White House Wants to End EV Subsidies ASAP

by Matt Posky

Published: December 4th, 2018

white house wants to end ev subsidies asap

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow announced Monday that the Trump administration is seeking an end to federal subsidies on electric cars. Interestingly, the move appears to be related to General Motors’ plant closings and layoffs. The company’s restructuring plan hasn’t gone over well with policy makers or the American public, with many accusing the automaker of abusing years of tax breaks, only to reduce its workforce as a way of pursuing new technologies, businesses, and further bolstering its profit margins.

However, cutting GM out of the electric vehicle subsidies deal is more likely to impact its rivals than anything else. The company said it’s on the cusp of the EV tax credit ceiling already, with the gradual phase-out of those incentives likely to take place through 2019. Yet Kudlow pointed to the elimination of the credits as one way of punishing GM for eliminating so many jobs, echoing President Donald Trump’s threats from last last week.

“As a matter of our policy, we want to end all of those subsidies,” Kudlow explained. “And by the way, other subsidies that were imposed during the Obama administration, we are ending, whether it’s for renewables and so forth.”

When asked for a target date, the economic adviser gave his best guess, saying “It’s just all going to end in the near future. I don’t know whether it will end in 2020 or 2021.”

According to Reuters, Tesla and GM lobbied Congress for months to lift the cap on electric vehicles or make other changes that would make it easier to move EVs, including new incentives. That’s unlikely to happen until Democrats move in, at which point Congress will be far less inclined to support the Trump administration’s plan to abolish the EV tax credits entirely.

From Reuters:

In October, Senator Dean Heller proposed lifting the current cap on electric vehicles eligible for tax credits but phase out the credit for the entire industry in 2022. Two other senators in September proposed lifting the per manufacturer credit and extending the benefit for 10 years.

Also in October, Senator John Barrasso a Republican who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, proposed legislation to end the EV tax credit entirely.

Analysts previously suggested that incentivizing electric vehicles to such a great extent may end up creating artificial demand. While that’s likely the point, some are concerned with what might happen when those credits are suddenly stripped away. Automakers are investing vast sums of their own money into developing these vehicles; it would be a huge blow to the industry if the rug was pulled out from under them. However, you could also make the argument that the credits already placed the auto sector on unstable ground.

While Kudlow still seemed mostly steamed with General Motors, he is also aware of the broader impact EV incentives have on the industry. He made clear any changes in subsidies would not just affect GM, knowing the government couldn’t simply target one automaker. “I think legally you just can’t,” he said.

[Image: General Motors]

#DonaldTrump #ElectricVehicles #EVTaxCredit #EVs #GeneralMotors #GM #Government #Incentives #LarryKudlow #Subsidies #ZEVs

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 68 comments

Vagvoba on Dec 05, 2018

Never understood why taxpayers are subsidizing Tesla luxury car sales. I believe that some of the EV subsidies are a worthy investment in our environment, but I don't want more giveaways to those who can afford $80K+ cars. If anything, it makes sense to subsidize cheap electric cars, like the Bolt and the Leaf, or larger EVs that may potentially become volume sellers.

Like Reply
0Gravity on Dec 05, 2018

Not sure about the EV credits, but I'm an analyst that covers renewables so I can say with confidence that Kudlow's comment about ending subsidies for renewable energy is at best ill-informed or a deliberate lie. It's not something that can be done through executive or administrative action; it would require action by Congress and Congress even under previous full Republican control has shown no interest in re-negotiating the long term phase out subsidies revised in 2016 compromise agreement. The subsidies for wind and solar are slowly being phased out already and reducing each year in allowed value. This admin won't be able to prematurely alter the current law's structure. Watch what this administration does, not what it says. Bunch of blowhards and liars

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.