gains. This report calculated an annual saving of $13 billion for the nation due to reduced fine particulate matter in the air, a pollutant strongly linked to premature deaths and hospitalizations from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. Furthermore, limiting greenhouse gas emissions was estimated to bring $72 billion in annual climate benefits, calculated based on the social cost of carbon, which accounts for human health, agricultural productivity, and property damage from natural disasters.
In stark contrast, the repeal proposed by Administrator Zeldin aimed to dismantle the standards for greenhouse gas emissions while purportedly retaining particle pollution limits. However, the new estimates provided in the draft analysis of the repeal did not include the effects, particularly on public health, that would result from increased greenhouse gas emissions. This omission highlights a critical difference in how public health externalities are valued and factored into policy decisions, potentially masking significant long-term costs associated with higher carbon output.
For consumers, the cost implications are also divergent under differing regulatory regimes. The Biden administration’s 2024 analysis projected that while new car purchase prices might increase—ranging from approximately $900 for a sedan to $2,600 for an SUV—these upfront costs would be offset by substantial long-term savings. Drivers of sedans and SUVs, for instance, were expected to save around $4,400 over the vehicle’s lifetime due to cheaper maintenance and significant fuel savings, with even larger savings when purchase incentives were included.
However, a crucial element of consumer savings is being eliminated as a result of policy shifts under the Trump administration. The signature tax-and-spending bill, dubbed “Big Beautiful Bill,” approved by Congress, effectively terminates the $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases. This cut directly impacts the financial attractiveness of EVs, removing a substantial incentive that previously helped to mitigate their higher upfront costs and potentially slowing their adoption, thereby altering the economic calculus for millions of potential buyers.
Read more about: The 13 Best Financial Investments Made by 14 Retired NFL Players
13. **The CARS Act: A New Legislative Battleground**Adding another layer of complexity to the automotive policy arena is the legislative proposal known as the Clean Automobiles for a Responsible Society (CARS) Act. This bill, currently gaining traction in Congress in early 2025, represents a significant pushback against the existing regulatory framework, aiming to redefine emissions regulations across the United States. Its core intent is to standardize and potentially simplify the compliance landscape for automakers, albeit with controversial implications for environmental policy.
The primary objectives of the CARS Act are multi-faceted. Crucially, it seeks to establish a single, uniform emissions standard nationwide, effectively preventing individual states, such as California, from setting stricter rules than those mandated federally. By simplifying compliance requirements, proponents argue that the act would reduce manufacturing costs, which could potentially translate into lower vehicle prices and enhanced reliability for consumers. A key target of the legislation is to curb the authority of state bodies like the California Air Resources Board (CARB), aligning all regulations with federal benchmarks and thereby challenging ambitious state-led climate initiatives.
The stakes of this legislation are undeniably high. From an environmental perspective, while uniform standards might streamline manufacturing, critics warn that such a move could weaken aggressive state-led efforts to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases, potentially stalling progress in high-pollution areas. For consumers, the act could facilitate a broader range of vehicle types, especially gas-powered models, at more competitive prices, thereby offering increased choice. However, this shift might lead to automakers pivoting away from significant investments in electric vehicles (EVs) and other clean technologies if federal standards ease the pressure compared to more stringent state mandates, creating a tug-of-war between economic priorities and environmental stewardship.
If passed, the CARS Act could fundamentally reshape the automotive landscape. Manufacturers would benefit from a unified emissions framework, simplifying production and compliance across state lines, which could reduce overheads and accelerate vehicle development. These lower manufacturing costs might, in turn, lead to cheaper cars, particularly for gas-powered models, making them more accessible to budget-conscious buyers. However, the environmental trade-offs are considerable; critics caution that capping state authority could undermine progress in climate change mitigation, specifically by challenging California’s push for 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035 and potentially slowing the national fight against climate change.
Read more about: Unraveling Presidential Impact: 10 Defining Moments in U.S. History Shaped by American Leadership
14. **The Broader Debate: Economy Versus Ecology in Automotive Policy**The 2025 emissions rules and the subsequent policy debates highlight a profound and ongoing tug-of-war between economic growth and environmental responsibility within the U.S. automotive industry. Automakers find themselves in a precarious position, caught between global market trends that increasingly favor electrification and domestic policy shifts that introduce uncertainty and, in some cases, actively seek to roll back environmental mandates. This intricate balance shapes not only corporate strategies but also the future of transportation and its impact on the planet.
The industry’s collective plea for “vehicle choice” or “customer choice” has, in many instances, become a discernible euphemism for the desire to continue producing gas-powered cars. This sentiment stems from the pragmatic reality that internal combustion engine vehicles still represent a significant portion of sales and profitability, while substantial investments in electric vehicles (EVs) have, for many, yet to yield a profitable return. Major corporations, while acknowledging environmental imperatives, are inherently driven by financial viability, making a money-losing path towards full electrification difficult to justify without clear mandates.
One interesting potential outcome of this regulatory flux is a renewed focus on hybrid powertrains. Should the pressure for rapid, full electrification ease, automakers might redirect their electrification resources and expertise toward developing more advanced and appealing hybrid models. This strategy could be seen as a pragmatic middle ground, offering consumers a technology they are largely receptive to, while allowing manufacturers to meet emissions targets and generate profits in a more stable, less disruptive manner. Such an approach could buy time amidst the political unpredictability, especially given that a different administration could significantly alter policy direction again in just four years.
Ultimately, the path forward for the automotive industry hinges on finding a sustainable equilibrium between these competing forces. The U.S. market’s importance to global automakers, coupled with the differing regulatory approaches globally, means that domestic policy changes have far-reaching consequences. The industry needs stability and achievable standards that enable strategic long-term planning, rather than constant policy reversals that create costly disruptions. The challenge remains to foster an environment where innovation thrives, consumer needs are met, and environmental stewardship progresses, rather than regresses.
This pivotal period is not merely about compliance; it’s about charting a course for a cleaner, smarter, and more resilient automotive future. The vision extends beyond the immediate regulatory battles to a long-term commitment to reducing air pollution, stabilizing fuel costs, and ensuring a competitive global industry. The decisions made today will define the character of American mobility for decades to come, moving the nation towards greater climate responsibility with the auto industry at the very center of this monumental transformation.
