American Auto Companies are turning away from electronic vehicles

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,664
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,945
Reppin
The Deep State



GM Is Pushing Hard to Tank California’s EV Mandate​



Senate to vote as early as next week on measure to revoke the state’s emissions waiver​


Summarize

May 17, 2025 at 9:00 pm
Row of cars at a Chevrolet dealership.

“We need your help!” GM said in an email it sent this past week to thousands of its white-collar employees. “Emissions standards that are not aligned with market realities pose a serious threat to our business by undermining consumer choice and vehicle affordability.”

GM, one of the biggest sellers of EVs in the U.S., is encouraging employees to use scripted talking points to lobby Senators. The goal is to nullify a 2022 California measure that would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and trucks by 2035, a mandate that has since been adopted by 11 other states. The Senate could vote as early as next week to revoke a waiver that allows California to set its own stricter tailpipe-emissions standards.

GM set its own internal goal of ending sales of nearly all gas-only vehicles by 2035 and initially supported the California target, while advocating for a uniform national standard.

But the EV market has taken a turn. Three years ago, U.S. automakers couldn’t keep up with demand; now EV sales are beginning to sputter. Discounts are drying up, car buyers are seeking lower-priced alternatives and Congress is looking to roll back tax credits that for years have powered electric-vehicle sales.

Even in California, America’s EV market leader, sales are below the state’s own targets. Under the rule, in 2026, sales of zero-emissions vehicles should account for 35% of all vehicle sales. Right now, they account for 20% of the state’s automobile market.


EV sales fell 5% in April while the wider U.S. car market grew by 10%, according to estimates from research firm Motor Intelligence. Currently, EVs make up 7% of the U.S. market.

GM abandoned a self-imposed target to build 400,000 electric vehicles by mid-2024, and last year the company said it would delay plans for a new Buick electric vehicle and push back the opening of an EV truck factory. Ford and other automakers have similarly scaled back plans.

Meanwhile, GM says it continues to invest heavily in EVs and has launched a string of new electric models. A GM spokeswoman said the company has long argued that the U.S. should have a single emissions mandate and that any regulations should factor in market demand.

“GM believes in customer choice, and we continue to focus on offering the best and broadest portfolio of vehicles on the market,” the spokeswoman said.

She said GM’s email urging employee action went to workers in Michigan and affected states. In Michigan, staffers at some lawmakers’ offices noted receiving calls from GM employees.

The company is joined by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents automakers including Chrysler parent company Stellantis, Ford and Toyota, and called on Congress to “prevent the inevitable jobs and manufacturing fallout from these unachievable regulations.”

Supporters of the California waiver have argued that the state’s unique geography and climate warrant the special treatment that enables it to set stricter standards to reach its environmental goals.

A spokeswoman for the California Air Resources Board, a state regulator that sets the auto mandates, said the rules provide ample flexibility to enable car companies to meet them. Sales, for instance, are averaged over a three-year period, and manufacturers can use credits banked from prior years, she said.

Executives at EV makers Tesla and Rivian have said they believe electrification is inevitable.

“You can’t stop the advent of electric cars. It’s going to happen,” Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk told investors in January when asked about Trump’s ambitions to reverse the California waiver.

Asked if Senate Republicans would have the votes necessary to pass the measure, Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) said the Senate would vote on it next week and pass it.

“This is about an effort to eliminate every gas-powered vehicle in America,” said Barrasso, the No. 2 Senate Republican. “That’s completely impractical. It’s expensive beyond the affordability of most families.”

The turn against California’s mandate has been bipartisan. When the U.S. House passed a bill identical to the Senate’s earlier this month, 35 Democrats supported the legislation, including two from California.

Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis.

“If everybody in my district went out and got an EV, the grid could not accommodate that,” Gillen said.

Barry Stoler, a dealer with Toyota and Lexus stores on Long Island in New York, said EVs are a tough sell even with the generous federal tax credits that Republicans have targeted for phasing out.

“If the factory doesn’t subsidize it and the government doesn’t subsidize it, the consumer can’t afford it,” Stoler said.

He sees no way automakers can meet the California requirements, and he worries about having fewer gas-powered vehicles to sell. “The customers just aren’t there,” Stoler said.

Write to Sharon Terlep at sharon.terlep@wsj.com and Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,664
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,945
Reppin
The Deep State

Kentucky battery factory to help Japanese automaker defer tariff costs
Summarize
Christopher OttsMay 20, 2025 at 6:20 pm
Electric-vehicle battery plants in Kentucky.
Ford made a big bet on electric vehicles in 2021, announcing two new battery plants in Kentucky as part of a bigger $7 billion investment. The plants are a joint venture with Korean battery maker SK On.

Today, one of the Kentucky factories is sitting unused, and only part of the other factory is producing batteries for Ford. The active plant will now also make Nissan batteries, according to the people.

The plan marks the latest retrenchment by the U.S. auto giant, which bet aggressively on EV demand that hasn’t materialized. The dual pressures of weak EV demand and higher costs are forcing hard choices from carmakers, who warn they face multibillion-dollar profit hits from tariff-related expenses.

Earlier this month, Ford suspended its financial guidance for the year, citing tariff uncertainty. The automaker lost $5 billion on its EV business in 2024 and had projected in February another $5 billion loss this year.

For Nissan, the chance to make batteries in the U.S. offers a quick way to help reduce some exposure to tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. The Japanese carmaker is struggling financially with a $4.5 billion loss for the first three months of the year. The company said it would lay off 20,000 workers and canceled a planned battery factory in Japan.

Nissan said in March that SK On would supply U.S.-produced batteries for electric SUVs it plans to make at its Canton, Miss., plant.

A Ford spokeswoman directed questions about the Kentucky battery plant to the BlueOval SK battery joint venture. A spokeswoman for the joint venture declined to comment on whether Nissan would become a customer.

A Nissan spokesman referred questions to SK On.

A Korea-based spokesperson for SK On said the company hasn’t yet determined where in the U.S. it will manufacture batteries for Nissan.

Electric-vehicle sales fell 5% in April despite strong sales in the rest of the automobile market, and Congress is looking to reverse tax credits that have helped fuel sales of battery-powered models.

General Motors recently sold its stake in an under-construction battery plant in Michigan to its Korean partner LG Energy Solution. GM’s other battery plant in Tennessee is running at about 40% of its planned capacity, while another in Ohio is about 80% used, a GM spokesman said.

Honda on Tuesday said it was cutting over $20 billion in EV spending and has delayed plans for a new factory in Canada.

The Kentucky plant is aiming to start producing batteries for Ford this year. The Ford-SK On joint venture received a $9.63 billion loan from the Energy Department for the construction of three battery plants—the two in Kentucky and another in Tennessee. The three plants were expected to create more than 5,000 construction jobs and another 7,500 at the joint venture.

A Ford spokeswoman said plans for the Tennessee plant were unchanged.

Write to Christopher Otts at
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,664
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,945
Reppin
The Deep State

Senate votes to overturn California’s landmark ban on new gas-only car sales
Summarize
By Tony BriscoeStaff Writer May 18, 2025
A Combined Charging System (CCS) connector is plugged into an electric vehicle at a charging station in Anaheim, Calif.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate defied congressional norms and voted Wednesday to revoke California’s progressive vehicle emission standards that would’ve effectively ban the sale of new gasoline-only cars by 2035.

In a 51 to 44 vote, the Senate overturned a Biden-era waiver that enabled California and a contingent of Democrat-led states to enforce zero-emission requirements for the sale of new passenger vehicles. After several hours of debate and testimony, legislators struck down a landmark regulation that aimed to drastically accelerate electric vehicle sales in California and nearly a dozen other states that chose to follow its lead, substantially reducing air pollution and planet-warming carbon emissions from tailpipes.

The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, enacted in 2022 by the California Air Resources Board and granted a federal waiver by the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in December 2024, required car manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles to California dealerships over the next decade. Starting next year, the rule would have mandated that 35% of all new vehicles supplied to California dealerships be zero-emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By 2035, it would’ve prohibited the sale of new, gas-only cars statewide.

By invalidating the rule, Republican senators stamped out one of California’s most ambitious environmental policies and, more broadly, challenged the state’s authority to enact vehicle standards to combat its notoriously unhealthy air quality. If the measure is signed into law by President Trump and survives impending legal challenges, the vote would serve as a coup de grace to the state’s decades-long efforts to comply with federal smog standards in Southern California and meet California’s own ambitious climate goals.

The zero-emission requirements were expected to eliminate nearly 70,000 tons of smog-forming emissions and 4,500 tons of soot statewide by 2040, preventing more than 1,200 premature deaths and providing $13 billion in public health benefits, according to the California Air Resources Board. It also was expected to prevent the release of 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the amount released by 100 coal plants in a year.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that nullifying this rule and stripping California’s regulatory power would have serious health effects across the state.

“We are sowing poison seeds for the future,” Schiff said. “Seeds that will grow to be more asthma and more sickness and more hospitalization and more death. That is the bleak but blatant reality of what we are debating here today.”

Republicans, however, argued that California’s zero-emission requirements threatened to cripple the American auto industry and significantly limit the options for car buyers. In the coming days, Republicans plan to undo additional California clean-air rules that require the state’s heavy-duty truck fleet to adopt cleaner engines and a growing percentage of zero-emission vehicles.

“Democrats have this delusional dream of eliminating gas-powered vehicles in America,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday from a lectern on the floor of the U.S. Capitol. “They want to force-feed electric vehicles to every man and woman who drives in this country. Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democrat electric vehicle fantasy.”

Republicans moved ahead with the vote despite the warnings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that the waivers could not be overturned with the Congressional Review Act — a law that was meant to allow legislators to inspect and potentially block federal rules adopted in the waning days of a previous presidential administration.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, said the vote was a flagrant abuse of the Congressional Review Act. He threatened to block or delay the confirmation process for four Trump nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if Senate Republicans voted to overturn California’s vehicle emission standards.

“It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents by using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California’s waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.”

Environmental advocates, many of whom had spent years supporting California’s emissions standards, expressed their disappointment in the vote.

“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, senior director of nationwide clean air advocacy for the American Lung Assn. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states that rely on Clean Air Act waivers continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”

Because of its historically poor air quality, California has been an innovator in clean car policy, enacting the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. California was later granted the special authority to adopt vehicle emission standards that are more strict than the federal government’s under the Clean Air Act. But the state must seek a federal waiver from the U.S. EPA for any specific rule to be enforceable.

In the five decades since then, the state has enacted dozens of rules to reduce air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases. Padilla stressed that these rules were largely meant to alleviate lung-aggravating smog, which was a persistent threat where he grew up in Los Angeles.

“On a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,” Padilla said. “That’s the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it’s the reason why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California’s unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity, and granted California special authority to do something about it.”

Due to its enormous economy and population, automakers have conformed to California’s rules. In addition, many Democrat-led states have chosen to adhere to California’s auto emissions rules, applying more pressure on car companies first to make cleaner engines and later to manufacture more electric vehicles.

California leads the nation in zero-emission vehicle sales. In 2023 and 2024, about 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission or plug-in hybrids, according to the California Energy Commission. This year, the share of zero-emission vehicle sales has slightly slumped, making up only 23% of light-duty vehicle sales.

But the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require a jump in zero-emission sales next year, with at least 35% of vehicles supplied to car dealer lots to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids.

Mike Stanton, president of the National Automobile Dealers Assn., contended that consumer demand for electric vehicles falls far below California’s requirements, in part, because of unreliable charging infrastructure.

“Banning gas and hybrid cars is a national issue that should be decided by Congress, not an unelected state agency,” Stanton wrote in a letter to senators, referring to the California Air Resources Board.

In February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin brought the Biden-era waivers to Congress, suggesting that they were federal rules that had not been reviewed. However, none of California’s waivers for the state’s vehicle emission standards had been brought before Congress for review, because they were largely regarded as administrative orders.

The House of Representatives voted this month to advance the resolution to the Senate. Thirty-five Democratic lawmakers, including California Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), joined with the Republican majority.

In the Senate, the 51-44 vote was split along party lines.

Experts say the Senate vote could have lasting implications for congressional procedures.

To topple California auto emission standards, Senate Republicans controversially invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows an incoming Congress to rescind major federal rules approved near the end of a previous presidential administration. This process notably allows federal legislators to bypass a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to repeal federal rules rather than the typical 60 votes.

However, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said federal waivers for California emission standards were not subject to the Congressional Review Act, because the federal waiver is technically not a rule; it’s an order. The Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan advisor to the congressional body, upheld that interpretation, ruling that the Senate couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s waivers.

The Senate vote proceeded in defiance of the parliamentarian’s ruling, marking a stunning rebuke of congressional norms.

The decision by Republican senators amounted to a “nuclear option” that would set a dangerous precedent, Padilla said.

“The old adage says, ‘What goes around comes around,’” he said. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off.”
 

Ezekiel 25:17

Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
36,434
Reputation
2,856
Daps
129,919
Nothing wrong with this. Batteries is only a bandaid. And what's the say how we even store them?

We should be pushing 4 cylinder turbos for now until a real clean energy comes and I'd say it's probably hydrogen
 

Hood Critic

The Power Circle
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
25,078
Reputation
4,085
Daps
113,702
Reppin
דעת
Even when all of the unlawful tariff business is concluded, there are going to be issues and negotiations for the rare metals needed for EVs that could short circuit future production.
 

Rice N Beans

Junior Hayley Stan
Supporter
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
11,534
Reputation
1,806
Daps
24,104
Reppin
Chicago, IL
Nothing wrong with this. Batteries is only a bandaid. And what's the say how we even store them?

We should be pushing 4 cylinder turbos for now until a real clean energy comes and I'd say it's probably hydrogen

I'm a hydrogen fan for its energy density, but of course the biggest hurdle in refinement is the real problem there. However, I do hope for a future with a hydrogen fuel cell since hydrogen can power everything if done right.

Makes sense we got a backwards administration that wants gas vehicles and for Tesla to be the only one in town

Yeah, unfortunately the protectionism only hurts the rest of us. We've seen this with Harley in another transport industry.

Even when all of the unlawful tariff business is concluded, there are going to be issues and negotiations for the rare metals needed for EVs that could short circuit future production.

I think the introduction of the sodium based battery can offset some of this since the materials are more common, but still. We have lithium-iron and companies won't use it due to being conservative on spending even though it is safer than lithium-ion in a number of ways.

As is the case with most businesses, someone else has to do it first then suddenly "it makes sense oh wow why didn't we do this sooner" will come up in the board rooms for something other than lithium-ion.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,664
Reputation
-34,070
Daps
634,945
Reppin
The Deep State

France, Yes Even France, Rethinks Low-Emissions Zones
Summarize
A revolt across the political spectrum against driving limits.

The Editorial BoardMay 30, 2025 at 5:44 pm
image
France wants 66% of new car sales to be electric by 2030, a target that can only be reached if Paris takes the wheel. This year the government expanded its low-emission-zones scheme to restrict older gas-powered vehicles from driving in any city with more than 150,000 residents. Violators face hefty fines.

Cue the public backlash, as not everyone in France can afford a shiny new low-emissions car, but most still have to get around town. The National Assembly got the message and on Wednesday voted 98-51 to scrap the low-emissions zones. The vote added the provision to a larger bill still pending in the Assembly.

It’s no shocker that the insurgent-right National Rally opposed the driving restrictions, but some from the left and Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party also wanted to pump the e-brake on this green scheme. It “penalizes and makes the poorest people in our country feel guilty; this is not acceptable,” said the France Unbowed party, which is normally to the left of Bernie Sanders.

The driving restrictions are among the many coercive components of France’s broader climate agenda. The government also wants to poke and prod the French into car-pooling, taking fewer trips abroad, eating more vegetables and less meat, and using less air conditioning in the summer, among other so-called sobriety measures. Expect more political reversals as the public discovers the real-life consequences of their leaders’ climate-control ambitions.




Copied
 
Top