Survey Shows Auto Dealers Still Annoyed With Biden EV Strategy

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

A recent survey, conducted by Automotive News, has indicated that automotive dealerships are still broadly dissatisfied with the Biden administration’s strategy to force the United States to pivot toward all-electric vehicles. According to the 2024 Dealer Outlook Survey, 83 percent of respondents said the government was pushing the transition toward EVs too quickly and mucking up the auto market.


The survey incorporated answers from 208 dealers and dealership managers and the majority agreed that the Biden administration had negatively affected their businesses in 2023. Roughly 55 percent also agreed that having EVs on the lot were actually generating negative interest in the lineup.


"Our roads and electric grid, let alone consumers, just aren't ready as fast as the current administration wants," explained one respondent.


Others likewise said that it should be the market driving EV sales, not pressure from the government. 


From Automotive News:


A top concern was the EPA's proposed limits on vehicle tailpipe pollution for 2027-32 model-year cars and light trucks — a regulatory move that, if finalized, could result in battery-electric vehicles making up two-thirds of new-vehicle sales by 2032, according to the agency's projections.
Thousands of dealerships have urged President Joe Biden to reconsider the proposal — which could be finalized as soon as March — arguing it would mandate an unrealistic shift to solely battery-powered vehicles before the market and infrastructure are ready.
"Electric vehicles are exciting. They're definitely overall a good impact for our customers and for the environment, but it's moving too fast," said Michael Lucki, general manager of Riverhead Mazda in New York. "It should be driven by consumer demand, and consumer demand isn't there yet."


The collective dismay was probably best reflected in the question: “Is the Biden administration pushing the industry to move too fast on EVs?”


That query saw an overwhelming majority (83 percent) say yes. Only 8 percent of respondents said no, with 9 percent claiming they were unsure. About half of all dealerships also said they never bothered to register with the IRS to more easily facilitate EV tax credit exchanges. However, about half of those said they at least planned to in the future so customers could get their government refund immediately. 


While the Biden administration has a stated goal of seeing half of all new vehicle sales by electric by 2030, it’s technically prohibited from issuing formal mandates requiring what people can use their money to buy. However, it can encourage federal regulators to implement policies so rigid that the industry is required to build EVs in greater numbers and that has been its preferred tactic.


As you undoubtedly know, the automotive sector has spent the last few years patting itself on the back for going along with the scheme and similar programs implemented in Europe. Electric automobiles have, for whatever reason, been framed as a moral good by both industrial and government actors. But the public has remained broadly hesitant to climb aboard the bandwagon as the downsides of EV manufacturing became more apparent.


The industry has likewise had trouble fielding electric vehicles with broad appeal. Luxury-minded electrics are simply too expensive for most people to afford and the more pedestrian models have been seen in the news for battery fires and botched product launches. Some of that is undoubtedly the result of the media landscape trying to draw in eyes. But it’s being reflected in slowing sales, as the electrified segment looks to be approaching market saturation.


That said, sales volumes haven't been great in general and quality control looks to have gone down across the board since 2019. Combustion and electrified vehicles have both seen a drop in consumer satisfaction. Meanwhile, inflationary pressures, caused by excessive government spending and plain-old corporate greed, are forcing average buyers downmarket.


As for dealers, there’s some amount of disagreement as to what’s holding EVs back. Some have argued it’s simply a lack of infrastructure, while others have claimed battery driven vehicles simply don’t work as well for the typical customer. Many stores also don’t want to shell out large sums to refit their facilities in the manner some automakers claim would be mandatory if they want proper EV allocation.


Rising MSRPs were also a concern, with many noting EVs tend to trade at prices far higher than their combustion-driven counterparts and are likewise worse at holding their resale value. That issue was exacerbated by provisions (e.g. Section 30D) issued by the federal government designed to help localize electric vehicle production and ensure wealthy shoppers (who tend to buy more EVs) weren’t being overly advantaged. There are ironically fewer vehicles that actually qualify for government subsidies now than when the U.S. still used production quotas.


"EVs are definitely not a want of our guests today. Who's going to pay that kind of money for that type of vehicle when the infrastructure isn't available?" stated Mike Aus, dealer principal of Durango Motor, which sells Ford, Lincoln, Kia and Toyota vehicles out of Colorado. "Until the prices of them come in line with normalcy, they're going to continue to sit there."


[Image: ZikG/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 162 comments
  • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Feb 02, 2024

    "They should first electrify that border wall."


    I kinda got a chuckle out of that meme.

    • Jeff Jeff on Feb 02, 2024

      Electrifying the border wall would be shocking.


  • if it were up to the luddites we'd still ;;;


    have leaded gas

    no seat belt laws

    smoke on airplanes

    don't let women vote


    as it is dealerships and 'top salespeople' are the literal scum of the earth so NFG, go cry all you want dealers ...

  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
  • Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.
Next