logo

GM's electric gains face critical test as Trump targets EV subsidies

Zawya03-03-2025

DETROIT - General Motors has spent billions over decades trying to blaze an electric trail, releasing pioneering EVs and hybrids that ultimately failed to achieve mass-market sales before being scrapped. This time might be different.
Last year, the U.S. auto-sales leader boosted electric vehicle sales and seized market share from the likes of Tesla despite slowing demand as its customers increasingly chose EVs over comparable GM gas-powered models.
The progress - driven by an expanding EV lineup that will soon include a dozen models - signals that GM could for the first time convince more mainstream buyers to go electric, four industry analysts said.
GM's fourth-quarter share of U.S. EVs hit 12% - double a year earlier and second only to Tesla at 44.4%, according to auto services specialist Cox Automotive.
Sales of GM's Cadillac Lyriq EV tripled last year to 28,402, outpacing each of its XT4, XT5 and XT6 gasoline SUVs. Sales of its lower-priced Chevrolet Equinox and Blazer EVs accounted for 22% and 40% respectively of total fourth-quarter deliveries under the same model name.
The growth underscores GM's stubborn commitment to EVs, despite heavy losses and a trend among rivals including Ford and Toyota to prioritize gas-electric hybrids.
Analysts credited GM's EV surge to its growing number of competitive models - from entry-level to premium - giving its customers more electric options than rivals. Tesla, for example, has five models and only two volume sellers.
GM global markets chief Rory Harvey cited the same reason in an interview with Reuters.
"We've got the broadest lineup out there, and we definitely have momentum," he said. "And we all know that the automotive industry is a momentum game."
ACID TEST
Aggressive pricing also played a role in the form of low-payment leases that often made GM EVs cheaper than its comparable fuel-powered vehicles, according to industry analysts and two GM dealers.
Such cheap EV leases, common industry-wide, were made possible largely by a $7,500 subsidy that U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to end along with a host of other pro-EV policies. GM would also be vulnerable to Trump's threatened 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico because it makes hundreds of thousands of cars in Mexico - including the Blazer and Equinox EVs.
Industry experts said political and EV market headwinds will make 2025 an acid test for whether GM can sustain its momentum and hit a tipping point in its long and expensive history of electrification efforts. One pivotal moment will come later this year as GM launches the next-generation Bolt, expected to be its most affordable EV at about $30,000.
"This year is critical for them," said Paul Waatti, industry analysis director at research firm AutoPacific.
GM has historically been first out the gate with innovative electrified cars only to stumble in launches dating back to its 1997 EV1, a futuristic pill-shaped two-door. GM also introduced the first mass-produced plug-in hybrid, the 2011 Volt, and followed up with the all-electric 2017 Bolt, the only relatively affordable EV at the time. All were discontinued without achieving volume sales.
Despite its recent progress, GM still faces immense challenges in delivering on CEO Mary Barra's past pledge of an all-electric fleet by 2035. EVs only comprised about 6% of GM's overall fourth-quarter sales, which continue to rely on large trucks and SUVs that are among the hardest vehicles to electrify, industry experts say.
PROGRESS TOWARD PROFIT
Instead of just one Volt or Bolt, GM now offers 10 models, from the affordable Equinox crossover to six-figure SUVs. Cadillac just launched its Optiq compact electric SUV, which will be followed soon by a three-row Vistiq and lower-priced electric pickups.
GM says it's also getting closer to making EV profits. CFO Paul Jacobson has said GM plans to narrow EV losses by about $2 billion in 2025, without disclosing total annual losses. That estimate, however, depends on continued EV sales growth, which could prove hard if Trump guts EV purchase and lease subsidies.
Losing the $7,500 incentive could tank EV sales unless automakers cut prices, said Ivan Drury, director of insights for automotive research firm Edmunds.
"We know what happens if you don't provide it," he said of EV subsidies and discounts. "You don't sell."
GM said it had not decided whether to lower prices if the subsidies end and that it would wait to assess consumer and competitor reactions. GM nonetheless takes a "very long-term view" of its EV commitment, said spokesman Jim Cain.
A $7,500 EV lease incentive has been key to low-payment deals to persuade skeptical EV shoppers. More than 70% of EVs were leased last year at dealerships, including 55% of GM's electric vehicles, Edmunds data shows.
"It's really the lease offer that makes the big difference," said Jeff Laethem, at Detroit's Ray Laethem Motor Village, which includes a Buick and GMC store. For some premium models, it's a $700 monthly payment for a $100,000 vehicle, he said.
EVS OVER HYBRIDS
GM continues to bet big on EVs at a time when rivals such as Ford and Toyota have focused more on hybrids - a decision that has paid off for them as consumers turn to hybrids in droves to avoid the cost and charging hassles of EVs.
Toyota has long dominated the hybrid market and sells few EVs, arguing that EV technology isn't yet advanced or affordable enough for most customers. Hybrids represented more than 40% of Toyota's 2.3 million U.S. deliveries last year. Ford's hybrid sales jumped 40% to about 187,000, nearly double its EV sales of some 98,000.
GM, by comparison, sold 114,432 EVs. The automaker plans to offer plug-in hybrids for 2027 as a short-term strategy to meet emissions regulations but has no plans to make traditional hybrids, which cost less and don't need charging.
"Ultimately, we believe that EVs are going to be the way forward," GM's Harvey said, "complemented with some hybrids."
At a New York industry conference in February, CEO Barra called hybrids an interim solution, arguing that developing a vehicle with two propulsion systems - gas and electric - is an inefficient use of capital.
GM might be better off sticking to EVs in part because it would now take substantial investment in hybrid powertrains to steal sales from entrenched competitors, said David Whiston, an automotive stock strategist at Morningstar Research.
"It would be hard for GM to compete head-on with Toyota in hybrids," he said.
GM officials argue it's not missing out on sales in the hybrid boom because it offers other fuel-saving technologies, such as diesels and small, turbocharged gasoline engines.
THE TRUCK DILEMMA
The biggest obstacle to GM's all-electric ambitions, however, might be its own lucrative business in full-sized pickups and SUVs.
GM's ambitions for a rapid electric truck transition have so far clashed with the challenges of making them affordable and capable enough to sell in large volumes. In 2022, GM planned annual capacity for 600,000 electric trucks at its Detroit Factory Zero plant and another factory it planned to reopen in nearby Orion Township. It has repeatedly delayed the Orion reopening, now scheduled for mid-2026.
GM started delivering the Silverado EV RST First Edition, priced at $94,500, in mid-2024. But it sold just 9,000 electric Silverado and Sierra pickups last year out of about 900,000 total. Rivals' electric trucks introduced before last year - Ford's F-150 Lightning and Tesla's Cybertruck - had about 33,000 and 39,000 sales in 2024, respectively, but the overall electric truck segment remains tiny.
This year, GM hopes to boost sales with two new trim levels starting at about $57,000 and $73,000.
One drag on EV pickup sales is the fact that carrying or towing heavy payloads can dramatically reduce their driving range, requiring constant recharging.
Seeking more range, automakers have added larger batteries, but that makes EV trucks extremely expensive, said Sam Abuelsamid, vice president of market research for Telemetry Insights.
GM's highly profitable truck-and-SUV business has been pivotal in helping GM finance money-losing forays into EVs and autonomous vehicles. But it will struggle to squeeze the same profits from electric trucks, Abuelsamid said.
"For the foreseeable future," he said, "they're probably not going to be able to get the same margins - not unless we have some major breakthrough on the battery front."
(Reporting by Kalea Hall in Detroit; Editing by Brian Thevenot and David Clarke)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon's blood feud with Trump will not gut SpaceX's $350 billion valuation
Elon's blood feud with Trump will not gut SpaceX's $350 billion valuation

Arabian Post

time6 hours ago

  • Arabian Post

Elon's blood feud with Trump will not gut SpaceX's $350 billion valuation

Matein Khalid I had analyzed SpaceX as a potential 10X winner in the Dubai media circa late 2020 when it traded at a mere $46 billion in the private market and even invited a number of close friends in an investor syndicate after sourcing shares from the Founders Fund in San Fran via the secondary market. Shakespear's Henry V praised the English longbow archers who won him the battle of Agincourt and thus the crown of France as 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. I feel the same way about my SpaceX chums except our band of brothers includes a very noble sister. ADVERTISEMENT Is the 9X fairytale in SpaceX shares over, now that Elon publicly accused Trump of falsehood and even suggested that POTUS-47 was on a Jeff Epstein's Fantasy Island paedo guest list? Not at all, even though Trump has threatened to take away all Uncle Sam subsidies and contracts away from Elon's companies, now that the bromance of the century has gone sour with such a bang. Tesla (TSLA) shares naturally lost $150 billion last night on Nasdaq as TSLA plunged to 295 but a mass market EV car brand with stiff Chinese competition and declining market share cannot remotely be compared to SpaceX – Why? Unlike Tesla, SpaceX has no real technological peer and neither the Pentagon's Space Command nor NASA can or will replace SpaceX just because Trump has fallen out with Elon. America is not yet Russia, where Elon would take a jump from a window or be found with 6 bullets in his head, as happens in every Kremlin routine suicide. True, Wall Street is agog with rumours that the Navy SEAL team that whacked Osama in his safehouse is now rehearsing for even a more secret mission than Zero Dark Thirty to silence Geronimo. Jokes apart, SpaceX is too crucial to US national security, the rocket launch program and Space warfare to do anything but nurture SpaceX and help it grow bigger and richer in the years ahead for my band of brothers and noble sister. SpaceX is gaining market share and key awards and neither Trump nor even Musk can do much to derail its meteoric rise to Silicon Valley superstardom. SpaceX just won a $6 billion contract for 28 rocket launch missions critical to US national security from Space Command. Blue Origin only won a $2.4 billion contract for 7 rocket launches. SpaceX is easily the largest, most reliable, most successful, most technologically advanced space contractor for Uncle Sam and the President can do squat about this cold hard reality. SpaceX is on a roll with the world's top governments and intel agencies apart from USG/Uncle Sugar. After all, SpaceX commercial launch revenue rose by an incredible 56%, the kind of growth I see in a snappy, nappy software unicorn rather than a 20 year old Valley golden oldy that mesmerizes and owns Space, the Final Frontier… Sadly for Trump, Elon is Captain James T. Kirk and naughty even though he gets to yell 'beam me up Scotty' when the going gets tough on FX deal making with President Xi in Beijing. SpaceX is already the most profitable commercial rocket launch business the world has ever seen and its growth curve is not yet over. The FAA allowed SpaceX a five fold increase in rocket launches from its Texas base, now rebranded and incorporated as the City of Starbase. The air war between Indian and Pakistan tell the world's heads of state/spymasters that air battles will be won or lost via satellite based command and control centers, which the Chinese PLA has perfected to an art form. So I expect SpaceX to get some multi-billion dollar mega contracts from India, which is miffed at both Trump and French electronic warfare technologies. So can SpaceX command a $500 billion valuation? To borrow Obama's slogan, yes we can! Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.

The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over
The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over

Gulf Today

time8 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over

There is no constituency for debt reduction, which is a fancy way of saying voters don't care that the federal balance sheet is roughly $37 trillion in the red — and growing. This simple fact of American politics goes a long way toward explaining why President Donald Trump, with the help of congressional Republicans, is pushing a sweeping reconciliation package of tax cuts and fresh domestic spending priorities that is projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the swelling federal debt. Politics is a service business and Trump and his Capitol Hill allies are aiming to please the customer. So they've loaded up the reconciliation package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with a series of crowd-pleasers — expansions of existing tax breaks plus some brand-new ones. Yes, there are spending cuts. The version of the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives and is now up for consideration in the Senate includes reductions to Medicaid and other budget line items. But there's nothing in the bill that results in a net decrease in the debt. Even the proposed changes to Medicaid face an uncertain future, thanks to GOP opposition in the Senate. That's because the sort of substantial spending cuts and programme reforms required to break Washington's addiction to borrowing would be wildly unpopular. For instance, any meaningful attempt to balance the books probably requires both raising taxes and overhauling Medicare and Social Security. That's not a recipe for winning elections. As concerning as the US debt load is becoming for bond markets and some finance titans (and the few fiscal hawks left in Washington), most Americans have more urgent concerns, said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has been surveying voters for more than 25 years. 'There's another issue hitting voters that's a bigger deal, and that's inflation,' he told me. 'When you're looking at an economic situation where there's something that's pressing people at a personal level, it's not that the deficit isn't important, it is. But being able to pay bills and deal with things on a weekly basis and keep up with all your costs takes precedence.' Winston is right — and that's not to mention the fact that so many voters are convinced the looming debt bomb can be diffused by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in government spending. But this isn't a new phenomenon. Voters generally, particularly on the left, have always found some reason or another for opposing legislation that asks them to participate in the solution to Washington's fiscal challenges. It's why tax hikes on the so-called rich are so popular and such an easy political message to wield. What has changed is the Republican Party and the voters it represents. Without question, Republican presidents prior to Trump were complicit in running up the debt. But in the pre-Trump era defined by President Ronald Reagan, fiscal responsibility and small government had currency with grassroots conservatives who formed the heart of the GOP base. But today's Republican base voters are different than their forebearers, courtesy of a Trump populist makeover. The 45th and 47th president over the past decade attracted legions of working-class voters to the Republican Party. For the most part, these newer Republicans are former Democrats who joined the GOP for cultural reasons; for instance, they passionately oppose abortion rights and support gun rights. Notably, they brought with them their preference for government safety-net programs and general lack of concern about the debt (qualities that have long defined grassroots Democrats). Simultaneously, suburban voters inclined to value fiscal responsibility generally, and debt reduction specifically, have drifted away from the GOP. The result is a Republican governing coalition much more enamored of government spending than it used to be and far less concerned about the federal debt, even though it has grown to more than 120% of the entire US economy — problematic to say the least. Brad Todd, a veteran Republican strategist in Washington and coauthor of The Great Revolt; Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, has closely monitored this electoral transformation. 'The voters who are additive to the coalition as a result of Donald Trump are voters who are not only comfortable with entitlements. They're wary of anybody that might cut them. One of the reasons these voters were not Republican for a long time is because they believed the Democrats' scare tactics on entitlements,' Todd told me. 'The realignment works both ways. Some of the voters Republicans have lost are upscale suburbanites who are fiscal conservatives.' 'Republicans tried to do privatised Social Security accounts; A to Z budgeting; baseline budgeting; line-item veto; balanced budget amendment,' he added. 'We've tried all those innovations, none of them resulted in winning elections. Culture does result in winning elections and so Donald Trump just came along and made the party about culture and not conservative economics.' David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service

Climate change sceptics and clean fuel shortage risk airline industry's decarbonisation target
Climate change sceptics and clean fuel shortage risk airline industry's decarbonisation target

The National

time12 hours ago

  • The National

Climate change sceptics and clean fuel shortage risk airline industry's decarbonisation target

The airline industry's central sustainability goal of net zero emissions by 2050 is at risk from the policies of climate change sceptics, such as US President Donald Trump. The rise of world leaders who support fossil fuels over renewable energy development and the scaling back of environmental regulations are 'obviously a setback', Marie Owens Thomsen, Iata's senior vice president of sustainability and chief economist, said. 'It does imperil success on the 2050 horizon,' she said. 'But I don't think it's going to reverse or halt progress, it will just slow progress. Now that's bad enough ... the 2050 deadline is coming furiously fast.' During its annual meeting in New Delhi last week the International Air Transport Association (Iata) nevertheless remained committed to the 2050 target date, despite airing escalating concerns about the cost, availability and insufficient government incentives for the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). This is not where we should be in 2025 ... there is no time for delay and no tolerance for government greenwashing and unnecessary cost increases Willie Walsh, director general, Iata Iata member airlines agreed in 2021 to target net zero emissions in 2050 based mainly on a gradual switch to SAF, which is made from waste oil and biomass. The aviation industry accounts for 2.5 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency. But it has come under increasing pressure from environmentalists to curb its carbon footprint amid booming air travel demand. While the amount of SAF produced will double to two million tonnes in 2025, that represents only 0.7 per cent of airlines' jet fuel demand, according to Iata's latest data. The average cost of SAF in 2024 was 3.1 times that of jet fuel, for a total additional cost of $1.6 billion, according to Iata estimates. In 2025, the global average cost for SAF is expected to be 4.2 times that of jet fuel. 'Another problem, which is related, is that oil is so cheap,' Ms Thomsen said. 'I think that also diminishes the sense of urgency that people have.' Oil prices will need to trade above $80 a barrel, or even above $100 a barrel, before there is pressure to create new energy markets, she said. Brent, the benchmark for two thirds of the world's crude, was trading around $66 a barrel on Sunday. Lower oil prices come amid Mr Trump's tariffs scheme, his calls to " drill baby drill" and a decision by Opec to hike crude output quotas. Iata estimates the cost of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 to be an enormous $4.7 trillion, or $174 billion a year. However, ramping up the production of SAF is 'entirely achievable' as there is sufficient feedstock and the technology is available to get started, Ms Thomsen said. The required SAF investments are comparable to the money governments had poured into developing previous new energy markets such as wind and solar, she said, adding that the funding can also be found by scrapping subsidies to the world's major oil producing companies. 'The world is subsidising large oil companies to the height of $1 trillion per year. With that money, if it were redirected in its totality, we could solve our energy transition in less than five years,' she said. 'The thing that is really missing is the courage and willingness to take on vested interests.' Sounding the alarm SAF production needs an 'exponential expansion' to meet the demands of the airline industry's commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, said Iata, which represents some 350 airlines, comprising more than 80 per cent of global air traffic. Airlines cannot achieve the target by themselves and require more urgent action from governments, manufacturers, airport operators and fuel suppliers, Willie Walsh, Iata's director general, said. 'These actions must be accompanied by ringing the alarm bells on SAF production,' he said at the Iata meeting in India. Iata's decarbonisation roadmap estimates that SAF will provide 65 per cent of the carbon mitigation needed in 2050. 'This is not where we should be in 2025. We have a quarter-century to get to net zero. There is no time for delay and no tolerance for government greenwashing and unnecessary cost increases,' Mr Walsh said. Top priorities In April Mr Walsh had warned that industry efforts to achieve net zero by 2050 were 'off track', but he said last week that any alteration of the target was no discussed at the airlines' meeting in New Delhi. 'The industry is still obviously targeting net zero in 2050 ... we are concerned about the pace of progress,' he said. The value chain that needs to support airlines' transition to net zero is not making sufficient progress, and 'that's the reason we're calling it out', he added. Poorly co-ordinated government actions are leading to SAF mandates in different countries that have done little to stimulate production but have instead led to additional costs to the airlines without environmental benefits, he said. The Iata boss said there was a narrow window for the industry to meet its goals. 'It is a wake up-call. We still have time to get there, but we do need to see more action on the part of all the partners in the value chain to make sure the industry can get there,' he said. As of 2025, some 81 airlines had signed 170 SAF offtake agreements, signalling to producers that there is strong demand for the green fuel, according to Iata. Many airlines are unable to procure SAF without having to ship it over long distances, which defeats the purpose of reducing emissions, Mr Walsh said. 'Waning enthusiasm' Four years after global carriers committed to net zero by 2050, the Iata meeting marked escalating worry among airline chiefs about tackling climate concerns. 'There's a level of scepticism and perhaps even you could say waning enthusiasm for the overall energy transition,' Patrick Healy, group chair at Cathay Pacific, said during a panel on financing net zero target. 'Everyone's realising it's a lot more complicated than we thought a few years ago ... but it's not a problem we can turn our backs on.' Iata forecasts higher profits for airlines in 2025, with a drop in revenue offset by falling prices for traditional jet fuel. Rob McLeod, head of energy risk solutions at Hartree Partners, called on airlines to use the savings from fuel costs to invest more in SAF to help fund the energy transition. 'Lower fossil fuel prices effectively make renewables seem more expensive, but to flip it on its head: all the airlines in the room are saving so much money on their fossil jet [fuel], you've maybe got a bit more in your budget to invest more in SAF,' he told a panel about the energy transition. Iata also criticised plane manufacturers that have failed to deliver new fuel-efficient jets on time, forcing airlines to keep older planes flying for longer. 'Aircraft and engine manufacturers must make good on their promises to bring greater efficiency and carbon-reducing technologies to market fast,' Mr Walsh said. 'By the time we meet next year, we must be able to show more progress.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store