Feds Want To Take Away Your Freedom To Start-Stop

Gas guzzling over gas saving, for the win! That might be the immediate reaction to a federal proposal to permanently disable the fuel-saving tech feature. Or maybe the actual response is, “Finally!” Or possibly, “Nooo, for the love of clean air!” Either way, current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wants it axed.

In a social media post in May, Zeldin said that “everyone hates it” and suggested that the start-stop feature existed solely as a “climate participation trophy” for automakers. And he’s not entirely wrong. 

According to The New York Times, the EPA subsidized the tech in 2012, thus encouraging OEMs to incorporate the feature into future products. Although availability has skyrocketed to the point of near-universal adoption, actual usage is likely far below the implementation rate. Also, yeah, consumers have complained about it, so Zeldin vowed to undo what his predecessors annoyingly allowed to continue. Per the NYT:

Most of the complaints fall in a few categories. Some skeptics believe that it doesn’t really save on gas, or that it adds wear and tear to the engine. Others worry about not having control of the car, or about having the air-conditioning turn off with the engine on hot days.

Manufacturers try to make the feature as seamless as possible. That might mean turning off the engine only during longer stops, or only if the air-conditioning isn’t drawing too much energy. Newer cars also have starter systems specifically designed for start-stop.

But that effort hasn’t quite made the feature beloved by everyone. In many models, it’s hard to miss when the engine shuts off and turns back on. Several tutorials on YouTube showing how to disable the feature have amassed over a million views.

Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy. EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it. pic.twitter.com/zFhijMyHDe

— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) May 12, 2025

This isn’t an empty threat. Fast-forward two months, and the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act has been approved and signed into law. With it came retroactive forgiveness of penalties for automakers who haven’t been compliant with NHTSA’s CAFE standards since model year 2022. With no financial repercussions for missing fuel economy targets, automakers may see little benefit in continuing efficiency tech like start-stop, which gives Zeldin’s EPA additional leverage on the matter. As Automotive News recently reported:

The EPA also awards credits for automakers that include specific technologies with apparent emissions reductions that may not show up in lab testing, including stop-start. The agency under Zeldin has promised to reconsider the greenhouse gas emissions standards that enable the credits.

“If there’s no CAFE program that can be enforced, and there’s not a greenhouse gas standard that requires improvement, that would remove the incentive for automakers to put in this technology,” said Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports.

The intent is to reinvigorate the manufacturing of gas-powered vehicles. To support that mission, the bill also discontinued the federal EV tax credit, which has existed in some form since 2008. Vehicle production may be affordable again, but not for EVs or consumers interested in efficient cars, including hybrids. 

That’s too bad when studies show increased interest in the electrified market and recent sales reflecting that sentiment. Regarding first-quarter sales, the U.S. Department of Energy reported:

About 22% of light-duty vehicles sold in the first quarter of the year in the United States were hybrid, battery electric, or plug-in hybrid vehicles, up from about 18% in the first quarter of 2024. Among those categories, hybrid electric vehicles have continued to gain market share while battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles have remained relatively flat, according to estimates from Wards Intelligence.

The strong hybrid sales carried over into the second quarter as well, with several car companies reporting growth in that sector, including Ford, Hyundai, and Toyota. Opposite that, how much money will automakers save now that they can effectively shrug off fuel efficiency and environmental concerns? Plenty. Reuters breaks down the costs:

Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7 million in civil penalties for failing to meet U.S. fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400 million for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2 million in penalties for 2016 and 2017…

Last year, Tesla said it received $2.8 billion in global revenue from regulatory credits it earns from selling zero-emission EVs and sells to other automakers seeking to meet vehicle emissions targets.

Senate Republicans estimate that car companies would save approximately $200 million in waived fees. That’s a pretty penny, but it’s not nearly enough to offset an OEM’s tariff-related losses, oh, but I digress. 

With no start-stop, consumers do lose out, despite their love-hate (hate-kinda like?) relationship with that button with a circled A on it. Because it honest-to-goodness does function as designed. Says the NYT:

Though the technology has its skeptics, research says it does effectively cut fuel consumption and emissions. Most studies on start-stop technology show real-world fuel use reductions of 5 to 10 percent, depending on driving patterns. One study found that start-stop begins to save fuel when the engine is off for as little as seven seconds during an idling period.

In newer vehicles, a start-stop information screen can be scrolled through via the IP and/or the center display. There you’ll find fuel savings based on the amount of time the engine was shut off during your commute, as well as reasons why the system is unavailable even though activated. Kind of like hypermiling, every stop can be turned into a gamification of fuel efficiency. Sweet.

But the disappearance of the start-stop credit seems more a matter of when, not if. But that doesn’t necessarily mean automakers will remove the feature, or does it? A decade ago, the estimated cost of a start-stop unit itself was only a few hundred bucks. According to an Edmunds report at the time: 

While stop-start systems have typically been included in the overall price premium for hybrids, many industry analysts say their actual cost is between $300 and $400.

Ford Motor Company recently announced a $295 price for its first stand-alone stop-start system, offered as an option on the automatic transmission version of the 1.6-liter EcoBoost model of the 2013 Ford Fusion SE sedan. By comparison, a full hybrid system can add $6,000 or more to the price of a car.

These days, opting for a hybrid adds about the same or less in cost. With more models out there, it really comes down to the vehicle build, especially when some automakers consider the hybrid a mid-level trim and above offering. 

When comparing apples to apples, though, based on Kelley Blue Book data, the 2020 Fusion hybrid (the sedan’s last model year) cost just $3,500 more than its regular ol’ gas sibling. With the vehicle variants closer in price, perhaps the unit cost for a start-stop system decreased as well. And perhaps that’s enough to keep the feature around? There are other perks in its favor, says the NYT:

David Cooke of the Clean Transportation Program says that regardless of what the E.P.A. does, keeping start-stop is a “no-brainer” for manufacturers: It costs a small amount to implement, and it results in considerable fuel savings, which is a selling point to customers.

Start-stop would also help manufacturers stay under the emissions limit even if the off-cycle credits are canceled. That’s because the standard treadmill tests capture some — just not all — of the feature’s real-world savings. So car companies would still have reason to include the technology.

In Europe, and most other countries, start-stop technology is considered standard. In the United States, each automaker has adopted the feature at different rates. Volkswagen received the stop-start credit on 95 percent of its internal combustion cars sold in America, while Mazda received it for just 5 percent.

To counter that is Rasto Brezny, executive director of the Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association, who also spoke with the NYT:

…[He] couldn’t predict if getting rid of the credit would change the number of cars with start-stop. But he did note that regulation has always been the driver of clean technology: “Nobody would put a catalytic converter on a vehicle unless they had to.”

Corporations save money, and consumers lose out on saving theirs? Neat! Even if you consider start-stop a nuisance and are irritated with having to deactivate it every single time you get into the car, you’d no longer be allowed to decide your level of annoyance. Honestly, I’m always annoyed anyway, so why take away my option to at least save some money whenever I scowl behind the steering wheel? Sigh. Maybe they’ll let us have a blank button as a reminder of what was.