Automakers Hit Reverse On Idealistic Electric Vehicle Targets Despite Billions In Biden-Harris Subsidies

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

Automakers have continued to backpedal on electric vehicle (EV) targets over the last year as a slackening of consumer demand has hampered growth despite the billions in subsidies lavished on the industry by the Biden-Harris administration.

A wide array of auto manufacturers have abandoned key EV goals since February, with Volvo, Ford and Mercedes-Benz all dialing back electric quotas or dropping previously planned product lines. The shifts in corporate strategy suggest the EV transition — once touted by auto executives like Ford CEO Jim Farley as the industry’s future — may not be as feasible as once thought due to consumer aversion to lower mileage ranges, a lack of charging infrastructure and higher prices, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The auto industry’s change in direction is in spite of the billions in subsidies doled out to the industry via the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, with the White House offering a $7,500 federal tax credit for certain EVs to ease costs for buyers, and allocating $12 billion for carmakers to retrofit factories for EV production. The administration has also put in place stringent regulations designed to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles, including a tailpipe emissions rule that would effectively require about 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 to be electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrids.

“Even after throwing money at EVs hand over fist, basically paying people tax dollars to drive these cars off the lots, you have a dire spiral of (1) not enough demand to support the number of cars being produced, and (2) the people you paid to buy them now wanting to go back to what they had before,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers and the former solicitor general of Arizona, told the DCNF.

Autos over the last 5 years:

Auto CEOs: “we’re going electric by 2030 so I can become the toast of the town and get glossy magazine spreads written about how visionary and green I am.”

Engineers: “that’s not possible…”

Accountants: “that’s not possible…”

Customers: “we… https://t.co/ldca2L0n4G

— Alliance For Consumers (@for_consumers) September 4, 2024

Despite the generous tax credits, consumers have been hesitant to adopt EVs at the rate the Biden-Harris administration and automakers have hoped, with EV sales growing 50% in the first half of 2023 and 31% in the first half of 2024, less than the 71% increase in the first half of 2022. Moreover, a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found 46% of respondents were unlikely or very unlikely to purchase an EV, while just 21% were “very” or “extremely” likely to make the change.

Consumer sentiment towards EVs has struggled even among those who have already purchased the vehicles, with a June survey from leading consulting firm McKinsey and Company finding nearly half of Americans who own an EV want to go back to a standard vehicle.

“The [EV market] headwinds come from physical realities that translate into economic and practical realities,” Mark Mills, a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and an expert on the automobile market, told the DCNF. “EVs are inherently more expensive… and most consumers are very price sensitive; EV fueling for most people is far less convenient… [and] EV fueling infrastructure is extremely expensive and will take a long time to build out.”

The average cost of a new EV was 10% higher than the price of a standard vehicle as of January, with the 2024 electric version of a base Ford F-150 costing roughly $20,000 more. The Ford F-Series was the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. in 2023.

Ford canceled plans to produce a three-row electric SUV in August and reduced output of its F-150 Lightning pickup truck in January. The reversals follow Ford losing $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023, equating to nearly $65,000 per EV it sold. When reached, a Ford spokeswoman referred back previous comments to the DCNF stating that “we aren’t going to launch vehicles unless they are going to be profitable within 12 months of launch.”

“These are staggering costs to impose on American families,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF.

EV carmakers Tesla and Lucid have also struggled in the last year, announcing plans to layoff roughly 10% and 6% of their workforces, respectively.

On top of sheer cost, expanding charging infrastructure has also been a challenge for manufacturers, with the Biden-Harris administration having built just seven EV charging stations in four states as of April 2024, despite the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill earmarking $7.5 billion for the creation of a national EV charger network. A lack of demand, union requirements, as well as diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with the Department of Transportation requiring applicants to promise to perform “intentional outreach to underserved communities” by hosting “neighborhood block parties” in order to qualify for funding, have significantly slowed down the project’s rollout.

Beyond a lack of infrastructure, charging can simply be inconvenient for consumers, with refueling times ranging from 20 minutes to upwards of 50 hours depending on charger voltage and battery size, according to American automotive resource company Edmunds. Even “fast charging” in the urban center of Washington, D.C., can take as long as 35 minutes.

Faced with these obstacles, Volvo Cars abandoned plans to offer an all-electric line-up by the end of the decade, instead aiming to have between 90% and 100% of its cars be fully electric or plug-in hybrids by that time. Mercedes-Benz made a similar announcement back in February, slashing its target of selling 100% EVs by 2030 to just 50% after its net profit fell 21.5% year-over-year in the fourth quarter of 2023.

“The Biden-Harris administration is spending billions in tax incentives to pay auto companies to make EVs, and billions for tax credits to pay households to buy the cars,” Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “Still, Americans are too smart to fall for a product that is not suited for them.”

The White House, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #EVMandates #EVSubsidies ElectricVehicleTargets EVDemandFalling EVGoals EVTargets OwenKlinsky

Up Next

“Government Heroin” documentary exposes rampant safer supply fraud

Don't Miss

Here’s How A Venezuelan Gang Was Able To Infiltrate The US And Wreak Havoc In Major Cities

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Numbers don’t lie—crime up significantly in Toronto and across Canada

Disaster / 3 hours ago

Aid pours into North Carolina; dozens still missing

Daily Caller / 10 hours ago

Nearly One Million Foreign Nationals Flocked To US For Asylum In 2023, Shattering All-Time Record

Automotive

Two thirds of Canadians say banning conventional vehicles by 2035 is “unrealistic”

Published on October 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Montreal Economic Institute

Seven in 10 Canadians are concerned about the negative impact of cancelled energy projects on Canadian jobs.

More than half of Canadiens are against the federal mandate forcing all new cars sold in Canada to be electric by 2035, shows a new MEI-Ipsos survey released this morning.

“Across the country, Canadians are a lot more hesitant to ban conventional vehicles than their elected representatives in Ottawa are,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI. “They have legitimate concerns, most notably with the cost of those cars, and federal and provincial politicians should take note.”

The poll shows that 55 per cent of Canadians disagree with Ottawa’s decision to ban the sale of conventional vehicles by 2035. In every region surveyed, a larger number of respondents were against the ban than in favour of it.

Among Canadians who don’t already own an electric vehicle, slightly fewer than one in four said their next car would be electric.

Key reasons cited for this lukewarm attitude included the high cost of the cars (70 per cent), the lack of charging infrastructure (66 per cent), and their reduced performance in Canada’s cold climate (64 per cent).

Across the country, only 26 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa’s plan to ban the sale of conventional vehicles is realistic. Meanwhile, 66 per cent maintain that the plan is unrealistic.

“Canadians understand that 2035 is sooner than Ottawa thinks, and nothing indicates electric vehicle adoption rates are going to follow what federal lawmakers anticipated,” notes Ms. Wittevrongel. “Concerns with their high cost, the lack of charging infrastructure and their poor performance in our cold climate remain strong.”

The survey also found Canadians were troubled by the effects that federal legislation has had in stalling or cancelling energy projects.

Seven in 10 respondents were concerned by the negative impact on Canadian jobs arising from the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars in energy projects due to regulatory hurdles.

Slightly more than three in four Canadians (76 per cent) say the federal government’s environmental impact assessment project takes too long, with only nine per cent taking the opposite view.

“Canadians understand that our energy industry plays a key role in Canada’s economy, and that lengthy approval delays from regulators have a negative impact on a project’s chances of happening,” explains Ms. Wittevrongel. “They are looking for leadership in Ottawa and in the provinces to cut down on bureaucratic hurdles and shorten the time it takes to get shovels in the ground.”

A sample of 1,190 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between September 18^th and 22^nd, 2024. The results are accurate to within ± 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here: https://www.iedm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ipsos_survey_energy_in_canada_september_2024.pdf.

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Economy

Federal government’s environmental policies will do more harm than good

Published on September 30, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Through a variety of regulatory and spending initiatives, the Trudeau government is expanding its control over our lives, often in the name of climate change or other environmental objectives. For example, the government plans to force consumers to buy electric vehicles instead of conventional cars and has proposed or implemented plastics restrictions on consumers and businesses—everything from plastic drinking straws and plastic utensils to clothing material and food packages.

However, while evidence of the high costs to consumers continues to mount, evidence of the environmental benefits is notably absent. Indeed, many recent studies provide evidence that Ottawa’s restrictions on consumers may well cause net environmental harm. One reason is that the plastic products the federal government is so intent on restricting are more environmentally efficient than alternatives.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology concludes, “15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.” The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Why? Because plastic generally takes less energy to manufacture and transport than the alternatives. In fact, many plastic products that are more environmentally friendly than non-plastic alternatives (according to the study) are products the Trudeau government wants to ban or curtail through regulation.

Other evidence shows plastic bans of the type imposed in Canada cause environmental ruin, contrary to the predictions of politicians. For example, research in New Jersey found after single-use plastic bags were banned in 2022, shoppers switched to the heavier reusable bags. “Owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported that while California banned single-use plastic bags almost a decade ago, in 2023 “Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.”

Also from the Wall Street Journal, analyses suggest electric vehicles often emit more particulate pollution (dust, dirt and soot) than conventional vehicles. That’s because most particulate pollution these days is not from the tailpipe but from tire wear. EVs are much heavier than conventional vehicles so their tires wear out faster, increasing particulate pollution. The firm Emissions Analytics compared a plug-in electric to a hybrid vehicle and found the plug-in electric, which weighed more, emitted about one-quarter more particulate matter than the hybrid as a result of tire wear.

Last year, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that EVs manufactured by Ford, Volvo and Toyota were all about 33 per cent heavier than conventionally powered versions of those same vehicles. That’s a problem not only for the environment but also for driver safety—and yet more evidence that the Trudeau government’s EV mandates will harm Canadians.

When it comes to vehicles, plastic products and many other things, the Trudeau government should begin reducing its control over consumers. The harm to consumers is evident; the compensating benefits to the environment—if any—are not.