Gas War: Automakers Continue Begging Government for EV Incentives

gas war automakers continue begging government for ev incentives

On Monday, General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, and Toyota Motor North America reportedly asked the United States Congress to lift the existing cap on the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles. Though automakers petitioning the government for free money is hardly new business.

In 2009, the Obama administration set aside $2.4 billion in funding to produce more efficient batteries intended for hybrid cars. The grants came hot on the heels of industry bailouts launched by Bush during the Great Recession (the first one) and the establishment of the EV tax credit scheme we know today. The Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash4Clunkers) was also established in 2009. Though the industry doesn’t limit itself to taking money tied exclusively to allegedly environmental schemes or industrial bankruptcy. During the earliest days of the Trump administration, just about every domestic automaker went to the White House to ask that the government request that vehicle fuel-efficiency rules be revised (softened) to account for the growing popularity of larger vehicles. However several abandoned any public support after media coverage of the fueling rollback became unfavorable.

The point is automakers are almost always begging for money, even when they claim they’re above it. Case in point, Toyota actually opposed the Biden administration’s proposal to add $4,500 in incentives atop union-made vehicles. Toyota doesn’t have any union-backed factories in the United States and even launched an ad campaign opposing the plan. But its leadership is only too happy to sign onto a letter asking that the government expand the number of EVs automakers are allowed to produce before the money dries up.

According to Automotive News, the letter was penned by GM CEO Mary Barra, Ford’s Jim Farley, Stellantis’ Carlos Tavares, and Toyota North America CEO Tetsuo Ogawa. The group pledged to invest more than $170 billion through 2030 to ensure that EV development and production were on pace to see the U.S. transition over to electrified transportation.

From AN:

The $7,500 tax credit phases out after a manufacturer hits 200,000 vehicles sold. Both GM and Tesla have already hit the cap and are no longer eligible for the consumer tax credits.

“We ask that the per-(automaker) cap be removed, with a sunset date set for a time when the EV market is more mature,” the automakers said in the letter.

“Recent economic pressures and supply chain constraints are increasing the cost of manufacturing electrified vehicles which, in turn, puts pressure on the price to consumers.”

The letter comes amid growing concerns among auto industry executives that the window is closing for U.S. Congress to extend electric vehicle tax credits, since Republicans could retake control of one or both houses of Congress next year.

Last week, Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford made an unannounced trip to Capitol Hill to make the case for extending the tax credit.

Worse still, battery prices look poised to skyrocket as the raw materials necessary for their production become harder to procure. Asia, which dominates the world’s battery production, also seems to be concerned with domestic production — potentially making thing cells even harder to come by in the West.

The Biden administration, along with top-ranking Democrats, has suggested raising EV payouts to $12,500 per vehicle (that’s atop the suggested $4,500 for union-backed labor) and raising the or even resetting the existing vehicle quota. The president has likewise recommended a 30-percent credit for commercial electric vehicles and a $4,000 used EV tax credit that’s refundable at the point of sale.

The only automaker that seems to have come out overtly against the plan is Tesla. CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly stated that tying incentives to unions is a blatantly political act and that he believes the EV market will never mature if the government continues subsidizing it with taxes. He suggested leaving the caps and quotas as is to allow all businesses to have an equal advantage, noting that some companies already squandered earlier advancements in electrification (an obvious jab at General Motors’ EV1 program).

In April, Senator Joe Manchin — a Democrat who always seems to be the party’s dissenting voice — expressed concerns that extending EV tax credits may ultimately end up advantaging Chinese battery suppliers while throwing free money at U.S. automakers for doing nothing more than sticking to their existing production plans.

“There’s a waiting list for EVs right now with the fuel price at $4.00 [per gallon]. But they still want us to throw $5,000 or $7,000 or $12,000 credit to buy electric vehicles. It makes no sense to me whatsoever,” Manchin said at the time. “When we can’t produce enough product for the people that want it and we’re still going to pay them to take it — it’s absolutely ludicrous in my mind.”

Republicans, which currently appear poised to take a majority in Congress come November, have signaled they’re less interested in EV tax credits. Instead, they want to focus on how to lower U.S. energy prices that have continued to swell since Manchin publicly voiced his opinion two months ago.

My guess is that will be easier said than done considering the current state of the economy. But the previous industry assumption that EVs would reach financial parity with internal combustion vehicles by 2025 hasn’t gone according to plan either. If anything, the raw materials necessary for battery production only seem to be getting more expensive — with the assumption being that this will result in EVs carrying higher price tags for years to come.

[Image: JL IMAGES/Shutterstock]

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 70 comments
  • 3SpeedAutomatic 3SpeedAutomatic on Jun 14, 2022

    EV development is currently subsidized by ICE sales. Yet, GM and other manufacturers are talking about spinning off EV from ICE production. In Wall Street parlance, "freeing up cash for potential dividends". Let Wall Street finance EVs. While I'm on my soap box, once government checks stop flowing, unemployment will drop like a rock. Also, my state is using left over Federal COVID money to finance its underfunded pension plan. Yet, the big city I live next to only has 1100 of 1600 police officers on duty. Yet, five people were murdered this past week. But guess where the city's surplus COVID money is going to.....yep, new bike cycle lanes. Sorry Sleepy Joe, but tooo much Government money is contributing to inflation and fiscal mismanagement. The party is over. Time to balance your purse book.

    • CoastieLenn CoastieLenn on Jun 14, 2022

      Manufacturers are frustratingly smart at this game. Take Volvo for instance (and IIRC, Ford has talked about this, too). If a historical ICE manufacturer wants to shift toward EV's because thats where the market is headed... or being forced, whichever you'd prefer, but they're uncertain about the longevity of that proposition, the smartest thing to do is division of assets. Volvo has plenty of PHEV's in their portfolio, but for their full EV's, they have talked about keeping that all under the Polestar brand (and FordBlue). Why? Because they can fold one arm if that segment tanks under new administration or market dictation and it not effect their legacy company. Now, I'm sure you knew that, but in case anyone else didn't- there you go. To effectively and legally be able to shutter one company without effecting the other, they must keep all financial aspects segregated. I have no idea at what point in that matrix the CEO of Volvo and Polestar (same guy) can collect pay from both or if that is two separate pay plans. Anyone can please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my rudimentary understanding that was gained during the whole "GM" and "New GM" ordeal.

  • TDIGuy TDIGuy on Jun 17, 2022

    So government created an artificial demand by subsidizing the price of EVs over other alternative fuels. Manufacturers have bought in. Now everybody realizes that it won't catch on without the subsidy, thus proving what we knew all along, that people aren't going to drop ICE unless the replacement is similar price? I'm talking purchase cost. If people thought about operating cost when buying a vehicle, trucks wouldn't be so popular.

  • Sgeffe Bronco looks with JLR “reliability!”What’s not to like?!
  • FreedMike Back in the '70s, the one thing keeping consumers from buying more Datsuns was styling - these guys were bringing over some of the ugliest product imaginable. Remember the F10? As hard as I try to blot that rolling aberration from my memory, it comes back. So the name change to Nissan made sense, and happened right as they started bringing over good-looking product (like the Maxima that will be featured in this series). They made a pretty clean break.
  • Flowerplough Liability - Autonomous vehicles must be programmed to make life-ending decisions, and who wants to risk that? Hit the moose or dive into the steep grassy ditch? Ram the sudden pile up that is occurring mere feet in front of the bumper or scan the oncoming lane and swing left? Ram the rogue machine that suddenly swung into my lane, head on, or hop up onto the sidewalk and maybe bump a pedestrian? With no driver involved, Ford/Volkswagen or GM or whomever will bear full responsibility and, in America, be ambulance-chaser sued into bankruptcy and extinction in well under a decade. Or maybe the yuge corporations will get special, good-faith, immunity laws, nation-wide? Yeah, that's the ticket.
  • FreedMike It's not that consumers wouldn't want this tech in theory - I think they would. Honestly, the idea of a car that can take over the truly tedious driving stuff that drives me bonkers - like sitting in traffic - appeals to me. But there's no way I'd put my property and my life in the hands of tech that's clearly not ready for prime time, and neither would the majority of other drivers. If they want this tech to sell, they need to get it right.
  • TitaniumZ Of course they are starting to "sour" on the idea. That's what happens when cars start to drive better than people. Humanpilots mostly suck and make bad decisions.
Next