GM doesn’t exactly have the best history when it comes to electric vehicle advocacy and innovation. Yes, it did sort of groundbreaking work with the EV1 and later with the Chevy Bolt, but it also crushed the EV1, limited the reach of the Chevy Bolt, and, more recently, worked with the Donald Trump administration to try to cripple California fuel economy regulations (and thus EV growth in the United States), a ridiculous and unprecedented move. That last sin was enough to get GM on my bad side — my real bad side. Now it’s going a step further. It’s pushing back against the US EPA’s already rather weak 2030 regulations!
“General Motors on Wednesday said it would have trouble complying with proposed emissions rules that would require vastly greater EV sales over the next decade,” Stephen Edelstein of Green Car Reports writes. The problem exactly? There are EPA regulations that “could require each automaker to exceed 50% EVs in at least a dozen vehicle averaging sets in the approximate 2030 timeframe,” and the company is “concerned that either a potential lack of clarity or a lack of coordination across the agencies may hinder an automaker’s ability to remain in compliance, year-after-year, across each of these regulatory programs even while meeting EPA’s overall EV targets.” So, in short, 50% of sales being electric vehicle sales in several different vehicle classes (or sets) in 2030 seems too daunting. (Hand me a tissue.)
Recall that GM intends to be 100% electric by 2035. We applauded that target and deemed it a form of leadership. And it says that it’s confident it will reach 50% of sales being electric by 2030. It just feels that doing so across different sets and model years is challenging — “our ability to meet such precise EV shares in every applicable averaging set in each model year is less clear.”
Furthermore, GM indicated that it supported a previous target indicated by the Joe Biden administration. That 2021 executive order’s “original goals” indicated a target of 50% plugin vehicles (full electrics or plugin hybrids) by 2030. “These goals also recognize the profound uncertainties of supply chain, manufacturing, infrastructure, and consumer market dynamics.”
Unsurprisingly, a trade organization representing various automakers came out with similar pushback couple months ago as well. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation stated, “To be clear, [the] administration’s 50% target was always a stretch goal. It was ambitious and challenging to meet by any measure.” Way to mansplain and try to move the goal posts!
At this point in time, we are behind what we need to do to address global heating and climate catastrophe. Trying to slow down progress where we can genuinely make it and where regulations are already in place is idiotic thinking, and I don’t appreciate the lobbying from GM or the “Alliance for Automotive Innovation” on this. (Clever name, eh? Are they for more innovation or against it?)
What are your thoughts? Am I being too hard on GM and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation? Or are they getting themselves a reservation in the doghouse?
I don’t like paywalls. You don’t like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it! We just don’t like paywalls, and so we’ve decided to ditch ours. Unfortunately, the media business is still a tough, cut-throat business with tiny margins. It’s a never-ending Olympic challenge to stay above water or even perhaps — gasp — grow. So …
