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.
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.
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news , features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter .
What can go wrong throwing even more “free” money into the economy? smfh
I’ll go make some popcorn and get a few adult beverages together to watch the fireworks on THIS one!
In all of these discussions for EV subsidies, I have never heard or seen a stated goal with specific dates and targets. Ex. Our goal is to have x% of the US fleet of cars being EV by 2035, and then a line drawn between that goal and how subsidies would temporarily assist in achieving that.
Perhaps that was the original intent of the $7500 tax credit and I missed it.
Anybody know what the goal is, why it’s the goal, what were the expectations of achieving that goal and what that meant for EV adoption as a whole?
Seems to me that since we haven’t built (outside of Tesla) a reasonable charging infrastructure, that regardless of incentives, the ability to charge EVs continues to hamper mass adoption.
Giving away money to the upper middle class to buy/lease $50k EVs doesn’t seem like the most effective investment if the goal is to replace ICE cars/trucks.
The original credit had a cap based on number of vehicles sold by the manufacturer. It had a couple step down levels until zero. Some marques have gone through it.
“ In all of these discussions for EV subsidies, I have never heard or seen a stated goal with specific dates and targets.”
Liberals are incapable of thought that is any deeper than “I want, I’m entitled to, you owe me”, etc.
That’s how you end up with mediocre bar tenders who are dumber than a stump calling for the elimination of airplanes and the “green new deal” (that isn’t green at all).
The existing law has a goal of 200,000 EVs per mfr. It was written and passed during the Bush Administration:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d
https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6049
So you can blame GWB.
He won’t. Factual information isn’t his method of operation.
“I have never heard or seen a stated goal with specific dates and targets…”
It’s the same goal as always: Take from the productive, and hand to the connected. The only difference, ever, is just the pitch the thieves believe their captive indoctrinati is most likely to fall for at any given time.
Clever. The automakers want a government handout without asking for a government handout.
The automakers know their electric vehicles are over priced. So rather than lower prices they advocate for handouts in the form of tax incentives.
Funny enough, we are told that EV‘s are supposedly red hot and in demand but if that were true, why would automakers be begging for the incentives to continue? Maybe they are worried that their pathetic EV‘s just aren’t good enough
Automakers can’t lower prices of EVs. The materials to make them cost too much, and the cost is going up. US automakers can’t even make a $20,000 ICE compact at a profit anymore, so they have no hope of making an EV with a decent profit margin for less than $40k. They not only need government subsidies, they need BIGGER government subsidies.
We’ve done nothing to improve out energy infrastructure to handle the increased electricity needs. We’ve done nothing to improve our own supply of battery materials. We’ve done nothing to create a robust charging network, and more importantly, done nothing to promote the installation of home EV chargers. But yeah, let’s give wealthy people with plenty of taxable income a huge tax break to buy cars they can afford anyway.
Literally how every liberal initiative ends up. All bunnies and kittens in terms of ideas but no critical thought on how to get there
You forgot the rainbows and unicorns!
….. aside from localized travel, EV is not there yet and may never get there. If something is subsidized by the .gov, it is 100% not ready or not desired by the market. … and if .gov has there hands in the situation, they will screw it up.
My 3 ton A/C pulls about 6.2KW. So an EV pulls 150KV when charging look at the multiples. Now multiply even 1/4 of the fleet charging, where is this supply going to come from at night when we are supposed to charge?
I could go on and on….
It’s entertaining to read a post that is 100% incorrect. Your false claims have been refuted here with facts countless times, so you obviously have other sources of truth.
Those claims haven’t been refuted, only disputed. A common practice of adherents for anything is to raise an objection without evidence, then have another adherent “confirm” the objection, also without evidence. Viola! Claim refuted.
It may have worked for some, but too many have seen the ruse to recognize it for what it is. Only other adherents of the “cause” are buying the ruse.
Exactly right dwford. If anything we’ve gone backwards with all these inefficient solar farms and wind farms. They can’t make up for the loss of proper coal and natural gas plants.
Further proof EVs are a major boondoggle
I’m fine with the big guys getting theirs as long as we see a little action here on the home front in return for our support — and by that I mean cash money for me and my dependents.
(Think of the children – MY children.)
P.S. I do like the sound of that “$4,000 used EV tax credit,” but if I were a deep thinker (as if!) we could get a little concerned about how that amount might ultimately be split between me and the selling dealer. So I think just cash sent directly to me is probably a lot better. $4,000 per family member sounds pretty good for now — and then let’s plan to talk again in a few months (my support doesn’t last forever and should never be taken for granted, don’t you agree?). When I say sent to “me” I mean the *first* name on our married-filing-jointly tax return — just understand that this will save me some hassle, if you know what I mean.
I DON’T WANT TO HELP PAY FOR YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE!!!!!
You already have – twice – as well as my house and kids, charitable donations, and every other deduction people and companies take on their taxes.
Are EVs the only thing you object to subsidizing?
Deductions are tiny compared to credits like EVs get.
Deductions are tiny? My standard deduction this year was $18,800. At bare minimum, your standard deduction would have been $12,550. That’s quite a bit more than the EV credit.
The point is that the tax code incentivizes certain types of purchases. Real estate is the the best example – you can write off mortgage interest, and people who buy investments can write off all the expenses associated with those properties. That’s because the government wants people to buy real estate. There are good reasons for that, and no one seems to object to any of them.
SCE’s point is that the objection to this particular tax credit seems awfully selective, and he’s right.
I’ll try to educate FreedMike but only because I have a beer in me already and tilting at windmills sounds fun. That standard deduction of $18,500 will save you maybe 14% on your taxes due or $2,590 (the actual percentage depends on your highest applicable tax bracket). A $7,500 tax credit saves you $7,500 on your taxes due and any overage is paid out to you. Huge difference between a deduction on earnings and a tax credit.
OK, if we’re going to parse, you called it a deduction. And since you’re taking it on yourself to educate me, I’ll return the favor: the EV tax credit is not refundable.
But my point remains: the government incentivizes all kinds of things with tax breaks. Why is your dander up over this particular one, when you undoubtedly take advantage of others?
You’re saying the tax deductions for buying a home and having kids is as wasteful as subsidizing the purchase of (until recently) $50-$100k cars by wealthy people?
SCE, not all subsidies are created equal and not all produce any good at all…. except to the recipient.
I’m no fan of subsidies of any kind, and I don’t claim they are all created equal. Unfortunately, since some take the form of tax breaks, but some are cash payments, the money flow confuses the question.
The original EV subsidy was not intended to help wealthy people; its intent was to replace a potential ICE purchase with an EV. The person’s income is unrelated to the pollution of their car.
Let’s also not forget that Nissan’s Leaf (priced in the 30s) had the sales lead for quite a while. I don’t know if middle to upper-middle class is ‘wealthy’, but that’s who bought them.
Having had two leased EVs, I did not have to qualify for the subsidy – that went straight to the mfr (Nissan, then Hyundai in my case).
I’d like to see subsidies disappear, but they are part of the fabric of the tax code, thanks to our elected officials and their constituents (us).
Ds and Rs alike all want to know what their candidate will do for them, and they dare not touch their favorite program.
Deductions exist because the government wants to incentivize you to do something, whether it’s buying real estate, having kids, or getting a degree.
And now they’ve incentivized EVs, and the reasons seem pretty obvious right now. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of the oil companies deciding willy-nilly when they want to open my wallet up wider – and don’t kid yourself, that’s EXACTLY what this whole run-up is about. At a minimum, what EVs represent is competition for the fuel delivery system for transportation that we currently have, and I’d say the competition is long overdue.
I just don’t get all the sour grapes over incentivizing EVs when a whole passel of other stuff is also incentivized. The whole “is this the system we want” conversation is worth having, but this is the system we have, for better or worse.
“ You’re saying the tax deductions for buying a home and having kids ”
Nobody should get a tax deduction for having a child. And anyone that has over two children gets taxed progressively higher.
That’s the greenest proposal ever made.
I well remember federal subsidies. Some years ago when still serving our country aboard ship, we began being served something that looked like stewed rats for dinner. Several times a month for several months in a row. It was discovered that the mystery meat was, in fact, rabbit. Our federal government subsidized rabbit raisers who couldn’t sell their long eared rats so the Army (who supplies food for the Navy) began buying up thousands of pounds of rabbit because no one else would buy it. Rabbit, as with EV’s, are products that folks must be “encouraged” to utilize through subsidies (we on the ship had no choice – it was rabbit or stale candy and chips from the Ship’s Store). I live in the country these days and have trained my dogs to kill those long eared rats and my old Nylon 66 is by the back window to get the one’s they miss.
Ate rabbit many a time in Air Force dining halls in the 80s.
Ate rabbit as a child quite a bit, as dad was a rather prolific rabbit hunter. Squirrel, too. Have fairly fond memories of them, although I’ve noticed that I’m not exactly in a hurry to put it back on my personal menu.
Squirrel as Entrée might be making a comeback about 8 months from now… along with Meatless Monday (and Tuesday and Wednesday).
The problem with game is that it tastes “gamey”. We’ve all become accustomed to depending on ranchers to raise beef on the hoof to turn into Whoppers and Big Macs.
It’s all about inflation, inflation, inflation. It will help to reduce sovereign debt. Did I tell you that we also have to keep interest rates low? Low interest rates and high inflation will solve problems with US government’s debt.
If Congress restores the expired credits and expands them, all that will do is increase Tesla’s market lead.
The 2008/9 law is sufficient. This is simple begging by mfrs who dragged their feet for the last 15 years.
I don’t understand most things corporate finance, but if that’s the case, why then would Elon actively pose to stand against continuation and expansion of tax credits if it would only increase T’s market position?
Joe Manchin is one of the few Senators of either party with any integrity or sense.
Sorry, no. Manchin is for sale to the highest bidder, as with 98% of elected officials. If his vote aligns with your political persuasion today, I can assure you it will not tomorrow.
Politicians have 2 jobs: Get elected. Then get re-elected. That’s it.
You forgot Politician Job #1: pay for their campaigns. And that’s where the “for sale to the highest bidder” crap comes in.
Stripping as much money as possible from politics would do us a world of good.
That’s about it. Get elected and stay elected. Once one is no longer “electable”, choices made in office allow a transition to a lucrative job as a lobbyist.
Is the issue the same in Canada, or do you have stronger campaign finance laws? Here in the U.S., it’s basically legalized bribery.
@FreedMike – our laws are better for campaign contributions. We have caps on private donations through all sources. Super PAC’s don’t exist. There are restrictions on 3rd party advertising. Canada provides subsidies to political campaigns to level the playing field.
Seems sensible, Lou…which means it will never fly in the U.S.
Manchin is accountable to the voters of WV, and if he doesn’t vote the way they want they’ll toss him out. WV is a very red state, and the big donors can’t save him if he votes to decimate the economy of his state. Maybe you think he should have voted to toss a trillion gallon of gasoline on an already overheated economy or to eliminate the filibuster that Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer used to think was vital to our democracy, but I doubt his constituents agree with you, and I understand that in representative governments you are accountable to your constituents, not your party.
How does Manchin voting against EV credits “decimate the economy of his state”?
Coal is a sinking ship, and has been for a LONG time now. Natural gas ate its’ lunch. So maybe if Manchin really wanted to help his state out, he could get with the clean energy program and figure out how to make sure his state gets a piece of that new pie, versus getting smaller crumbs of the old one.
But he won’t do that…because he’s bought and sold by the coal companies, one of which is owned by his family.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
His voting against EV credits has nothing to do with the coal industry in his state, he’s doing that because it makes no sense to keeping giving Tesla and GM credits when the purpose for them is over, and giving $5k extra for union built EVs is a blatant bribe to domestic union automakers. You’re the one whining about politicians being bought off. The only point you’ve made is that you’re a utter hypocrite about money in politics. It’s bad for Manchin to vote against destroying the coal industry in his state but fine for Senators in union automaker states to buy votes with our money.
@285: In fact, I’ve opposed the “union” piece of BBB. You’re off base there.
And Manchin doesn’t need to be bought off to lobby for his state to get jobs from green energy. Far from it. That’s what elected representatives are supposed to be doing. But he hasn’t…because he’s tied to coal.
And you never proved how EV credits are going to decimate the economy of West Virginia. What’s your line of reasoning there? I’d love to hear it. If anything, I’d say that being tied to coal is decimating the state’s economy, and Manchin is clearly part of that problem.
(And I’m not necessarily bagging on Manchin here – everyone in the Senate is bought off by one interest or another.)
Minor point here: The biggest reserve of natural gas is in the Marcellus shale.
The Marcellus is huge, covering parts of several states, but ALL of West Virginia is smack in the middle of the Marcellus.
For West Virginia and its economy, natural gas is the replacement for coal, and Joe Manchin knows it. BTW: coal beds too deep to mine can be fracked, producing both natural gas AND oil.
Seems weird that the inEVitable future would need even more incentives.
F, GM, St, and T squandered their government-provided opportunity over the last decade, and now they are worried.
Hopefully, they do not do that.
I think it is time to stop subsidizing industries like this and center our concerns on the fundamental basic needs: food, education, healthcare, and even that, at a very basic level. Anything over basic should be in the free economy.
Otherwise, we will be forcing taxpayers to buy cars even if they don’t want, because they will be buying a car for someone else with their tax money.
Be in mind this what I think from Europe, so I might be missing your circumstances in the USA. But I do know what it means to pay over 60% of my earnings in taxes (one way or another) and at the same time I get on my paycheck just enough to make a living, and I am renting a home and have a 12 year old car…
Something about the headline “Gas Wars” that elicit visions of a bean eating contest. I have this vision like in the beginning scene of Blazing Saddles where the cowboys are sitting around a campfire eating beans.
That’s actually not too different from how I think of the people involved. Imagine that scene exactly except they’re passing around money instead of beans and that it has real ramifications for your life.
I’d say that doing nothing about the current, competition-free, petroleum-only energy system for transportation also has real ramifications for our life, which we’re seeing right now.
Long term, if getting more electric vehicles on the road means that the oil companies can’t just decide to run up my Amex at will – and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what’s going on here – then it’s worth some of my tax bucks to make it happen. I don’t think it’s arguable that lack of competition is one of the key factors – if not THE key – that enables these wild pricing swings in the first place.
Forget the whole climate change question…it makes economic sense. Far as I’m concerned, we should have been working on this 20-30 years ago, and if we had, maybe we wouldn’t be in this position now.
Where is the overall energy plan? That’s the problem. There isn’t one.
I’ve read in a few places thst oil can last up to 50 years, natural gas up to 53 years, and coal up to 114 years. (Globally)
In the USA drought is quite literally drying up water reservoirs. That means hydroelectric is of little benefit. Coal fired plants? Nuclear? Wind, solar, tidal, thermal?
Where’s the plan just to meet anticipating needs?
“the overall energy plan” is to destroy the middle class. Leaving only the wealth elites and the poors. The politicians will use any lever available, pandamics, race, war, climate change alarmism, etc to push forward this “plan”.
Lou- There isn’t one. It’s not sexy enough, nor does it garner enough public support (ie: votes) to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into a plan to support something that- without the sexier “right now” of tax dollars and tech-bling vehicles, would happen at a much more gradual pace. No politician wants to put their head on the chopping block to draft or back a plan that won’t come to fruition for a decade or more, or has the potential to just be undone and reversed by the next round of politicians. We are a society of immediacy, and politicians only want what they can show they’ve done for RIGHT NOW.
@CoastieLenn – I agree. Politicians are very poor at planning anything beyond their elected terms in office. As I mentioned up thread, they only care about getting elected and staying elected with an off-ramp plan of landing a lucrative lobbyist job. The public bears some responsibility since too many fall for the “coins and baubles” approach of electioneering.
@kcflyer – both sides of the political spectrum are in the pockets of wealthy donours. Trillions have shifted to the 0.1%. That has severely eroded the middle class. Is there a concerted plan to kill the middleclass? Not specifically or directly. Indirectly, yes.
Politicians are very poor at planning everything except transitioning our transportation system to electricity instead of petroleum I guess.
@285exp – They aren’t good at planning or even selling the public on transitioning.
Lou, if they’re poor at planning the transition and poor at even explaining why we should do it, then maybe it’s not such a good idea.
@285exp – as I pointed out, we have 50 years of oil. In the context of geopolitical instability, militaries are massive consumers of fuel. I had read that in the 1st phase of the Gulf War, the military was consuming the equivalent of 1/2 the US domestic consumption per day.
It’s easier to electrify civilian fleets than military fleets. Fighter jets, bombers, helicopters etc. aren’t suitable for EV applications. Governments of world powers or even intermediate strength countries need to conserve fuel for military use.
@285: I’d say the current situation with petroleum is ample “why” for bringing other fuels into the mix.
Leaving out the environmental concerns, petroleum has a monopoly on energy for transportation. That puts them in a position to basically fleece us all whenever they feel like it because they have no competition. Don’t you think that needs to end? I do, and we have the means to start doing that right now. But the petroleum companies aren’t going to do that because doing do would lighten their own wallets. That means the government gets involved.
If that means we put some tax bucks behind the effort, then I’m completely down with that.
@FreedMike – “petroleum has a monopoly on energy for transportation.”
I’m assuming that most electrical grids and power generation in the USA is private. That means they will interfere with any competition. If large numbers of people put solar on their rooftops private entities will see this as a threat. They’ll interfere or not allow selling back to the grid or charge too much for access. Diversification of energy sources requires a more open source approach much like the internet where you can put into it or pull from it as needed.
@Lou_BC–You hit the nail on the head. There are lots of other energy sources but you have to have a plan. Without a plan you have chaos and high prices. Nothing wrong with having cleaner sources of energy like air and solar where it is feasible but those alone will not meet the growing energy needs. Long term nuclear might meet most electrical needs but it is expensive and it can take years to build a nuclear plant. Coal is dirty but until we build a clean power infrastructure we still need it. I am all for cleaner energy and would consider an EV in the future but the electrical infrastructure needs to be expanded, less expensive and longer range batteries need to be developed, and charging infrastructure for EVs needs to be expanded with uniform standards for charging and charging devices. The US political system is broken to where few things can get done. If it were today the interstate system that was developed during the Eisenhower Administration would never have gotten off the ground. You are correct the political system in the US is corrupted by outside interests and until that is changed and term limits are passed then it will only get worse. Some criticize having any plan at all but without a plan then you have more inflation and a worsening of the system. The problem is there can be no plan because the politics change with one party having a majority for a period of time and then the power shifting to the other party and neither party can work together and work for the interest and welfare of the country. Many politicians work for their own interest and for their party with God and country coming in last.
@JeffS – There needs to be an overall plan. If one leaves it to “free” markets, we won’t see meaningful change until it’s too late. Politicians are useless because they’ve become extremely partisan with the primary goal of blocking or undoing anything the opposing side implements.
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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.