Get ready to uncover the real reasons behind a surprising trend: nearly half of U.S. electric vehicle (EV) owners are thinking about going back to gasoline or internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. We are joined by Tom Pyle from the Institute for Energy Research (IER), as we dig into the primary issues driving this shift. From unexpected charging challenges to higher costs and limited practicality for long trips, you'll gain a comprehensive understanding of why EVs are lingering longer on dealer lots and why some manufacturers are rethinking their fleet electrification plans.
We explore the broader implications of governmental regulations on the auto industry and the coalition efforts promoting consumer choice and less government intervention. We highlight the diverse responses from consumers and manufacturers to EV adoption hurdles, including battery expenses and the burgeoning used EV market. You'll hear how industry giants like Toyota are pivoting in response to these challenges, underscoring the necessity of market-driven decisions in the automotive sector's technological evolution.
We discover the unique obstacles faced by rural Americans who depend on ICE vehicles for their livelihoods, and the broader economic impacts of potentially mandatory EV shifts. We delve into the emotional ties to traditional car brands and the financial realities automakers face in the EV market. This episode provides a critical look at how automakers are reevaluating their all-electric ambitions and what this means for the future of the automotive industry.
To learn more about the Auto Care Association visit autocare.org.
To learn more about our show and suggest future topics and guests, visit autocare.org/podcast
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome to Auto Care On Air, a candid podcast for a
curious industry.
I'm Stacey Miller, vicePresident of Communications at
the Auto Care Association, andthis is Traction Control, where
we chat about recent news fromthe global to the local level
and what it may mean to theindustry, featuring guests on
the front lines.
Let's roll.
The headline we're talkingabout today is almost half of US
(00:38):
EV owners are planning toreturn to gasoline or ICE
vehicles An absolutelyastounding headline after all of
the hoopla over electricvehicles, forced electric
vehicle adoptions, mandates,subsidies coming straight out of
McKinsey and Company.
So this new study found thatthose most familiar with the
costs and benefits of EVownership and those who were
(01:01):
enthusiastic about the earlyadoption were having second
thoughts, and some of thosereasons were being they didn't
have the greatest experienceswith charging higher than
expected costs, especiallylong-term costs of the electric
vehicles, and limited utility,especially for long trips.
That range anxiety is cominginto play.
So there's an average time thatelectric vehicles are sitting
(01:25):
on their dealer lots which isincreasing and has become almost
twice as long as the averagetime for the internal combustion
engine vehicles.
Car dealers are asking theBiden administration to back off
of its forced march to compelbuyers to choose electric
vehicles.
As sales suffer and, as you cansee in additional headlines,
manufacturers have been steppingaway from commitments to
(01:47):
electrify their fleets, at leastin the near term.
So today, with me, I've gone tothe Institute for Energy
Research, who is really involvedin the issue.
They're advocating for a freemarket for energy and we're
going to talk to them todayabout what this means.
Where did we go wrong and howcan we rectify?
What's going on with electricvehicles and what steps might we
(02:08):
have missed in the road toelectric vehicle adoption of the
Institute for Energy Research,the IER, and its advocacy arm,
the American Energy Alliance,aea, where he develops the
(02:32):
organization's free marketpolicy positions and implements
education efforts for key energystakeholders, including
lawmakers, agency officials,industry leaders, consumers and
the media.
Prior to joining IER, tom heldnumerous positions in the
private sector and on CapitolHill.
He also managed the Departmentof Energy on the Presidential
Transition Team forPresident-elect Donald Trump.
Welcome Tom.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, thanks so much for having me.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
We love having you here on Auto Care On Air.
I'm so excited for this podcastbecause we really want to bring
a new perspective to somethingthat has been in the media for a
long time but it continues tomake headlines, and that is
electric vehicles and Americandrivers' preference for them,
which seems to have gottenreally excited.
We got to a peak Everybody wasbuying electric vehicles.
(03:14):
We were mandating that folkswere buying electric vehicles
and now we're starting to seethat adoption slow, which is
really curious and throwing someindustries for a loop,
including my industry, theautomotive aftermarket.
But before we dive in, I wantto dive into a little bit about
you, tom, and a little bit aboutthe IER.
So tell me a little bit aboutthe Institute for Energy
(03:35):
Research, what you do and what'simportant to you guys.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So we've been around for a long time.
We started out as a little tinynonprofit in Houston and about
17 years ago now I took over theorganization.
We moved it to Washington,beefed up its national presence.
It really is what we call athink tank, but our focus is
narrow.
It's on energy andenvironmental policy and how it
(03:58):
impacts consumers, businessesand markets, both nationally and
globally, businesses andmarkets both nationally and
globally.
So we're sort of a watchdog, ifyou will, sort of keeping an
eye on what the policies, what'shappening in town, and we try
to get it to a point where weexplain it to people in an
(04:19):
easier way so they canunderstand what the implications
of the policies are and how itimpacts them, and then let them
choose to engage in the processwith all that with their arm,
with that information thatthey're able to be better
informed as consumers, asbusinesses, et cetera.
So that's kind of how Idescribe us.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
I love what you said about being informed and letting
people choose.
That's very in line with whatwe represent here at the Auto
Care Association choice andindependence, and the vehicles
that you drive and how youmaintain them.
Policy and regulations forenvironmental.
That's a really complex world.
What brought you here and why?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
So I started out in college.
I thought I wanted to be alawyer and I started working at
a law firm just to get a jump onit and spent a little time
talking to the attorneys at thefirm and they were strongly
encouraging me to think aboutother options.
And so I stumbled intoWashington on Capitol Hill, did
(05:16):
some internships in college andI got the bug, got involved in
energy environmental policy fromthe very beginning, worked on
Capitol Hill, like I said, fornumerous positions, but also
ended up in leadership in theHouse of Representatives, which
was very eye-opening and reallyjust expanded my horizons and my
(05:36):
ability to see how the wholeprocess works and how to impact
change.
And then I got some privatesector experience.
After that and about five yearsinto that, this organization
reached out to me and I knew itwas exactly what I wanted to do,
because I wanted to be able tomake an impact and make a
difference without having to belike in that lobby world where
(06:00):
you're focusing on narrowlegislation or trying to, you
know, kind of, get this fixedthere and get that fixed there.
I really wanted to be workingfor an organization that was
speaking truth to power, talkingabout how these issues impact
real people and helping peopleunderstand just how these
policies, how big of an impactthat they have on our lives, and
(06:22):
probably nowhere lately anyway,has there been a bigger impact
than in this issue space withrespect to choice, vehicle
choice and things like that.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Absolutely.
I mean, when I first came intothis industry, talk about being
thrown into the deep end andgoing to Capitol Hill and
learning about how the sausageis made.
So they say it.
It's really confusing,especially for a regular driver
like myself.
If I try to explain what I'mdoing to my family, it can be
really difficult.
So policies, regulation,legislation even for our members
(06:56):
it can be a lot to handle.
So having organizations likeours there to sift through some
of the noise, figure out what'sbest for some of these
businesses and for the endconsumer, is really important.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, in a lot of ways our jobs are really similar
and I think it's great.
From your perspective, you'rerepresenting a more narrow
subset, but it's the sameconcept and this issue is an
economic issue, it's a freedomissue, it's a mobility issue.
They're all intertwined right.
(07:29):
If you don't have the abilityto get around in this economy,
in this society, it's a realchallenge.
A lot of people come to thiscountry with nothing and the
first thing that they do besideshopefully find their way around
and get their self-situated islook for a vehicle.
(07:51):
And the policies the cumulativeimpact of these policies has
been that cars are increasinglyfurther and further out of reach
in terms of our ability toafford them, and that slows down
that process for them.
It prevents them from gettingthat first taste of mobility so
they can go back and forth to ajob to do the basic stuff that
(08:15):
everyone does, and people whocan afford it don't really think
about it in those terms, sothat doesn't occur to them how
important vehicles and mobilitycare of your family.
And now the starting price of acar, a good car it's probably
(08:46):
around $30,000.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
They say there's maybe two models under $20,000,
now brand new, which isastounding to me in this
lifetime.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, and the ones that are in the electric vehicle
space are even more expensiveby a factor of15,000 or $20,000
depending on the vehicle, andthat's troubling, because the
fewer cars that are beingproduced that are affordable
means that the used car marketeven gets impacted as well,
(09:18):
because people hang on to theircars longer, they're not moving
out of their starter car, theirbeater, and they're holding onto
those cars, so that reduces theavailability of used cars,
which is usually an entry-levelvehicle.
So it has these ripple effectsthat the folks that are sitting
around these agencies inWashington and cooking up these
(09:39):
magic plans about how tomanipulate the vehicle market I
don't think they factor thatinto their equation.
It's more of an environmentalproblem or challenge for them,
right, where they perceive orview that we have to get off of
gas powered vehicles and this isthe only way to do it is to
sort of pick at theseregulations and interpret these
(09:59):
regulations in ways that theCongress never envisioned.
We can get into that and theresult is the situation we're in
, where it's increasinglydifficult to afford to get into
the vehicle market, and thatsets you back as a new immigrant
or as someone in a lower incomeladder or a high school kid
(10:20):
Right, whose parents I've gotone now.
My oldest just got her licenseon july 3rd well we call it our,
our independence day,independence day so.
But you know we want her to puthave some skin in the game and
buy her own car.
But it's going to take longer,right?
Speaker 1 (10:35):
so could you imagine us a 17 year old wrecking a 30
000 car instead of a 1500?
Beater that that ooh.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Exactly yes, and it won't happen.
Trust me in my household Knockon wood, it will not.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, knock on wood, it will not.
Wow, I'm really glad that we'rehaving this conversation,
because do you think that wetargeted the wrong thing?
There's so much data out therewhen it comes to environmental
sustainability.
Coming from my industry, youhit on a point about the average
age of the vehicle and over thepast at least seven years,
(11:09):
since I've been monitoring itAuto Care Association has been
monitoring it for 35 years theaverage age of the vehicle has
risen exponentially.
So the average age now is 12.7years old and rising, and
Americans are keeping their carslonger because of the fact that
they're so expensive to buy,they're so expensive to fix,
insurance rates are going up andinflation.
(11:31):
They have to afford gas andgroceries and food.
They're not worried aboutbuying a new car.
So why would they buy an EVthat's 1.5, two times, even
three times, the long-term costof what they would normally be
waiting for?
It's a really interestingchallenge.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Right, and we mentioned earlier about EV
penetration in the market, andit was low-hanging fruit for a
while.
Most of the vehicles that werebeing purchased were very
high-end luxury vehicles and Ihave nothing against that If you
can afford and want a fancyTesla or more power to you.
But most of the data showsthose people are of higher
(12:11):
income brackets.
It's usually their third car.
In a lot of instances sometimestheir fourth car.
They don't get rid of their SUVor the other car that they have
their Jeep or whatever and theydrive it around for its purpose
, and each car sort of.
That's what it should be.
You should pick a car based onyour preference, the things that
(12:32):
you want, that you value in avehicle.
If you have a large family, youwant a big car, Right.
You want a minivan, a swaggerwagon or whatever, right.
But if you can afford to, youknow, if you live in San
Francisco or New York or Austinand you want a Tesla to run
around with, for whatever reason, more power to you.
Just don't take away my choice.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Don't take away the options for other vehicles.
And this idea that somehowinternal combustion engine cars
are not clean is a myth Couldn'tbe more false.
It's an absolute myth.
The technology has gonegangbusters over the years, and
when you sort of try to forcethe changes in the market, you
(13:15):
also take away the incentive forcontinued research in internal
combustion engines.
And then you mentioned the ageof the cars.
Newer cars with all thistechnology we have are so much
safer.
You got the cameras everywhere,you have the adaptive cruise
control.
These features are great.
(13:35):
But if you have an older caryou don't have those features.
But if you have no choice butto keep your car because of the
cost or whatever, then you'remissing out on those safety
features as well.
And so it's it's.
It makes the car less safe insome ways for you as a driver.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And that's kind of that idea of choice.
That was the driving factorbehind your save our cars
initiative, right, tell me alittle bit more about that.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Save Our Cars initiative.
Right, tell me a little bitmore about that?
Sure, so you know, we've seenthis since about 2010 or so.
We have seen an effort and itreally started, I think, with
the bailouts.
Shortly after the governmentbailed out some of the domestic
manufacturers, there was a pushto get them sort of more aligned
(14:24):
with their environmental goalsshall we put it diplomatically
to which they all mostly agreedto be under this regime of an
unrealistic regulation to managetheir fuel efficiency the CAFE
rule.
Everyone in this, these guys,your guys, all know what that is
, and it started there and westarted being very concerned
(14:48):
about it then.
Then we had a little bit of abreak in 2016, 2020.
President Trump went andattempted to reverse some of
those regulations, but the autocompanies never really expected
a lot of those rules to justvanish and disappear, and so
they sort of kept sort ofmarching forward in that
(15:10):
direction of OK, we're probablygoing to see the writing on the
wall here with EVs and also likewe were saying that the vehicle
market for EVs was increasing,so those things were happening.
At the time, we said, you know,we really got to.
(15:30):
We got to share thisinformation with folks, get them
engaged and then in 2020, withPresident Biden, the rules
really accelerated, and that'swhen we started saying, look,
we're just one small group.
We got to get others involved,and it was so easy because a lot
of different groups that are inour coalition have members like
your association or have donorsor activists or supporters, and
they were asking their leadersof those groups questions that
(15:54):
they didn't really have answersto, and so the coalition grew
quickly as a result, to thepoint where up to about 30 or so
members nationwide, somestate-based groups and
everything else and that'simportant, because we share
knowledge and information, weshare each other's research and
(16:15):
then we have a bigger audienceto speak to right, and so the
coalition has been great in thatit will help us really get the
word out, amplify what we'redoing at IER and get more people
enlisted and engaged in it.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
What do you hope is the end impact of that campaign?
I want these rules to go away.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
I want us to get the government out of the business
of telling us what types of carsand trucks we can drive.
I want us to be able to makethose choices and I want the
auto companies to feel free tomake the types of vehicles that
consumers want, not whatbureaucrats in Sacramento
dictate to them or here at theEPA or at the Department of
(16:57):
Treasury.
It's that simple.
We should be free to choose.
I don't have anything againstelectric vehicles.
I know I'm aware of many of theflaws of them.
Most Americans are becomingaware.
As you know, there was a recentstudy that showed that about
50% of existing EV owners don'treally want to make it the next
(17:20):
choice for them.
They kind of want to go back tothe ICE vehicle, and that's
very telling, right?
And the used car market for EVsis not very good, because the
biggest cost to maintain a usedEV is you might have to replace
the battery.
It's a huge chunk of the entirecost of the car.
(17:42):
Right to replace the battery.
It's a huge chunk of the entirecost of the car.
So, companies, I think there'sa really simple solution to this
Let the automakers decide whattypes of vehicles to make based
on what people want.
But if you want to sort of putyour thumb on the scale at
government in the form of morefuel efficient cars, set a
(18:04):
standard but get out of the way.
Don't dictate the car and theautomobile manufacturers, I
suspect, will respondaccordingly.
You're already seeing a surgein hybrids.
It's kind of like this best ofboth worlds, right, you get the
reliability of a nice vehicle,plus you get the you know, the
boost in fuel efficiency of that, of that hybrids component.
(18:26):
So it's just silly to me thatthat people in Washington are
are are so deeply entrenchedinto this, into this
conversation, to the extent thatthey are.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
It's, it's mind blowing.
Honestly, At AutoCare, you know, part of our job is to prepare
manufacturers, distributors,retailers and shops for the
future of automotive.
So when electric vehicles begancoming out, everybody was like
whoa, what do we do here?
How do we address this in our10-year plan?
So tons of organizations we'retalking IHS, market, mckinsey,
(19:00):
hanover, deloitte they're allcoming out with studies and
research on electric vehiclesand those penetration forecasts
through 2025, 2035, 2045.
And they were all really scary,I think, to our industry.
So we start manufacturing theparts, we're developing tools
and training.
We're on the ground with theshops.
We've got hybrid-only andelectric only shops trying to
(19:22):
figure out how to respond tothis.
And you know, one of the coolthings about automotive is, you
know, our CEO likes to say likewe've always adapted, we've
always evolved.
So from the crank to start tothe push to start right, like a
new piece of technology comesout, we figure it out and then
we roll with it.
We're tinkerers by nature.
So this electric vehicle stuffcomes out and everybody's really
(19:46):
worried about it.
What's the penetration?
What's going to be thepercentage of EV to gas?
All these automakers arejumping on board and it's fever.
We're hustling.
Now Toyota says hey, we'rebacking off.
I heard a commercial on apodcast the other day where the
Toyota CEO said it's your rightto choose whether you want gas
(20:06):
or EV or hybrid.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
They must be listening to us, right, right.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
And I thought are you kidding me?
Last year, or maybe the yearbefore, this was the opposite
tune.
So to see them pull back inthis headline that you're
talking about, which we're hereto talk about today, nearly 50%
of EV owners are consideringgoing back to ICE.
This is a huge 180 from wherewe were maybe 12 months ago.
So let's talk a little bitabout what went wrong.
(20:32):
Why do we think people aregoing?
What are the issues with the EVthat?
Speaker 2 (20:36):
we're really seeing.
Well, they're just not ready.
You know, it's not thatcomplicated.
Most advances in technologycome from.
You know something thatdramatically improves from the
previous thing?
And just a quick anecdote thehorse and buggy was replaced by
(20:58):
the automobile.
Why?
You can just imagine how manyreasons why it's safer, it's
faster's, faster, you don't haveas many emissions.
We'll leave it at that.
But in the beginning of the autoindustry, evs, internal
combustion engines and steamengines, believe it or not, had
(21:19):
about a third, roughly, of themarket share each.
At the dawn of the auto age,there was a real question as to
what technology would prevail.
Well, it turned out that it wasthe internal combustion engine
because it had so manyadvantages over electric
vehicles and of course, steamjust kind of like faded out
right.
So fast forward to today.
(21:40):
Electric vehicle is reallynothing more than a technology
transfer from a simple fueldelivery mechanism, which is the
gas tank, to a complex engine.
And then you flip the scriptit's a simple motor and a
complex fuel delivery mechanism,relatively speaking.
And the advantages of thesimple motor, you know, you can
(22:02):
take those into consideration tosay, yeah, they're faster off
the line or whatever, butthey're not giving you anything
else.
There's not this radical likeimprovement in transportation.
It's still a car Right, butit's more expensive.
There aren't as many chargingstations.
The range changes varies in alot of places depending on the
(22:24):
weather, depending on how muchof a payload you're carrying.
There's just so many like.
The range anxiety thing is forreal right Because people don't
want to be.
And then we've seen theseanecdotes and articles now of
people taking EV road trips totest it out and see how it works
and finding out that they getto a charging station and
there's all kinds of problemswith the church.
(22:46):
That may eventually come, butit's not coming fast enough for
the pace that the governmentwants it to come.
And the result is the challengesthat the industry is facing.
Not to mention, there's allkinds of discussions about the
Jersey barriers not the Jerseybarriers, but the guardrails and
(23:07):
how they need to be heavier.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
So do you have to then replace every guardrail in
the good old US of A to makethem accommodate for EVs?
There's talk about challengesin concentrated areas like urban
areas with parking garages andthings like that risk of fire.
A lot of people are complainingthat these things go off.
They're like chemical fires,right, they don't stop.
So look, these are all regulargas.
Cars have challenges too, right, don't get me wrong.
(23:35):
But these are all very seriousimpediments to just simply like
flipping a switch and replacingit.
Now, that's just sort of themechanics of it.
Let's talk about the nationalsecurity implications of it.
We are a hydrocarbon-basedeconomy.
We're the richest energy nationin the world.
We have more oil and gasunderneath our lands and waters
(23:56):
than any other country in theworld.
We're the number one producerof hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons is ourtransportation.
They want to switch to EVs.
Evs are minerals, they'rematerials, they're cobalt,
lithium, they're all these fancysounding names, but they're all
mined or processed andcontrolled by a country called
(24:21):
China China that last I checked.
We're not in the best ofsituations with right.
Right.
What the government is askingus to do is to switch over to an
economy and an energy systembased on minerals and materials,
which are owned and controlledto the tune of 80% by China.
That is not a recipe forsuccess.
(24:44):
Absolutely is not a recipe forsuccess.
It's scary to me to think thatour own government would risk
our national security in thename of getting off of
gas-powered cars, becausesupposedly that's the reason Our
planet won't survive orsomething without them, and I
just don't believe that.
I think gas-powered cars, as wesaid earlier, are constantly
(25:09):
improving and they call this thelife cycle cost to make one car
versus the other.
We're finding more and morethat it's marginal.
It's kind of a wash in terms ofthe sort of overall cumulative
impacts of CO2 emissions.
So what are we really doingthis for?
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Yeah, it kind of cancels.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I always ask that question Like what's the
underlying motive here?
And part of me thinks that itis because there's this sort of
organized VM in opposition tooil and gas.
Oil makes gasoline, Gasolinegoes in a gas-powered car and I
think it simply comes down tothat.
They're just yet another partof that sort of overall agenda
(25:53):
to sort of get us off of oil.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
This is DTP IT Director and Sustainability
Committee.
Staff Liaison at Auto CareAssociation.
Are you passionate aboutshaping our industry's future?
Join an Auto Care Association.
Are you passionate aboutshaping our industry's future?
Join an Auto Care Associationadvisory committee and make a
real impact as a volunteer.
You will drive innovation,tackle key challenges and
collaborate on cutting-edgesolutions for the entire supply
(26:17):
chain.
Don't miss out.
Join us at our upcomingLeadership Days event to start
making a difference.
Learn more at autocareorg slashleadership days and find
information on currentcommittees at autocareorg slash
committees.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I mean the infrastructure.
When that started happening, itreally boggled my mind.
Again, this whole conversationis mind boggling, but you're
speaking my love language,because all the points that
you're making here are ones thatwe've been discussing both
internally and externallythrough the industry, and just
trying to bring a little bitmore light to because it's not
(26:54):
bah humbug, we hate EVs.
It's how can we get to thisplace when we don't have some of
those foundational things inplace?
So you have manufacturers thatare changing their entire
business strategies and they're.
So you have manufacturers thatare changing their entire
business strategies and they'recontributing billions of dollars
to this massive economy.
That's essential.
Like how many things do yourely on that need wheels to get
(27:15):
you where you need to go?
I'm not just talking about yourcar, I'm talking about public
transportation and buses andtrains and the wheels on
airplanes.
Right, all of that is affected.
The infrastructure.
I flew to Connecticut not toolong ago and they offered me an
EV at the rental car company andI thought, well, I'm going to
(27:35):
be driving two and a half hoursnorth of here and there's
certainly no charging stationsup there, so I'm going to pass.
And it was just such an easythought and my brain was
wondering well, how many otherpeople are passing on this or
how many other people arethinking this is a really cool
opportunity.
I'm going to try that EV.
And then they get to theirdestination and maybe they don't
(27:56):
have the charginginfrastructure to get where they
need to go.
So that was point number one,where it really became real to
me.
Point number two is that we talkabout environmental impact and
sustainability, and some of thepoints we like to talk about are
always repair and replace,instead of throwing things out.
A circular economy.
(28:16):
Recycling is really importantand it's proven.
We recycle tires, we recycleoil.
Not many people know that weuse the oil from cars that we
take out of oil changes and weuse it for heating and furnaces
and buildings.
Right, there's all these reallycool different uses that we use
to make sure that we're asustainable industry.
But then the Washington Post Idon't know if you read this,
(28:37):
there was an expose on it, Ithink, last year that talked
about the mining of EV materialsand they were mining the copper
, I believe, in Indonesia andthey were decimating these local
communities.
So we're talking villages thatwere completely peaceful.
They're farming, they're rural.
They were found to have thesevaluable materials, the
(28:58):
companies came in to mine themand essentially ruined those
communities, meaning all of thebad things that were coming out
of the end of the process.
In order to mine thosematerials were going into their
rivers and water supplies,destroying their farms, harming
their fish.
Their entire ecosystem wasruined, and why didn't that make
headlines?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Well, it doesn't, because the folks who are
pushing this don't want it inour yard.
They're happy that it's insomeone else's yard, and that's
the other point, too is theUnited States by far has the
most stringent environmental andsafety and health regulations
(29:38):
in the world, and that is afunction of our wealth to a
large extent, and so thatwouldn't even be possible here
if we were to mine thesematerials here.
But the same people who arepromoting this agenda are also
blocking, through the use ofgovernment agencies and
environmental lawsuits andthings like that, our ability to
(29:58):
permit and produce thosematerials in the United States,
where they can be monitored,where the tailings and all the
things that you're talking aboutare strictly, strictly
monitored.
So that's to me, another ironyof all of this is that they're
exporting a lot of this, of theindustrial process involved in
(30:22):
it, and they just sort of turn ablind eye to that.
And these are the same peoplethat purportedly care so much
about the environment.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Right, so you know we talked about what went wrong.
What do you think was the stepthat we missed?
Was it hybrid, or was theresomething else that you think?
Speaker 2 (30:40):
So I think there are a couple of things.
I think about this a lot.
You know, diesel engines gotkind of a bad rap, you know,
back in the day, with the knocksand the pings and everything
else, and some of the old schoolguys like, oh yeah, I can't get
one of those, you know.
But you know there is a lotmore huge advances in diesel
technology clean, low sulfurdiesel, everything else.
(31:03):
I think cars sort of bypassthat step.
I think it's a more proficientor prolific in Europe, but we
missed that step here to stretchout that gas to get more fuel
efficiency.
Hybrids, I think, started out.
You know the Prius was kind ofa popular car and everyone kind
(31:24):
of loved it, and now you'reseeing this sort of rena, of
renaissance, if you will, ofhybrid, hybrids.
But the but the larger um pointis, is that we don't know what
we're missing because thegovernment keeps trying to force
us to do one thing and what theit's not letting the market
drive.
That it's not.
It's not letting the marketdrive.
(31:45):
That it's not.
It's not letting markets, youknow, and research and all the
good stuff that comes up.
You know when, when you're in acompetent, in a free market,
competitive environment, youwant an edge, you know, and so
you.
You push the boundaries of yourresearch.
You try to like there's a.
I was in a conference recentlywhere the folks who study, you
know and and do sort of theadvances in internal combustion
(32:08):
engines were complaining thatwhat's the point If governments
around the world aren't going tolet us use these cars anymore.
Why don't we just stopinnovating in that space?
And that's such a wasted, youknow, opportunity in my view.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
So un-American.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, absolutely so.
I think that's you know.
It's like it's hard to answerthat question sometimes because
you know our view is we don'tknow what we're missing.
But when the government sort ofshoehorns you into a certain
thing, it's inevitable thatthat's where everyone goes.
And the other thing is they'repumping billions and billions of
(32:46):
dollars in subsidies intoconverting ice vehicle factories
and plants here into electricvehicle factories and plants
here and your guys don't getthose.
I don't see all these wonderfulprograms out of the Inflation
Reduction Act for your guys.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Manufacture only, and you're on the hook for that
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
And so the autos have a lot of like much more
incentive to play along asopposed to fighting this,
because they know they'regetting a lot of subsidies Right
.
They know they're getting likea backstop in the form of
American taxpayer dollars and,by the way, that contributes to
inflation, which makes it harderfor us to buy groceries, and
(33:32):
again it compounds and adds tothe cost of a car.
So you have this in thesubsidies themselves.
That's not free.
The only people who arebenefiting from that are these
companies, and so in a lot ofcases they'll just sort of play
along, and that's unfortunate,because they should be leading
and saying no, we can do thisourselves, we'll handle it, let
(33:55):
us take the reins.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
So what do you think, then, is a better approach?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
So let's remove the policies, change the policy,
first of all, we have to theCAFE law, which is sort of the
under arching federallegislation in the seventies
that started this whole processof fuel efficiency mandates.
That needs to be.
(34:20):
It needs to be recognized thatit was passed in the seventies
to get us to make us lessreliant on foreign oil.
That was the purpose of it.
We had the oil embargo and thecrisis and everything and they
said we got to start bucklingdown and we've got to be more
efficient.
So that's how it started.
And there's an important phrasein that law.
(34:43):
It says to that which istechnologically and economically
feasible.
They weren't ever supposed touse that law to achieve their
social agenda item.
Right, it was supposed to behelping the industry recognize
that fuel efficiency is apriority of federal government
and that they should take itinto consideration.
(35:05):
They used to work with theautos and say what's the right
number here, and then they gotout of control, just like a lot
of other government programs getout of control.
But then they added this secondcomponent, which is California,
and they say as California goes, so does the nation.
Well, I'd like to change thatto what happens in.
(35:25):
California should stay in.
California because I don't wanttheir car ban.
I don't want their car ban inMaryland or Virginia or Florida
or wherever, and so that's theother component of this.
That sort of the Obamaadministration started this sort
of deferring to California onthese things.
(35:47):
Now California is trying toimpose a nationwide car ban.
That they want for their stateDoesn't work.
We need to get the Californiastuff has to go away completely.
One state shouldn't dictate theterms of the game for everybody
else.
In the second place, we need toget CAFE back to what it was,
(36:10):
which is a law designed toencourage fuel efficiency and
that's it, and then let themarket sort it out, and then we
got to, of course, get rid ofall these massive subsidies to
sort of force this along.
I think we can get there.
I really do.
I think the more people learnabout this, the more they
realize that it impacts them.
(36:30):
It's hugely unpopular.
We do a lot of polling in thisspace and when people it's a
recognition issue.
Once people recognize it, theysee the folly and they respond
accordingly.
So that's our job is to dostuff like this to get the word
out about what's going on.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
Yeah, that's probably one of the most difficult parts
about my job and my colleague'sjob is, we talk about this
stuff every single day and a lotof what we do is meant to be
proactive, not reactive, right,but the problem is that action
rarely happens until some sortof harm occurs.
So until it starts affectingyou or I or our colleague or
(37:12):
your friend or your mom or yoursister or whoever, people aren't
likely to act, and nor do theyhave the brain space to get
educated about this.
So how do we do that better?
It's something that we talkabout every single day.
That's our mission, it's whatwe do.
It's why we're here talking toyou today to try to provide a
platform to each other toeducate more about this, so we
could head off this problem nowversus later.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
right, it's hugely important and it unfortunately
is already affecting people.
They probably don't realize it,though, right?
The added cost of thesevehicles is mainly related to
this imposition of governmentinto the auto market.
(37:56):
It has changed the incentivesfor the auto manufacturers.
It has given them this positionwhere they're damned if they do
and damned if they don't.
Right, if they don't comply ordon't want to play ball with the
federal government, then itcould be really difficult for
(38:16):
them to exist in some cases.
But, on the other hand, they'rethe ones, in my view, who
really need to step up and saywait a minute don't.
Let's not what is often.
Who is often lost in thisconversation is the consumer
Right, the folks on the groundwho are affected by these
(38:37):
decisions, and what is impactingor impairing their ability, as
we said earlier, is to get theirfirst car, to get it into the
auto field, right To get intothe purchase field, and that's
the worst part is because we'resupposed to be helping people.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Government's supposed to be there to help, not to
like, get in the way or not to,you know, impede progress.
It's just very simple.
Let us choose Right Freedom tochoose.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
It's a simple message .
Couldn't agree more.
And I think when we go toCapitol Hill and we talk to
legislators, we live in a bubble, right, Everybody here has a
car, has public transportationdoesn't really think about it.
When you talk to some of thelegislators who live in those
more rural areas and you put itinto perspective, right, let's
say, you're a neighbor in thisrural area that doesn't have
(39:29):
this type of infrastructure ormandated to not be able to
purchase an ICE vehicle and hadto purchase an electric vehicle,
If the cost of that vehicledoesn't come down, how are they
getting to work?
You're going to let them losetheir job, which impacts your
local economy.
There's a tremendous downstreameffect.
So these are the conversationsthat we're having to have to
(39:50):
kind of show the scale of theissue right.
It's really easy to talk aboutit when you live in DC, Miami,
New York, LA, all of these.
You know all these urban areas,but most of America is not like
that.
So we like to encourage ourstaff and our members.
Many of our members really knowthis from heart.
They live in those rural areasand we take those road trips and
(40:12):
the cars there don't look likethe cars here?
Speaker 2 (40:14):
No, heck, no, they do not.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
And that's the leveling factor.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Right, and a lot of these same people you're talking
about, their car is theirlivelihood.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
It is.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
Right, if they're on a ranch or if they work for an
HVAC company or you know, evenif they're windows.
You know people who installwindows.
These are mostly trucks Big,big F-150s, f-250s and things
like that big F-150s, f-250s andthings like that.
And to just sort of tell thempound sand, just suck it up and
(40:46):
pay the extra price for a carthat may not be as reliable,
maybe they will be eventually.
Maybe they'll be moreaffordable, maybe they will be
just as powerful.
That's not the evidence today,and so, until it is, they should
be able to choose one or theother or something in between
that we don't know about yet.
(41:06):
Right ways who are onlythinking about one thing and not
thinking about all the otherramifications, and people's
(41:26):
livelihoods are impacted by it.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
So so many implications.
And your example of the ranchreally struck it with me because
I'll shout out to JC Washbushof the Automotive Aftermarket
Auto Parts Alliance His examplethat he gave to a legislator and
his business is down in SanAntonio, texas, is the rancher
with the Ford F-150.
If that truck is down he can'tfix it or he doesn't have that
(41:50):
truck because there was an ICEmandate.
How is he going to service thatranch?
That ranch is servicing cowsand cattle that goes to the
local grocery store, so we don'thave beef, we don't have food
supply.
Costs go up, like we're just inthis vicious cycle of inflation
and the cost of everythinggoing up and it's hurting
Americans.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
I will say that it's reallyhard for me too, because I'm I'm
a car kid.
You know, like my Both, myparents growing up worked for
General Motors on the assemblyline.
It was a GM town, it was aradiator division, and that was
(42:34):
the big employer in the area,and so they became the whole
family.
No one ever bought anythingthan a chevy or a camaro or a
malibu or you name it right agrand prix.
Yeah, you know, so like to me,you know, same as me growing up.
You know, my first non, eveneven my first non-gm car
(42:55):
technically was a gm car becausebecause they had bought sob and
I bought one of those earlysobab, you know the turbo Saabs.
So I said no because my parentsgot all mad at me.
I said no, no, no it's still aGM car, it's still owned by GM,
but the GM company that I knowtoday isn't the same, because
they're pretty much saying youknow what we're going to do this
(43:16):
, we're going to play ball.
They've gotten rid of theseclassic.
We're going to play ball,they've gotten rid of these
classic.
You know iconic lines.
You know, as I mentioned, theCamaro, the Malibu is on its way
out, that kind of stuff, andit's just, it's not necessary.
Yeah, it really isn't so it'sjust not the company that I you
(43:36):
know.
There's just no, I don't knowit's no heart, it's just
frustrating, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (43:43):
Yeah, stellantis really broke my heart.
We were talking earlier.
You know your Camaro and yourMalibu.
I'm crying about my Charger andmy Challenger because Dodge
took those away and those werethe best-selling cars of all
time for them.
So I'm really curious to knowif GM, if Stellantis, are
eventually going to bring thoseback in some way or form knowing
(44:06):
that the demand for them isstill there.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Yeah, you know it's funny.
We've been following this veryclosely and we sort of have
watched the whole evolution ofit's inevitable and just get
with the program.
And everyone's buying, everyoneloves these things, and it's
just taking the market by storm.
And then the Q1 results came,and the Q2 results came, and
Ford announced that they lost$50,000 for every EV they sold
(44:30):
and everything else.
And then all of a sudden, therewas this sort of slow
recognition that, you know, thisisn't working out quite as well
as we had planned or as thegovernment had hoped.
And now you're starting to seesome grownups making some saying
hey, we're you know Mercedes, Ithink, recently said well,
(44:52):
we're not going to go all EV,we're still going to have a
robust, you know, gas poweredfleet and this and that, and
we're rethinking our plans andwe're delaying our targets, and
you know.
So I think they're catching upwith the reality.
I think that it's perfectly.
It's great that people likethese cars.
I have nothing against them,but what I have is a beef with.
(45:16):
Is the impact that this agendais having on the cost of all
cars Right, because again itgoes back.
To me, the most important thingis people having the ability to
get in the game, and the onlyway to get in the game,
especially in this country, ishaving mobility.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Access, choice, affordability, repairability,
right.
Speaker 3 (45:38):
All really important.
Speaker 2 (45:39):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Incredible.
We've done good, tom.
We've done really good on this.
I don't think I have any otherquestions, but I want to know
from you if our listeners wantto learn more about your
organization, where can theyfind you?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Two places instituteforenergyresearchorg,
and they're going to get morethan cars fair warning, because
we talk about all energy stuff.
And then savecarsorg, andthey're going to get more than
cars Fair warning, because wetalk about all energy stuff.
And then SaveCarsorg.
Savecarsorg is the Save Our CarCoalition, and so both places,
both platforms, have a lot ofgood information.
(46:14):
You can sign up and get all ourgood stuff and then you'll be
part of our family.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Fantastic.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Thank you so much for taking the time.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Yeah, it's a great great talking to you.
Thanks for tuning in to anotherepisode of Auto Care On Air.
Make sure to subscribe to ourpodcast so that you never miss
an episode, and don't forget toleave us a rating and review
that helps others discover ourcontent.
Auto Care On Air is aproduction of the Auto Care
Association, dedicated toadvancing the auto care industry
(46:50):
and supporting professionalslike you.
To learn more about theassociation and its initiatives,
visit autocareorg.
Welcome to Auto Care On Air, a candid podcast for a
curious industry.
I'm Stacey Miller, vicePresident of Communications at
the Auto Care Association, andthis is Traction Control, where
we chat about recent news fromthe global to the local level
and what it may mean to theindustry, featuring guests on
the front lines.
Let's roll.
The headline we're talkingabout today is almost half of US
(00:38):
EV owners are planning toreturn to gasoline or ICE
vehicles An absolutelyastounding headline after all of
the hoopla over electricvehicles, forced electric
vehicle adoptions, mandates,subsidies coming straight out of
McKinsey and Company.
So this new study found thatthose most familiar with the
costs and benefits of EVownership and those who were
(01:01):
enthusiastic about the earlyadoption were having second
thoughts, and some of thosereasons were being they didn't
have the greatest experienceswith charging higher than
expected costs, especiallylong-term costs of the electric
vehicles, and limited utility,especially for long trips.
That range anxiety is cominginto play.
So there's an average time thatelectric vehicles are sitting
(01:25):
on their dealer lots which isincreasing and has become almost
twice as long as the averagetime for the internal combustion
engine vehicles.
Car dealers are asking theBiden administration to back off
of its forced march to compelbuyers to choose electric
vehicles.
As sales suffer and, as you cansee in additional headlines,
manufacturers have been steppingaway from commitments to
(01:47):
electrify their fleets, at leastin the near term.
So today, with me, I've gone tothe Institute for Energy
Research, who is really involvedin the issue.
They're advocating for a freemarket for energy and we're
going to talk to them todayabout what this means.
Where did we go wrong and howcan we rectify?
What's going on with electricvehicles and what steps might we
(02:08):
have missed in the road toelectric vehicle adoption of the
Institute for Energy Research,the IER, and its advocacy arm,
the American Energy Alliance,aea, where he develops the
(02:32):
organization's free marketpolicy positions and implements
education efforts for key energystakeholders, including
lawmakers, agency officials,industry leaders, consumers and
the media.
Prior to joining IER, tom heldnumerous positions in the
private sector and on CapitolHill.
He also managed the Departmentof Energy on the Presidential
Transition Team forPresident-elect Donald Trump.
Welcome Tom.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, thanks so much for having me.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
We love having you here on Auto Care On Air.
I'm so excited for this podcastbecause we really want to bring
a new perspective to somethingthat has been in the media for a
long time but it continues tomake headlines, and that is
electric vehicles and Americandrivers' preference for them,
which seems to have gottenreally excited.
We got to a peak Everybody wasbuying electric vehicles.
(03:14):
We were mandating that folkswere buying electric vehicles
and now we're starting to seethat adoption slow, which is
really curious and throwing someindustries for a loop,
including my industry, theautomotive aftermarket.
But before we dive in, I wantto dive into a little bit about
you, tom, and a little bit aboutthe IER.
So tell me a little bit aboutthe Institute for Energy
(03:35):
Research, what you do and what'simportant to you guys.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So we've been around for a long time.
We started out as a little tinynonprofit in Houston and about
17 years ago now I took over theorganization.
We moved it to Washington,beefed up its national presence.
It really is what we call athink tank, but our focus is
narrow.
It's on energy andenvironmental policy and how it
(03:58):
impacts consumers, businessesand markets, both nationally and
globally, businesses andmarkets both nationally and
globally.
So we're sort of a watchdog, ifyou will, sort of keeping an
eye on what the policies, what'shappening in town, and we try
to get it to a point where weexplain it to people in an
(04:19):
easier way so they canunderstand what the implications
of the policies are and how itimpacts them, and then let them
choose to engage in the processwith all that with their arm,
with that information thatthey're able to be better
informed as consumers, asbusinesses, et cetera.
So that's kind of how Idescribe us.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
I love what you said about being informed and letting
people choose.
That's very in line with whatwe represent here at the Auto
Care Association choice andindependence, and the vehicles
that you drive and how youmaintain them.
Policy and regulations forenvironmental.
That's a really complex world.
What brought you here and why?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
So I started out in college.
I thought I wanted to be alawyer and I started working at
a law firm just to get a jump onit and spent a little time
talking to the attorneys at thefirm and they were strongly
encouraging me to think aboutother options.
And so I stumbled intoWashington on Capitol Hill, did
(05:16):
some internships in college andI got the bug, got involved in
energy environmental policy fromthe very beginning, worked on
Capitol Hill, like I said, fornumerous positions, but also
ended up in leadership in theHouse of Representatives, which
was very eye-opening and reallyjust expanded my horizons and my
(05:36):
ability to see how the wholeprocess works and how to impact
change.
And then I got some privatesector experience.
After that and about five yearsinto that, this organization
reached out to me and I knew itwas exactly what I wanted to do,
because I wanted to be able tomake an impact and make a
difference without having to belike in that lobby world where
(06:00):
you're focusing on narrowlegislation or trying to, you
know, kind of, get this fixedthere and get that fixed there.
I really wanted to be workingfor an organization that was
speaking truth to power, talkingabout how these issues impact
real people and helping peopleunderstand just how these
policies, how big of an impactthat they have on our lives, and
(06:22):
probably nowhere lately anyway,has there been a bigger impact
than in this issue space withrespect to choice, vehicle
choice and things like that.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Absolutely.
I mean, when I first came intothis industry, talk about being
thrown into the deep end andgoing to Capitol Hill and
learning about how the sausageis made.
So they say it.
It's really confusing,especially for a regular driver
like myself.
If I try to explain what I'mdoing to my family, it can be
really difficult.
So policies, regulation,legislation even for our members
(06:56):
it can be a lot to handle.
So having organizations likeours there to sift through some
of the noise, figure out what'sbest for some of these
businesses and for the endconsumer, is really important.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, in a lot of ways our jobs are really similar
and I think it's great.
From your perspective, you'rerepresenting a more narrow
subset, but it's the sameconcept and this issue is an
economic issue, it's a freedomissue, it's a mobility issue.
They're all intertwined right.
(07:29):
If you don't have the abilityto get around in this economy,
in this society, it's a realchallenge.
A lot of people come to thiscountry with nothing and the
first thing that they do besideshopefully find their way around
and get their self-situated islook for a vehicle.
(07:51):
And the policies the cumulativeimpact of these policies has
been that cars are increasinglyfurther and further out of reach
in terms of our ability toafford them, and that slows down
that process for them.
It prevents them from gettingthat first taste of mobility so
they can go back and forth to ajob to do the basic stuff that
(08:15):
everyone does, and people whocan afford it don't really think
about it in those terms, sothat doesn't occur to them how
important vehicles and mobilitycare of your family.
And now the starting price of acar, a good car it's probably
(08:46):
around $30,000.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
They say there's maybe two models under $20,000,
now brand new, which isastounding to me in this
lifetime.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, and the ones that are in the electric vehicle
space are even more expensiveby a factor of15,000 or $20,000
depending on the vehicle, andthat's troubling, because the
fewer cars that are beingproduced that are affordable
means that the used car marketeven gets impacted as well,
(09:18):
because people hang on to theircars longer, they're not moving
out of their starter car, theirbeater, and they're holding onto
those cars, so that reduces theavailability of used cars,
which is usually an entry-levelvehicle.
So it has these ripple effectsthat the folks that are sitting
around these agencies inWashington and cooking up these
(09:39):
magic plans about how tomanipulate the vehicle market I
don't think they factor thatinto their equation.
It's more of an environmentalproblem or challenge for them,
right, where they perceive orview that we have to get off of
gas powered vehicles and this isthe only way to do it is to
sort of pick at theseregulations and interpret these
(09:59):
regulations in ways that theCongress never envisioned.
We can get into that and theresult is the situation we're in
, where it's increasinglydifficult to afford to get into
the vehicle market, and thatsets you back as a new immigrant
or as someone in a lower incomeladder or a high school kid
(10:20):
Right, whose parents I've gotone now.
My oldest just got her licenseon july 3rd well we call it our,
our independence day,independence day so.
But you know we want her to puthave some skin in the game and
buy her own car.
But it's going to take longer,right?
Speaker 1 (10:35):
so could you imagine us a 17 year old wrecking a 30
000 car instead of a 1500?
Beater that that ooh.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Exactly yes, and it won't happen.
Trust me in my household Knockon wood, it will not.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, knock on wood, it will not.
Wow, I'm really glad that we'rehaving this conversation,
because do you think that wetargeted the wrong thing?
There's so much data out therewhen it comes to environmental
sustainability.
Coming from my industry, youhit on a point about the average
age of the vehicle and over thepast at least seven years,
(11:09):
since I've been monitoring itAuto Care Association has been
monitoring it for 35 years theaverage age of the vehicle has
risen exponentially.
So the average age now is 12.7years old and rising, and
Americans are keeping their carslonger because of the fact that
they're so expensive to buy,they're so expensive to fix,
insurance rates are going up andinflation.
(11:31):
They have to afford gas andgroceries and food.
They're not worried aboutbuying a new car.
So why would they buy an EVthat's 1.5, two times, even
three times, the long-term costof what they would normally be
waiting for?
It's a really interestingchallenge.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Right, and we mentioned earlier about EV
penetration in the market, andit was low-hanging fruit for a
while.
Most of the vehicles that werebeing purchased were very
high-end luxury vehicles and Ihave nothing against that If you
can afford and want a fancyTesla or more power to you.
But most of the data showsthose people are of higher
(12:11):
income brackets.
It's usually their third car.
In a lot of instances sometimestheir fourth car.
They don't get rid of their SUVor the other car that they have
their Jeep or whatever and theydrive it around for its purpose
, and each car sort of.
That's what it should be.
You should pick a car based onyour preference, the things that
(12:32):
you want, that you value in avehicle.
If you have a large family, youwant a big car, Right.
You want a minivan, a swaggerwagon or whatever, right.
But if you can afford to, youknow, if you live in San
Francisco or New York or Austinand you want a Tesla to run
around with, for whatever reason, more power to you.
Just don't take away my choice.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Don't take away the options for other vehicles.
And this idea that somehowinternal combustion engine cars
are not clean is a myth Couldn'tbe more false.
It's an absolute myth.
The technology has gonegangbusters over the years, and
when you sort of try to forcethe changes in the market, you
(13:15):
also take away the incentive forcontinued research in internal
combustion engines.
And then you mentioned the ageof the cars.
Newer cars with all thistechnology we have are so much
safer.
You got the cameras everywhere,you have the adaptive cruise
control.
These features are great.
(13:35):
But if you have an older caryou don't have those features.
But if you have no choice butto keep your car because of the
cost or whatever, then you'remissing out on those safety
features as well.
And so it's it's.
It makes the car less safe insome ways for you as a driver.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And that's kind of that idea of choice.
That was the driving factorbehind your save our cars
initiative, right, tell me alittle bit more about that.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Save Our Cars initiative.
Right, tell me a little bitmore about that?
Sure, so you know, we've seenthis since about 2010 or so.
We have seen an effort and itreally started, I think, with
the bailouts.
Shortly after the governmentbailed out some of the domestic
manufacturers, there was a pushto get them sort of more aligned
(14:24):
with their environmental goalsshall we put it diplomatically
to which they all mostly agreedto be under this regime of an
unrealistic regulation to managetheir fuel efficiency the CAFE
rule.
Everyone in this, these guys,your guys, all know what that is
, and it started there and westarted being very concerned
(14:48):
about it then.
Then we had a little bit of abreak in 2016, 2020.
President Trump went andattempted to reverse some of
those regulations, but the autocompanies never really expected
a lot of those rules to justvanish and disappear, and so
they sort of kept sort ofmarching forward in that
(15:10):
direction of OK, we're probablygoing to see the writing on the
wall here with EVs and also likewe were saying that the vehicle
market for EVs was increasing,so those things were happening.
At the time, we said, you know,we really got to.
(15:30):
We got to share thisinformation with folks, get them
engaged and then in 2020, withPresident Biden, the rules
really accelerated, and that'swhen we started saying, look,
we're just one small group.
We got to get others involved,and it was so easy because a lot
of different groups that are inour coalition have members like
your association or have donorsor activists or supporters, and
they were asking their leadersof those groups questions that
(15:54):
they didn't really have answersto, and so the coalition grew
quickly as a result, to thepoint where up to about 30 or so
members nationwide, somestate-based groups and
everything else and that'simportant, because we share
knowledge and information, weshare each other's research and
(16:15):
then we have a bigger audienceto speak to right, and so the
coalition has been great in thatit will help us really get the
word out, amplify what we'redoing at IER and get more people
enlisted and engaged in it.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
What do you hope is the end impact of that campaign?
I want these rules to go away.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
I want us to get the government out of the business
of telling us what types of carsand trucks we can drive.
I want us to be able to makethose choices and I want the
auto companies to feel free tomake the types of vehicles that
consumers want, not whatbureaucrats in Sacramento
dictate to them or here at theEPA or at the Department of
(16:57):
Treasury.
It's that simple.
We should be free to choose.
I don't have anything againstelectric vehicles.
I know I'm aware of many of theflaws of them.
Most Americans are becomingaware.
As you know, there was a recentstudy that showed that about
50% of existing EV owners don'treally want to make it the next
(17:20):
choice for them.
They kind of want to go back tothe ICE vehicle, and that's
very telling, right?
And the used car market for EVsis not very good, because the
biggest cost to maintain a usedEV is you might have to replace
the battery.
It's a huge chunk of the entirecost of the car.
(17:42):
Right to replace the battery.
It's a huge chunk of the entirecost of the car.
So, companies, I think there'sa really simple solution to this
Let the automakers decide whattypes of vehicles to make based
on what people want.
But if you want to sort of putyour thumb on the scale at
government in the form of morefuel efficient cars, set a
(18:04):
standard but get out of the way.
Don't dictate the car and theautomobile manufacturers, I
suspect, will respondaccordingly.
You're already seeing a surgein hybrids.
It's kind of like this best ofboth worlds, right, you get the
reliability of a nice vehicle,plus you get the you know, the
boost in fuel efficiency of that, of that hybrids component.
(18:26):
So it's just silly to me thatthat people in Washington are
are are so deeply entrenchedinto this, into this
conversation, to the extent thatthey are.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
It's, it's mind blowing.
Honestly, At AutoCare, you know, part of our job is to prepare
manufacturers, distributors,retailers and shops for the
future of automotive.
So when electric vehicles begancoming out, everybody was like
whoa, what do we do here?
How do we address this in our10-year plan?
So tons of organizations we'retalking IHS, market, mckinsey,
(19:00):
hanover, deloitte they're allcoming out with studies and
research on electric vehiclesand those penetration forecasts
through 2025, 2035, 2045.
And they were all really scary,I think, to our industry.
So we start manufacturing theparts, we're developing tools
and training.
We're on the ground with theshops.
We've got hybrid-only andelectric only shops trying to
(19:22):
figure out how to respond tothis.
And you know, one of the coolthings about automotive is, you
know, our CEO likes to say likewe've always adapted, we've
always evolved.
So from the crank to start tothe push to start right, like a
new piece of technology comesout, we figure it out and then
we roll with it.
We're tinkerers by nature.
So this electric vehicle stuffcomes out and everybody's really
(19:46):
worried about it.
What's the penetration?
What's going to be thepercentage of EV to gas?
All these automakers arejumping on board and it's fever.
We're hustling.
Now Toyota says hey, we'rebacking off.
I heard a commercial on apodcast the other day where the
Toyota CEO said it's your rightto choose whether you want gas
(20:06):
or EV or hybrid.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
They must be listening to us, right, right.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
And I thought are you kidding me?
Last year, or maybe the yearbefore, this was the opposite
tune.
So to see them pull back inthis headline that you're
talking about, which we're hereto talk about today, nearly 50%
of EV owners are consideringgoing back to ICE.
This is a huge 180 from wherewe were maybe 12 months ago.
So let's talk a little bitabout what went wrong.
(20:32):
Why do we think people aregoing?
What are the issues with the EVthat?
Speaker 2 (20:36):
we're really seeing.
Well, they're just not ready.
You know, it's not thatcomplicated.
Most advances in technologycome from.
You know something thatdramatically improves from the
previous thing?
And just a quick anecdote thehorse and buggy was replaced by
(20:58):
the automobile.
Why?
You can just imagine how manyreasons why it's safer, it's
faster's, faster, you don't haveas many emissions.
We'll leave it at that.
But in the beginning of the autoindustry, evs, internal
combustion engines and steamengines, believe it or not, had
(21:19):
about a third, roughly, of themarket share each.
At the dawn of the auto age,there was a real question as to
what technology would prevail.
Well, it turned out that it wasthe internal combustion engine
because it had so manyadvantages over electric
vehicles and of course, steamjust kind of like faded out
right.
So fast forward to today.
(21:40):
Electric vehicle is reallynothing more than a technology
transfer from a simple fueldelivery mechanism, which is the
gas tank, to a complex engine.
And then you flip the scriptit's a simple motor and a
complex fuel delivery mechanism,relatively speaking.
And the advantages of thesimple motor, you know, you can
(22:02):
take those into consideration tosay, yeah, they're faster off
the line or whatever, butthey're not giving you anything
else.
There's not this radical likeimprovement in transportation.
It's still a car Right, butit's more expensive.
There aren't as many chargingstations.
The range changes varies in alot of places depending on the
(22:24):
weather, depending on how muchof a payload you're carrying.
There's just so many like.
The range anxiety thing is forreal right Because people don't
want to be.
And then we've seen theseanecdotes and articles now of
people taking EV road trips totest it out and see how it works
and finding out that they getto a charging station and
there's all kinds of problemswith the church.
(22:46):
That may eventually come, butit's not coming fast enough for
the pace that the governmentwants it to come.
And the result is the challengesthat the industry is facing.
Not to mention, there's allkinds of discussions about the
Jersey barriers not the Jerseybarriers, but the guardrails and
(23:07):
how they need to be heavier.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Right.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
So do you have to then replace every guardrail in
the good old US of A to makethem accommodate for EVs?
There's talk about challengesin concentrated areas like urban
areas with parking garages andthings like that risk of fire.
A lot of people are complainingthat these things go off.
They're like chemical fires,right, they don't stop.
So look, these are all regulargas.
Cars have challenges too, right, don't get me wrong.
(23:35):
But these are all very seriousimpediments to just simply like
flipping a switch and replacingit.
Now, that's just sort of themechanics of it.
Let's talk about the nationalsecurity implications of it.
We are a hydrocarbon-basedeconomy.
We're the richest energy nationin the world.
We have more oil and gasunderneath our lands and waters
(23:56):
than any other country in theworld.
We're the number one producerof hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons is ourtransportation.
They want to switch to EVs.
Evs are minerals, they'rematerials, they're cobalt,
lithium, they're all these fancysounding names, but they're all
mined or processed andcontrolled by a country called
(24:21):
China China that last I checked.
We're not in the best ofsituations with right.
Right.
What the government is askingus to do is to switch over to an
economy and an energy systembased on minerals and materials,
which are owned and controlledto the tune of 80% by China.
That is not a recipe forsuccess.
(24:44):
Absolutely is not a recipe forsuccess.
It's scary to me to think thatour own government would risk
our national security in thename of getting off of
gas-powered cars, becausesupposedly that's the reason Our
planet won't survive orsomething without them, and I
just don't believe that.
I think gas-powered cars, as wesaid earlier, are constantly
(25:09):
improving and they call this thelife cycle cost to make one car
versus the other.
We're finding more and morethat it's marginal.
It's kind of a wash in terms ofthe sort of overall cumulative
impacts of CO2 emissions.
So what are we really doingthis for?
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Yeah, it kind of cancels.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I always ask that question Like what's the
underlying motive here?
And part of me thinks that itis because there's this sort of
organized VM in opposition tooil and gas.
Oil makes gasoline, Gasolinegoes in a gas-powered car and I
think it simply comes down tothat.
They're just yet another partof that sort of overall agenda
(25:53):
to sort of get us off of oil.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
This is DTP IT Director and Sustainability
Committee.
Staff Liaison at Auto CareAssociation.
Are you passionate aboutshaping our industry's future?
Join an Auto Care Association.
Are you passionate aboutshaping our industry's future?
Join an Auto Care Associationadvisory committee and make a
real impact as a volunteer.
You will drive innovation,tackle key challenges and
collaborate on cutting-edgesolutions for the entire supply
(26:17):
chain.
Don't miss out.
Join us at our upcomingLeadership Days event to start
making a difference.
Learn more at autocareorg slashleadership days and find
information on currentcommittees at autocareorg slash
committees.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
I mean the infrastructure.
When that started happening, itreally boggled my mind.
Again, this whole conversationis mind boggling, but you're
speaking my love language,because all the points that
you're making here are ones thatwe've been discussing both
internally and externallythrough the industry, and just
trying to bring a little bitmore light to because it's not
(26:54):
bah humbug, we hate EVs.
It's how can we get to thisplace when we don't have some of
those foundational things inplace?
So you have manufacturers thatare changing their entire
business strategies and they're.
So you have manufacturers thatare changing their entire
business strategies and they'recontributing billions of dollars
to this massive economy.
That's essential.
Like how many things do yourely on that need wheels to get
(27:15):
you where you need to go?
I'm not just talking about yourcar, I'm talking about public
transportation and buses andtrains and the wheels on
airplanes.
Right, all of that is affected.
The infrastructure.
I flew to Connecticut not toolong ago and they offered me an
EV at the rental car company andI thought, well, I'm going to
(27:35):
be driving two and a half hoursnorth of here and there's
certainly no charging stationsup there, so I'm going to pass.
And it was just such an easythought and my brain was
wondering well, how many otherpeople are passing on this or
how many other people arethinking this is a really cool
opportunity.
I'm going to try that EV.
And then they get to theirdestination and maybe they don't
(27:56):
have the charginginfrastructure to get where they
need to go.
So that was point number one,where it really became real to
me.
Point number two is that we talkabout environmental impact and
sustainability, and some of thepoints we like to talk about are
always repair and replace,instead of throwing things out.
A circular economy.
(28:16):
Recycling is really importantand it's proven.
We recycle tires, we recycleoil.
Not many people know that weuse the oil from cars that we
take out of oil changes and weuse it for heating and furnaces
and buildings.
Right, there's all these reallycool different uses that we use
to make sure that we're asustainable industry.
But then the Washington Post Idon't know if you read this,
(28:37):
there was an expose on it, Ithink, last year that talked
about the mining of EV materialsand they were mining the copper
, I believe, in Indonesia andthey were decimating these local
communities.
So we're talking villages thatwere completely peaceful.
They're farming, they're rural.
They were found to have thesevaluable materials, the
(28:58):
companies came in to mine themand essentially ruined those
communities, meaning all of thebad things that were coming out
of the end of the process.
In order to mine thosematerials were going into their
rivers and water supplies,destroying their farms, harming
their fish.
Their entire ecosystem wasruined, and why didn't that make
headlines?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Well, it doesn't, because the folks who are
pushing this don't want it inour yard.
They're happy that it's insomeone else's yard, and that's
the other point, too is theUnited States by far has the
most stringent environmental andsafety and health regulations
(29:38):
in the world, and that is afunction of our wealth to a
large extent, and so thatwouldn't even be possible here
if we were to mine thesematerials here.
But the same people who arepromoting this agenda are also
blocking, through the use ofgovernment agencies and
environmental lawsuits andthings like that, our ability to
(29:58):
permit and produce thosematerials in the United States,
where they can be monitored,where the tailings and all the
things that you're talking aboutare strictly, strictly
monitored.
So that's to me, another ironyof all of this is that they're
exporting a lot of this, of theindustrial process involved in
(30:22):
it, and they just sort of turn ablind eye to that.
And these are the same peoplethat purportedly care so much
about the environment.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Right, so you know we talked about what went wrong.
What do you think was the stepthat we missed?
Was it hybrid, or was theresomething else that you think?
Speaker 2 (30:40):
So I think there are a couple of things.
I think about this a lot.
You know, diesel engines gotkind of a bad rap, you know,
back in the day, with the knocksand the pings and everything
else, and some of the old schoolguys like, oh yeah, I can't get
one of those, you know.
But you know there is a lotmore huge advances in diesel
technology clean, low sulfurdiesel, everything else.
(31:03):
I think cars sort of bypassthat step.
I think it's a more proficientor prolific in Europe, but we
missed that step here to stretchout that gas to get more fuel
efficiency.
Hybrids, I think, started out.
You know the Prius was kind ofa popular car and everyone kind
(31:24):
of loved it, and now you'reseeing this sort of rena, of
renaissance, if you will, ofhybrid, hybrids.
But the but the larger um pointis, is that we don't know what
we're missing because thegovernment keeps trying to force
us to do one thing and what theit's not letting the market
drive.
That it's not.
It's not letting the marketdrive.
(31:45):
That it's not.
It's not letting markets, youknow, and research and all the
good stuff that comes up.
You know when, when you're in acompetent, in a free market,
competitive environment, youwant an edge, you know, and so
you.
You push the boundaries of yourresearch.
You try to like there's a.
I was in a conference recentlywhere the folks who study, you
know and and do sort of theadvances in internal combustion
(32:08):
engines were complaining thatwhat's the point If governments
around the world aren't going tolet us use these cars anymore.
Why don't we just stopinnovating in that space?
And that's such a wasted, youknow, opportunity in my view.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
So un-American.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Yeah, absolutely so.
I think that's you know.
It's like it's hard to answerthat question sometimes because
you know our view is we don'tknow what we're missing.
But when the government sort ofshoehorns you into a certain
thing, it's inevitable thatthat's where everyone goes.
And the other thing is they'repumping billions and billions of
(32:46):
dollars in subsidies intoconverting ice vehicle factories
and plants here into electricvehicle factories and plants
here and your guys don't getthose.
I don't see all these wonderfulprograms out of the Inflation
Reduction Act for your guys.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
Manufacture only, and you're on the hook for that
Right.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
And so the autos have a lot of like much more
incentive to play along asopposed to fighting this,
because they know they'regetting a lot of subsidies Right
.
They know they're getting likea backstop in the form of
American taxpayer dollars and,by the way, that contributes to
inflation, which makes it harderfor us to buy groceries, and
(33:32):
again it compounds and adds tothe cost of a car.
So you have this in thesubsidies themselves.
That's not free.
The only people who arebenefiting from that are these
companies, and so in a lot ofcases they'll just sort of play
along, and that's unfortunate,because they should be leading
and saying no, we can do thisourselves, we'll handle it, let
(33:55):
us take the reins.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
So what do you think, then, is a better approach?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
So let's remove the policies, change the policy,
first of all, we have to theCAFE law, which is sort of the
under arching federallegislation in the seventies
that started this whole processof fuel efficiency mandates.
That needs to be.
(34:20):
It needs to be recognized thatit was passed in the seventies
to get us to make us lessreliant on foreign oil.
That was the purpose of it.
We had the oil embargo and thecrisis and everything and they
said we got to start bucklingdown and we've got to be more
efficient.
So that's how it started.
And there's an important phrasein that law.
(34:43):
It says to that which istechnologically and economically
feasible.
They weren't ever supposed touse that law to achieve their
social agenda item.
Right, it was supposed to behelping the industry recognize
that fuel efficiency is apriority of federal government
and that they should take itinto consideration.
(35:05):
They used to work with theautos and say what's the right
number here, and then they gotout of control, just like a lot
of other government programs getout of control.
But then they added this secondcomponent, which is California,
and they say as California goes, so does the nation.
Well, I'd like to change thatto what happens in.
(35:25):
California should stay in.
California because I don't wanttheir car ban.
I don't want their car ban inMaryland or Virginia or Florida
or wherever, and so that's theother component of this.
That sort of the Obamaadministration started this sort
of deferring to California onthese things.
(35:47):
Now California is trying toimpose a nationwide car ban.
That they want for their stateDoesn't work.
We need to get the Californiastuff has to go away completely.
One state shouldn't dictate theterms of the game for everybody
else.
In the second place, we need toget CAFE back to what it was,
(36:10):
which is a law designed toencourage fuel efficiency and
that's it, and then let themarket sort it out, and then we
got to, of course, get rid ofall these massive subsidies to
sort of force this along.
I think we can get there.
I really do.
I think the more people learnabout this, the more they
realize that it impacts them.
(36:30):
It's hugely unpopular.
We do a lot of polling in thisspace and when people it's a
recognition issue.
Once people recognize it, theysee the folly and they respond
accordingly.
So that's our job is to dostuff like this to get the word
out about what's going on.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
Yeah, that's probably one of the most difficult parts
about my job and my colleague'sjob is, we talk about this
stuff every single day and a lotof what we do is meant to be
proactive, not reactive, right,but the problem is that action
rarely happens until some sortof harm occurs.
So until it starts affectingyou or I or our colleague or
(37:12):
your friend or your mom or yoursister or whoever, people aren't
likely to act, and nor do theyhave the brain space to get
educated about this.
So how do we do that better?
It's something that we talkabout every single day.
That's our mission, it's whatwe do.
It's why we're here talking toyou today to try to provide a
platform to each other toeducate more about this, so we
could head off this problem nowversus later.
Speaker 2 (37:33):
right, it's hugely important and it unfortunately
is already affecting people.
They probably don't realize it,though, right?
The added cost of thesevehicles is mainly related to
this imposition of governmentinto the auto market.
(37:56):
It has changed the incentivesfor the auto manufacturers.
It has given them this positionwhere they're damned if they do
and damned if they don't.
Right, if they don't comply ordon't want to play ball with the
federal government, then itcould be really difficult for
(38:16):
them to exist in some cases.
But, on the other hand, they'rethe ones, in my view, who
really need to step up and saywait a minute don't.
Let's not what is often.
Who is often lost in thisconversation is the consumer
Right, the folks on the groundwho are affected by these
(38:37):
decisions, and what is impactingor impairing their ability, as
we said earlier, is to get theirfirst car, to get it into the
auto field, right To get intothe purchase field, and that's
the worst part is because we'resupposed to be helping people.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Government's supposed to be there to help, not to
like, get in the way or not to,you know, impede progress.
It's just very simple.
Let us choose Right Freedom tochoose.
Speaker 1 (39:08):
It's a simple message .
Couldn't agree more.
And I think when we go toCapitol Hill and we talk to
legislators, we live in a bubble, right, Everybody here has a
car, has public transportationdoesn't really think about it.
When you talk to some of thelegislators who live in those
more rural areas and you put itinto perspective, right, let's
say, you're a neighbor in thisrural area that doesn't have
(39:29):
this type of infrastructure ormandated to not be able to
purchase an ICE vehicle and hadto purchase an electric vehicle,
If the cost of that vehicledoesn't come down, how are they
getting to work?
You're going to let them losetheir job, which impacts your
local economy.
There's a tremendous downstreameffect.
So these are the conversationsthat we're having to have to
(39:50):
kind of show the scale of theissue right.
It's really easy to talk aboutit when you live in DC, Miami,
New York, LA, all of these.
You know all these urban areas,but most of America is not like
that.
So we like to encourage ourstaff and our members.
Many of our members really knowthis from heart.
They live in those rural areasand we take those road trips and
(40:12):
the cars there don't look likethe cars here?
Speaker 2 (40:14):
No, heck, no, they do not.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
And that's the leveling factor.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Right, and a lot of these same people you're talking
about, their car is theirlivelihood.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
It is.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
Right, if they're on a ranch or if they work for an
HVAC company or you know, evenif they're windows.
You know people who installwindows.
These are mostly trucks Big,big F-150s, f-250s and things
like that big F-150s, f-250s andthings like that.
And to just sort of tell thempound sand, just suck it up and
(40:46):
pay the extra price for a carthat may not be as reliable,
maybe they will be eventually.
Maybe they'll be moreaffordable, maybe they will be
just as powerful.
That's not the evidence today,and so, until it is, they should
be able to choose one or theother or something in between
that we don't know about yet.
(41:06):
Right ways who are onlythinking about one thing and not
thinking about all the otherramifications, and people's
(41:26):
livelihoods are impacted by it.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
So so many implications.
And your example of the ranchreally struck it with me because
I'll shout out to JC Washbushof the Automotive Aftermarket
Auto Parts Alliance His examplethat he gave to a legislator and
his business is down in SanAntonio, texas, is the rancher
with the Ford F-150.
If that truck is down he can'tfix it or he doesn't have that
(41:50):
truck because there was an ICEmandate.
How is he going to service thatranch?
That ranch is servicing cowsand cattle that goes to the
local grocery store, so we don'thave beef, we don't have food
supply.
Costs go up, like we're just inthis vicious cycle of inflation
and the cost of everythinggoing up and it's hurting
Americans.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
I will say that it's reallyhard for me too, because I'm I'm
a car kid.
You know, like my Both, myparents growing up worked for
General Motors on the assemblyline.
It was a GM town, it was aradiator division, and that was
(42:34):
the big employer in the area,and so they became the whole
family.
No one ever bought anythingthan a chevy or a camaro or a
malibu or you name it right agrand prix.
Yeah, you know, so like to me,you know, same as me growing up.
You know, my first non, eveneven my first non-gm car
(42:55):
technically was a gm car becausebecause they had bought sob and
I bought one of those earlysobab, you know the turbo Saabs.
So I said no because my parentsgot all mad at me.
I said no, no, no it's still aGM car, it's still owned by GM,
but the GM company that I knowtoday isn't the same, because
they're pretty much saying youknow what we're going to do this
(43:16):
, we're going to play ball.
They've gotten rid of theseclassic.
We're going to play ball,they've gotten rid of these
classic.
You know iconic lines.
You know, as I mentioned, theCamaro, the Malibu is on its way
out, that kind of stuff, andit's just, it's not necessary.
Yeah, it really isn't so it'sjust not the company that I you
(43:36):
know.
There's just no, I don't knowit's no heart, it's just
frustrating, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (43:43):
Yeah, stellantis really broke my heart.
We were talking earlier.
You know your Camaro and yourMalibu.
I'm crying about my Charger andmy Challenger because Dodge
took those away and those werethe best-selling cars of all
time for them.
So I'm really curious to knowif GM, if Stellantis, are
eventually going to bring thoseback in some way or form knowing
(44:06):
that the demand for them isstill there.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Yeah, you know it's funny.
We've been following this veryclosely and we sort of have
watched the whole evolution ofit's inevitable and just get
with the program.
And everyone's buying, everyoneloves these things, and it's
just taking the market by storm.
And then the Q1 results came,and the Q2 results came, and
Ford announced that they lost$50,000 for every EV they sold
(44:30):
and everything else.
And then all of a sudden, therewas this sort of slow
recognition that, you know, thisisn't working out quite as well
as we had planned or as thegovernment had hoped.
And now you're starting to seesome grownups making some saying
hey, we're you know Mercedes, Ithink, recently said well,
(44:52):
we're not going to go all EV,we're still going to have a
robust, you know, gas poweredfleet and this and that, and
we're rethinking our plans andwe're delaying our targets, and
you know.
So I think they're catching upwith the reality.
I think that it's perfectly.
It's great that people likethese cars.
I have nothing against them,but what I have is a beef with.
(45:16):
Is the impact that this agendais having on the cost of all
cars Right, because again itgoes back.
To me, the most important thingis people having the ability to
get in the game, and the onlyway to get in the game,
especially in this country, ishaving mobility.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Access, choice, affordability, repairability,
right.
Speaker 3 (45:38):
All really important.
Speaker 2 (45:39):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Incredible.
We've done good, tom.
We've done really good on this.
I don't think I have any otherquestions, but I want to know
from you if our listeners wantto learn more about your
organization, where can theyfind you?
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Two places instituteforenergyresearchorg,
and they're going to get morethan cars fair warning, because
we talk about all energy stuff.
And then savecarsorg, andthey're going to get more than
cars Fair warning, because wetalk about all energy stuff.
And then SaveCarsorg.
Savecarsorg is the Save Our CarCoalition, and so both places,
both platforms, have a lot ofgood information.
(46:14):
You can sign up and get all ourgood stuff and then you'll be
part of our family.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Fantastic.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
Thank you so much for taking the time.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Yeah, it's a great great talking to you.
Thanks for tuning in to anotherepisode of Auto Care On Air.
Make sure to subscribe to ourpodcast so that you never miss
an episode, and don't forget toleave us a rating and review
that helps others discover ourcontent.
Auto Care On Air is aproduction of the Auto Care
Association, dedicated toadvancing the auto care industry
(46:50):
and supporting professionalslike you.
To learn more about theassociation and its initiatives,
visit autocareorg.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.