Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Automotive

EV transition stalls despite government mandates and billion-dollar handouts

Published

6 minute read

By Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía

Both Canada and the United States have set ambitious mandates to accelerate the transition from combustion vehicles to zero-emission vehicles. According to the Trudeau government, all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada must be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030. Similarly, the Biden administration has mandated that two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. must be electric by 2032. But despite massive taxpayer-funded subsidies for the electric vehicle (EV) sector, storm clouds are growing for the industry.

In April, Tesla laid off 10 per cent of its global workforce as it grapples with slow EV demand and falling sales. Similarly, Ford recently announced it would delay the start of EV production at the Oakville, Ontario plant by two years to let the consumer market develop and allow for further development of EV battery technology. Car rental giant Hertz earlier this year announced plans to sell one-third of its U.S. electric vehicle fleet and reinvest in gas-powered cars due to high repair costs and weak demand for its battery-powered cars. General Motors has abandoned the goal of producing 400,000 EVs by mid-2024 due to lower-than-expected sales.

The sluggish demand for EVs and the response from automakers should raise red flags for both the Trudeau government and Biden administration, given the massive subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) injected into the EV and battery production industry. For instance, in Ontario, the Trudeau government and the Ford government have given $28.2 billion to the Stellantis EV battery plant in Windsor and the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it will take 20 years for the federal and Ontario governments to break even on the $28 billion pledged for those two plants. And this doesn’t include the $5 billion subsidy to Honda for a new EV manufacturing plant in the province.

Similarly, in Quebec, federal and provincial governments have pledged to spend $2.7 billion in subsidies for a new EV battery manufacturing plant and give $644 million to help Ford build a plant to produce EV battery materials.

But in reality, the EV transition faces major hurdles despite the massive amounts of taxpayer money being thrown at the industry.

Firstly, we lack adequate power grid infrastructure to meet the electricity demands of EV mandates. According to a recent study, meeting Canada’s EV mandate by 2035 could increase electricity demand by up to 15.3 per cent nationwide, necessitating substantial investments in new generation capacity and transmission infrastructure. Specifically, Canada would need to construct 10 new mega hydroelectric dams, comparable to British Columbia’s Site C, or alternatively, 13 new gas plants of 500-megawatt (MW) capacity to accommodate the surge in electricity demand from EVs.

Yet the timelines and costs associated with such projects are daunting. Drawing from recent experience with B.C.’s Site C dam, it took more than a decade to plan and comply with environmental regulations and approximately another decade to construct. To date, Site C, which remains under construction, is expected to cost $16 billion.

Secondly, there’s a shortage of mineral supply for EV batteries, with projections indicating the need for numerous new mines to meet EV adoption mandates. According to a recent study, to meet international EV adoption mandates (including mandates in Canada and the U.S.) by 2030, the world would need 50 new lithium mines, 60 new nickel mines, 17 new cobalt mines, 50 new mines for cathode production, 40 new mines for anode materials, 90 new mines for battery cells, and 81 new mines for EV bodies and motors, for a total of 388 new mines worldwide. For context, in 2021 there were only 340 metal mines operating in Canada and the U.S.

Historically, the development of mining and refining facilities has been sluggish. Production timelines range from six to nine years for lithium and 13 to 18 years for nickel—two elements critical for EV batteries. The aggressive government timelines for EV adoption clash with historically sluggish metal and mineral production, raising the risk of EV manufacturers falling short of needed minerals.

The EV transition faces major obstacles, and the recent scaling back or delays in EV production by automakers should serve as a warning to governments about the feasibility of their forced transition policies, which clearly put Canadian taxpayers at risk.

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

Follow Author

Automotive

Trump announces 25% tariff on foreign automobiles as reciprocal tariffs loom

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.

Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.

“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.

Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”

“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.

Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.

“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.

The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.

Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.

“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.

Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.

“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.

“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”

Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Nissan, Honda scrap $60B merger talks amid growing tensions

Published on

MXM logo

 

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Nissan is reportedly abandoning merger talks with Honda, scrapping a $60 billion deal that would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. The collapse raises questions about Nissan’s turnaround strategy as it faces challenges from electric vehicle competitors and potential U.S. tariffs.

Key Details:

  • Nissan shares dropped over 4% following the news, while Honda’s stock surged more than 8%, signaling investor relief.
  • Honda reportedly proposed making Nissan a subsidiary, a move Nissan rejected as it was initially framed as a merger of equals.
  • Nissan is struggling with financial challenges and the transition to EVs, still reeling from the 2018 scandal involving former chairman Carlos Ghosn.

Diving Deeper:

Merger talks between Nissan and Honda have collapsed, according to sources, after months of negotiations to form an auto giant capable of competing with Chinese EV makers like BYD. The proposed deal, valued at over $60 billion, would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. However, differences in strategy and control ultimately derailed the discussions.

Reports indicate that Honda, Japan’s second-largest automaker, wanted Nissan to become a subsidiary rather than an equal merger partner. Nissan balked at the idea, leading to the collapse of negotiations. Honda’s market valuation of approximately $51.9 billion dwarfs Nissan’s, which may have fueled concerns about control. The failure of talks sent Nissan’s stock tumbling more than 4% in Tokyo, while Honda’s shares rose over 8%, reflecting investor confidence in Honda’s independent strategy.

Nissan, already in the midst of a turnaround plan involving 9,000 job cuts and a 20% reduction in global capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restructure on its own. Analysts warn that the failed merger raises uncertainty about Nissan’s ability to compete in an industry rapidly shifting toward EVs. “Investors may get concerned about Nissan’s future [and] turnaround,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said.

Complicating matters further, Nissan faces heightened risks from U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Potential tariffs on vehicles manufactured in Mexico could hit Nissan harder than competitors like Honda and Toyota. The stalled deal also impacts Nissan’s existing alliance with Renault, which had expressed openness to the merger. Renault holds a 36% stake in Nissan, including 18.7% through a French trust.

While both Nissan and Honda have stated they will finalize a direction by mid-February, the collapse of this deal signals deep divisions in Japan’s auto industry. With Nissan’s financial struggles and the growing dominance of Chinese EV makers, the company must now navigate an increasingly challenging market without external support.

Continue Reading

Trending

X