GM Slashes Prices for Its Electric Vehicles (To Compete With Tesla)
You can thank robust competition for the fact that environmentally friendly cars are easier than ever to afford.

This week, The Verge reported that General Motors' 2023 Chevy Bolt electric vehicles (E.V.) have dropped in price by 18 percent since 2022, down to $26,595 from $32,495. Meanwhile, BMW in the last few weeks announced plans to alter its E.V. battery design, which is estimated to yield a 30 percent drop in materials costs over the next few years. And Ford CEO Jim Farley told attendees of the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference on Wednesday that he anticipates a "huge price war" in the E.V. industry in the coming years, as more and more carmakers price cars around that $25,000 mark.
Though building electric vehicles currently costs up to 45 percent more than standard automobiles—batteries and chargers are astonishingly expensive to manufacture—Farley predicts a future where carmakers' focus on making designs more aerodynamic and producing smaller batteries with longer charges, both of which would drive costs down.
With such developments, more and more automakers are throwing their hats in the ring in an attempt to compete with giants like Tesla, which has quite successfully tapped into this fast-growing market. (Double the number of electric vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2021 compared to 2020, and first-quarter sales for 2022 have held strong.)
A bit of a milestone:
After 130 years or so of growth, the global fleet of cars with only an internal combustion engine will probably peak in 2022. EVs are already the auto industry's sales growth driver. Soon they will be the fleet growth driver too. https://t.co/C2GeXoIKnZ pic.twitter.com/wWJ1poyBVs— Nat Bullard (@NatBullard) June 1, 2022
How much of this innovation and aggressive price-slashing is due to government intervention in the clean energy market? It's hard to tell. E.V. sales have long been boosted by government subsidies that offer electric and hybrid vehicle owners federal income tax credits of up to $7,500 for new cars bought in or after 2010. But in a splendid twist of government logic, carmakers also get punished for being too successful, since customers are phased out of subsidies if the automaker has sold more than 200,000 qualifying units—a threshold Tesla has reached, rendering owners ineligible for tax rebates. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has even criticized such tax credits, noting that they're simply not needed in order to drive demand for E.V.s. Though likely correct, Musk delivered this critique years after the subsidies were put in place and after his company's customers became ineligible for it. It's entirely possible that tax credits helped drive the early transition to E.V., but play less of a role now, and will play no role in the future.
In May, the Biden administration signaled that it would incentivize further E.V. adoption—pursuing ill-advised and market-distorting economic nationalism despite the fact that consumers were already gravitating in that direction (as strong Tesla sales, even post-subsidy-expiration, have suggested, and Musk has confirmed). The administration last month started to put in place a $3.1 billion plan to ramp up domestic production of E.V. batteries. Though packaged as a way "to insulate consumers from the fluctuation of global oil markets," as The New York Times reports, gesturing at Russia's war in Ukraine, the shift to mass domestic production of E.V. batteries will take quite a while to implement, and the effects even longer to be felt. It also ignores that much of the lithium, cobalt, and nickel mining needed for these batteries is done in China and will be difficult to scale up to sufficiently meet demand.
Mass electric vehicle adoption need not be spurred by socially conscious word-fluff or well-meaning (but flawed) subsidies; it's looking like customers want electric vehicles because they're high-quality, convenient products made increasingly attractive by their lower price and easier maintenance. May the best man win in the coming price wars.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good thing taxpayers aren't finding the price decreases.
https://www.nber.org/digest/jun19/assessing-federal-subsidies-purchases-electric-vehicles
Nothing beats using other people's money.
Do those "prices" include the cost of installing a charger?
Of having to add a new service panel to accommodate the extra load?
How long to charge one of those things on 110 volt 30 amp service?
...and be sure to charge outdoors (as advised by GM) in case of a battery malfunction and fire.
I think realistically that at some point, most people (assuming wide adoption of electric cars) will eventually be charging at their work or just pull over to a super-charging station.
Plus, with what one would nominally save on gas, the installation cost of a 220v circuit and potential panel upgrade would probably pay for itself.
I won't mention anything about apartment dwellers because we're all friends here.
"Plus, with what one would nominally save on gas, the installation cost of a 220v circuit and potential panel upgrade would probably pay for itself. "
A few grand for a power upgrade and the higher cost (even with a tax credit) and you or your EV will be dead before you achieve payback.
We can only amortize the cost of energy and infrastructure here. In that case, you'll get it back in fuel savings.
But you're VERY right about the cost of EVs. They're not cheap. Not competitive at all without subsidies, but there are very few WITH the subsidies that are under about 40K.
I just wish the government would get out of the way. Electric cars have a lot of advantages, and a lot of problems, and they actually have a market if those issues can be gapped. The government is not actually good at helping bridge those gaps in a useful way.
I think we could argue that the subsidies helped provide capital to manufacturers, but I'm always a little skeptical of that. Particularly because it's mostly been a subsidy for premium cost cars anyway.
Still, I hope they get good. I have no particular issue with electric other than my general anxiety towards anything I feel the government is pushing on me too hard.
As an electrical engineer dealing with heat/battery technology/power delivery on a daily basis I can say that Gas is by far the most efficient energy storage system I have found.
Yep, I vaguely mention my thoughts on batteries below. It's a hard problem, and one that would have huge gains in many fields if there was a real breakthrough. Last I read about it was 5 years ago though, and that was for cell phone and small computer batteries, but the growth in density was basically linear.
You can probably correct me if that's not true anymore, but I hadn't heard anything to change my understanding that batteries are a huge bottleneck in a large amount of different spaces.
Sounds like a case for hybrid EVs.
Too complex
Why hamper usable tech with something that isn't ready?
"As an electrical engineer dealing with heat/battery technology/power delivery on a daily basis I can say that Gas is by far the most efficient energy storage system I have found."
The energy density of petroleum fuels is so amazing that, if we hadn't found them, we would have had to invent them.
By the time that happens I hope we’ll be moving rapidly to hydrogen power.
Hydrogen is no panacea. It is energy intensive to produce, corrosive and much more dangerous than gasoline.
And sneaks out of really small openings.
Racist!
How long to charge one of those things on 110 volt 30 amp service?
Realistically, it takes all night. That's why some people with electric cars are having to rewire their garage to handle a 220V outlet.
Even that's pretty slow. Seems like widespread electric car adoption would really require a lot more 480 V 3-phase service for residential areas.
That right there is the only good thing to come out of this whole thing...
I am pretty much of the opinion that electric cars are a stop-gap between traditional dino-juice combustion engines and whatever we are going to be driving a few decades from now (while hydrogen is interesting, I still think bio-diesel is the early betting favorite).
All of it could be worth having to deal with all the smug, if only to see increased residential 3-phase.
Nice. I'm already having one of those put in so I can run some larger shop equipment in the future.
Though, I'm also not looking to buy a new car any time soon. So, maybe next decade things will be where I'm willing to go electric.
Here’s a good indication: my hybrid that got 12 miles on all-electric took 8 hours to fully charge on a 30 amp, 110 circuit. When I got a newer hybrid that gets 20 miles all-electric I went to a 220 circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJfjrgEq34
OK, I did it myself.
Level one, or residential chargers, cost about $600 for a dedicated 120-volt circuit. However, a home charger is not adequate for commercial enterprises, which need level-two or level-three chargers to handle the load. The highest specification for a commercial EV charging station is level three, or direct current fast charge (DCFC). Level three stations can charge a vehicle in an hour with 480-volt direct current. Level three stations cost around $50,000 for a single port. Most commercial enterprises look to install level two charging stations, which run on 240-volt power and provide a compromise between power and cost. A level two electric vehicle charging station costs around $7,200 for a dual-port station—it can charge two cars simultaneously in eight to 10 hours.
So not a deal at all. I will keep burning fossil fuel to get from a to b.
are electric cars creating the power grid mania we keep hearing about?
They're certainly gonna create the power grid blackouts you will see in the near future. That, and spiking all the coal plants.
they should be turned off before Grandma's HVAC is but I bet they won't be.
There aren't enough of them yet.
figured someone would know. the two power stations near mi casa are always full & have lines like the car wash
With the looming threat of brownouts and power grid disruptions and the continued increase in gas prices highways will soon be able to be converted to bikeways.
forgot the obligatory: Red Barchetta!
… Chevy Bolt electric vehicles (E.V.) have dropped in price ..
Trying to get over that whole bursting into flames thing.
Over the past five years reporters have breathlessly covered the rapid increase in sales of plant-based 'meat', which were almost doubling every year. Real meat was surely on the way out. Remember the BK Impossible Burger? Sales rose to about 5% of the meat market, then stalled, even falling off a bit. Why? Because everyone willing to eat the damn stuff was buying it, some had tried it and sworn off, and the market is saturated.
Electric car sales, still a small part of the whole automobile market, are increasing rapidly and are seen as the wave of our future. Early adopters, woke corporations, and those who want to publicly display both their eco-credentials and wealth are buying them. Is there any real demand though, or is this going to end up like the Impossible Burger? I believe the sales will take off, then stall because most don't want an electric car any more than most of us want tofurkey.
Using percentages to brag about increases is always dubious. An increase from 3 to 4 is a 50% increase. Anyway, I understand the federal government is going to FORCE us all to buy EVs eventually.
2 to 3. 2 to 3 Dammit!
Those of us who went to school before 1980 knew that - - - - - -
How much demand for electric cars when gas hits SleepyJoe’s $10 target?
None.
(Because every dollar earned will be needed just to buy food)
Yes. Never forget that Biden and governments around the world committed to EVs years ago and, to this day, include it as part of The Great Reset/BBB. Yes, the saturation of the EV market will settle at some point. Whether that's at 10-15% or north of the 55-80% of people who vote for Medvedev/Putin or even the 98% that voted for Hussein is very much up in the air.
environmentally friendly cars
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Absolutely.
Tell me a story about mining the rare earth elements (or even copper & lead) needed for those batteries.
Then give a rough estimate of the waste facilities needed for the worn out, used up, batteries.
You can thank robust competition for the fact that environmentally friendly cars are easier than ever to afford.
In that case, maybe government can get the hell out of the way, let people make their own choices, and allow the electric car market evolve organically.
One can dream.
...and the same for solar and wind power.
Best of both worlds.
Require all electric cars only recharge from windmills and solar panels; no grid power allowed.
For the children.
Farley predicts a future where carmakers' focus on making designs more aerodynamic and producing smaller batteries with longer charges, both of which would drive costs down.
Designs are really aerodynamic now, because that is a general issue with all types of fuel consumption. So, we'll see how much better it can get but there's a reason every car has evolved to a pretty limited set of looks depending on the type.
The battery question is more interesting. I haven't kept up with it lately, but that's really the difficult thing here. Here's hoping he's right, because traditionally it's been a slow linear growth of battery capacity over time. A big breakthrough in battery density would likely lead to major advances in many things. From portable computers, to solar devices, to electric cars.
GM is having a Blow
OutUp Sale.Easier than ever to afford?
Nothing is easier than ever to afford.
Fuck you, Reason/Liz
Wonder what Liz drives.
When you run out of charge on the highway, who do you call? AAA or PGE?
You pull out your spare PV panel, place it on the roof...
Is that a subsidized PV panel?
Sure hope it's superman's PV panel...
250hp = 186,000 Watts... What's that about 1,860 200W panels with one cloud in the sky?
Gosh at a $1/Watt (unreasonably cheap) that's only a $186,000 addition.... My gasoline bill isn't that stupid ---- yet... But Biden and his Nazi-Clowns are working to fix that.
I'm just not sure where to install the 1,860 panels.....
........And pigs fly too yeah 🙂
No, no no.
At 250 hp, that's 186 kW/hour. A 200 W panel will do fine. You'll just need to charge it for 39 days for each hour of use.
Do you even green energy?
Dammit!! At least 80 days, unless your PV cell works on moonlight.
For one hour drive-able.
That's what I said.
Double the number of vehicles sold is a meaningless phrase without some numbers to examine. If only one car was sold in 2020, then two cars sold in 2021 is "double the number sold."
How many electric vehicles were sold in 2020 and 2021 respectively?
What percentage of vehicle sales a electric in 2020 and 2021 respectively?
https://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/
Thanks, but this is info the author should have included instead of the sloppy phrasing "double the number" phrasing.
Environmental nuts use Gov-Guns to STEAL money to cut their price-tag.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/25/michigan-awards-1bn-tax-incentives-gm-ev-plants
I will never buy a GM vehicle. Just out of spite. They should be a dead company.
How long after California bans the sale of gas vehicles before they make it illegal to drive the existing gas vehicles?
There is several hilarious schadenfreude moments in California's near future.
Everyone will be taking high speed rail.
Powered by Coal/Natural-Gas which lost 80% of its efficiency changing it to electricity.. Out of sight out of mind?
Not only are electric cars becoming more popular but also electrically assisted bicycles.
On a recent trip to NYC I was surprised by the number of electric bikes, most of which were work vehicles. Some had small trailers, but the majority where used for food delivery services. I also noted many bikes had handlebar mittens suggesting their use, even in cold weather.
Closer to home, I am seeing more of the electric bikes for personal use. These bikes allow people to commute or run errands without expending as much effort. In the urban environment the bikes can cover a distance as quickly as a car.
...and are causing numerous accidents and injuries in NYC.
Cars also cause accidents in case your behind on your reading.
They are particularly nice when the weather is bad.
Nothing beats walking the whole 1.5 mi. length of the Memorial Day parade route from the start, getting to the end, and seeing the entire enviro-friendly family, that you know lives only halfway down the route, all sitting on their electric bikes. More carbon for half the distance of probably half the parade. Good job enviro-family. Way to take a stand for... uh... something. Way to catch up to the 10-20% of Wal-mart shoppers that have been propelling themselves around with electric scooters for a couple of decades.
Walking is great also. For distances under 2 miles it may be tops. For 2 to 10 miles bikes are my preference.
For distances under 2 miles it may be tops. For 2 to 10 miles bikes are my preference.
In Europe, if you leave out the two single largest trips/vehicles (>10-15 mi. in cars/other) from all households (single, couples, families, workers, retirees, etc.) you're left with ~2-3 mi. of walking or cycling across every demographic. Seems exceedingly plausible, if not likely, that electric bikes won't displace the 15 mi. commute in a car, but will increase the amount of CO2 produced traversing the ~2.5 mi. the average person walks or bikes per day. Especially in the US.
I don't currently own a motorcycle. If electric motorcycles were on par cost-wise, with ICE bikes, I would own one. I would, however, at least be honest about saying it wouldn't be a necessity, it would be a luxury and any contribution it would make to saving the environment would be the spendthrift wife's spend $500 to save 10% type of savings. Unlike others who ride their electric bikes <1 mi. to the recycling drive for sanctimonious purposes.
@ the asshole to whom M.C is replying:
"For 2 to 10 miles bikes are my preference."
Goody for you, asshole. I don't care.
It's the lackwit m4e, mooning on about how fantastic the ignorant and lazy people are who decide that pedaling a bicycle is too much work, public transportation too icky, so electric bicycles w/ the slave labor produced environment destroying batteries are ideal. Typical left-leaning asshat.
Seems there are very few bikes, even electric ones at any grocery store, including Whole Foods. And that's when it's not raining.
Yeah, bikes are fine on sunny days, if you travel without a lot of hills and only carry, what, a loaf of bread?
Stupid sumbitch lives in a fantasy world.
That why you have raingear.
"environmentally friendly"? Who you trying to fake out?
The cars themselves have by far the highest environmental impace of anything, as there is so much complex technology in them to make them work.They are also far more complex to produce, thus incurring higher "load".
then we have the business of the batteries.. load os highly toxic and dangrous rare earth metals and alloys, lots of less available metals that need to be mined then transported from all round the world. And last, but probably the largest lie, is that the current to push them upp the roads does NOT grow on trees. Twenty years ago it was calculated that if just ten percent of the small car fleet were to turn full electric the additional demand for the juice to feed the electric cars would collapse the entire mess. Of course, with the track record of being SO accurate on everything else these past two years WHO would dre to question or doubt them?
Perhaps the Utopian dream is 100-years from now the only market-able transportation will be a bicycle with a solar-panel on it..... And well; the horse and wagon will probably be more efficient/faster.
Nothing like demolishing human progress and reverting to 1700's human lifestyle eh???
...but it's for the children.
Farley predicts a future where carmakers' focus on making designs more aerodynamic and producing smaller batteries with longer charges, both of which would drive costs down.
Because the phenomenal aerodynamics and power density of the F-35 made it phenomenally cheaper to build and operate than the P-51? How do you report losses from design rot on a balance sheet from the abjectly wrong expenditures as a result of your wild design speculation?
Both conventional big battery electric cars and fuel powered cars are obsolete. Electric cars using rented easily exchanged battery modules cost about $4000 less than fuel power and $10,000 less than big battery cars which need slow recharging on a trip. Drive fast and exchange empty rented battery modules in few minutes at highway swap stations will be the future. Buy the vehicle and rent batteries as needed to get maximum performance and minimum costs.
Pipe dream. Batteries still have to be recharged somewhere and eventually lose capacity.
To date there is no economical battery (lithium-ion) recycling technology.
And still doesn't actually solve "The Problem(s)". It's going to cost you more energy/gas/CO2 to produce and distribute the necessary excess of batteries required and put an exchange station every 150-200 mi. than it is to put a fueling station every 300 mi., (not to mention the hidden 'ecosystem costs').
"...Buy the vehicle and rent batteries as needed to get maximum performance and minimum costs."
Do I get a pony, too?
Nobody would ever steal the batteries from the rental locations. Left-leaning/progressive cultists are typically extremely paranoid when it comes to accusing rightists of malfeasance, but suddenly utopian and stupidly naive when they believe their moronic in-group has the solution. To be fair, I don't know if 'he' leans left, but folks that push ev's don't generally stand for individual rights.
There goes my pony...
I leave the office at 10am and 12 hours and 850+ miles later, I get back ............. yea, give me one of those fancy golfcarts
...
its all urbanrat stuff ......... till they can do 1,000 miles with a loaded pickup ....
Right. I want a car with a 250mile range, in warm weather, then I have to stop for a couple of hours and hunt for a charging station. Just perfect for that vacation.
Not to mention being tethered, by the power needs, to a certain area in which one must live. An area in which all vehicles also are operated by the same smug in-group, hat tip to South Park. For those who live in remote areas, where there are long winters and few amenities -where people work with their vehicle, ev's make as much sense as gender affirmation surgery for a bull.
What part of the national fleet is made up of people living in remote areas? The fleet make up will change because the majority of the fleet is located in areas that compatible with EVs.
The only reason anyone in a remote area can even use a vehicle is because the government built or facilitated the building of a road into the area.
The largest use of people's cars is commuting and that averages about 41 miles per day. Well within working range of the EV. People's road trips habits will likely change, but that represents a small part of the time they use cars.
"...environmentally friendly cars are easier than ever to afford."
Cite missing for (bullshit) claim.