Why The EPA Boss Wants To Kill Engine ‘Stop-Start’ Technology

One of the most common misunderstandings in the automotive world lately is what automakers are required or not required to do. For instance, a modern car almost certainly has to have a collapsible steering wheel and a catalytic converter. A passenger-side mirror isn’t required by the feds, nor is there any sort of federal EV mandate.

Lee Zeldin, the newest administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, tweeted yesterday that he wanted to kill “stop-start” technology. It’s just yet another intersection of politics and cars I’m going to try to tackle in The Morning Dump, though he sort of has a point. Or, at least, half a point.

That’s not all! Republicans in the House are working on both an end to the EV tax credit and the addition of deductibility of car interest. What survives and what doesn’t is all up in the air at this moment.

The economic picture is looking perhaps a bit rosier this morning as inflation estimates show that the economy is not getting cataclysmically worse, even though at least one car-related metric is trending in the wrong direction.

Nissan is also still trending in the wrong direction, so some tough decisions are going to have to be made.

‘Everyone Hates It’

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

Does literally “everyone” hate stop/start technology as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claims above? No, but it’s true that many folks haven’t been fans of the tech, even though it’s gotten better over time. I’d say, on modern cars, I bet most people don’t care about stop/start systems, which shut off the engine when stopped for long periods of time to save fuel.

Personally, I just had a car with stop/start, and it would sometimes cause an awkward drop in brake pressure when the vehicle couldn’t decide if I was stopping or not. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t like it. The first version of it I experienced was on a Chevy Malibu, I think, and the early versions were quite bad. Additionally, almost every car with stop/start allows you to turn it off, but most make it a requirement every time you get in the car, as opposed to something you can just defeat permanently.

Why are carmakers doing it? Are the feds making them do it? Not quite. Let’s break down what’s being said here.

“Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy.”

The car doesn’t die, per se, but it does turn off. It can definitely be annoying! Hybrids, like my CR-V, and even mild-hybrids like BMW’s eBoost, offer a seamless experience because the vehicle can coast to a stop, which makes it less awkward. I doubt many BMW buyers even notice eBoost working.

The “participation trophy” is a reference to the fact that, while not required, automakers get credit (via the off-cycle credit program) for all sorts of things to weigh against both federal and CARB emission requirements. Some of these are legit, and others are, well, less legit.

As Jason Fenske points out in the video above, people who idle their cars often at stoplights likely see a real benefit from stop-start in fuel savings. One estimate shows that almost 10 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions are taken out of the environment every year by this requirement.

A “participation trophy” in this sense is trying to encourage automakers to do things that make cars more efficient, which is a net good thing. Stop/start is an easy target because many people do hate it for completely understandable reasons.

“EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”

This gets a little more complicated. Automakers like the credit because it’s a simple way to keep emissions in check, which, if California gets to maintain its waiver, is going to be important. If California loses its waiver and the government rolls back requirements, well, automakers might care a little less.

If “fixing it” just means removing the credit–and that’s the only thing it could mean–I doubt it’ll change that much automaker behavior. More and more vehicles are moving towards better mild-hybrid setups or full-hybrid setups that consumers like (or don’t even notice). Plus, most cars are designed for multiple markets these days, so the incentive to pull out stop/start probably isn’t huge.

This feels a bit like saying you’re going to regulate horseshoe technology in 1913, but for the people who still use the old-style horseshoes maybe it’s a compelling argument. This is a cautionary tale of the unintended consequences of regulation, wherein companies do something to check a box that ultimately serves its purpose while also pissing a not small number of consumers/voters off.

[Ed Note: I get why people dislike ESS; sometimes it’s unrefined, and the real-world fuel savings in terms of MPGs are often quite modest (though they can reach between 7 percent and 26 percent, per SAE, as Consumer Reports notes). To many consumers (like my parents), it’s not worth the tradeoff. Still, the concept is good, and modern 48 volt ESS systems are quite solid.  -DT]. 

EV Tax Credit Dead (Maybe), Car Loan Interest Deductible (Maybe)

Now that tariffs are, slightly, on the sidelines, President Trump is working on his single big bill to codify many of his ambitions, including the continuation of his tax policy from his first term. Just to make it simple, I’ll refer to it as the tax bill.

In theory, via the Byrd Rule, any changes to the federal budget have to balance out in order to reduce the deficit. This rarely happens, but it’s a legislative hurdle. Again, in theory, most Republicans and Democrats want a balanced budget, even if in practice no party seems to have any sort of discipline in this regard when they’re in power.

Any continuation of tax cuts will have to be paid for, and one way to partially do that is to eliminate the EV tax credit and any EV manufacturing stimulus put forth by the Biden Administration.

Unsurprisingly, according to Reuters (via AN), that’s what Republicans want to do:

The proposal, set for a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on May 13, would repeal a $7,500 new-vehicle tax credit and a $4,000 used-vehicle credit on Dec. 31, although it would maintain the new-vehicle credit for an additional year for automakers that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs.

The president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, Genevieve Cullen, criticized the proposal, saying that plans “to abandon U.S. leadership in energy innovation by gutting federal investment in electrification are catastrophically short-sighted.”

Hey, good news for Slate, as under this plan, the first 200,000 customers would get the tax credit. I’m open to the argument that there should be a cap on tax credits, as, once automakers are established as EV automakers, do they really need the discount? I’d make the number closer to 800,000 vehicles, given just how hard it is to make cars.

This would offset about $2 billion a year, which isn’t all that much compared to the scale of the federal budget, but it’s not nothing.

There’s another piece of this, though:

House Republicans also propose to kill a loan program that supports the manufacture of certain advanced technology vehicles. It would rescind any unobligated funding and rescind corporate average fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emission rules for 2027 and beyond. That portion will be taken up by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Among outstanding loans finalized in President Joe Biden’s last weeks in office are $9.63 billion to a joint venture of Ford and South Korean battery maker SK On for construction of three battery manufacturing plants in Tennessee and Kentucky; $7.54 billion to a joint venture of Stellantis and Samsung for two EV lithium-ion battery plants in Indiana; and $6.57 billion to Rivian for a plant in Georgia to begin building smaller, less expensive EVs in 2028.

Again, making cars is hard and expensive, and pulling potential plants that are already in the process of being established seems like a bad precedent.

This isn’t the only action, however, as one Michigan Congressman is putting forward the idea of making car loan interest deductible on America-built cars, as USA Today reports:

Huizenga, R-Holland Township, proposed the so-called Made in America Motors Act on May 7, saying it would allow consumers to deduct up to $2,500 in interest paid on a motor vehicle loan in a given year as long as the vehicle was assembled in the U.S.

No deduction would be allowed for any vehicle loan which is already granted a deduction, but the new deduction would be available to taxpayers whether or not they itemize on their annual tax forms. If approved as proposed, the deduction — which could potentially help spur auto sales of U.S.-assembled vehicles — would be allowed for vehicles purchased in calendar year 2025 or later.

This is obviously a way bigger deal for people who buy expensive trucks and other vehicles, as to get to $2,500 annually, you’d need to buy an $80,000 car with $0 down for a 60-month payment at a 5% interest rate, for example. Some people do that, but most do not. It’s good that this is outside the standard deduction, otherwise, it wouldn’t help anyone but the richest taxpayers.

Ultimately, though, you’re not getting $2,500 back; you’re just taking that off your taxes. Estimates show that most people can only expect to save under $150 a year, unless you’re in the top 1%, then you might save $500 a year.

Inflation Was Mild, But Car Insurance Went Up

For all of my talk about a potential recession, my longstanding hope is that this doesn’t happen and that a little bit of flexibility on tariffs can keep our otherwise resiliant economy afloat. The walking back of yesterday’s Chinese tariffs was a good sign that the current administration isn’t entirely inflexible.

The latest Consumer Price Index Summary from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that inflation remains neither great nor terrible. It’s as Mild as Taco Bell hot sauce.

Here’s where inflation went up, according to the BLS:

The index for all items less food and energy rose 2.8 percent over the past 12 months. The shelter index increased 4.0 percent over the last year. Other indexes with notable increases over the last year include medical care (+2.7 percent), motor vehicle insurance (+6.4 percent), education (+3.8 percent), and recreation (+1.6 percent).

Oof. Car insurance sucks right now and I don’t see cars getting any cheaper to fix, which just makes this number harder to bring down. There’s a way to look at this and see companies reluctant to raise prices with a huge tax bill floating out there. For instance, could Jeff Bezos stall price increases at Amazon in order to get a tax credit for 400,000 Slate EVs? It’s not impossible.

Nissan Increases Layoffs To 20,000

There’s no use building a bunch of copies of unprofitable cars, so Nissan is doubling its planned layoffs, according to the company. This is part of the “Re:Nissan” plan to fix what’s wrong with Nissan, and the aggressiveness is the point. One of the biggest critiques of the previous Nissan CEO was that he was slow to recognize the scale of the problem.

The new guy, Ivan Espinosa, clearly recognized the scale of the problem and had this to say:

“In the face of challenging FY24 performance and rising variable costs, compounded by an uncertain environment, we must prioritize self-improvement with greater urgency and speed, aiming for profitability that relies less on volume. As new management, we are taking a prudent approach to reassess our targets and actively seek every possible opportunity to implement and ensure a robust recovery. Re:Nissan is an action-based recovery plan clearly outlines what we need to do now. All employees are committed to working together as a team to implement this plan, with the goal of returning to profitability by fiscal year 2026.”

Practically, this means closing plants and cutting about 20,000 jobs, which is more than the 11,000 the company was previously planning. Additionally, the number of plants will be reduced from 17 to 10 as the company aims to hit positive operating profitability by FY 2026.

What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD

This has come up before, but I think we’re all sleeping on Vanessa Carlton. She plays piano… on a truck! I love pianos. And trucks! Her parents have a sweet Taurus! Please enjoy “A Thousand Miles.”

The Big Question

Tell me all your feelings about stop/start. Do you love it? Do you hate it?

Top photo: Stellantis