General Motors Proposes A National Zero Emissions Vehicle Program

Mary Barra

OCT 26 2018 BY WADE MALONE 120

GM also proposes EV charging infrastructure investment and expansion of the EV tax credit

Early Friday, General Motors called for a nationwide zero emissions vehicle credit system. The company submitted to the government a proposal for a 7% ZEV requirement to begin in 2021, increasing 2% each year until 2030.

In an opinion piece by GM CEO Mary Barra in USA Today, she states: “We estimate this program has the potential to place more than 7 million long-range EVs on the road by 2030, while yielding a cumulative incremental reduction of 375 million tons of CO2 emissions between 2021 and 2030.”

On Oct. 26, 2018, General Motors will file comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. In its comments, General Motors proposes the establishment of a National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program to support a 50-state solution, promote the success of the U.S. automotive industry and preserve U.S. industrial leadership for years to come.

General Motors anticipates the NZEV program, as recommended, has the potential to place more than 7 million long-range EVs on the road by 2030, yielding a cumulative incremental reduction of 375 million tons of CO2 emissions between 2021 and 2030 over the existing ZEV program.

Quotes from Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac:

“General Motors has a vision of zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion. This is a bold vision and getting there will take bold actions.”

“We believe in a policy approach that better promotes U.S. innovation and starts a much-needed national discussion on electric vehicle development and deployment in this country. A National Zero Emissions Program will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emissions future.”

Program Elements
General Motors supports a nationwide program modeled on the existing ZEV program and provides these framework recommendations:

Establish ZEV requirements (by credits) each year, starting at 7 percent in 2021 and increasing 2 percent each year to 15 percent by 2025, then 25 percent by 2030.

Use of a crediting system modeled on the current ZEV program: credits per vehicle, based on EV range, as well as averaging, banking and trading.

Requirements after 2025 linked to path toward commercially viable EV battery cell availability at a cost of $70/kWh and adequate EV infrastructure development.

Establishment of a Zero Emissions Task Force to promote complementary policies.

Program terminates when 25 percent target is met, or based on a determination that the battery cost or infrastructure targets are not practicable within the timeframe.

Additional consideration for EVs deployed as autonomous vehicles and in rideshare programs.

In addition to the 50 state ZEV mandate, Barra calls for investing in charging infrastructure, renewing and expanding federal tax credit incentives, and providing regulatory incentives for U.S. battery suppliers.

The Detroit automaker currently has the Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt EV and Cadillac CT6 Plug-In available in the U.S. More EVs are expected from GM brands in the coming years.

GM is currently 1 year into their plan to launch 20 EVs within 5 years. The Chevy Bolt was a first step towards building affordable, profitable all electric vehicles.

The company expects EV profitability with their next electric vehicle platform in 2021. But uncertainty was created in government regulations and the market when the Trump administration announced their intention to fight the authority of the California Air Resource Board (CARB). The agency has a ZEV mandate that has been adopted by several other CARB states.

Why does Barra feel this is so important? She explains:

The stakes are high, and time is short. As U.S. companies like General Motors develop and deploy these technologies, governments and industries in Asia and Europe are working together to enact policies now to accelerate the shift to an all-electric future. We need further government and industry cooperation here in the U.S.

It’s simple: America has the opportunity to lead. Now is the time.

Source: Business Insider

Categories: Cadillac, Chevrolet

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

120 Comments on "General Motors Proposes A National Zero Emissions Vehicle Program"

newest oldest most voted

“On Oct. 26, 2018, General Motors will file comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.”

When was this Rule established?
What is the aim of this Rule?
Who else is also allowed to file comments to his Rule?
Perhaps Tesla could also file comments to this Rule?

A few months ago, it’s linked in the article:

1) Just a proposal so far
2) Trumps aim for this rule is to weaken efficiency standards and attack CARB -_-
3) Anyone could have filed a comment but the comment period ended last night.
4) Tesla usually does file a comment on these types of proposed rules but I don’t think they did in this case

2021 is 2.5 years away. Don’t we have a planetary emergency? Are all the ICE car maker CEOs misinformed? I don’t think so I think they are well aware of their responsibility, but don’t give a fkkk.

Why not begin gradually right now and increase by 2% each year?!? Vapor program? Greenwashing?
Maybe GM could show the way by starting to really MASS PRODUCE THEIR ONLY OVERPRICED BEV !!

Remember the EV1, remember this :

And selling the Bolt and Volt to their RHD markets.

Corporations think in money and short term. Saving the earth doesn’t fit in both dimensions. Putting a price on carbon emissions would solve this. Guy in white house has no clue – so sad!

Oh, he does — it’s just, he doesn’t care.

You’re giving him too much credit. He has no clue. Putting price on emissions is not a bad idea only if it doesn’t go to the government.

Those welfare bums just want to use the tax payers money like they did in 2009 with empty promises for 2012.
If the government is to subsidize charging infrastructure, the wise and economical move would be to make Tesla’ s powerful big network 10 times bigger and force companies to adopt/adapt their chargers.
Nearly 5000 superchargers in the US as we speak.

633 Locations with 5734 Stalls (America)

Well, the reason is obvious: since GM won’t have profitable EVs before 2021, of course they don’t want the program to get in effect before then…

(Apart from that late start, the proposal seems to be pretty much in line with CARB’s existing program.)

Or maybe it’s because emissions rules are already set through 2020, with the Cheeto man freezing CAFE requirements at 2020 levels for 2021 and beyond? So this proposal would “unfreeze” the freeze so to speak. Duuuuuh

Unprofitable EVs is just more BS from ICE car makers, ANY MODEL OF CAR built is small numbers will never be profitable. This is Economy of scale 101, and they are all well aware of it.
Little Tesla did it with a comfortable profit, and only one facility.
GM has ~100, VW~60, toyota~40, Nissan~35 etc.
Any Electric Corolla , Civic or Cruze at the same price than the ICE would sell by the millions.
The Leaf 1 was an adapted Sentra platform, the Bolt is a glorified Sonic.

“Any Electric Corolla , Civic or Cruze at the same price than the ICE would sell by the millions.”

And that is the point GM was talking about for having profitable EVs for their next platform. Profitable at the same price point as affordable ICE cars, below $30k.

Tesla even said they can’t make a profit yet on the $35k Model 3. So you think GM or anyone else could make a profit on a $20k electric Cruze?

Tesla had to pull out all stops to get to profitability. Did you notice there still isn’t a $35k Tesla model 3? If your idea of profitable is only cars greater than $50K than Tesla has done that this quarter. What about the other 80% of the market that sells for less than that?

GM was just mirroring the usual bla bla bla of Obama…. fake news.

I agree; when growth is driven by gov’t incentives, usually the results are below expectations.

Yes, Norway ev push is not working….lol.

Luca Bartolozzi just may be a Russian troll/bot. Check out the clued out comment.

That would explain it. President Obama was more dedicated to sticking to the truth that any other recent president, and the gulf between the Big Cheeto and him would put the Grand Canyon to shame.

Because GM cannot write laws or rules or their time-frames.

This was proposed by GM for the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks”.

The Trump administrations ridiculous SAFE vehicles rule would begin in 2021. If this is a part of the rules it would assist Tesla and GM in making even more money of the EVs they’re already planning to build at the expense of true anti-EV automakers.

So I don’t understand the antagonism on this proposal. Sure, it may not happen. But I would support this 100% if it did, wouldn’t you? More automakers and lawmakers need to speak up in support of this.

Why not start right now? Becuase we have a government that is anti-science and anti-progress. But in 2020 we hope to kick those a@-hats to the curb.

We have an opportunity to start in the current election, at least at the State level. No reason to wait until 2020 to vote the “rob from the poor to give to the rich” science deniers out of office!

Mary B., Please consider putting in some extra frigging charging infrastructure first. This is because all your slow charging Chevy Bolts, that start tapering quickly (above 55% SOC), are clogging up EVerything, by slow charging for your ride share services (Maven, Lyft, UBER, etc).

The limited DC FC infrastructure that currently exists, is already slammed, thanks to all the Bolts doing rideshare. Oh, and continue to keep lobbying to keep Tesla from selling in your GM Cabal States, like Michigan.

Hopefully Electrify America will be able to do GMs heavy lifting, when it comes to decent and widespread DC FC support.

Remember GM cuts all their own charging cords (clipper creek) at their Level 2 charging stations, at their Fool Cell Advanced Vehicle Technology center, and research facility, here in So. Cal.

GM already announced they are investing in charging infrastructure for their Maven Bolts, which in turn would reduce strain on the public fast charging stations. So GM is already doing what you just asked for. As for people using Bolts for Lyft/Uber, if they use fast charging stations, why is that wrong? They are paying for their charging one way or another (at the station or as part of their Bolt rental/lease). Quit yer boo-hooing.

His point is that it’s not quick enough. Problem is easily solved if free charging for Maven is only offered at Chevy dealers and GM install DCFC at the dealers. That will remove about 90% of clogging due to Bolts as well as having extra DCFC available when not used by Maven.

But then, there’s still free charging Leaf and i3 to deal with…

I’ll quit my “boo-hooing”, when GM isn’t still attempting to stall EV adoption, through is many twisted ways, that it has in the past, and currently is continuing to demonstrate through its convoluted and self serving lobbying efforts in Congress.

GMs Fool Cell actions speak to an industry that will attempt to delay EV adoption, to placate their Fossil Fuel Barrons ability to keep their existing successful OPEC business model continuing as long as inhumanly possible.

They are investing in charging infrastructure specifically for their Maven fleet.

Investing how much? Is it a real effort, at least as much as Electrify America (altho that’s a very long way from Tesla’s Supercharger network), or is it just a token effort?

They trying

What is the true strategic reason for GM to come up with this proposal now?

What situation does GM really want to achieve (or avoid) with this proposal?

7% for 2021 and 2% more each year till 2030 will happend with or without ZEV mandate.

But not for all brands and manufacturers. This way, they could sell credits to laggards like Ford and Chrysler and Toyota and Mazda and Subaru.

Selling credits just allows the laggards to continue to be laggards. If the price of the credits is high enough to make it hurt, only then will it encourage them to produce more EVs. I don’t see that happening with this proposal.

Since they are already making the expensive investments, they want competitors to be forced to do the same, or get penalised…

IMO, GM is asking for government cheese because it cannot make the transition to EV without going bankrupt. I think they should get the government cheese because we are all on the same planet. CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP EARTHLINGS CO2.EARTH

The proposal for right now? Today? Because the 2021 SAFE Vehicle Rules comment period ended last night. 🙂

By proposing it on the last day, they likely maximize their visibility with the public and with the administration.

By 2021 they will be making EVs profitably. They stand only to make *more* profits if a national ZEV credit is in place.

Discredited clowns what will they do when Trump is ejected. Deja vu on boarded up Sears and K marts. It may come down to Tesla and the Chinese make doing it all. I think the big 3 and thd German makes are going bankrupt and the Japanese companies are going to need bailouts. 9 companies in the way that will take huge hits.

GM wants this government cheese to avoid bankruptcy.

No. They want similar rules and standards globally, to help compete globally and not have to make different products for different markets. They also think they are ahead of many other brands and better prepared for this transition.

Exactly because without government cheese they go bankrupt. BELIEVE ME

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

“go bankrupt”


“Similar rules globally”? Other markets like Europe and China have already left this proposal in the dust, so by definition this proposal makes different products for different markets. They are not solving that problem with this proposal.

Why do you think the proposal is for after 2020? Becuase they know they gotta wait for Dems to take back the WH and Senate.

How about Americans stop subsidising pick up trucks and introduce a CO2-based tax? The more CO2 your car emits, the higher the tax per year.

That is too easy, Americans don’t like easy and vote for politicians that lie to them BELIEVE ME.

American trucks hardly emit any CO2 when tested to NEDC test cycle standards and even less when fitted with some clever software

Do you really believe that BS? Because if you do I challenge you to sit in a truck with engine running in an enclosed garage for 5 consecutive hours. All garage doors and windows closed, no bathroom breaks lol are you game Wade?

It’s true…with VW software they would be greener than evs.

We are trying to do that in WA with a voter initiative, but big oil is outspending the grassroots effort many times over.

That should be done without any incentive. Double the rate increase and start today.

“GM also proposes EV charging infrastructure investment and expansion of the EV tax credit”

How does GM want the EV tax credit to be expanded?
Perhaps by removing the 200,000 cap per car manufacturer?
Perhaps by changing the 200,000 cap into a 500,000 cap per car manufacturer?
Does GM maybe want to increase the amount of the EV tax credit from $7,500 to $10,000?

Details please

What’s a total cap that Tesla wouldn’t eat the majority of at this rate? If they government set the credit for the next 500,000 plug-ins starting in the second quarter of 2019, most other manufacturers would get scraps.

That’s fair, as Tesla has made the investment and they haven’t, but seems unlikely to really happen because there’s too many popular losers in that scenario.

Funny how certain entities accuse Tesla of supposedly running on taxpayer money… Yet Tesla is the one maker who pays for creating a charging network, rather than begging governments to step in.

Yes and Tesla probably created a far more cost effective charging network than the others. Now GM wants the general public to pay for their overly expensive public chargers? Still I hope GM goes all EV eventually, the sooner the better. The market will sort out who has cost advantages and who is too expensive.

The supercharger network alone isn’t large enough for true EV adoption. It works for the early adoption, but I guarantee 90% of Tesla owners have an ICE car when needed. When there are millions, 10’s of million’s of EV’s on the road there will have to be 3rd party charger owners. Even Tesla’s investments on superchargers have slowed relative to the number of vehicles they are selling.

Tesla, at least in theory, supports the build-out of its Supercharger network by diverting ~$2000 from every car it sells. There’s no reason GM can’t do the same. So long as a nationwide fast-charging network is built out at the same rate that new long-range EVs are sold, there shouldn’t be any problem with the network having enough capacity.

Of course GM could, but unlike Tesla, GM has no incentive to do so, because such a tiny percentage of GM’s sales are plug-in EVs. Therefore, building out such a network isn’t going to help GM’s sales to any significant degree, unlike Tesla’s sales.

But I still say that public superchargers should follow demand, not anticipate it, in the same way that demand for gas stations followed the increase of motorcar sales, rather than anticipating that. If GM is forced to build out a public EV charging network, then — just like VW’s Electrify America — they won’t have any incentive to maintain it.

We need for-profit public EV chargers, not subsidized ones. Only for-profit service companies will have any motive to keep the stations working, and upgrade them when necessary.

> I guarantee 90% of Tesla owners have an ICE car when needed.

Might be true in the US but not where I live (Norway).

Lol, knew it was only a matter of time before the GM FUD-trolls inserted their FUDdy bad opinions about this news.

If you are responding to antrik, what is FUDdy about his post?

So… when you write “FÜDdy”, you mean “Any opinion that’s not cheerleading and/or apologia for GM.”

They also created their own network that no one else can use. They could create a CCS converter if they cared so much.

Anyone can use their patents to build their own chargers if they just agree to help the SC system.

That Tesla SC agreement coming from the LICE OEMs, will probably happen soon.

I’m expecting it to happen on Nevuary 32nd, in EVery future coming year, continuing on obviously into perpetuity.

Tesla participated in the CCS development consortium, and only withdrew because the consortium dragged its feet with developing a charging format the Model S could use. Is it Tesla’s fault that they needed to put the Model S into production while the consortium was still dragging its feet?

Tesla invited all other auto makers to join in supporting and using its Supercharger network. Is it Tesla’s fault none of them chose to join?

It seems that some people want to blame Tesla for not supporting all EVs, no matter how hard Tesla tries to do just that.


“Early Friday, General Motors called for a nationwide zero emissions vehicle credit system. The company submitted to the government a proposal for a 7% ZEV requirement to begin in 2021, increasing 2% each year until 2030.”

7% in 2021?

That’s not ambitious at all.

Start in 2020 with 20%.

How about that?

This proposed requirement would be enforced in ALL states, not just the current 13 or so CARB states that adopted CA’s emissions rules. As it currently stands, the 37 non-CARB states don’t have to do jack to sell ZEVs.
I’m wondering whether, under this proposal, states (like CA) could still issue stricter mandates.

“Start in 2020 with 20%.

How about that?”

2021 because the 2020 rules aren’t up for debate or change. SAFE would begin in 2021.

Unfortunately 20% would not happen by 2020 in any timeline. You can propose something that ambitious, but the industry isn’t prepared for it. That’s literally impossible. So it would set the proposal up for failure from the start.

Wish that wasn’t the case though. 🙁

I don’t really have strong feelings about 2020 or 2021, but I do think any EV incentive program should at least aim for 100% EV in 2030.

Just more stuff that will not happen, along with GM building 20 new models of evs in 4 years, but at least it gets it out
into the conversation. Besides the ev revolution already has a leader, they are called Tesla, and attempting to steal their thunder, is just that.
GM has done jack for the ev revolution aside from supplying it lip service.
Funnily they admit that the Bolt does not make money, which everyone already knows, which is why only 40% of dealers carry it and they don’t promote or sell it world-wide. But, sure, lead from behind GM, that works.

Do you really doubt GM will come out with 20 EVs in the next 4 years? Come on, Mary Barra was speaking, not Elon. 😀

Talk is cheap, let’s see some products. Hopefully, these potential 20 new EVs are better than 30 mile hybrids like Caddy CT-6.

Nothing wrong with a 30mile PHEV. For many people that can mean 80%-90% electric miles. That’s a significant reduction in gasoline use.

Agreed, 30 miles is better than no electric miles at all. My point is that if GM is to produce 20 plug-ins, most of them should be pure electric.

Unlike Tesla, BMW, Porche, or VW – GM doesn’t need to announce products years in advance. I think they have enough street cred that they have the ability to do what they say.

Considering it takes about 4 years to design, develop, test, and produce a car, GM should be already in the middle of this cycle with at least half of the 20 new plug-ins. There is very little evidence that GM is working on that at the moment.

It’s not their ability to do what they say, it’s the time it takes to deliver on their promises.

GM can’t deliver on EV promises because they would go bankrupt, their dealers would go bankrupt and it would be a mess. The only way forward for GM and dealers is with government cheese to pay for transition to EV and remain in business.

My supposition is far beyond doubt it borders on absolute certainty.

I really do doubt that GM will put 20, or even 10, new EVs into production within the next 4 years with the aim to produce more of them than they are producing of the Bolt EV. Or even as many as the Bolt EV.

My guess is that the vast majority will be just more compliance cars, and if we’re really lucky, they may actually put one or two into production with the intent of making as many as they do of the Bolt EV, or — if we are very, very lucky — perhaps just slightly more.

I would love to be proven wrong, but GM did even less than I expected them to do with the Bolt EV. I expected them to at least make an effort to sell the car in substantial numbers in Europe, and they’re not even doing that! (Selling them at inflated prices thru Opel was obviously setting sales up for failure.)

Pushy wrote:

“I really do doubt that GM will put… even 10… new EVs into production within the next 4 years with the aim to produce more of them than they are producing of the Bolt EV.”

Clarification: I meant to say that I doubt GM will try to produce any single one of these new models in much more volume than the Bolt EV. I don’t doubt that all of them together will be made in more volume than the Bolt EV.

They are not talking specifically about evs, but ZEVs. I’m wondering if the vast majority of them will be Hydrogen.

Infrastructure could mean H2 filling stations.

Personally I feel this is a waste of time, but if Toyota and other large companies keep forcing the issue – they’ll make it work no matter how wrong headed it is. Of course then they’d have something for the Chinese in the future – which is supposedly Barra’s game plan. Since most vehicles will be sold in China, I can’t really believe them when they call GM an American car company.

They do not admit that the Bolt does not make profit. The quote used about their next EV making a profit, is often take out of context. The full context was about making a profit on an affordable EV at the same price point as an equivalent ICE. The context was also that they said people like EVs and want EVs, but do not want to pay a price premium over ICE for them.

Tesla begs to disagree – a lot of people pay premium for Model 3.

Yes but how many of those people exist? GM sells 10 million vehicles a year and I’m sure the median price is close to $25k for those vehicles.

In a few years, we will find out what the true demand for electric cars is. Right now, with the plug-ins representing ~2% of the market, it’s hard to judge. The price of batteries is slowly coming down and that should bring down the average price of an electric car. I’m optimistic.

Yes, but it competes with ICE cars in its price class, and is selling at $50k-$70k. Elon even said at Q3 earnings it would be impossible for them to make a profit on the Model 3 at $35k, currently.

Yeah that’s why they are at 200,000 right behind Tesla on the tax credits.

Give it a break on the GM bashing, it’s just not reality.

VW and GM are both angry that their ICE party is going to end.

“Government please help us”

Yes they want government cheese and I say give it to them because we are all on the same planet.

I’m a Tesla fan, and own a Bolt, have my own charging station powered with my own PA array. I think we need a standard charger criteria. No proprietary chargers. Just as there is a fuel standard for aircraft around the world, owners of EVs should be confident they can use any charger without danger to themselves or the vehicle.

What danger is exactly related to the different charging standards? I am aware of the hassle. But danger?

LOL, life is unpredictable and full of danger. I guess you could have a heart attack when your car is charging:)

PA? did you mean PV?

“a 7% ZEV requirement to begin in 2021, increasing 2% each year until 2030.”

There you can see it in action: the reason why the uptake of new technology is always underestimated. 99% of people are only capable of thinking linearly and thus extrapolating linearly.

The reality as we all know is that the uptake of EV’s will be exponential. So at fist the growth will be 2 percentage points per year, but increasing every year.

Like others have said: the 7% in 2021 will happen regardless of government intervention and the 2 percentage point growth rate is laughable. By that time it will be higher already.

7% total may happen by 2021, though I have my doubts, but this proposal would be for every manufacturer that sells vehicles in the US to be at 7% of sales by 2021. Or pay fines or trade with companies that have excess credits. Tesla fans should love this, as it would allow Tesla to sell all sorts of EV credits.

Shows they expect there to be a long drawn out legal battle between the Feds and CA, and are hoping to provide a solution to deflate the tensions. As a drawn out legal battle would be bad for an industry that needs predictability in the markets to plan for long term investments.

I like the proposal. I doubt the current administration will consider it, but it does set up the conversation for if/when we can kick the current clown out of office.

Remember, all these plans are limited but the availability of batteries.

EV battery supply will grow exponentially over the next several years. It will almost certainly lag a couple of years (or perhaps more) behind demand, but the economic forces of supply and demand can’t be simply ignored.

But in the near term, only Tesla and BYD will find themselves unconstrained by battery supply. The other auto makers will have to stand in line, unless they do what Tesla did: Spend billions to build out high capacity battery cell production at factories whose output is controlled by the auto maker, and not by the battery cell maker. And if another auto maker does that, it’s still gonna take at least two years to catch up with either Tesla or BYD. So far, I haven’t seen any auto maker announce any such plans. Volkswagen apparently is planning to — foolishly — pay the battery makers to build out factories which will be owned and controlled by the battery makers, and not by VW.

As I said in the other recent story: EV manufacturers don’t need to worry about owning a battery factory any more than they need to worry about owning a lithium mine. Owning a Gigafactory won’t mean much if there’s a global lithium shortage due to battery demand, and short of that, consumer EV demand is not likely to spike past the already-planned battery factory construction any time soon.

The only EV manufacturers to ever effectively have sales constrained by battery production are Tesla and Mitsubishi (Outlander PHEV), and both of them have shared ownership in their battery production supply lines. So…

I hear what you are saying, but I don’t think it’s the whole picture. For GM, they purposely limited their production of Bolts so that battery supply would not be a limiting factor. I think this applies to other mfr’s as well (Hyundai maybe). I think this is part of the reason why many have only introduced their EVs into limited markets (CARB states for example).

There are plenty of Bolts available all around the US, and I don’t know that their foreign Bolt production is “limited” any more than it is for any other GM car.

Yeah there supposedly are Ampera – Es available from Opel dealerships, yet I wonder how much of a markup Peugeot-Citroen puts on the ones they purchase from GM.

Just checked the Opel website – they sell the Ampera – E for Chf 53700 (Swiss)

If one didn’t know GM’s history, or know they are actively fighting the next set of CARB/CAFE regulations (that they’ve known about for years) then one may think the face value of their statements was good.
However, this is GM.
‘Nuff said?

Frankly, I can’t tell just what GM’s corporate strategy is here. (I mean its real strategy, not just what they’re presenting as a public plan.) Presumably they are trying to set a timeline for putting new EVs into production which will most benefit GM — not that there is anything wrong with that. (We wouldn’t expect GM to propose a timeline which would be of greater benefit to one of its competitors, now would we?)

What I can’t tell is whether or not this is just more delay tactics by GM. I think Arne-nl has an excellent point: What GM is proposing would support a linear increase in EV production, which does not represent real-world market growth in a disruptive tech revolution. Whatever the growth rate is, it should be exponential until EVs have at least 1/3 of the market, and perhaps more. (That is, it should follow the classic S-curve to the point that growth is self-sustaining and needs no more government mandate or incentives.) In that respect at least, this proposal certainly looks like more delay tactics.

One possibility would be that they are purposely trying to set the bar low, so that the competition won’t try too hard. That way GM could overachieve and look like the hero. Unfortunately for them, Tesla is the overachiever leaving them in the dust.

Tesla might be able to put 7 million EVs (cumulate) on the road by 2030 single handedly.
But I do agree that a coordinated charging infra-structure plan would be nice. If not plan arises, it will only increase the value to Tesla of the SC network.
This is starting to get interesting.

Too little, too late. By 2026 BEVs by other manufacturers, mostly Tesla, will have 50% of the new car USA market. No government mandate required. If GM can’t keep up they will fail again.


GM is the #2 EV manufacturer in the U.S. and it’s not really even close for #3. Who are the “other manufacturers” in your scenario that GM is trying to “keep up” with? Or do you imagine that everyone will have a Tesla in this future?

So she wants the government that is tearing down every environmental regulation to lead, if you want that you need to show it by taking the lead or joining with others to bypass the government hypocrisy.

” governments and industries in Asia and Europe are working together to enact policies now to accelerate the shift to an all-electric future. ”

True. The US is no longer the biggest auto market in the world, GM wants to succeed in the Chinese market, and the Chinese market is demanding zero emissions.

Why do I have the feeling if Elon made this proposal, that all the GM bashers in the comments thread would be absolutely gushing over how awesome Tesla is for proposing such a bold vision.

Try to be more EV fans and less attached to a single mfg.

Why are MBA’s so STUPID.
Tesla ALONE will put more than 10 million cars in America by 2030. In fact, I suspect that by 2026, they will be doing 2M / year just in America.

What she needs to pay attention to, is that ICE sales are going to plummet over the next 3 years. Ppl are not stupid. They can see that EV are taking over.

25% by 2030? pffft. Europe and China already have more aggressive regulations. By 2030 some countries will have 100% EV sales and 0 ICE, and many more by 2040. THAT is leading. This proposal is woefully short of “leading”

Well, if Trump didn’t listen to them about dumbing down mileage standards, what makes GM think he’ll listen to them on this?

The most interesting thing about this announcement is that GM is on record suggesting it. In the next administration, they can be reminded of it.

For 8 years they enjoyed the Fed’s $7,500 rebate and even if GM hits 200,000 mark in Q4, it will still be available until 2019-03. After that, still $3,750 will be available until 2019-09. This is more than enough. Its time for them to cut the price of the vehicle or just sell it in even lower volume. Its up to them.

Tesla has already proven that there is enough market for EVs. And why are they talking about Cadillac CT6 plugin, it’s nowhere in sight.
They put little effort to sell hybrid versions of Malibu/Lacrosse.

> she states: “We estimate this program has the potential to place more than 7 million long-range EVs on the road by 2030,

I think that is quite *astonishingly unambitious.*

In September here in Norway almost 50% of the cars sold were electric and the statistics show that this is not a sudden spike but a general trend. That is just under 5000 cars. Naively extrapolating to 2030 we have about 60 000 electric per year so in 12 years, by 2030, Norway might have sold about 720 000 electric cars. That’s in a country with a population of only 5 million. In the US with 330 million people if you were similarly ambitious we should expect something like 47 million electric cars sold by 2030.

This is the same old rhetoric repeating, apologists cry FUD when actual change to the status quo is brought up. Inevitably, that is following by “laggard” claims as distraction. It all comes down to GM not having targeted their own customers with Volt or Bolt. Who shops the showroom floor of a GM dealer looking for a compact car to purchase? GM’s audience is primarily SUV buyers; yet, all their SUVs offered are traditional still. GM’s plug-in hybrid tech should have been rolled out to a small SUV years ago; instead, there was an effort focusing on diesel. Both Cruze & Equinox diesels were offered post-dieselgate. Why? Now we see Trax & Blazer completing a full passenger SUV product-line, none of which offer a plug still. Why? GM offered Two-Mode an entire decade ago. It was even followed by a plug-in prototype SUV. Yet, all these years later, there is not a single green SUV offering… nothing with a plug or even just a hybrid option… despite so much praise for supposedly being the leader of legacy automakers. Now, we see an effort to downplay. Rather than make an effort to actually electrify their product-line, it’s just more token gestures.… Read more »

This is a publicity stunt for GM. GM makes great compliance plug-in hybrid vehicles. I have had the Chevy Volt for the last 3 years and it’s a great vehicle, very dependable. To think that GM is going to go all in with electric vehicles is wishful thinking. General Motors and Volkswagen tells you what they want you to hear not what you need to hear.