Automotive
Automakers Hit Reverse On Idealistic Electric Vehicle Targets Despite Billions In Biden-Harris Subsidies
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Owen Klinsky
Automakers have continued to backpedal on electric vehicle (EV) targets over the last year as a slackening of consumer demand has hampered growth despite the billions in subsidies lavished on the industry by the Biden-Harris administration.
A wide array of auto manufacturers have abandoned key EV goals since February, with Volvo, Ford and Mercedes-Benz all dialing back electric quotas or dropping previously planned product lines. The shifts in corporate strategy suggest the EV transition — once touted by auto executives like Ford CEO Jim Farley as the industry’s future — may not be as feasible as once thought due to consumer aversion to lower mileage ranges, a lack of charging infrastructure and higher prices, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The auto industry’s change in direction is in spite of the billions in subsidies doled out to the industry via the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, with the White House offering a $7,500 federal tax credit for certain EVs to ease costs for buyers, and allocating $12 billion for carmakers to retrofit factories for EV production. The administration has also put in place stringent regulations designed to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles, including a tailpipe emissions rule that would effectively require about 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 to be electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrids.
“Even after throwing money at EVs hand over fist, basically paying people tax dollars to drive these cars off the lots, you have a dire spiral of (1) not enough demand to support the number of cars being produced, and (2) the people you paid to buy them now wanting to go back to what they had before,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers and the former solicitor general of Arizona, told the DCNF.
Autos over the last 5 years:
Auto CEOs: “we’re going electric by 2030 so I can become the toast of the town and get glossy magazine spreads written about how visionary and green I am.”
Engineers: “that’s not possible…”
Accountants: “that’s not possible…”
Customers: “we… https://t.co/ldca2L0n4G
— Alliance For Consumers (@for_consumers) September 4, 2024
Despite the generous tax credits, consumers have been hesitant to adopt EVs at the rate the Biden-Harris administration and automakers have hoped, with EV sales growing 50% in the first half of 2023 and 31% in the first half of 2024, less than the 71% increase in the first half of 2022. Moreover, a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found 46% of respondents were unlikely or very unlikely to purchase an EV, while just 21% were “very” or “extremely” likely to make the change.
Consumer sentiment towards EVs has struggled even among those who have already purchased the vehicles, with a June survey from leading consulting firm McKinsey and Company finding nearly half of Americans who own an EV want to go back to a standard vehicle.
“The [EV market] headwinds come from physical realities that translate into economic and practical realities,” Mark Mills, a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and an expert on the automobile market, told the DCNF. “EVs are inherently more expensive… and most consumers are very price sensitive; EV fueling for most people is far less convenient… [and] EV fueling infrastructure is extremely expensive and will take a long time to build out.”
The average cost of a new EV was 10% higher than the price of a standard vehicle as of January, with the 2024 electric version of a base Ford F-150 costing roughly $20,000 more. The Ford F-Series was the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. in 2023.
Ford canceled plans to produce a three-row electric SUV in August and reduced output of its F-150 Lightning pickup truck in January. The reversals follow Ford losing $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023, equating to nearly $65,000 per EV it sold. When reached, a Ford spokeswoman referred back previous comments to the DCNF stating that “we aren’t going to launch vehicles unless they are going to be profitable within 12 months of launch.”
“These are staggering costs to impose on American families,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF.
EV carmakers Tesla and Lucid have also struggled in the last year, announcing plans to layoff roughly 10% and 6% of their workforces, respectively.
On top of sheer cost, expanding charging infrastructure has also been a challenge for manufacturers, with the Biden-Harris administration having built just seven EV charging stations in four states as of April 2024, despite the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill earmarking $7.5 billion for the creation of a national EV charger network. A lack of demand, union requirements, as well as diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with the Department of Transportation requiring applicants to promise to perform “intentional outreach to underserved communities” by hosting “neighborhood block parties” in order to qualify for funding, have significantly slowed down the project’s rollout.
Beyond a lack of infrastructure, charging can simply be inconvenient for consumers, with refueling times ranging from 20 minutes to upwards of 50 hours depending on charger voltage and battery size, according to American automotive resource company Edmunds. Even “fast charging” in the urban center of Washington, D.C., can take as long as 35 minutes.
Faced with these obstacles, Volvo Cars abandoned plans to offer an all-electric line-up by the end of the decade, instead aiming to have between 90% and 100% of its cars be fully electric or plug-in hybrids by that time. Mercedes-Benz made a similar announcement back in February, slashing its target of selling 100% EVs by 2030 to just 50% after its net profit fell 21.5% year-over-year in the fourth quarter of 2023.
“The Biden-Harris administration is spending billions in tax incentives to pay auto companies to make EVs, and billions for tax credits to pay households to buy the cars,” Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “Still, Americans are too smart to fall for a product that is not suited for them.”
The White House, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
Automotive
Canada’s EV experiment has FAILED
By Dan McTeague
The government’s attempt to force Canadians to buy EVs by gambling away billions of tax dollars and imposing an EV mandate has been an abject failure.
GM and Stellantis are the latest companies to back track on their EV plans in Canada despite receiving billions in handouts from Canadian taxpayers.
Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.
Automotive
Carney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
GM’s Ontario EV plant was sold as a green success story. Instead it collapsed under subsidies, layoffs and unsold vans
Every age invents new names for old mistakes. In ours, they’re sold as investments. Before the Carney government unveils its November budget promising another future paid for in advance, Canadians should remember Ingersoll, Ont., one of the last places a prime minister tried to buy tomorrow.
Eager to transform the economy, in December 2022, former prime minister Justin Trudeau promised that government backing would help General Motors turn its Ingersoll plant into a beacon of green industry. “By 2025 it will be producing 50,000 electric vehicles per year,” he declared: 137 vehicles daily, six every hour. What sounded like renewal became an expensive demonstration of how progressive governments peddle rampant spending as sound strategy.
The plan began with $259 million from Ottawa and another $259 million from Ontario: over half a billion to switch from Equinox production to BrightDrop electric delivery vans. The promise was thousands of “good, middle-class jobs.”
The assembly plant employed 2,000 workers before retooling. Today, fewer than 700 remain; a two-thirds collapse. With $518 million in public funds and only 3,500 vans built in 2024, taxpayers paid $148,000 per vehicle. The subsidy works out to over half a million dollars per remaining worker. Two out of every three employees from Trudeau’s photo-op are now unemployed.
The failure was entirely predictable. Demand for EVs never met the government’s plan. Parking lots filled with unsold inventory. GM did the rational thing: slowed production, cut staff and left. The Canadian taxpayer was left to pay the bill.
This reveals the weakness of Ottawa’s industrial policy. Instead of creating conditions for enterprise, such as reliable energy, stable regulation, and moderate taxes, progressive governments spend to gain applause. They judge success by the number of jobs announced, yet those jobs vanish once the cameras leave.
Politicians keep writing cheques to industry. Each administration claims to be more strategic, yet the pattern persists. No country ever bought its way into competitiveness.
Trudeau “bet big on electric vehicles,” but betting with other people’s money isn’t vision; it’s gambling. The wager wasn’t on technology but narrative, the naive idea that moral intention could replace market reality. The result? Fewer jobs, unwanted products and claims of success that convinced no one.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has mastered the same rhetorical sleight of hand. Spending becomes “investment,” programs become “platforms.” He promises to “catalyze unprecedented investments” while announcing fiscal restraint: investing more while spending less. His $13-billion federal housing agency is billed as a future investment, though it’s immediate public spending under a moral banner.
“We can build big. Build bold. Build now,” Carney declared, promising infrastructure to “reduce our vulnerabilities.” The cadence of certainty masks the absence of limits. Announcing “investment” becomes synonymous with action itself; ambition replaces accountability.
The structure mirrors the Ingersoll case: promise vast returns from state-directed spending, redefine subsidy as vision, rely on tomorrow to conceal today’s bill. “Investment” has become the language of evasion, entitlement and false pride.
As Carney prepares his first budget, Canadians should remember what happened when their last leader tried to buy a future with lavish “investment.”
A free economy doesn’t need bribery to breathe. It requires the discipline of risk and liberty to fail without dragging a country down. Ingersoll wasn’t undone by technology but by ideological conceit. Prosperity cannot be decreed and markets cannot be commanded into obedience.
Every age invents new names for old mistakes. Ours keeps making the same ones. Entitled hubris knows no bounds.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
-
Business2 days agoFederal budget: Carney government posts largest deficit in Canadian history outside pandemic
-
Business2 days agoBudget 2025 continues to balloon spending and debt
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoHow the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism
-
Business2 days agoCapital Flight Signals No Confidence In Carney’s Agenda
-
Economy2 days agoThe True Cost of Mark Carney’s Ineffective Green Energy Sinkhole
-
International2 days agoThe capital of capitalism elects a socialist mayor
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
COVID-1919 hours agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction





