General Motors Asks Government to Change Rules on EV Tax Credits

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

General Motors is asking the federal government to reset the federal EV tax credit system, effectively requesting a personal favor. As one of the first manufacturers to get an electric vehicle to market that people actually wanted to buy, GM hit the 200,000 cumulative EV sales cap in 2018. While customers could still get money back through April of 2020, the automaker exhausted its allotment of $7,500 subsidies before most of its rivals.

Now it wants to see the government press the reset button on the program under a pretext of fairness. GM executives are claiming that companies investing in electrification shouldn’t be handicapped by not getting additional money from taxpayers. It seems anything but fair, frankly. Though it should be said that all-electric models have a poor track record in terms of profitability. The Chevrolet Bolt certainly didn’t make any money, however, GM CEO Mary Barra has said new versions of the model will be capable of turning a profit.

Ideally, the company would like to keep you thinking about the cheaper Bolt — and not six-figure Hummer EV and $60,000 Cadillac Lyriq that are coming out within the next 12 months — as you ponder this issue.

Automakers that have exhausted their sales quota (just GM and Tesla) have already received at least $1.5 billion in subsidies from the government under the program, plus whatever else they managed to eke out during the phase-out period. The whole point of the scheme was to soften the burden of manufacturers who were transitioning to EVs and incentivize consumers to become early adopters of the technology. But now GM is allegedly on the cusp of selling Cruises that actually make money and it wants to start the whole credit system over while it’s still in the lead.

“Incentives are an important consideration at the phase that we’re in,” Steve Carlisle, president of GM North America, said during the Automotive News‘ Congress Conversations virtual event.

“Given all the potential barriers to adoption and the fact that we need to get moving along that curve, I think incentives in many different forms enter into the conversation,” he continued. “A level playing field is a reasonable thing to aspire to.”

Automakers are always going to support handouts and try will always try to con elected officials into giving them preferential treatment. It’s just what multinational corporations do. But it’s getting to the point where it is expected that any businesses clever enough to engage in some greenwashing should get piles of money. We’re sympathetic to fines and know it’s becoming increasingly difficult to build automobiles that don’t conflict with the emissions regulations of at least one country and open a manufacturer up to penalties. Unfortunately, government handouts are becoming as ridiculous as the round-robin carbon credit system that effectively just makes it easier for companies with deeper pockets to pollute. It’s getting farcical across the board and the general populace really needs to wake up and smell the nonsense.

Though it isn’t just consumers that seem oblivious. Several automotive outlets reporting on the story came out to support General Motors, with at least one appearing to suggest that EV tax credits should be extended to all automakers indefinitely.

During a recent interview with CNBC, Chief Executive Barra said that her company shouldn’t be penalized (by getting the same amount of taxpayer money as every other manufacturer) just because it was quicker at exhausting the 200,000 vehicle quota. She acknowledged that $7,500 would undoubtedly influence customers buying future EVs, noting that GM would no longer be eligible under the old Obama-era credit system.

The company has asked the Biden administration to reset them, with Tesla likely in quiet agreement — as the decision would also be a boon for its bottom line.

While we cannot say whether the White House will go for the proposal, primarily because it would make it seem as though it’s playing favorites, it is definitely interested in accelerating EV adoption. Joe Biden has introduced a $174 billion proposal tied to the gigantic infrastructure plan that would allocate over half of the funding for customer rebates and expanding the United States’ charging network. The administration has also mentioned the reintroduction of Cash for Clunkers programs that would specifically target electric cars.

[Image: Michael Urmann/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 40 comments
  • Morea Morea on May 11, 2021

    It's UBI for the auto industry.

  • Ponchoman49 Ponchoman49 on May 12, 2021

    Turncoat Barra can go pound salt with her 20 plus billion take home profits pushing her triple zero fantasy and profits above all else. No more bailouts and no more subsidies for GM. If her amazing wonderful "everybody in" electric cars are so wonderful subsidies shouldn't be needed.

  • Amwhalbi My 1972 Mercury Capri was my first stick shift car. God, I miss that thing. It was a blast to drive.
  • Vid169489471 The technology exists today to produce a variable color temperature (kelvin) LED lamp. It can vary from 2700k that soft orange look to 6500k the bright daylight with the bluish tint.Since everything in a late model car is computer controlled, it would be an easy task to write a few lines of code that enables your vehicle to not only dim down from hi to low beam but to shift color temp down to the 2700k range for oncoming traffic, then back up to 5000k once oncoming traffic has passed. For the operator it would be automatic and seamless. For older cars they could be retrofitted with LEDs that are 2700k on low beam and 5000k on hi beam. As far as standards, there could be a lumens max, and a minimum. Several States already have minimum lumen standards going back to the old incandescent bulbs. Why not update these to national standards.
  • Jam169859557 More regulation is needed for ALL vehicle lighting systems. [list=1][*]The lighting that is most blinding are the rapidly flashing red, blue and amber lights on emergency vehicles. The lights themselves are blinding, flashing so rapidly that it's impossible for even the sharpest eyes to adjust. What's worse, is the nature of the emergency requires a careful view of the area surrounding the emergency vehicle. There is something going on that needs to be seen. More flashing lights is not the solution.[/*][*]Brighter headlights need to be regulated. The tall riding vehicles do not need headlights positioned so high that they blind drivers in lower riding vehicles. And those heasdlights need to be aimed properly. When I first started driving my 2020 Subaru Outback, many drivers would flash their lights, hoping I would dim my lights. This stopped after I performed am easy adjustment that tilted the beam lower. Late model Subaru headlamps are designed with a sharp cutoff that project less glare above the hood line. When the headlights are properly aimed, other drivers are not blinded by the beam.[/*][*]Customized light assemblies make it more difficult to see the marker lights (tail lamps, turn signals and side marker lamps) that have been tinted. There are many municiple codes that prohibit this tinting, but these laws are seldom enforced.[/*][/list=1]Solutions: Tight controls on emergency vehicle lighting. In trying to make these vehicles more visible, a dangerous side effect is reducing the ability of drivers to see the surrounding perils.Headlight design regulations that reduce the height of the headlight assemblies. Just because a pickup truck has a hood that sits 4 feet abouve the pavement, it does not mean the headlights need to be so high. Owneres should maintain proper adjustments to their vehicle headlights.Establish and enforce regulation requiring a illumination standard be followed.
  • Stl170698708 as someone who hates big government, and their interference;but you can add me to the list of people that are blinded by the lights.unfortunately "the poop is out of the horse and no way is it going back in"They have had 5 years to make lights bigger, badder and brighter because in the vehicle work it is go big or go home!Trucks are the worst because so many people use them to express their dominance and that is big, big, big $$ both at the Original Purchase and in the Aftermarket world.If, we are so lucky to get some good government regulation on this it will also take some very good Court enforcement to get the aftermarket people with fines and lawsuits.Much like the EPA did with the Diesel Tuner Industry that felt emission regulations didn't apply to them.This is from someone that owns said pickup truck with the same bright headlights,but i only use the truck when I have too and always turn off the Fog lights when driving in traffic.
  • Art65765977 I saw a porsche 911 with the most amazing headlights from behind approaching the Sunshine skyway in Florida. The pattern was 108 degrees across sweeping the road like a broom. My brother and I were amazed. I don't know what it looked like from the front but i am sure it was better than American cars
Next