America should rightfully be a leader when it comes to electric cars, having both created the underlying battery technology and proving the feasibility of mass vehicular electrification. China, though, has emerged as the real leader, and a mixture of corporate bumbling, political reality, and market forces seem ready to stunt America’s reemergence in the EV space.
Mass electrification will come, one day, but that day seems further away than ever. That’s not a critique of electric cars in general, as people who drive electric cars typically find them to be a better form of transportation (they usually are).
Am I feeling cynical this morning? Yes. You’ve been warned that the usual buoyant optimism that normally pervades The Morning Dump might be missing today. Maybe it’ll all work out, but I think America’s next best shot at getting ahead in the EV space is in trouble.
Of course, electric vehicle sales are up a bit, having climbed some in October. They’ll probably climb some more as people realize the money for EVs could dry up in the new administration. Will automakers still press forward? Sure, but both the carrot and the stick could disappear as a conservative judiciary might erase California’s ability to set its own environmental standards.
It doesn’t help that the first generation of EVs offered by most automakers has been tilted towards more expensive vehicles, a decision that is resulting in plant closures. I guess what I’m saying is: If you were inclined to buy an electric car you should probably do so now.
EV Sales Were Up A Little In October
For various reasons having to do with how automakers report sales, the only easy way to know for sure what everyone sold in the EV space on a model level is to look at registration data, which usually lag behind sales data.
The most recent month that there’s data for in the United States is October, which is before the election, and sales were up 5% year-over-year. That’s good, I suppose, but I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t a house of cards. Electrification in the United States is held up in no small part by subsidies and, further, by certain interpretations within those subsidies.
Looking at the data from S&P Global Mobility (via Automotive News) the clear trend is that most automakers are seeing increases, with Tesla seeing a predictable drop as it faces competition. Tesla still sold more cars than the next five automakers combined, but it’s a company going in the negative direction.
A close look at the specific models is most interesting here, with the Model Y (21,787) and Model 3 (17,419) far ahead, but the very good Hyundai Ioniq 5 sneaking into third place with 4,485 sales. This was followed by the Chevy Equinox EV (4,180), the Honda Prologue (4,168), and Tesla Cybertruck (4,041) rounding out the top six.
Is the Cybertruck a success? Certainly, at 4,041 sales it’s by far the most successful EV truck. There are signs that the expensive versions aren’t selling fast enough, though, which is backed up by used pricing data. VinFast, somewhat surprisingly, managed to outsell Lucid in October at 623 united to 488. The biggest loser here might be Volkswagen, which reportedly only moved 92 vehicles, which seems extremely low to me.
The lowest? Maserati had a whopping three EV sales. Just three. Presumably, those are all the Maserati Grecalo Foglore, though I’ve reached out to Maserati to confirm that.
What’s most worrying to me is that a ton of these sales rely on leasing, both because it’s probably not a bad idea to lease this generation of EVs, and because lease deals automatically qualify for a big tax credit due to an interpretation of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The chart above from S&P clearly demonstrates that leasing became the dominant mode because of the IRA. As the company wrote up in a recent analysis:
If this loophole is targeted for elimination, or if overall incentives are reduced, it could make BEVs even less accessible, especially as manufacturers may not have the same incentive to drive down prices or ramp up production.
Is that what’s going to happen? I tend to think that’s what is going to happen.
Trump Administration Reportedly Going To Eliminate The Carrot And The Stick
I don’t want to make every TMD about the Trump Administration’s plans for EVs, but it’s relevant. If this is triggering for you, I suggest moving on to another story.
As hamfisted as it could be at times, the Biden administration’s policy towards electrification had clear goals. In order to strengthen this country’s ability to produce competitive electric cars outside of one company (Tesla) and to help curb global climate change, there was money being passed around to build/buy EVs in the United States. That was the carrot. The stick was in the form of increased EPA standards that would make it more challenging to sell cars that weren’t electric cars.
Without getting into the details of how the United States Congress appropriates money, it’s not entirely clear how easy it will be for a Trump Administration to get rid of the popular EV tax credit. However, it might not be difficult for a new White House to reinterpret the lease rule in order to wipe out a lot of automakers that rely on those incentives.
One could argue that these subsidies are unfair and hide the reality that most people don’t want electric cars yet. Just about everything in life is subsidized, one way or another, so it’s merely a matter of society making choices. Did people vote for President Biden because they wanted more electric cars? Did people vote for President Trump because they wanted fewer electric cars?
The carrot going away isn’t a surprise, nor is the news that the new White House will attempt to roll back environmental standards. Ending subsidies for charging stations is the removal of a carrot that most people seem fine with, right? Maybe not. Here’s Reuters:
The transition team calls for clawing back whatever funds remain from Biden’s $7.5 billion plan to build charging stations and shifting the money to battery-minerals processing and the “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.”
While batteries, minerals and other EV components are “critical to defense production,” electric vehicles “and charging stations are not,” the document says.The Defense Department in recent years has highlighted U.S. strategic vulnerabilities because of China’s dominance of the mining and refining of critical minerals, including graphite and lithium needed for batteries, and rare-earth metals used in both EV motors and military aircraft.
Can The California Air Resource Board Survive?
Speaking of sticks, California has long been able to shape automotive policy in this country by using a clause within the Clear Air Act that says states can establish more stringent standards with a waiver from the EPA. President Biden granted one of those waivers in 2022 and fuel producers sued.
So far, the fuel producers haven’t been able to get a lawsuit heard because they’ve lacked standing, but the Supreme Court now plans to hear the case and decide whether or not fuel producers can, indeed, sue.
Since 1977, other states have joined California in its standards, which means about 1/3rd of the population is under stricter standards. Right now California is hoping to get more waivers in front of the EPA approved even as the Trump Administration says it’ll rescind as many waivers as it can.
If the Supreme Court decides that the oil and gas groups do, in fact, have standing, then the case will be sent back to the D.C. Circuit to consider the substantive question of whether it is lawful for the federal government to grant waivers for California at all.
From there, the soon-to-be-Trump-controlled EPA could seek a settlement with the plaintiffs. Alternatively, the Trump administration could let the case run its course with an eye toward an appeal at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court if the lower court upholds the existing waiver system.
Even if the Supreme Court rules the groups don’t have standing, this is going to keep coming up until the courts decide if the CARB waiver system is constitutional.
Audi Closing Its Brussels Factory
The Audi Q8 e-tron is as good a poster child for the problems automakers have had with electrification as any other vehicle. Elon Musk once said that the future of carmakers is going to be Tesla and a few other Chinese companies, which is a future he does seem to actively trying to make happen.
He’s had help from companies like Audi, which have been pushing vehicles with high prices and relatively low range. A Q8 E-Tron starts at $75,000 in the United States and can’t crack 300 miles of range. It looks good and is probably nice (I haven’t driven it). Starting at $75,000, there are too many other electric cars that are also as expensive and deliver equally mid performance.
Why would you buy this and not, say, a Kia Ev9? Or a Rivian R1S? Or just about anything else?
Because of the poor performance of vehicles like the Q8, Audi announced that it’s going to close the plant in Brussels where it’s built.
From Reuters via Automotive News Europe:
“The decision to close the Brussels factory is painful. Personally, it was the toughest decision I have ever had to make in my professional career,” said Audi’s production boss Gerd Walker.
The plant closure had seemed likely after a spokesperson said in November that Audi had been unable to find a buyer for the struggling Brussels plant.
In theory, the new Q8 E-Tron will be built in Mexico, which should help lower prices if there aren’t any tariff shenanigans.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
When I’m feeling cynical I want to listen to sad bastard music. This means it’s a good week for Eels, though there’s something kinda hopeful about “Christmas is going to the dogs.”
The Big Question
Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?
Top shot: GM, Lightning effect: Brusheezy
Buying an electric car now will look like a really dumb move when the rebate gets clawed back to pay for tax cuts
Why would you buy this and not, say, a Kia Ev9? Or a Rivian R1S? Or just about anything else?
I bought one instead of anything else. The Q8 is more a SUV that’s been electrified, not a reinvention of an SUV. Door handles, more traditional screen/button mix, etc. Outside of the space ship noise it makes at low speed – it is like a normal SUV, just electrified.
Outside of the actual vehicle features – Rivian’s still a startup and doesn’t have support everywhere and might not be here forever. Too many poor experiences/past judgements on Kia/Hyundai to seriously consider any of their EV offerings (heart vs head argument fully acknowledged on this portion).
> Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?
Yes, it will work out splendidly for the billionaire ruling class, just as the system was designed.
The rest of us, not so much.
> Am I being too cynical? Will it all work out?
No, and no, respectively.
Things will “work out” in the sense that the world isn’t going to end immediately, but the environment, economy, and workers will suffer. As usual.
>at 4,041 sales it’s by far the most successful EV truck.
Okay you’re not wrong but also this is a very silly comparison. Ford is deliberately holding back on producing the Lightning (ALLEGEDLY) and GM is pricing the Silverado EV like it’s a Rivian (same issue as Ford?).
>subsidies
People hate subsidies except the ones that benefit them the most. See also, corn.
>whether it is lawful for the federal government to grant waivers for California at all.
Everyone knows the 10th amendment only applies to red states.
Get one now because you’ll have a little under 2 months to enjoy it till he gets access to the revenge nukes he’s been stewing on for the past four years.
The nukes will be the least of our worries. A just and loving God would make sure we’re all vaporized. This is going to be much worse.
“Am I being too cynical?”
Yes
“Will it all work out?”
Yes
In my pro-BEV view, the shift to BEVs is happening MUCH FASTER that I thought possible 10 years ago.
And I thought that mainly because I knew enough to know that it wasn’t just about scaling up BEV production, but also scaling up all the back end infrastructure like battery cell production.
And of course all new BEVs are mainly geared toward expensive/premium models.
New tech is expensive and needs time and units produced to have that investment amortized.
Also it takes time and money to figure out ways to take the cost out of the tech to enable selling more affordable models at a profit.
The thing I find most surprising is how fast BEV sales surpassed plug-in hybrid sales and how BEV sales are not far behind hybrid vehicle sales.
And overall, BEVs/hybrids/PHEVs now make up over 21% of the market:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63904
10 years ago, I was speculating we’d be at this point maybe by 2030.
And with pretty much all car makers coming out with BEVs, I only see that trend accelerating in the near term.
And make no mistake… every in the auto industry is watching what Tesla will do next.
And what Tesla is doing next is a smaller/cheaper vehicle slotted below the Model 3,
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-2-model-c-model-q-small-ev-future-cars/
And they’re apparently working on a bus and a commercial/passenger van.
One thing holding back BEV adoption is a lack of BEV model choices. For example… if you want an electric van, your choices at the moment are the E-transit and the VW ID.Buzz.
And that looks like it’s gonna change in the coming years.
Also another area the tech continues to get better and cheaper is with solar.
I foresee that in 10-20 years, BEVs will have integrated solar and much more efficient electronics that will make current BEVs look like ‘energy guzzlers’
So I’m actually pretty optimistic.
I think a better question might be “will this all work out for the United States.” China is doing a ton of work in the EV space, South Korea is really pushing the envelope, Europe is doing a bunch of stuff. The United States WAS doing a pretty decent job pushing forward with the product category.
But if incentives for EVs and (more importantly) battery production potentially drying up, a new combative government that is putting any trade agreements at risk, and a general roll back of anything resembling an environmental standard, the North American auto industry could be in for an extremely rough four years – not even just in terms of EVs, the government trying to start fights with Canada and Mexico is not great when you rely heavily on Canada and Mexico.
It’s kind of impossible to guess the end result of all of this – maybe cooler heads will prevail and the worst case scenario will be averted – but this could really deliver a damaging blow to the American auto industry.
This is a weird statement, “people who drive electric cars typically find them to be a better form of transportation (they usually are).”
Because those for whom an electric car is better (short range driving, access to charging) can buy one and thereby find it to be better. So?
I just drove over 1000 miles this weekend, and would find an electric car to be a decidedly worse form of transportation!
Also in the news:
Farmers find pickup trucks to be a better form of transportation.
Families find minivans to be a better form of transportation.
Autopians find brown manual wagons to be a worse form of transportation, but we drive them anyway, because we have an illness. 🙂
“I just drove over 1000 miles this weekend,”
And I assume you did that trip all in one continuous shot in your Golf/Jetta TDI without even stopping to pee, right?
Well for us normal people, when we do 1000 mile road trips, we take breaks to stretch, eat something and use the washroom. And the breaks we take are usually 30-60 minutes in places that often have fast chargers… or a little bit of planning can be done so that breaks are taken where fast charging exists.
That’s what us normal people do.
And thus in practice, us normal people find BEVs to be better day to day because those of us who buy them, do so with the knowledge that we can charge them at home, at work or both.
Not having to go to gas stations anymore makes BEVs better. And not having to do a bunch of ICE-related maintenance like oil changes, timing belts, spark plugs, O2 sensors and other stuff also makes them better and more convenient.
Funny enough, I do it both ways. When I travel solo, it’s a straight cannonball run. I don’t stop for anything until the vehicle needs fuel. I’ve driven a Smart Fortwo from Los Angeles to Chicago in 36 hours, stopping every 280 miles as that’s when the low fuel light came on. If I didn’t need a drink or to pee I put fuel in and hit the road again. Only a couple of my stops were longer than a few minutes.
It was the same deal with that 2009 Smart earlier this year and when I brought the Plymouth home with the F-250. I hate stopping!
My wife frequently needs to use the bathroom, so when I’m traveling with her I do make frequent stops that last 30+ minutes. It’s wild how different these road trip strategies are. I could see an EV working just fine so long as I’m traveling with her! 🙂
“When I travel solo, it’s a straight cannonball run.”
Is there any other way?
“I’ve driven a Smart Fortwo from Los Angeles to Chicago in 36 hours, stopping every 280 miles as that’s when the low fuel light came on.”
We all know you have an irrational love for Smarts, but wow, that sounds like hell, like worse than David’s highway trips in a Wrangler.
Hey now, at least I listen to thumping music while doing these wacky drives. Last I heard, David sat in cold silence staring straight ahead for his whole drive to California. 🙂
Yeah, I’d need tunes, but he had the sweet purr of a 289 V8 in the Stang!
To be fair, David’s ears were probably frozen shut on that trip, though, too, his woeful pop culture awareness suggests he’s never listened to a radio or car stereo. Could be he’s deaf and just a really good lip reader so no one has detected it.
Cold silence because neither the heat nor the stereo worked.
I really didn’t want to start the old argument about EV range, road trips, etc. My point was that different cars are “better forms of transportation” for different people. And that there is nothing at this point that makes an EVs clearly better in all cases.
Note all the articles here about the benefits of Hybrids overall.
I drive 520 miles each way. I stop once for gas, coffee, bathroom, which takes 10-15 minutes max. Stopping for a 60 minute recharge would be masochistic.
I look forward to getting a hybrid one day soon, when the economics make sense.
I’m with you, I am not taking a road trip to hang out at at the gas station. I drive until my tank is low, stop to refuel, hit the head, and sometimes grab a coffee.
Now I don’t want to drink too much, because I have 400 miles of driving to do now after that 10 minute stop.
I arrive hungry and dehydrated, but I don’t waste time sitting at Sheetz.
“Well for us normal people, when we do 1000 mile road trips, we take breaks to stretch, eat something and use the washroom. And the breaks we take are usually 30-60 minutes in places that often have fast chargers… or a little bit of planning can be done so that breaks are taken where fast charging exists.”
Sure, if the charger works and is reserved for you. You may also pay more than if you had gassed up a hybrid.
I can’t agree with that being normal, I don’t know a single person that stops for that long on a road trip except at night or at a destination. I am aware that it’s common for families with kids, since they need to be able to move around and such after so many hours. Any road trip I’ve gone on, whether with friends, family, or both, it’s minimal stops for minimal time until we get to a place we actually want to be.
I could do that 1000 miles on 2 tanks of gas, with, worst case scenario, 2 extra breaks outside of the gas stop for food/bathroom.
Also, as someone who owns a short-range EV, I do keep an eye out for chargers in places I do stop, just as a *if I had a legit EV, would this trip work the same?* and I almost never see them anywhere. I know they exist, because people are out there road tripping EVs successfully, apparently just not the places I go.
Counterpoint: I daily drive a diesel manual wagon (blue, not brown) specifically because it’s the best form of transportation for me, by far.
Hey, the manual wagon might actually be the pinnacle of transportation. I was just joking, but I don’t have one, so what do I know?
Fair enough, but how often does the average person do that?
The average daily commute in the US is 42 miles. Most EVs these days have enough range to do that commute for the entire workweek without charging. If you have access to overnight charging (and that’s a BIG if), an EV is very easy vehicle to live with.
If you must rely solely on public charging, all bets are off, and for a lot of people, that’s a justifiable dealbreaker.
FWIW, I’m not an EV mandate supporter by any stretch, but don’t take your outlier driving case as the baseline for the average driver.
I actually completely agree with you.
I really didn’t want to start the old argument about EV range, road trips, etc. My point was that different cars are “better forms of transportation” for different people. And that there is nothing at this point that makes an EVs clearly better in all cases.
I actually think this is why hybrids are such a great solution., and EVs can be great for many people!
People actually only need 40-50miles of EV range, which handles the daily commute. Why carry >1000lbs of battery when you only need 42 miles of range?
Once you’re into an abnormal road trip, then an ICE is generally “better” from an energy density and refueling standpoint.
VW sales are low because they are not building any vehicles due to a recall.
Personally, I’m waiting until January or February when no one is buying an EV. I don’t qualify for the tax credits so it’s in my best interest to wait for demand to drop off.
Are we screwed, yes. But, the EV mandate made at most a slightly slower screwing. The Earth as a whole, looks pretty boned. And no amount of Model 3’s in every driveway was going to fix inherent flaw in fixing your overconsumption problem by consuming more, but different.
What’s not really talked about on Auto forums, is how screwed we could get on the whole National Security front. Now bear with me, policy wonks. But, having the entire economy dependent on a single resource is a recipe for a bad time. And unlike the early 50’s, competition for oil is global at this point. We’ve already seen oil get increasingly difficult to access. If you happen to be state that’s interested in destabilizing everyone’s favorite experiment in democracy. You cut off a little of spice flow. You don’t even have to talk to an American. Say the House of Saud spends hundreds of billions building a very liner city in the sand. Plus you’re just so happen to be sending some goods to rebel group close to the boarder. The people of Arabia, unhappy with their liner city-happen to start an armed revolt with the aid of all those firearms you shipped to Yeman. This rebel group happens to focus on states primary export. This conflict spills into other OPEC friends. Boom, for a couple hundred million, 10% the US and friends oil is at a standstill. And all your friends oil. So they go looking for new friends, and gas shortages are back on menu. So, either you put tanks on the ground and devote trillions to another quagmire or try to fund a different group and hope Syria 2.0 doesn’t happen.
This is where EV’s have a huge benefit on the macro-scale. We’re all in a death race to suck up that sweet juice. And this global house of cards could take some major damage with a single well funded bad actor. Having your entire Economy and way of life dependent not dependent on a single resource would be nice luxury to have.
Electric cars are not really an answer to the single resource issue.
Instead we will be being dependent on the single resource of lithium and/or other rare earth elements.
China has already cut off exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony.
“Instead we will be being dependent on the single resource of lithium and/or other rare earth elements.”
That’s a lie. There are all sorts of battery chemistries. The reason why we use Lithium is because it’s the best option for the time being. But there are other technologies coming out… such as Sodium-Ion batteries that look like they’ll be ideal for stationary power storage applications.
And NiMH is also still an option… it’s just far less developed due to the patent encumbrance carried out by Chevron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
In addition to that, China is not the only source for the mentioned elements.
Lithium is one of the most abundant elements, which someplaces can be ‘mined’ just by evaporating brine (unlike extracting oil). The main issue with its availability is everyone except China has been dragging their feet on starting large-scale mining it.
The same issue can be found about some other minerals China has a monopoly on.
What is the actual fuck? lol.
We EXPORT oil. Also, anything electric uses more “oil” due to energy consumption.
You gotta get a grip, dude.
I’m not a big fan of articles about what might happen. Currently, there is a lot of speculation about what this administration is going to do to the auto industry and in reality, no one knows. It wasn’t my vote, but here we are and it will be something to see what happens. Keep us posted.
It is rare that the site mentions a car currently on sale in the US that I’ve literally never heard of, but I had to search for the Maserati Grecalo Foglore to make sure that wasn’t something Hardigree made up to see if we were paying attention. It is indeed real, TIL
I didn’t know what it was and made a guess: another 6,000 lb SUV.
And I turned out to be correct…
The market is oversaturated with these things.
Another home run for Stellantis!
Folgore* (hardibro misspelled it too) (means “lightning”).
First off, if your morning dump is buoyant, you’re probably consuming too much fat.
Second, are you being too cynical? I don’t think so. Paradigm shifts are never simple, painless, or without conflict. Remember the brouhaha over tungsten lightbulbs? Sheesh. And comparing the complexity of lightbulbs to automobiles is akin to comparing coal power plants to nuclear fusion. The government could declare no new ICE vehicles built after 2035 – or heck, next year – but since we are the government, that ain’t going to happen. Without such a mandate, we’ll be the proverbial frog in slowly warming water and that only leads one place: frog legs for dinner!
Will CARB Survive?
CARB has made it so air is breathable in southern California. The progress that’s been made there is undeniable. Colorado following CARB rules has helped with the infamous Denver Brown Cloud.
That said, I’m not sure CARB hasn’t outlived its mandate. In general, cars pollute very little in comparison with what they spewed in the ’70s and ’80s. If we freeze the regulations as they are, it certainly wouldn’t be a disaster. I don’t think that manufacturers will return to the old pollution spewing inefficiencies, even if regulations are rolled back.
Maybe I’m wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time, or even the first time today.
Why? Even with the regulations in place, manufacturers are cheating on emissions. If the regulations get rolled back the manufacturers will absolutely regress to whatever the new standard is.
Touché. But look at how clean those emissions are, even with the cheating. My preference would be to continue gradually tightening emissions standards and mandating higher fuel economy by reworking CAFE so that all passenger autos are affected equally (i.e. no footprint rules).
Can’t argue with that. The accidental (I hope) bloating of US fleets due to the stupidity of the light truck classification in CAFE is absurdly counterproductive.
If the regulations aren’t having any effect because manufacturers are already complying with them due to market forces, then they aren’t having much burden either.
To me, it seems like they’ve absorbed the burden in their R&D over the past few decades. The only thing I think they’re worried about at this point would be increased burden from making regulations stricter. Obviously it does cost something to put emissions systems in automobiles, but those costs are passed on to the consumer, and I wouldn’t expect that to change either.
I agree – it’s one of those things that was absolutely needed at one time, but I’m going to need some hard evidence that the federal standards would cause a return to rampant air pollution in CA at this point.
We have some real good inversion layers. It would, and in Trump’s feeble mind, that would be a win.
Would you take estimates, or do you really need to see the brown layer of smog, increased breathing issues and reduced lifespan to satisfy your skepticism?
So, to be clear, you’re saying that the difference between the CARB standards and the currently in force federal standards would lead to the parade of horribles you’ve listed? Please note I’m not advocating for the removal of the federal standards, just their use across the nation.
I just got back from a few weeks in Peru. Cars can very quickly go from “polluting very little” to belching horrid smoke with just a bit of deferred maintenance. Seriously, the air in Peru is godawful. If you don’t keep the standards, they WILL NOT be maintained.
That’s an issue in parts of the US that don’t mandate emissions testing and compliance, but it’s an individual issue, not a manufacturer issue. It upsets me greatly when people allow their cars to get to the point that they’re “rolling coal” because of lack of maintenance. I’ve seen it often in rural areas.
I think you guys are on the right track, promoting range extended evs like the i3, Volt, Outlander, Scout, and regular hybrids. Charging infrastructure is still not there, and 1/3 of the US doesn’t own their residence, so for them EVs aren’t a good option without big improvements on available charging for renters/apartment dwellers.
And for long distance, one decent charging network, the superchargers are now opened up to more brands, and it’s yet to be determined how that will impact their availability.
Also America is a free market, the government can subsidize a little bit, but it’s not like in Norway where they can just say, “we’re gonna build 30,000 high speed chargers” and be done with it, also America’s slightly bigger than Norway, actually California is slightly bigger than Norway so…yeah, we thicc.