Latest news with #RhodiumGroup
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Climate: U.S. Clean Energy Investment Boom Is Winding Down
Current Climate brings you the latest news about the business of sustainability every Monday. Sign up to get it in your inbox. getty The Biden years saw the sharpest increase in U.S. investment in clean energy and clean transportation in the country's history, creating the potential for sizable future progress toward reducing climate-warming emissions and creating tens of thousands of new jobs in the process. The good news is that 2025's first quarter saw solid growth in that space, up 6.9% from a year ago to $67.3 billion, according to data compiled by the Rhodium Group and MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. The bad news is it's probably the year's high-water mark. That's because the budget bill making its way through Congress, if passed in its current form, eviscerates federal support for renewable energy, electric vehicle tax credits and EV charging infrastructure–and all the jobs they've created. Though the quarterly figure rose year over year, it was down 3.8% from the final quarter of 2024, according to the study's authors. Still, clean investment activity accounted for just under 5% of overall private investment in structures, equipment, and durable consumer goods in the first quarter. Most of the gains in the quarter came from consumer spending on things like heat pumps and electric cars. In fact, it would have been stronger had it not been for Tesla's 9% sales drop in the period, even as overall electric vehicles posted an 11% sales gain. However, there was a notable drop in new investments in utility-scale clean power and industrial decarbonization tech, which fell 7.7% from a year ago. New utility-scale solar and battery power projects remained relatively stable, but new industrial decarbonization projects plunged to $79 million in the quarter from $16 billion a year earlier. Additionally, six clean technology manufacturing projects worth about $7 billion were canceled in the first quarter. The controversial 'One Big Beautiful Bill' passed the House by a single vote. If it's not significantly revised in the Senate, the outlook for expanding clean energy gets pretty ugly as the year unfolds. We're once again seeking nominations from founders, policymakers, investors, organizers, artists, scientists and others driving meaningful impact in climate and sustainability efforts around the world. Is this you or someone you know? Sign up here: Sustainability Leaders 2025 Deadline for nominations is 9:00am ET on Friday, June 13, 2025. Courtesy of Rivian Automotive Achieving net zero, or the reduction or off-setting of greenhouse gasses to as close to zero as possible, by 2050 will cost nearly $300 trillion (about 7.5 percent of global GDP annually, on average), according to research by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Not achieving it, though, could cost double that, according to global reinsurance company Swiss Re. 'If we understood that alternative more, the benefits of climate leadership would be more clear, and the markets would be pricing in these risks and these opportunities,' says Vit Henisz, vice dean of the ESG Initiative at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Not addressing emissions, Henisz says, would incur costs 'bigger than the great financial crisis, bigger than the housing crisis, bigger than the dot-com crisis.' To identify which companies have performed best in reducing or offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, Forbes partnered with data providers Sustainalytics and Morningstar to create the third annual Net Zero Leaders list. Roughly 15,000 companies were evaluated for their efforts to achieve their net-zero targets within three ways in which a company can affect greenhouse gasses: emissions within the company's direct control, such as using energy to manufacture a product (known as Scope 1); emissions from purchased energy (Scope 2); and lastly, supply-chain emissions as well as emissions released from consumer use of the company's product (Scope 3). Firms are also assessed on how much of the emissions are managed by the company, their organizational preparedness, governance and financial strength to withstand challenges. At the top of this year's ranking are three electronic vehicle (EV) companies: Lucid Group at No. 1, followed by Rivian and Tesla. (Lucid and Rivian jumped to the top of the list after not even appearing on it last year.) The reason for EVs' dominance is strong Scope 3 emissions performance, says Alex Osborne-Saponja, Sustainalytics' director of ESG methodology and climate solutions. 'Essentially, their product use is close to zero, and we only expect that to continue as they invest in the manufacture of electric vehicles.' Read more here Patrick McMullan via Getty Images What's your take on how the clean energy space will fare if the budget bill passes with its current language that eliminates federal incentives for solar power? This is a big topic of discussion all around. It's really kind of two, two prongs. I think the first is there's a full-on hardcore press with the Senate to get them to do something that's more rational. The good news is Trump has said he wants to sign something by July 4, and the debt ceiling hits in August. So this whole thing is going to be resolved before then. It's really just kind of madness for the next month or two, and then we should have some form of resolution. We've been talking throughout [the process] with Republicans in the House, and they've all said that where it ended up is kind of crazy. But they all voted for it. I think the conventional wisdom, which I am choosing to agree with, is that the House just punted on the issue. They felt the pressure just to get something out, kick it over to the Senate, and now they know the Senate is going to come back with a bunch of issues that are different–and more kind of favorable to the IRA. Then the real reconciliation process is going to have to happen. So all that groundwork is what everybody's doing now. I'm going to DC to lobby a few senators, bringing some of the portfolio companies we've invested in. We're putting a lot of money into Pennsylvania, so we're bringing one of our CEOs from the Pennsylvania solar farms we're developing, hoping to meet Senator McCormick and his staff. We've invested in a geothermal company in Texas, XGS, and we're bringing the CEO of that company. Hopefully, we're going to meet with one or two of the Republican senators. That lobbying is going on everywhere. We hope everyone feels we get some positive movement. The overwhelming amount of IRA spending for factories and everything is going into red districts, so there's just the basic economic self-interest of Republicans in those districts. … You have to believe people who believe in rational economic policy, trade policy, tax policy, would somehow come out. They've been awfully quiet so far. But all the discussions we've had, and we're talking to senior Republicans in leadership, they all get it. If the bill were to pass in its current form, I think the answer I'd want to give, which is actually what I believe, is it would just slow down what's happening. It doesn't get in the way of any trends, because 90% of everything built last year was wind, solar and battery in the United States. Everything that was built globally was wind, solar and battery. … Why solar and wind coupled with batteries? It's cheaper, it's cleaner, and it's faster to deploy. That's why there's so much distributed solar going on, which we're very focused on. That's not going to change. Solar is cheaper than gas now on an unsubsidized basis. If all the tax credits are gone, it totally screws up the industry, because you've got guys who are developing projects based on a 30% or 40% [Investment Tax Credit]. A lot of those deals would just are no longer financeable because of what people are going to pay for the assets. So a lot of deals will die. Do startups die if all federal incentives for clean energy go away? It's certainly not good for anything that's dependent on the incentives to get down the cost curve. I was at the Department of Energy when we were having to finance, the government was having to give loans, for utility-scale wind and solar projects because they were out of the money. It cost 20 cents to produce it. For the first offshore wind, the offtake agreement was 25 cents a kilowatt hour. It was too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and they were untried technologies, so people had to get comfortable, but it was too expensive. Wind and solar are now the cheapest, so they're fine. What needs that help are things like nuclear power certainly, and that's kind of under threat too, although they're trying to figure out how to keep some money going for that. But geothermal, hydrogen, nuclear, all those are out of the money and they're the ones that need the tax incentives to get down below the cost curves. So they're the ones that are going to suffer, those technologies. Hurricane season is upon us, but NOAA and FEMA are not ready. The turmoil at key U.S. agencies threatens everything from forecast quality to storm recovery. (Yale Climate Connections) The EU is nearly on track to reach its main climate target for this decade. The European Commission said the region is on course to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions by 54% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels–just shy of its legally-binding goal of a 55% cut (Reuters) Li-Cycle's quest to recycle lithium-ion batteries ends in bankruptcy. Its collapse is one of many setbacks plaguing the nascent battery recycling sector. (Canary Media) States, environmentalists sue Trump over billions in funding freezes for EV charging (Inside Climate News) Tesla sweetens lease deals for new Model Y Juniper, looking to boost sagging sales (Forbes) Global forest loss hit a record last year as fires raged. Forests around the world disappeared at a rate of 18 soccer fields every minute, a global survey found (New York Times)
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Going to increase prices on everybody': US energy department workers sound alarm over cuts
Workers at the US Department of Energy say cuts and deregulations are undermining the ability for the department to function and will result in significant energy cost hikes for consumers. Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will raise energy costs for American households by as much as 7% in 2035 due to the repeal of energy tax credits and could put significant investment and energy innovation at risk, according to a report by the Rhodium Group. The non-partisan thinktank Energy Innovation calculated the average US household will see its utility bills rise by over $230 by 2035 as a result of cuts to renewable energy investments. The rises are being driven in part by cuts to the agency. Trump has proposed cutting the department's budget by $19.3bn. More than 3,500 employees at the Department of Energy have reportedly taken delayed resignation buyout offers, though the Department of Energy declined to provide final numbers or an estimate on the departures. Some 43% of its workforce of nearly 16,000 employees was deemed 'non-essential', not including 555 probationary employees that were fired earlier this year. Related: Trump's safety research cuts heighten workplace risks, federal workers warn The US Department of Energy announced on 12 May plans to eliminate 47 regulations, comprising mostly of energy efficiency standards for appliances, claiming the cuts would save nearly $11bn, but did not provide any analysis or data for how it came to that savings estimate. The Department of Energy estimated in December 2024 that stronger energy efficiency appliance standards would save consumers about $1trn over the next three decades. An analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project found the energy efficiency cuts would add $54bn in utility energy costs. 'The impact of a lot of what I was working on in the energy efficiency and electrification space is aimed at saving folks money. The business case around energy efficiency has been made for the past 30 years. Reducing the cost of energy, any of those fixed costs for folks, can really be life changing, freeing up their budget for other necessities,' said a US Department of Energy employee who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation as they have accepted a resignation buyout offer. 'Changing that has so many effects down the line,' they added. 'We already know things are getting more expensive. Budgets are getting tighter for many households in the state, and also territories and tribes. The work that I did was not only with states, but also with us, territories and tribes as well, and a lot of these communities, every dollar matters, and that's not unique to red or blue areas or anything like that.' Another employee at the US Department of Energy said morale at the department sank after attacks on civil servants by the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) and the chaos and uncertainty of the firings of probationary employees, contractors, and employees resigning, leaving a drain on resources, talent and knowledge throughout the agency. 'Appointees came in with a clear agenda to dismantle programs and shrink staff,' they said. 'It is very clear they don't care about the work or the workforce. Many were looking to score points with Doge and made quick cuts without concerns for long-term damage, such as the chaos and lost knowledge caused by the delayed resignation program.' It is very clear they don't care about the work or the workforce. Many were looking to score points with Doge US energy department employee A former senior Department of Energy official who requested to remain anonymous explained the totality of the cuts to personnel, grants, regulations and budget for the department are 'going to increase prices on everybody'. 'As much as the election was on affordability, there's a reason that Trump is doing incredibly poorly on affordability and inflation. I think what's happening at the Department of Energy is just such a great example of a whole variety of efforts that near-term, medium-term and longer-term are going to raise prices on consumers, on companies, and make us less competitive internationally,' they said. 'The efficiency regulations end up saving consumers an awful lot of money, certainly as a percentage of their budget. I don't think there is any truth whatsoever, if you talk to anyone who's ever done analysis and rigor on this, that somehow not doing these regulations is actually saving money. It's the exact opposite if you think of the whole system.' They also criticized the fact that many of these actions will result in lawsuits and legal changes, and the negative impacts of research and development cuts to renewable energy. They cited the demand for energy to power emerging AI and data centers and energy consumption is expected to rise significantly and wind, solar, and battery energy storage are relatively quick and cheap to construct. About 96% of added US energy capacity to the grid in 2024 was from carbon-free sources. Related: 'So many are devastated': Trump's federal firings and their ripple effect 'If you stop any research for next generation solar or battery technology, or wind or geothermal or other pieces, what you're effectively doing is compromising a huge range of technology that has the potential to reduce costs, and of course, has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But even if you don't care about that, these are the technologies that could reduce costs for consumers,' they added. 'The chaos with the tariffs, with the regulations, with the not fully thought through and analyzed nature of this is just causing a lot of confusion, a lot of incoherence, a lot of inconsistency and uncertainty. And that's just not good for businesses, let alone consumers.' A spokesperson for the US Department of Energy refuted claims of costs due to eliminating regulations. 'President Trump and Secretary Wright pledged to restore commonsense to our regulatory policies and lower costs for American consumers – that is exactly what these deregulatory actions do. To argue consumers benefit from being forced to purchase more-expensive, time-intensive products that are often less energy efficient because they don't do the job right the first time is total nonsense,' they said in an email. 'DOE's approach recognizes that consumer choice and market-driven innovation, not bureaucratic mandates, lead to better-performing and more affordable consumer products. DOE's deregulatory actions empower consumers to choose products that meet their needs and budgets, while also supporting American manufacturers.'
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
‘Going to increase prices on everybody': US energy department workers sound alarm over cuts
Workers at the US Department of Energy say cuts and deregulations are undermining the ability for the department to function and will result in significant energy cost hikes for consumers. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will raise energy costs for American households by as much as 7% in 2035 due to the repeal of energy tax credits and could put significant investment and energy innovation at risk, according to a report by the Rhodium Group. The non-partisan think tank Energy Innovation calculated the average US household will see its utility bills rise by over $230 by 2035 as a result of cuts to renewable energy investments. The rises are being driven in part by cuts to the agency. Trump has proposed cutting the department's budget by $19.3bn. More than 3,500 employees at the Department of Energy have reportedly taken delayed resignation buyout offers, though the Department of Energy declined to provide final numbers or an estimate on the departures. Some 43% of its workforce of nearly 16,000 employees was deemed 'non-essential', not including 555 probationary employees that were fired earlier this year. The US Department of Energy announced on 12 May plans to eliminate 47 regulations, comprising mostly of energy efficiency standards for appliances, claiming the cuts would save nearly $11bn, but did not provide any analysis or data for how it came to that savings estimate. The Department of Energy estimated in December 2024 that stronger energy efficiency appliance standards would save consumers about $1trn over the next three decades. An analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project found the energy efficiency cuts would add $54bn in utility energy costs. 'The impact of a lot of what I was working on in the energy efficiency and electrification space is aimed at saving folks money. The business case around energy efficiency has been made for the past 30 years. Reducing the cost of energy, any of those fixed costs for folks, can really be life changing, freeing up their budget for other necessities,' said a US Department of Energy employee who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation as they have accepted a resignation buyout offer. 'Changing that has so many effects down the line,' they added. 'We already know things are getting more expensive. Budgets are getting tighter for many households in the state, and also territories and tribes. The work that I did was not only with states, but also with us, territories and tribes as well, and a lot of these communities, every dollar matters, and that's not unique to red or blue areas or anything like that.' Another employee at the US Department of Energy said morale at the department sank after attacks on civil servants by the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) and the chaos and uncertainty of the firings of probationary employees, contractors, and employees resigning, leaving a drain on resources, talent and knowledge throughout the agency. 'Appointees came in with a clear agenda to dismantle programs and shrink staff,' they said. 'It is very clear they don't care about the work or the workforce. Many were looking to score points with Doge and made quick cuts without concerns for long-term damage, such as the chaos and lost knowledge caused by the delayed resignation program.' A former senior Department of Energy official who requested to remain anonymous explained the totality of the cuts to personnel, grants, regulations, and budget for the department are 'going to increase prices on everybody'. 'As much as the election was on affordability, there's a reason that Trump is doing incredibly poorly on affordability and inflation. I think what's happening at the Department of Energy is just such a great example of a whole variety of efforts that near-term, medium-term and longer-term are going to raise prices on consumers, on companies, and make us less competitive internationally,' they said. 'The efficiency regulations end up saving consumers an awful lot of money, certainly as a percentage of their budget. I don't think there is any truth whatsoever, if you talk to anyone who's ever done analysis and rigor on this, that somehow not doing these regulations is actually saving money. It's the exact opposite if you think of the whole system.' They also criticized the fact that many of these actions will result in lawsuits and legal changes, and the negative impacts of research and development cuts to renewable energy. They cited the demand for energy to power emerging AI and data centers and energy consumption is expected to rise significantly and wind, solar, and battery energy storage are relatively quick and cheap to construct. About 96% of added US energy capacity to the grid in 2024 was from carbon-free sources. 'If you stop any research for next generation solar or battery technology, or wind or geothermal or other pieces, what you're effectively doing is compromising a huge range of technology that has the potential to reduce costs, and of course, has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But even if you don't care about that, these are the technologies that could reduce costs for consumers,' they added. 'The chaos with the tariffs, with the regulations, with the not fully thought through and analyzed nature of this is just causing a lot of confusion, a lot of incoherence, a lot of inconsistency and uncertainty. And that's just not good for businesses, let alone consumers.' A spokesperson for the US Department of Energy refuted claims of costs due to eliminating regulations. 'President Trump and Secretary Wright pledged to restore commonsense to our regulatory policies and lower costs for American consumers – that is exactly what these deregulatory actions do. To argue consumers benefit from being forced to purchase more-expensive, time-intensive products that are often less energy efficient because they don't do the job right the first time is total nonsense,' they said in an email. 'DOE's approach recognizes that consumer choice and market-driven innovation, not bureaucratic mandates, lead to better-performing and more affordable consumer products. DOE's deregulatory actions empower consumers to choose products that meet their needs and budgets, while also supporting American manufacturers.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia is in constant 'cat-and-mouse game' with US regulators
Nvidia (NVDA) released its highly anticipated first quarter earnings report after Wednesday's closing bell, rounding out the Magnificent Seven's earnings season. Ahead of the earnings release, the Trump administration released an order for US suppliers to halt shipments of AI chip software to China. The chip stock continues to get a lift in extended hours trading after beating first quarter revenue estimates — $44.1 billion vs. estimates of $43.3 billion — while bans on chip shipments to China dragged down the company's earnings per share to $0.81 (below estimates of $0.93 per share). Rhodium Group Director Reva Goujon comes on Yahoo Finance's Nvidia earnings special to speak further on the United States' export controls on AI semiconductors and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang's relationship with President Trump. Also catch Benchmark Company's Cody Acree full interview with Yahoo Finance on Nvidia's business in China and whether it can overcome new trade barriers. When video like most chip makers has struggled with geopolitical concerns, tariff policies and global marketplace risk, our next guest is a geopolitical strategist who works with businesses and governments to help mitigate risk. Reva Gujan is the director at Rhodium Group. It's a research and advisory firm focusing on global challenges and data analysis. Reva, it is great to see with always. So let me get your take Reva on on this Nvidia report and specifically Reva, what do you make of of what they're telling us about business in China? Uh, well, they are certainly lamenting declining business in China due to the H20 ban. As we know, Jensen referred to that as a deeply painful hit, um, affecting some 15 billion in potential sales of the China market. So obviously they're not thrilled about that. Um, but it was a long time coming, right? And Nvidia is also trying to use a lot of momentum in the moment from Trump's overhaul of the Biden era AI diffusion rule, which opens up third markets, uh, for Nvidia to to deploy its GPUs while still closing off China. Um, but they're trying to use that momentum to also push for a broader easing of chip controls on China directly. There are just a lot of reasons why I don't think that latter part is going to happen. Well, and Reva, Nvidia continues to try to sort of get around these export controls. There's been reporting that it's developing another chip to ship into China, although it did say in a filing today that it might be unable to uh, provide and create that product that would be a competitive one in China. Do you think it does succeed in sort of getting around the the rules as it has been? It's tough. I mean, there is a cat and mouse game between BIS regulators at Commerce on the one hand and Nvidia on the other. Of course, Nvidia is going to be the prime target under scrutiny for the design of any potential controls. And so, you know, with this, the the kind of variant of the Blackwell chip for the China market, um, from what we can tell, right, they have designed it to strip down the memory bandwidth by more than half compared to the original H20. Um, they designed this without any advanced coOS advanced packaging technology. Um, so it's a stripped down, uh, chip and it is going to come at a discount, but you, this is where you also have Huawei, um, with a competitive edge, um, offering discounted chips, um, that are also are going to be at higher performance. Reva, you know, President Trump right now does seem to be a fan of Jensen Wong. You saw them in the Middle East together. That's a nice place for Jensen to be. I'm wondering how you think Jensen Wong maybe could try and and capitalize on that relationship, capitalize on that friendship, Reva. Well, it's, uh, it's a mixed bag, right? There are a number of tech influencers surrounding the president, um, and he's hearing from from all of them, but there are also lines being drawn. And I think the message here, um, for a company like Nvidia and others is focus on the X China market for your growth, right? Don't bank on on that market for your future that, you know, AI infrastructure build outs have to happen all around the world. Um, Jensen has taken this message globally of this idea of AI sovereignty and he wants Nvidia to be at the epicenter of those build outs. Uh, from a policy perspective, the White House agrees and says, you know, this is the time to lock in those AI infrastructure dependencies so that it's US-made and design chips and US hyperscalers that are are leading these build outs globally, but not in China, right? And so, so that's the catch here. So whenever you're looking at any one of these tech influencers, there's always going to be, um, some give and take on on how far that influence actually goes. Stay tuned for Yahoo Finance's special live coverage of Nvidia's first quarter earnings here, beginning at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28. Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
27-05-2025
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
GOP tax bill could make EVs more expensive, hit auto sector
A Republican-backed tax and spending bill passed by the on Thursday aims to roll back federal clean energy incentives - a move critics warn could raise costs for consumers and derail investments in Georgia's burgeoning electric vehicle and battery industry. The GOPbill, backed by President DonaldTrump, targets provisions in then-President Joe Biden's signature climate and health bill, known as the Inflation ReductionAct. These include the $7,500 federal tax credit for buyers of EVs largely manufactured in North America,production tax credits formanufacturers of EVs and batteries, and funding for EV charging stations. The bill, which will now be debated in the Senate and could undergo changes, also includesa new annual fee for electric vehicle and truck owners that would make buying and owning an electric vehicle more expensive. Georgia is among states that led in the number of jobs created - and expected to come - in clean energy since the Inflation Reduction Act passedin 2022,according to researchers at the Rhodium Group, an independent research provider that combines policy expertise and data-driven analysis to help decision-makers navigate global challenges. The manufacturing tax credits and incentives for buyers have spurred U.S. investment, with Georgia being one of the epicenters with about 38,000 created and promised jobs. Kia committed more than $200 million and the creation of more than 200 jobs at its West Point plant to accommodate assembly of the company's EV9 SUV. Meanwhile, Hyundai's Metaplantnear Savannah, which is producing the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 9 models, is a more than $7 billion investment the company has promised will eventually employ 8,500 people. EV upstart Rivian plans to build a manufacturing site nearSocial Circle, east of Atlanta. Some industryleadersand observers, however, are warning the policy shift could slow project rollout. Albert Gore III, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which represents many EV and battery manufacturers, said companies may "reassess the scale and the pace of their investments in the United States." U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., called the tax and spending bill "a win for China's economy and a loss for Georgia workers." China is a top EV manufacturing nation and the country, like many advanced economies, is adopting electric vehicles at a far faster pace than the U.S. "Georgia has been a national leader in creating clean energy jobs, particularly with new battery and electric vehicle supply chains coming to our state's rural communities," Warnock said in a statement, calling the legislation "a non-starter for me in the Senate." Fully electric vehicles produce no tailpipe emissions, reducing harmful exhaust that pollutes the air and contributes planet-warming carbon to the atmosphere. The IRA took an existing U.S. EV tax credit and narrowed criteria to qualify to vehicles that are predominantly made inNorth America to encourage reshoring of jobs and investment. Biden had campaigned in 2020 on expanding EV adoption in the U.S. But Hyundai Chief Executive Officer Joseph Muñoz previously told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that "(c)onsumer preferences - not politics or government politics - dictate Hyundai's business decisions." The automaker has said it decided to build an EV factory in the U.S. during Trump's first term, and announced it would build the facility in Georgia shortly before passage of the IRAin 2022. Because of new criteria in the IRA, EVs made by Hyundai and other automakers lost eligibility. Vehicles it makes in the U.S. now get at least partial credit. Hyundai has never invested in the U.S. based on incentives, Muñoz said previously, instead focusing on the market opportunity. Hyundai and Kia representatives were not immediatelyavailable for interviews. Gov. Brian Kemp's office also emphasized the "market-based approach" Georgia takes on economic development. A spokesperson told the AJC that thanks to the state's efforts, "the e-mobility space was already growing in Georgia before the federal government's intervention." Kemp "vocally opposed the Biden administration's decision to not only pick winners and losers but also to impose counterproductive mandates that disadvantaged Georgia-based auto manufacturers and disincentivized organic consumer adoption of electric vehicle," the spokesperson added. Subsidy repeals could deter consumer demand for electric vehicles, Cox Automotive Director of Industry Insights Stephanie Valadez Streaty said. Cox Automotive, like the AJC, is owned by Cox Enterprises. Cox Enterprises also has about a 3% stake in Rivian. EVs made up about 7.5% of total U.S. new vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2025, per data from Cox Automotive, and the figure is growing, though not as fast as many industry observers expected. That's in part because of fears over range and charging away from home and because of persistently high interest rates for vehicleloans. EVs also generally have higher sticker prices. In the short term, Streaty said, sales might grow as consumers look to buy electric vehicles before incentives go away. But in the long term, she said, there might be negative consequences because of price premiums on EVs. A survey of dealers conducted by Cox Automotive in the second quarter of 2025 revealed that "a majority of auto dealers feel the tax credits are having a positive effect on the market." One independent dealer commented in the Cox report that consumers appear worried about limited infrastructure for electric vehicles and "fear of plummeting value and inability to repair anything but the simplest of issues," among other things. Kevin Ketels, an associate professor of supply chain management at Wayne State University, said electric vehicles are expensive as is. To keep advancing the industry, he said, there needs to be a wider portfolio of vehicles that include lower cost EVs with fewer features than the expensive models on the market. "If we discontinue the incentives in order to develop and roll out this technology, it's going to happen at a much slower pace, and we're going to fall behind the rest of the world," he said. The U.S. is already lagging behind China in creating EV manufacturing processes and supply chains, he added. Although current incentives largely benefit affluent customers, "if we give more time and there are more government incentives to make this transition, I think it would benefit less affluent customers in that situation," Ketels added. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
