G.M. Takes $1.6 Billion Loss After Electric Vehicle Subsidy Goes Away
It seems like the current market for electric vehicles is entirely the creation of government policy.

Sales of electric vehicles (E.V.s) surged in August and September as buyers took advantage of a federal tax credit before it expired. Now, automakers expect to sell fewer E.V.s—and lose money on them—for the rest of the year.
It raises the question, Is the American E.V. market just a creation of government policy?
"General Motors said it is reducing its electric-vehicle manufacturing capacity and booking a $1.6 billion charge on its EV business as demand sinks," reports The Wall Street Journal's Sharon Terlep. "In a regulatory filing, the company said that EV sales are expected to fall with the end of government-funded subsidies and regulatory mandates that fueled EV growth."
This was a monumental shift within just a few years: In 2021, General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced the auto giant would phase out all gas-burning vehicles by 2035.
Under the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted emissions rules that would effectively require more than half of all new vehicles produced by 2032 to be electric. The agency rescinded those rules in March, after President Donald Trump reentered office.
In September, Congress ended a Biden-era program providing a $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle. Motorists apparently flocked to dealerships ahead of the program's sunset date, but analysts expected demand to plummet once the credit went away. "The demise of the tax credit will probably bring the party to an end," Neal E. Boudette wrote last month in The New York Times. "Sales of electric models are expected to plummet in the last three months of the year and then remain sluggish for some time."
To be clear, slow electric vehicle sales are not General Motors' only problem, or even the biggest drag on its profits: The tariffs Trump has imposed by fiat are hurting the automaker's bottom line, as well. As Terlep noted, the $1.6 billion E.V. charge "comes on top of an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion that GM projects it will pay in tariff-related costs this year." Just in the second quarter of this year, Ford Motor Co. paid $800 million in tariffs and posted its first quarterly financial loss since 2023.
Still, General Motors' announcement supports the concern that without infusions of taxpayer money, E.V.s are not entirely viable on their own. It's no wonder, since they have not been driven by consumer preference.
From the start, the Biden-era rules prioritized all-electric vehicles over hybrids, which the EPA estimated would account for only 16 percent of all new vehicles sold by 2032. (For comparison, it estimated there would still be nearly twice that many cars with internal combustion engines.) But consumers have made it clear that if they get rid of their gas-burning cars, they're more comfortable with a hybrid than an electric.
"While EV sales are growing, their pace is falling well short of the industry's ambitious timetable for transitioning away from combustion engines," Tom Krisher of the Associated Press reported in 2023. "Instead, buyers are increasingly embracing a quarter-century-old technology whose popularity has been surging: The gas-electric hybrid, which alternates from gas to battery power to maximize efficiency."
In its 2024 annual consumer survey, the American Automobile Association (AAA) found similar results: While only 18 percent of respondents said they were likely to buy an electric, 31 percent were open to a hybrid.
"Access to a hybrid vehicle lessens the anxiety for consumers because it allows people to enjoy the benefits of electrification without feeling like they are disrupting their current lifestyle or travel plans (longer distance driving, less charging options, etc.)," AAA noted of its findings.
Even though federal incentives have nudged them in other directions, automakers have tried to follow consumer sentiment. In August 2024, Ford announced it was shifting focus from electrics to hybrids. The automaker had separated its production lines into traditional and electric divisions just two years earlier, and since then, "Ford's electric vehicle division has lost $12 billion, including $2.2 billion in the first half of this year," the Times reported in August.
In January 2024, Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda predicted all-electric vehicles would only ever make up about 30 percent of the total automotive market. Instead, Toyoda advocated a "multi-pathway approach" to cutting carbon emissions on the road, and said "customers, not regulations or politics," should drive innovation.
Toyoda is right. General Motors followed the trend of government rather than consumer sentiment, and now it's scrambling to adapt when the government changes hands.
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
It seems like the current market for electric vehicles is entirely the creation of government policy.
Nuh uh. Just. Really. Popular.
Totally not market distortion by governments and regulatory bodies at home and around the globe far, far beyond any single subsidy.
Electrons matter…and so do subsidies.
Of course it's a creation of government, how many people want a more expensive vehicle with shorter range and less options to 'fill up' while travelling enough to demand it from the market.
There are some exceptions to that, namely high performance Tesla toys for people with several other vehicles. I don't think many people are buying electric primary vehicles for reasons other than the subsidy though. They might rationalize it for a variety of reasons, but they would not have bought them without the subsidy in place.
They seem to work OK for commuter cars at this point. I know plenty of people who almost always drive their EVs. But you still need an ICE for long trips if you don't want to spend enormous amounts of time charging. Without the subsidies it just doesn't work except as toys for well off people. And I can't imagine there being a really robust used market for EVs. Who wants to buy one with a clapped out battery? It's a luxury and will be until there is a better (and safer) energy storage method.
There are segments of the population for whom it really works well. My sister lives in the LA area, and both her and her husband's vehicles are Teslas. They never drive anywhere where managing their charge is an issue. She has few reasons to travel out of state other than vacations so she just books flights.
Me, however, I often drive across multiple states. My vehicles sometimes park outside in below-freezing weather, which would be bad for the E.V. battery. I never have considered purchasing anything electric. The majority of drivers in the US don't live in the perpetually climate-mild zones while driving exclusively in dense population areas where there are plenty of charging stations.
I can't wait for this realization to trickle over to the people who promote self-driving autos.
"How dare you" Doom Goblin hardest hit.
If we allowed China to sell it's super cheap subsidized cars in the US - I guarantee you would start to see them scattered about the ghettos. As a throw away entry level car they might make sense.
Biden's dream of the green economy providing high paid jobs is just that - a dream - with no anchor in reality.
Immediately after the end of the $7500 credit, Tesla rolled out a Model 3 that was $5500 cheaper.
Access to a hybrid vehicle...allows people to enjoy the benefits of electrification
And those are...?
Let's agree to disagree and promote lab-grown meat so we can all enjoy the benefits of ranchland being returned to nature.
*theorizing*
Maybe your electrified car is the Peter Suderman COVID mask of automobiles: having one makes you not look like a Republican?
Except for having a Tesla, which went from good to bad by association.
+1 I drive a hybrid electric car alone with my N95 mask resting on my upper lip.
It seems like the current market for electric vehicles is entirely the creation of government policy.
Seems? I guess it is ok as long as it is just billion$ in handouts and not buying a minority stake in the business. That would be socialism.
G.M. Takes $1.6 Billion Loss After Electric Vehicle Subsidy Goes Away
It seems like the current market for electric vehicles is entirely the creation of government policy.
This is what happens when you agree to disagree and insist that climate change can be dealt with through technological advancements.
You don't say.
Water is wet. Film at 11.
I like to think of electric cars as the 'immigrant labor' of the automobile world. Lots of employers want them, but not at the cost and price of their more naturally-priced counterparts.
Tariffs are just increased taxes on the citizenry while not admitting that you are increasing taxes on the citizenry. Who do you think GM is going to pass this off onto ?
Nobody smart enough to never buy a new car for one
So if I'm reading this correctly Trump was right again? That's unpossible.
I thought this was a story about subsidies for electric cars and the government regulations forcing people to buy them but Reason just can't stop a non sequetor on tariffs to bash Trump.