New Jersey to Require 35% Electric Vehicle Sales by 2026

[Rick73]

Outspoken CEO Carlos Tavares is saying what other CEOs are probably thinking but prefer to remain quiet to avoid political backlash against their products.  Basically, final say is with voters who also happen to be auto buyers. 

 

While recently speaking with members of the press, Carlos Tavares noted  “There are two important elections next year — the European Parliament elections in June and the U.S. elections in November. It could be that politics will be different then,” and “One of my tasks is to prepare the company for new framework conditions. We have plans prepared for this.”

 

And on his views for success for EVs: “We have seen the importance of EV subsidies: When Germany and Italy stopped them, there was an immediate drop in demand. EVs have to be affordable, they need the right charging network density, and they need more range. We’re not there yet on range—to get rid of range anxiety, EVs need to travel 400 miles on a charge. They can be made artificially affordable with subsidies, or the automakers can absorb the extra cost.

 

“We are talking about a very strong change in the direction of the industry. We can’t simply put this new world on top of the old world; it’s a complete transformation. The technology for EVs means that our production costs are 40% higher than for an internal-combustion car. We can’t just pass those costs on to consumers because we would lose half of our customer base. We can’t stop the middle class from having access to new cars. So because of regulations we have no choice but to absorb that 40%.

 

“EVs that can get to a reasonable 400 miles of range add 1000 pounds of weight [compared to a similar internal-combustion vehicle]. That is not sustainable—there are too many kilograms of raw materials. So the industry is fighting against this overweight, looking for chemistries that are more efficient. The next generation has to double the power density of batteries, making them with less cost, a smaller carbon footprint, and fewer raw materials. Did automakers underestimate the level of raw materials that would be needed? Yes, is the honest answer.”

 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

The relationship between government and automakers was described perfectly by Aaron Robinson of Car and Driver.

This seems different in my opinion because the added cost is much higher.  If Tavares is correct and EVs are roughly 40% higher, making new BEVs unaffordable to many in the middle class, something will have to give.

[Rangers09]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Correct, there’s no reason why Ford couldn’t go full bore with hybrids that reduce fuel usage in a wide variety of products sold every day. Offering buyers more choices and let them decide what level of electrification they want. Reaching the majority of buyers is where change is possible, it also makes good business sense to educate the majority on how good electrification can be.

 

As a PHEV owner, I'll suggest that rather than educating on how good electrification is, the real benefit of the PHEV is providing an opportunity for potential BEV customers to gain 1st hand experience with both the pros and cons of an electric vehicle, but still having the engine available, when required. In the general media and also this forum, you have both extremes of opinion regarding BEV's, so prior to purchasing our PHEV, it was very difficult to get a balanced opinion, especially from actual users. Prior to purchasing the PHEV, I did considerable research, having a reasonable idea of the pros and cons, but knowing the engine is always available, is a huge benefit.

 

We have owned it now for 6-months and are extremely happy with our choice. The actual positives and negatives of electric driving are about what we expected, with the pros more positive than expected and the cons more negative. The biggest gain in the pros column is the regen braking. This feature is just way more comprehensive than putting power back into the battery when you touch the brakes. Anytime your foot comes off the accelerator, the car is charging the battery, without touching the brakes. On our 2-week road trip, I drove the 40 miles from the ferry home with the engine in normal operation. Even using the engine, once you take your foot off the accelerator and/or brake, the car is charging the battery. In 40 miles, we had sufficient power to use electric for the final couple of miles. Note - this was not hybrid operation using the engine to charge the battery, this was straight ICE operation, with regen braking charging the battery.

 

I have learned, and am still learning new techniques to maximise the range and/or maximising the efficiency when the battery is low. An example is that in city driving we received a greater charge in hybrid mode than when hybrid driving on a motorway at constant speed.

 

Negatives are mostly around range and charging availability. I expected the range to be reduced in winter, as cold batteries are not as efficient as warm ones. However, even with our temperatures, the range was reduced by about 40% just from temperatures around 0C/32F. Once use of heated seats and steering wheel are added, the range drops by about 50%. This is considerably more than I expected. However, Ford's posted range of 37 miles is well below the 50 miles we get in the summer time.

 

Therefore, I agree that Ford should be offering PHEV/Hybrid options for each model, as per our experience, it is best way to  educate customers on the pros/cons of electric vehicle operation, with respect to their needs and uses. As a PHEV owner, we are now more likely to purchase a BEV, but only when they address the limited range, charging infrastructure and charging times. Probably 10 - 15 yrs, at least, before we consider a BEV, but will definitely purchase another PHEV. 

[rperez817]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

If Tavares is correct and EVs are roughly 40% higher

 

The figure Tavares mentioned may have been correct years ago, but not anymore for any automaker who is serious about implementing totally different strategies and approaches to designing, engineering, manufacturing, and producing BEV. Stellantis N.V., the company Tavares leads, is one of those automakers and presented this data in its Dare Forward 2030 presentation back in 2022.

 

[Rangers09]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

So from a business standpoint (customer demand not being considered at this point) are you going to put a limited resource into a product that doesn't have that much upside profit wise or a product that will have a much bigger margin in the future?

 

That is why you saw the push towards EVs and also don't discount the press overplaying the whole EV thing just like they are overplaying the slow down at the moment. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Everything I learned in business is the customer is always the first and primary consideration. Conducting any think tank or planning without considering the customer is a futile exercise.

 

When you have a limited resource, you build what the customer wants in the short term, while developing plans for what the customer may want in the future. Building and selling what the customer wants now generates the profit to help develop future products.

 

Since BEV's are currently selling poorly and have no short term profit expectation, surely the best option is to build more PHEV's/hybrids that the customer is currently purchasing in larger numbers and Ford may be at least breaking even, or making a small profit.

[rperez817]

17 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:

Since BEV's are currently selling poorly and have no short term profit expectation, surely the best option is to build more PHEV's/hybrids that the customer is currently purchasing in larger numbers and Ford may be at least breaking even, or making a small profit.

 

In the U.S. market overall and in the CARB Section 177 states in particular (all green or blue colored states shown in the map below), for all automakers as a whole BEV easily outsells PHEV. This has been the case since at least 2015.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by rperez817

[Rangers09]

13 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

In the U.S. market overall and in the CARB Section 177 states in particular (all green or blue colored states shown in the map below), for all automakers as a whole BEV easily outsells PHEV. This has been the case since at least 2015.

 

 

As a Ford customer for 50 yrs, on a Ford forum, and not being American, I personally don't care about US sales, as a whole. However,  I will watch with interest when Ford's November numbers are published and fully expect PHEV/Hybrids to outsell BEV's, again.

[Rick73]

32 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

The figure Tavares mentioned may have been correct years ago, but not anymore for any automaker who is serious about implementing totally different strategies and approaches to designing, engineering, manufacturing, and producing BEV. Stellantis N.V., the company Tavares leads, is one of those automakers and presented this data in its Dare Forward 2030 presentation back in 2022.

How can we know that when automakers like Ford, GM, Stellantis, Hyundai/Kia, BMW, Mercedes, etc. may be subsidizing BEV higher cost with ICE/hybrid profits?  And that is not sustainable longer-term because as percentage of BEVs increases and ICE/hybrids decrease, the cost penalty will kill ICE demand also.

 

In my opinion all-electric (100%) manufacturers are a better guide on where we stand on costs today, and most all of them are quite expensive, including Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, Polestar, Fisker, etc.  The only models I’m aware of that are somewhat affordable from these manufacturers are the Tesla Models 3 and Y; and I’d argue that a Tesla Model 3 is much more expensive than a comparable Accord or Camry.  Without subsidies, maybe 40% higher for Model 3 is not too far off.  Just saying cost parity may be many years away.

[rperez817]

43 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Tesla Model 3 is much more expensive than a comparable Accord or Camry.  

 

That's true Rick73, but Model 3 is in the compact executive car segment, not the mainstream family sedan segment. Here is a list of products in the former segment (U.S. market) along with base pricing for each.

• Tesla Model 3 RWD, $40,630 
• BMW 330i, $45,495
• Mercedes-Benz C300, $46,000
• Audi A4 40 TFSI, $42,295
• Lexus IS300 RWD, $42,885
• Infiniti Q50, $43,800
• Acura TLX, $41,245
• Alfa Romeo Giulia, $44,670
• Volvo S60, $43,095
• Genesis G70, $40,525

 

[Rick73]

23 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

That's true Rick73, but Model 3 is in the compact executive car segment, not the mainstream family sedan segment. Here is a list of products in the former segment (U.S. market) along with base pricing for each.

• Tesla Model 3 RWD, $40,630 
• BMW 330i, $45,495
• Mercedes-Benz C300, $46,000
• Audi A4 40 TFSI, $42,295
• Lexus IS300 RWD, $42,885
• Infiniti Q50, $43,800
• Acura TLX, $41,245
• Alfa Romeo Giulia, $44,670
• Volvo S60, $43,095
• Genesis G70, $40,525

 

 

Good point.  I do not disagree, the Tesla 3 may not be 100% comparable to Accord or Camry, at least on image; but to Carlos Tavares’ point, is the Model 3 which is about the cheapest BEV from dedicated electric manufacturer affordable (desirable) to median-household-income family?  Tavares is probably correct that true BEV costs would eliminate a significant portion of “average” buyer.  It’s not just comparing the vehicle cost, but also that higher-income families tend to have more vehicles, and are more likely to live in homes with garages where overnight charging is made easier.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Teslas are luxury cars? Not with quality that would make pre bankruptcy GM and Chrysler blush!

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

How can we know that when automakers like Ford, GM, Stellantis, Hyundai/Kia, BMW, Mercedes, etc. may be subsidizing BEV higher cost with ICE/hybrid profits?  And that is not sustainable longer-term because as percentage of BEVs increases and ICE/hybrids decrease, the cost penalty will kill ICE demand also.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rangers09 said:

 

Everything I learned in business is the customer is always the first and primary consideration. Conducting any think tank or planning without considering the customer is a futile exercise.

 

When you have a limited resource, you build what the customer wants in the short term, while developing plans for what the customer may want in the future. Building and selling what the customer wants now generates the profit to help develop future products.

 

Since BEV's are currently selling poorly and have no short term profit expectation, surely the best option is to build more PHEV's/hybrids that the customer is currently purchasing in larger numbers and Ford may be at least breaking even, or making a small profit.

 

Your missing the point I was trying to make-up until recently, demand was showing that EVs sales where going to keep increasing exponentially like they have been. As for your BEV costs-your not wrong but your also wrong to assume that EV manufacturing pricing won't come down making it easier to make a profit off them. 

 

There has been a whole host of things that have happened over the past year or so that has dampened demand and that isn't worth rehashing at this point. 

 

What is happening "short term" is already cemented in place-there is no easy/cheap way to undo plans that where set into motion 2-3 years ago...so whatever EVs are coming are still coming and whatever changes in ICE products are already set into motion. Thing that are coming 4-5 years from now  can be adjusted as needed. Then add in that CAFE might be increasing significantly between now and 2032, EVs will be the primary answer to meet that goal.

 

https://rollcall.com/2023/08/01/gop-readies-fight-against-new-fuel-economy-standards/#:~:text=The proposed Corporate Average Fuel,mpg in model year 2032.

 

[akirby]

EV sales were destined to plateau at some point just due to cost and infrastructure.  Some people just refused to believe that.  There are too many limitations right now for them to continue to grow exponentially.  Inflation just hastened it.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

You can’t force buyers to buy a certain type of vehicle.  You can only control what’s manufactured or what gets shipped to each state not what people buy.

 

The best strategy for mfrs is to develop EV technology and infrastructure while expanding hybrids and cutting back (but not stopping) ICE programs.  Nobody knows where the market will be in 10 years despite what the politicians and environmentalists say.

At the moment, Ford and other manufacturers don’t know what the market will be in two years time, let alone ten years. Ford’s  grandiose predictions of 2 million annual electric vehicles by 2026 have hit the trash bin as it takes a breath. Keeping in mind that when those predictions were made, the market was in a different place before all the rate rises and financial pressure on consumers.

 

Agree, they shouldn’t  be forcing people to buy certain types of vehicles but in saying that, manufacturers have to be mindful  that CAFE fuel targets continue to tighten each year and BEVs offer the perfect solution for them. I’m hopeful that common sense will prevail and long for the days when politics doesn’t overshadow everything.

Edited November 30, 2023 by jpd80

[rperez817]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:11 PM, Rick73 said:

is the Model 3 which is about the cheapest BEV from dedicated electric manufacturer affordable (desirable) to median-household-income family? 

 

Using the “20/4/10” rule for maximum car spending (20 percent down payment, a 4-year loan and total monthly spending for the loan and insurance of at most 10 percent of the household gross income), the median household income family in the U.S. as a whole wouldn't be able to afford a new Model 3. However, there are many locales in which the median household income is higher than the national average, enough where a median income family could afford a Model 3.

 

New Jersey has a lot of locales like that, particularly in the northern and central parts of the state.

Edited December 1, 2023 by rperez817

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Using the “20/4/10” rule for maximum car spending (20 percent down payment, a 4-year loan and total monthly spending for the loan and insurance of at most 10 percent of the household gross income), the median household income family in the U.S. as a whole wouldn't be able to afford a new Model 3. However, there are many locales in which the median household income is higher than the national average, enough where a median income family come could afford a Model 3.

 

New Jersey has a lot of locales like that, particularly in the northern and central parts of the state.

Thanks for estimate rperez817.  It confirms what I anticipated; that regular families shouldn’t be buying $41K vehicles.  Some could make it work, but most median-income families can probably spend their budget more wisely elsewhere.

 

Anyway, when a manufacturer like Tesla can’t subsidize BEV costs with ICE profits, the MSRP is probably a better indication of how cost competitive that vehicle actually is.  And on that point, did you see Cybertruck reveal and subsequent information today?  The top Cyberbeast” variant goes for $100K and has range of 320 miles (I presume city rating).  The regular AWD goes for $80K and has 340-mile range.  The more-affordable RWD variant will go for $61K with 250 miles of range, but won’t be available until 2025.  These prices suggest to me that Lightning may be much more expensive to manufacture than their MSRP would suggest.  Without government or internal subsidies, some (many) BEVs are likely not presently very competitive on price.

[jpd80]

Around 18 months ago Ford let slip that the Mach E cost $25,000 more to produce than a comparable Ford Edge.

Even though lithium prices have eased, that’s a lot of weight in the saddle that’s being passed onto buyers.

 

 

https://www.carscoops.com/2022/06/rising-material-costs-mean-the-ford-mustang-mach-e-is-no-longer-profitable/#

Edited December 1, 2023 by jpd80

[muffin1]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:02 PM, Joe771476 said:

It won't happen. Gov. of CT just nixed the vote on a 2035 mandate. Manufacturers and even governments are slowly but surely abandoning these EV's and mandates. Finally some sense!

N.J. State Senator Paul Sarlo says it won't happen, to ambitious in its present form;

 

https://www.roi-nj.com/2023/11/29/politics/sarlo-new-car-ev-mandate-by-2035-is-not-happening/

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, muffin1 said:

N.J. State Senator Paul Sarlo says it won't happen, to ambitious in its present form;

 

https://www.roi-nj.com/2023/11/29/politics/sarlo-new-car-ev-mandate-by-2035-is-not-happening/

 

Thanks for sharing that news clip from New Jersey muffin1. It's very disappointing that Senator Sarlo thinks Advanced Clean Cars II is "too ambitious in its present form". CARB was deliberately conservative in setting the benchmarks and stated that year 2035 for 100% ZEV new light vehicle sales represented the "sweet spot" when factors such as automaker and supply chain readiness, infrastructure, etc. were taken into consideration.

 

Some elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and companies like Tesla criticized the Advanced Clean Cars II benchmarks as not being aggressive enough. California regulator sees 2035 EV mandate as 'sweet spot' | Reuters

 

"We had to be cognizant of where the automakers are, where the supply chains are, where the production facilities are," California Air Resources Board (CARB) chair Liane Randolph told Reuters in an interview during Climate Week, a summit that takes place alongside the U.N. General Assembly.

"I feel like we landed at the sweet spot."

California was not as aggressive as some environmental groups wanted, or Tesla (TSLA.O), which urged ending new gas-powered vehicles by 2030.

 

[Rick73]

42 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thanks for sharing that news clip from New Jersey muffin1. It's very disappointing that Senator Sarlo thinks Advanced Clean Cars II is "too ambitious in its present form". CARB was deliberately conservative in setting the benchmarks and stated that year 2035 for 100% ZEV new light vehicle sales represented the "sweet spot" when factors such as automaker and supply chain readiness, infrastructure, etc. were taken into consideration.

 

Some elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and companies like Tesla criticized the Advanced Clean Cars II benchmarks as not being aggressive enough. California regulator sees 2035 EV mandate as 'sweet spot' | Reuters

 

 

 

 

In all fairness, Tesla has a vested interest in BEVs, and therefore any policy that mandates them faster, so their support means very little.  It would be expected regardless.

[muffin1]

14 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thanks for sharing that news clip from New Jersey muffin1. It's very disappointing that Senator Sarlo thinks Advanced Clean Cars II is "too ambitious in its present form". CARB was deliberately conservative in setting the benchmarks and stated that year 2035 for 100% ZEV new light vehicle sales represented the "sweet spot" when factors such as automaker and supply chain readiness, infrastructure, etc. were taken into consideration.

 

Some elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and companies like Tesla criticized the Advanced Clean Cars II benchmarks as not being aggressive enough. California regulator sees 2035 EV mandate as 'sweet spot' | Reuters

I believe Sarlo was talking about the timeline for infrastructure to be able to handle, not whether Advanced Clean Car tech was or wasn't going to happen just when was the right time IIRC from the article.

[ZanatWork]

I'm seeing/hearing about a lot of customers that tried EVs, and went right back. They weren't impressed, and I can't blame them. I've seen far more articles regarding range disappointment and inconsistent charging experiences than not.

Mandated changes, especially ones that cherry-pick the science involved, always make me rebellious. When it involves cars, the thought of just updating a couple of good 1971 Fords/Mercuries to more modern brakes/ignition/etc gets increasingly tempting.

[rperez817]

48 minutes ago, ZanatWork said:

I'm seeing/hearing about a lot of customers that tried EVs, and went right back. They weren't impressed, and I can't blame them. I've seen far more articles regarding range disappointment and inconsistent charging experiences than not.

 

S&P Global Mobility found that the loyalty to fuel type rate for EV (that is, an EV owner getting another EV including from another brand) among mainstream brands was 52.1% in July. Among luxury brands, the loyalty to fuel type rate was 72.6%.

 

The latter has hovered around 70% since Q1 2022.

[Rick73]

58 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

S&P Global Mobility found that the loyalty to fuel type rate for EV (that is, an EV owner getting another EV including from another brand) among mainstream brands was 52.1% in July. Among luxury brands, the loyalty to fuel type rate was 72.6%.

 

The latter has hovered around 70% since Q1 2022.

That is very interesting data.  Thanks for posting rperez817.

 

Any chance they have it broken down by EV brands being traded?  I assume that cars being traded would have been around at least a couple of years on average, which would make a large percentage of them be Tesla based on previous sales.  I also assume Tesla makes up the dominant “luxury” data which begs the question whether 70% loyalty is based on “Tesla” or on “luxury”?  Without data by brands it’s hard to say because Tesla has had such a major role in EV sales for years that it probably skews results.

Luxury BEVs probably also have greater range on average, charge faster, and may play role of 2nd or 3rd vehicle more often in wealthier families with home garages that facilitates charging, etc.  If you have more data by brand that helps explain this 50% vs 70% difference I’d love to see it.

 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, ZanatWork said:

I'm seeing/hearing about a lot of customers that tried EVs, and went right back. They weren't impressed, and I can't blame them. I've seen far more articles regarding range disappointment and inconsistent charging experiences than not.

Mandated changes, especially ones that cherry-pick the science involved, always make me rebellious. When it involves cars, the thought of just updating a couple of good 1971 Fords/Mercuries to more modern brakes/ignition/etc gets increasingly tempting.

 

There is also a lot of FUD and information biases with EVs...I see it from random social media postings, but the vast majority of people seem to lack any ability to digest any information given to them either.

 

Then add in all the dis/misinformation with special interest groups that are pro and anti EV and you got what we have.