The EPA: Making Driving Great Again!

The Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) at the CPAC Foundation applauds EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and his leadership in decisively revisiting—and rolling back—fuel economy mandates that have distorted automotive markets and sacrificed common sense in pursuit of one narrow metric: carbon dioxide emissions. Among the most overdue corrections is the repeal of federal incentives for so-called “stop-start” systems—automated features that shut off a vehicle’s engine when idling at stoplights, only to restart moments later when the driver releases the brake.

This rollback is not just welcome. It’s a model example of sound policymaking. Because the stop-start mandate wasn’t just a nuisance. It was a prime illustration of how single-metric policymaking—focused only on tailpipe CO₂ reductions—creates perverse tradeoffs, punishes consumers, undermines durability, and accelerates environmental harm through waste and premature wear.

What Was the Point of Stop-Start Systems?

The theory behind stop-start systems was simple: reduce idling, cut fuel consumption, and, by extension, reduce carbon emissions. But theory and reality are two different things.

Yes, stop-start systems reduce fuel use in tiny increments—fractions of a mile per gallon. But the real-world benefit is barely measurable. As Andrew Langer, Director of the CPAC Foundation’s CRF, noted in recent testimony before EPA and NHTSA, these mandates exist in a regulatory fantasy that ignores both physics and economics.

What regulators failed to ask was: at what cost?

The Problem With Single-Metric Policy: Real Tradeoffs Ignored

When policymakers tunnel in on a single goal—in this case, lowering carbon emissions—they often ignore every other consequence. That’s exactly what happened here. The EPA and DOT blessed stop-start tech because it looked good on paper, delivered marginal CO₂ savings in laboratory tests, and gave automakers “compliance credits” under the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) system.

But what did we get in return?

1. Accelerated Wear and Tear: Constant shutdown and restart cycles strain engines, starters, batteries, and other core systems. What might have once lasted 150,000 miles now fails at 100,000—or sooner. That means higher repair costs, more frequent replacements, and a shorter useful life for vehicles.

2. Landfill Waste and Pollution: Premature component failures aren’t just costly—they’re wasteful. More dead batteries, worn starters, and degraded engines mean more solid waste, more mining for replacement materials, and more environmental degradation. In chasing marginal emissions cuts, we created more long-term pollution.

3. Consumer Frustration: Drivers hate it. And with good reason. Stop-start systems are annoying, intrusive, and often kick in just when the driver needs power, say, to make a left-hand turn across traffic. The industry saw so many complaints that automakers began including "disable" buttons, but even these were increasingly banned in newer models until now.

4. Negligible Environmental Benefit: Studies show that stop-start systems reduce overall emissions by less than 1%. A study cited in Yahoo News confirms what real-world drivers already know: the cost-benefit equation doesn’t pencil out. The fuel savings don’t justify the long-term downsides.

Zeldin’s Decision: A Recommitment to Balanced, Rational Policy

In announcing the rollback, Administrator Zeldin and the EPA made clear that this decision was about more than just one feature in one class of vehicles. It’s about restoring balance to environmental policy. And we at the Center for Regulatory Freedom could not agree more.

The repeal of stop-start incentives marks a critical shift away from ideologically rigid, single-variable governance. It reflects the understanding that environmental protection must be weighed alongside economic cost, consumer choice, mechanical durability, and overall public benefit. No policy should pretend these competing priorities don’t exist.

As outlined in the CRF’s recent regulatory roadmap, the problem with America’s regulatory state isn’t just the volume of rules—it’s the mindset that prioritizes symbolism over outcomes, and optics over reality.

The Broader Backdrop: EPA’s Climate Rules Gone Awry

The stop-start incentive didn’t appear in a vacuum. It was a byproduct of the 2009 EPA “Endangerment Finding”—a sweeping declaration that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare” under the Clean Air Act. That finding triggered a tidal wave of mandates and rules across transportation, energy, and finance.

But the science, economics, and legal foundation of that finding are now under serious review—and rightly so.

As detailed in the CRF’s formal comments to the EPA this year, each of the three “lines of evidence” used to justify the Endangerment Finding has collapsed under independent scrutiny: flawed global temperature datasets, circular climate models, and exaggerated projections of harm.

Instead of advancing environmental stewardship, the Finding spawned policies that make life harder and more expensive for ordinary Americans, while delivering no measurable climate benefit.

The stop-start debacle is just one small—but powerful—example.

Manufactured Data, Manufactured Rules

The entire regulatory regime that empowered the stop-start incentive was built atop a shaky foundation. As the CPAC Foundation’s research has shown, the global average temperature datasets used by the EPA were repeatedly adjusted to show more recent warming trends, while older periods like the 1930s were scrubbed from the record.

The models used to “prove” CO₂’s impact on climate were themselves tuned to these altered data sets—a textbook case of circular reasoning. And yet billions of economic decisions, and millions of consumer experiences (like stop-start systems), were dictated by these untested assumptions.

Real Environmentalism vs. Regulatory Theater

Let’s be clear: real environmentalism means reducing waste, protecting air and water quality, and preserving resources for future generations.

Stop-start mandates do none of this. They shorten vehicle life. They increase junkyard waste. They force Americans to spend more to fix and replace parts, all for the illusion of “green” progress. It’s regulatory theater—designed for applause in Washington, not results on Main Street.

Administrator Zeldin’s decision to repeal these incentives recognizes that good governance isn’t about abstract metrics. It’s about actual outcomes. If a rule increases costs, increases waste, aggravates consumers, and barely moves the emissions needle—it fails. And it should be repealed.

Time to Rein in the Regulatory Cascade

The stop-start incentive is just one branch of a much larger regulatory tree that’s grown wildly out of proportion. Under the guise of environmental stewardship, agencies have enacted a patchwork of rules—from electric vehicle mandates to Scope 3 emissions disclosures—that do more to burden working families than to clean the planet.

The CRF has long called for regulatory reform rooted in common sense, transparency, and comparative risk assessment. That means evaluating rules based on real-world tradeoffs, not hypothetical benefits. It means asking whether a rule delivers more benefit than harm, and whether the science backing it can stand up to scrutiny.

EPA’s decision to revisit these mandates—and rescind the most egregious—is a powerful step in the right direction.

A Win for Science, Freedom, and Reality

Lee Zeldin’s move to shut down the stop-start scam isn’t just a policy change. It’s a restoration of regulatory sanity. It’s a rare moment when Washington reversed a bad decision. And it signals that maybe—just maybe—we’re done treating CO₂ as a regulatory magic wand that justifies any mandate, no matter how costly or irrational.

From the Center for Regulatory Freedom at the CPAC Foundation, we say: well done.

Let this be the first of many course corrections. Let’s replace symbolic climate policy with sound science. Let’s reject one-size-fits-all mandates in favor of smart, targeted solutions.

And let’s always remember: when government chases a single metric, the real-world costs fall on the rest of us.