Automakers are fiercely lobbying governments to water down already-compromised emissions rules, but doing so will only lead to their doom as market entrants that are serious about EVs will continue ramping them anyway.
The auto industry is electrifying, and all new cars will be electric in the relatively near future. This is not in dispute by any serious person – and any alternative scenario, where humans continue to pollute as much as we do today, will result in worse and worse results for humanity the longer we pollute as climate change becomes progressively worse.
It is necessary that we stop burning fossil fuels, and fast. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of physics, and physics does not care about your arguments to the contrary.
And yet, the auto industry – which is responsible for more pollution than any other sector, at least in rich countries – still lobbies to worsen emissions reduction targets, even when those targets were already pushed back to begin with.
Automakers beg governments to let them emit more poison
We saw it this week in both Europe and the US. BMW, VW and Renault asked European regulators to push back the 2035 gas car phase-out, despite that this timeline has already been loosened. And in the US, the EPA finalized rules, but softened them due to auto industry lobbying – and the president of the main auto industry lobbyist characterized the final rules as a “stretch goal,” suggesting that he thinks there should be further softening of the already-softened rule.
Even these softened EPA rules will upend the industry, as current automaker commitments are not enough to meet the targets. Either automakers need to up their game, or someone is going to have to fill the millions-vehicle gap between commitments and requirements. And if traditional automakers don’t fill that gap, then new entrants will.
Today, the exact same automaker lobby which originally lobbied to fracture US and CA regulations – the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, previously known as Global Automakers, led by John Bozzella both then and now – still routinely complains about the two regulatory regimes being different, despite being personally responsible for the current state of affairs.
The compulsion against regulation is pathological. Even in situations where it doesn’t make sense to lobby against regulation, businesses will often still do so.
But wait, maybe it’s not a compulsion against all regulation. Because at the same time that automakers are begging for the ability to continue the global-scale mass murder that they continually enable (via pollution that kills millions worldwide per year), they’re also begging governments to slow down other parts of the industry that are taking the EV transition seriously.
Namely: China.
Chinese EVs will grow, whether you like it or not
China is actually a little late to the EV party. Until a few years ago, EV market share in China lagged other leading regions, but uptake in recent years has been quite rapid. NEV (EV+PHEV) market share should crest 50% in China next quarter, ahead of basically everywhere except the Nordic countries.
But as often happens, China may not always be the first entrant into a market, but once it truly commits its effort to something, those efforts tend to bear fruit rapidly.
In response to this rise in Chinese EV sales, instead of recognizing that they need to pick up their game, European automakers are… begging the EU to investigate the “flood” of Chinese EVs, even to the point of proposing retroactive tariffs. They contend that the Chinese government unfairly subsidizes its auto sector, making prices uncompetitively low. Nevermind that European governments also subsidize their auto sector, and that low prices are good for consumers (in fact, if EU consumers are benefitting from Chinese subsidies, that represents a transfer of wealth from China to the EU).
In the US, the anti-China lobbying has been more pre-emptive. There aren’t significant amounts of Chinese-built EVs in the US, and the country already has a number of protectionist tariffs against China.
The recent Inflation Reduction Act, which created hundreds of billions of dollars of incentives for EVs and green energy, does include provisions intended to advantage automakers who avoid using China as any part of their supply chain. And scaremongering about China is abundant throughout US political and economic discussions.
So it’s clear that Western automakers aren’t looking to compete on price or volume, they’re looking to change the rules of the game instead – in a way that ensures more pollution and more expensive vehicles for consumers. They don’t want to win the game, they want the ref to hand it to them. It’s gamesmanship – which the industry is well acquainted with.
Rising EV penetration isn’t due to regulation, it’s due to demand
So loosening the rules doesn’t seem likely to slow down consumer demand – and the public wants stronger rules anyway. Instead, it will just annoy customers who are frustrated that there aren’t enough options available (as has been the case for years – look at the excitement over the R3 and EX30 when so few other small EVs exist), and mollify laggard manufacturers into thinking they can take longer to join the party.
But if automakers (and countries with prominent auto industries, like Japan) want to survive the transition, they cannot be the last to the party. The longer they wait, the more trouble they’ll be in, and the more advantage they cede to their competition.
How do we know this? Because it’s already happened, in this very industry, just over the course of the trailing decade.
And yet, despite a decade of warning, it’s only recently that we’ve started seeing serious EV programs from other automakers start to spin up. But most automakers still only have a few EVs, and many of them still share platforms with gas cars. And due to Tesla’s head start, they’re the one company that has gotten scale and costs to the level that they can arbitrarily cut prices, starting an EV price war that they’re best positioned to deal with.
In refusing to act faster to accept the future that’s already here, automakers have already ceded ground. On top of the aforementioned points of market share ceded to Tesla, the industry also gave Tesla the whole concept of fueling stations.
Over the last decade, every automaker said that charging wasn’t their problem and that someone else would come along to solve it, while simultaneously saying that they can’t ramp EVs because there isn’t enough charging out there.
Tesla also said that there wasn’t enough charging out there… so it built chargers (without having to be forced into doing so). And now, as a result of automakers’ intransigence – and also thanks to President Biden’s infrastructure law, which influenced Tesla to finally open up its Supercharger network – every vehicle manufacturer is now using Tesla’s NACS plug, which means all of them will use its Supercharger network, and Tesla will be able to extract profits on fueling from basically every car on the road. “Tesla, you’re welcome”; signed – the auto industry.
The path forward is action, not whining
Describing this recent history is not an attempt to brag by those of us who loudly said time and time again that this was coming, it’s intended as a very recent object lesson in how the automakers’ decisions were the wrong ones, and how they could learn from those decisions and make better ones going forward.
It is clear that business as usual was not the right choice over the last decade, and it’s not going to be the right choice in the next decade either. Relying on the age-old gamesmanship of trying to block new entrants to the market, delay change, and refuse to respond to consumer demand is not going to work for the automakers, especially in a globalized auto market where if you don’t make it, someone else will.
This isn’t to say that everyone in the auto industry is bad. There are plenty of people and even companies who “get it.” While BMW, VW and Renault just complained about EU regulations, the EU automakers’ association ACEA said “we are not contesting 2035… now we must get down to it.” And several automakers have stepped up to defend California’s regulations (including, oddly, both BMW and VW, two who are complaining about EU regulations now).
Frankly, I’ve long said that I don’t care who makes EVs, and that whoever makes them deserves the win. I’d prefer if my country got it together and did something that would benefit its competitiveness long term, but as a living creature on this Earth, my primary interest (and yours as well) is in solving the climate crisis. If we refuse to offer more efficient choices and China does, then China will have demonstrated that it deserves the win. If you don’t like that, then don’t hand it to them.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
On today’s episode of Quick Charge we explore the uncertainty around the future of EV incentives, the roles different stakeholders will play in shaping that future, and our friend Stacy Noblet from energy consulting firm ICF stops by to share her take on what lies ahead.
We’ve got a couple of different articles and studies referenced in this forward-looking interview, and I’ve done my best to link to all of them below. If I missed one, let me know in the comments.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
EV sales kept up their momentum in December 2024, with incentives playing a big role, according to the latest Cox Automotive’s Kelley Blue Book report.
December’s strong EV sales saw an average transaction price (ATP) of $55,544, which helped push the industry-wide ATP higher, according to Kelley Blue Book. The December ATP for an EV was higher year-over-year by 0.8%, slightly below the industry average, and higher month-over-month by 1.1%. Tesla ATPs were higher year-over-year by 10.5%.
Incentives for EVs remained elevated in December, although they were slightly lower month-over-month at 14.3% of ATP, down from 14.7% in November.
EV incentives were higher by an impressive 41% year-over-year and have been above 12% of ATP for six consecutive months. Strong sales incentives, which averaged more than $6,700 per sale in 2024, were one reason EV sales surpassed 1.3 million units last year, according to Cox Automotive, a new record for volume and share.
(My colleague Jameson Dow reported yesterday, “In 2024, the world sold 3.5 million more EVs than it did in the previous year … This increase is larger than the 3.2 million increase in EV sales from the previous year – meaning that EV sales aren’t just up, but that the rate of growth is itself increasing.”)
Kelley Blue Book estimated that in December, approximately 84,000 vehicles – or 5.6% of total sales – transacted at prices higher than $80,000 – the highest volume ever. KBB lumps gas cars and EVs together into this luxury vehicle category, so this is where Tesla Cybertruck is slotted.
However, Tesla bundles sales figures of Cybertruck with Model S, Model X, and Tesla Semi(!) into a category it calls “other models,” so we don’t know for sure exactly how many Cybertrucks Tesla sold in Q4, much less in December. However, Electrek‘s Fred Lambert estimates between 9,000 and 12,000 Cybertrucks were sold in Q4, and that’s not a stellar sales figure.
What will January bring when it comes to EV ATPs? What about tax credits? Check back in a month and I’ll fill you in.
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check outEnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get startedhere. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla is now claiming that Cybertruck was the ‘best-selling electric pickup in US’ last year despite not even reporting the number of deliveries.
There’s a lot of context needed here.
As we often highlighted, Tesla is sadly one of, if not the most, opaque automakers regarding sales reports.
Tesla doesn’t break down sales per model or even region.
For comparison, here’s Ford’s Q4 2024 sales report compared to Tesla’s:
You could argue that Tesla has fewer models than Ford, and that’s true, but Tesla’s report literally has two lines despite having six different models.
There’s no reason not to offer a complete breakdown like all other automakers other than trying to make it hard to verify the health of each vehicle program.
This has been the case with the Cybertruck. Tesla is bundling its Cybertruck deliveries with Model S, Model X, and Tesla Semi deliveries.
Despite this lack of disclosure, Tesla has been able to claim that the Cybertruck has become “the best-selling electric pickup truck” in the US in 2024:
It very well might be true. Ford disclosed 33,510 F-150 Lightning truck deliveries in the US in 2024 while most estimates are putting Cybertruck deliveries at around 40,000 units.
Those are global deliveries, but Tesla only delivered the Cybertruck in the US, Canada, and Mexico in 2024, and most of the deliveries are believed to be in the US.
First off, Tesla had a backlog of over 1 million reservations for the Cybertruck that it has been building since 2019. This led many to believe Tesla already had years of demand baked in for the truck and that production would be the constraint.
However, based on estimates, again, because Tesla refuses to disclose the data, Cybertruck deliveries were either flat or down in Q4 versus Q3 despite Tesla introducing cheaper versions of the vehicle and ramping up production.
Again, that’s after just about 40,000 deliveries.
Furthermore, with almost 11,000 deliveries in Q4 in the US, Ford more likely than not outsold Cybertruck with the F-150 Lightning in Q4.
Electrek’s Take
Tesla is in damage control here. There’s no doubt that it is having issues selling the Cybertruck.
Inventory is full of Cybertrucks and Tesla is now discounting them and offering free lifetime Supercharging.
Tesla is great at ramping up production, and it’s clear the Cybertruck is not production-constrained anymore. It is demand-constrained despite having over 1 million reservations.
Again, those reservations were made before Tesla unveiled the production version, which happened to have less range and cost significantly more.
The upcoming cheaper single motor version should help with demand, but I have serious doubts Tesla can ramp this program up to more than 100,000 units in the US.
As a reminder, Tesla installed a production capacity of 250,000 units annually and Musk said he could see Tesla selling 500,000 Cybertrucks per year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.