MemberSeptember 13, 2021 at 10:30 am
What Bob said! This shouldn’t be about “either/or” – it should be about “both/and”.
The issue isn’t about the Bill being “anti-Aptera” – because, in truth, there IS no Aptera – yet: The company is a start-up that’s still in the earliest stages of vehicle development. Larger, established auto makers have a greater likelihood of successfully producing under-$40K EVs: Look, for example, at how many under-$40K Model 3 vehicles Tesla has produced and sold as compared to, say, Chevy Bolts.
As to the Bill pandering to the UAW, the rebate isn’t tied to Union-built vehicles – there’s an ADDITIONAL rebate if the EV is Union-made. Consider the number of workers who will lose their jobs as auto makers shift to EV production: Engines, transmissions and fuel systems require many part to be manufactured, assembled and installed while electric motors, batteries & battery packs and power electronics are mostly built by machines/robots. And there’s nothing saying that Aptera couldn’t choose to become a Union shop.
The only reason the Bolt was/is “affordable” is because most of it is built in and shipped from LG in Korea: LG provides the motor, the battery, the drivetrain, the HVAC system and the electronics to control it all. The body and interior were designed by GM Korea (working with LG) and are now produced in the US. GM is large enough to take a loss on the Bolt to keep the price down: Compare it to other small EVs that are built and shipped to the US from Korea – the Kia Niro and Hyundai Kona – both of which are priced over $40K.
Disparaging the current administration for not doing enough is disingenuous as they are, at least, doing something – unlike the previous administration which toiled to undo what had already been done, to “turn back the clock”, as it were. Could they do more? You betcha – but will Congress allow the Bill in its current form to become law? Prolly not – items like subsidies are used, historically, as bargaining points.