Biden Administration Rolls Out Plan For $100 Billion In New EV Rebates

The $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan that the Biden Administration rolled out last week includes $100 billion in new consumer rebates for electric vehicles.

President Biden plans to sideline $174 billion to promote EVs, $100 billion of which will go toward new consumer rebates for the purchase of new EVs and $15 billion toward building 500,000 new EV charging stations nationwide.

The proposed point of sale rebates and tax incentives for EVs will only be eligible for American-made EVs, a fact sheet on WhiteHouse.gov indicates, and will help ensure EVs are “affordable for all families and manufactured by workers with good jobs”

In addition, the Biden Administration said the infrastructure plan will support automakers “to spur domestic supply chains from raw materials to parts, retool factories to compete globally, and support American workers to make batteries and EVs.”

A portion of the $174 billion EV fund will also go toward the new Clean Buses for Kids Program at the Environmental Protection Agency, which is working towards the goal of electrifying at least 20 percent of the nation’s yellow bus fleet. More funds will also be funnelled into a program to replace 50,000 diesel transit vehicles nationwide with cleaner alternatives, while Biden also plans to electrify the entire federal vehicle fleet – including that of the United States Postal Service.

“These investments will set us on a path to 100 percent clean buses, while ensuring that the American workforce is trained to operate and maintain this 21st century infrastructure,” the White House also said.

General Motors and other major automakers have been pushing the Biden Administration to roll out a plan to support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Two automotive industry trade groups and the UAW sent a letter to the White House last month urging it to roll out new incentives for electric vehicle purchases, in addition to implementing other pro-EV policies.

“Neither the current trajectory of consumer adoption of EVs, nor existing levels of federal support for supply- and demand-side policies, is sufficient to meet our goal of a net-zero carbon transportation future,” the trade groups said in the letter.

GM will invest $20 billion in new electric and autonomous vehicles between now and 2025 and is aiming for its consumer vehicles to have net-zero tailpipe emissions by as early as 2035, position it well to profit off of Biden’s new infrastructure plan.

Subscribe to GM Authority for ongoing General Motors news coverage.

Sam McEachern: Sam loves to write and has a passion for auto racing, karting and performance driving of all types.

View Comments (57)

  • Knowing that many of you will complain about rebates to “woke millennial” EVs is proof that they’re not popular or some other BS, this should serve as a reminder that the US has been subsidizing the Oil & Gas industry for decades to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars on top of the massive profits they pull in.

    • The truth is nearly every industry has lobbyist and gets something in return from the government so pointing fingers is just pointless.

      The EV is well past the woke idiots. The tech has gone far enough now mfgs are embracing it as once the return on investment is reached the cost will be lower and profits better with electronics.

      Electronics have become much cheaper to make once you get pat initial costs.

      Apple, Samsung, and dozens of other electronics companies have become the most dominate companies due to the potential profits and realized profits.

      Investors also are not fans of the mechanical ways and are investing in composites, electronics and other advanced techs.

      GM, VW and the others are not making this change just got fun or to save a tree.

      • Correction mate. Manufacturers are not embracing it. They are doing so as world governments are mandating it big difference. Manufacturers are going to follow the path of least resistance to stay in business and will pander to whatever the flavor is of that day.

        • It started that way as no automaker wanted this. Now as progress has been made they are seeing development cost of ICE drive only higher as they see the cost of batteries drop.

          It is not just the automakers but the stock market as they are agreeing with The move GM is doing.

          Hey I am not a tree hugger. I did not vote for average Joe, I have no lust for EV cars, I work in the racing industry. But I am an informed realist and I can see what we have and what is coming and I understand why they are now going this way.

          Progress on batteries and other components has moved much faster than anticipated and the growth will continue with all the investment.

          The profit from electric vehicles will be much easier to come by moving forward.

          One only has to do is look around and see the struggles all automakers were having and they needed a way out. This is the way out financially.

          Even Ray Charles could see with all the mergers and failures in the market times have been tough.

          • We don't need toxic batteries OR toxic vaccines! There is no climate change and covid is a hoax!!!!!!!!!

          • I swear that 90% of people on this app wouldn't know an obvious troll if each comment came with a disclaimer. Wow.

          • My point is that whatever the governments push for companies will pander to it and the masses will buy in. Just like when european governments went all in on diesel and the citizens followed suit. If the government said fuel cells is the way to go and that is what they want. Companies would follow suit.

            I would not say one is a tree hugger if they support EVs. As we do need to preserve the environment. With that said there is nothing green about these new solutions that people propose.

            Battery "technology" is not impressive even as of late. The top spec EVs can barely beat lowend gasoline models in range. So not a superior replacement technology.

            What is impressive is a super car like the "Hyperion" coming out with 1000 miles of range as it is a fuel cell.

            I'm more interested in infrastructure at this point in time. As american roads are embarrassing compared to other G20 countries. We are falling way behind compared to other countries. With or without EVs the country seriously needs to modernize our grid.

          • Charge my EV at home. Rarely drive more than 40 or 50 miles in a day so my Volt is a great daily car. For longer trips I still have a Silverado but there are already thousands of dc fast chargers out there ( no value to my Volt) so any long trips simply require a bit of planning. So it would take me 20-40 minutes for a charge. Its ok with me. Time to pee drink more coffee or coke ( or maybe no coke since they drank the GA voter law kool aid) and grab a snack. I am in no hurry so a dc fast charge ev would work just fine for me. In the last year and a half I have been more than 50 miles from home twice

          • Good example of how different uses for a vehicle lead to different choices. Since you rarely travel more than 50 miles from home an EV is always within range of home. Second, your Volt is actually a hybrid with a gas engine backup so you don’t need to worry about running out of charge. Third, you have a Silverado as backup for longer trips. You say that you don’t mind waiting 30-45 minutes for a charge. So, EV makes sense for you.
            In my case I have a cottage in Northern MI that we go to almost weekly from May to October (340 mile round trip) and charging stations are not a common sight. We also drive to Florida in the winter months and stopping to charge twice a day really lengthens the travel day. At this juncture an EV is not for me because of the time / miles that the car is actually driven. The more miles you drive the less sense an EV makes with current technology.

          • Ya know, everything you say is a) true, and b) exactly how government is supposed to push the market into the great unknown.

            The latter is why we have turbocharging today--'cuz the government subsidized research back in the early 20th Century so army planes could fly at higher altitudes ('cuz forced induction overcomes the inherent disadvantage of thin air found at high altitudes).

    • This is actually a difficult topic to quantify because estimates for oil & gas subsidies differ based on the source. Do you account government money directly given to companies? That's a relatively small amount (<10 billion). Do you include tax breaks and corporate exemptions (i.e. regulatory compliance)? Estimates I've seen are approximately $10-$50 billion. Higher estimates include theoretical costs to fix the damage to the planet (i.e. from global warming). This estimate reached $650 billion by the IMF. I find the last figure to be highly speculative and political.

      I also tried looking into green energy subsidies and find sources claiming that it's around $7-$14 billion annually. That's not too far from the oil subsidies.

      • Oil and gas don't get ANY subsidies! When was the last time you got a check from a gas station?

        • Melania, either you are trying (unsucessfully) to make jokes, or you are a member of the cult started by he who shall go unnamed. No covid ----- really.

    • Instead of rebates i rather subsidizing manufacturing of EVs and new energy tech products on American soil by American companies. Obama Admin tried rebates after 2008 financial Crisis with cash for clunkers program, official name was The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) that intended to promote more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle. And it totally failed. Sheep Consumers went to splash the money on imported expensive vehicles instead of supporting American Auto industry.

      People should understand that; behind the scenes other countries see all this new energy transformation a strategic trade war. German government exclusively and heavily subsidizes German car manufacturers against the competition. They want to keep their big slice of the cake intact and carry over their dominant position into the new untouched EV market. So "let market decide puritans" should stop their "crony capitalism" BS tirades. There's no fully free market economy anywhere in the world, and nobody beaching when their government support the strategic interests of their country through supporting domestic companies.

      All other governments except the US mobilizing to protect their national economic interests and support their companies in global competition. It's sad but America is not the superpower once was, those days are gone thanks to "patriotism is not needed anymore we're the citizens of global world" subversion. But some people still act like nothing happened ,there's no behemoth China gettin bolder everyday and there's no foreign companies eat the lunches of the US and American companies. So they keep continue to pushing "Big Brother" "Big Government" cliches and see American government is the mother of all evil, it's pathetic.

    • Do you have any EVIDENCE that oil and gas are subsidized? or just liberal media talking points? Or did Hunter Biden give you some inside info?

    • Oh, so you ADMIT evs are for woke millennials! How NICE of you to finally wake up!

      • The Oil Depletion Allowance could certainly qualify as a subsidy. Admittedly not exactly since it is just less tax burden. But another business does not get this 'freebee' so some people might consider that unfair.

        Now me, I would just say that governments should lower the taxes on everyone else to make it more fair. But then I still live in a highly taxed State.

  • GM brags about how their Ultium technology will lower prices, what a joke, their making EV’s that cost over 100k. Slimy Joe gonna have to give us 100k rebates.

  • The formula of a tax credit depending upon the amount of vehicles produced was flawed from the start. Those that were first to market and borne the cost of development of product got the least benefit. If the politicians want to do something to spur the market, by all means consider national content as a means. IOW, if a Bolt is 90% NA and Kia is 10%, adjust the incentive accordingly. It's not like any other country wouldn't act in the same manner.

  • While I am not against EVs I am against forcing the supply before there is a demand. Yes, I understand that you have to start somewhere but I do have concerns regarding the platform. Aside from large or coastal cities the charging infrastructure isn't there. Regarding charging stations, how does that work? Pull into a available spot and sit for 30 min and get half your batteries' capacity? I live in the snow-belt NE and the harsh winter cold will absolutely have a detrimental effect on battery life and longevity. How have EV makers addressed this concern?

    • I have a problem with this too. They’ll be subsidizing cars for urban dwellers at the expense of rural citizens that can’t realistically buy them. They’re also subsidizing $100,000 gm EVs for the affluent while the lower income purchasers get nothing.

      I disagree with all of these kinds of subsidies. A few years ago, there was the EV/Hybrid rebate and a tax incentive for business owners to buy large SUVs. The latter being a carve-out inducement to help gm and Ford which had struggled and needed sales of their most profitable models. I always thought it made no sense to incentivize sales of the Ford Excursion, which was one of the most harmful vehicles for the environment, and then to also incentivize the Volt so that supposedly the planet could be saved. Utter stupidity. Meanwhile the folks in the middle who just wanted a sensible four-cylinder Camry got no inducements.

      • It would be better to subsidize gas cars, at least they don't make you sit in the freezing cold to charge.

  • The government invested in the space program and it benefited our economy greatly as it brought development of new technology that we take for granted today. It was shared with the defense department and while it was expensive it has generated much more economic development, communications and even has saved millions of lives is various ways.

    The EV incentives are a drop in the buck but will continue to seed the market that is forming up fast.

    GM Is only starting with the top end cars first as it was proven already people will buy them and they will pay the return on investment much faster than losing money on a $40K electric car no one cares about. As the ROI is recovered the tech will be applied to cheaper and more affordable models and the public will migrate at their own choice outside California.

    All new tech be it stability control, rear disc brakes, hud, and more were all first presented in the expensive cars where they could could be sold at a higher price to recover the cost so they could be offered in a Spark or Sonic.

    Much of what was true in the past is no longer applying to present day tech. Many of the challenges are being over taken and things like cost, cold, grid, and charge times are going to be past worries. There will be new challenges as the tech advances will anyone want the early cars? What value will they have? The added weight of the cars what will it do to roads? Charging in Urban areas where garages are rare etc.

    Even in the performance industry we are now gearing up for performance parts for EV cars now. I work in this industry and we can clearly see this is coming like it or not. You can prepare for it and make money or ignore it and lose income to those willing to serve this sector. We are not abandoning ICE as it will remain a part of the market for a good while yet. But it would be totally ignorant to not understand EV is here and it is only going to grow like it or not.

    To be honest the sooner the enthusiast embrace it the sooner you will get vehicles that you will be happy with. Other wise you may be stuck with a bad looking science fair project.

    • The horse and buggy are way greener than a toxic EV battery. Why don't the climate change fraudsters use those? Oh no, too conservative!

    • While I agree that EVs are viable in the long term, the overall technology is just not yet ready for the high volumes and extensive geography in the US. Forcing the switch to EVs is a huge cost with current technology and even if successful only addresses the 25% of total CO2 emissions. That 25% reduction is at the vehicle level and is actually even less when the increased power plant emissions required to charge millions of EVs is considered. Further, environmentalists rarely mention the environmental impact of mining the lithium, cobalt and other materials required to produce millions of 1000 lb batteries. A much more effective transition would be to concentrate on vehicles like local delivery vehicles and buses which have the most impact and then let the technology evolve and improve into more applications. Politicians rarely make good technical decisions and this is a good example. Get the government out of the business of picking winners and let the technology and market decide.

  • Besides this rebate is a better move than Cash For Clunkers that served no real gain for anyone.

    • The idea behind Cash for Clunkers was to also Save the Planet by getting “dirty” vehicles off the road. I have a friend who used the $4,000 rebate to get a Volkswagen Jetta Diesel as a replacement for a Ford Taurus. I’m pretty sure in hindsight the Taurus was cleaner than the cheater-device-equipped VW.

  • Giving people some money back that they got ripped off on when they purchased an EV piece of junk

    • A tax credit is not a Give Back.

      It simply prevents the Feds from STEALING as much money from me. I used the $7500 per electric vehicle purchased as a way to prevent a thieving Fed Gov't to steal less of my income in the year I purchased one.

  • I don't believe any legacy automaker is "embracing" EVs. If GM was truly "all in" on EVs, they would have something more than the Bolt and some concept vehicles by now. The biggest EV manufacturer is Tesla. GM has nothing to compete with them on the road today. The Hummer will be the first product which can take the fight directly to Tesla - but only in the $100k realm, and the CyberTruck will have similar performance at half the price. In the meantime, Tesla is cranking out Model 3s and Model Ys as fast as they can make them in factories around the world. I have been a GM owner for 25 years, but I know when I replace my CTS it won't be with another GM product based on the current production or the concepts they've shown. GM needs to go back to building cars people WANT to own - not the ones they are being FORCED to own.

    • All this EV myopia reminds me of the early 1980s when we were told there will be no more V8 engines, everything will be front-wheel drive, no more large vehicles, most of our cars will be diesels Etc. This was in response to the oil crises of the 1970s. At the end of the day it's going to be the consumer that determines if EVs are viable or not on a large scale. Things like carbon capture and synthetic fuels are being developed as potential means to reduce carbon emissions while allowing consumers to continue to enjoy Ice vehicles.

      • The liberals are fighting that. They want EVs and solar power even in the north where it doesn't work!

  • Where are we going to get power to operate these? We are having Brown outs now. Nothing planned in the future to cover it. Wind don't work. Texas just showed us solar is not up to it. We need Millions of Generators?

    • Does anyone remember reliable, clean, safe (mostly) nuclear power? Too bad the enviro wacos killed it.

      • Enviro Wacos SusyQ?

        Tell that to the people who died after Three Mile Island (only a relatively small number - I'll grant you that).

        MSM reports of course say ZERO people died, but actuarial data shows Cancer Rates Northwest of Harrisburg, PA skyrocketed.

        They didn't all die from Cigarette Smoking.

        Or the 600,000 and counting Russian Army 'Liquidators' who helped clean up Chernobyl. Not to mention all the unborn at the time who would later die in their early teens and twenties of 'Chernobyl Heart'. The figure is certainly well over 1,000,000 by now.

        Or the ongoing deaths from Fukushima Daichi's multiple Deflagration, and Prompt Criticality (Nuclear Bomb) Detonation that by the way, BY Japanese LAW - caused ZERO DEATHS. It is illegal for any doctor there to state otherwise. The Coriums (Nuclear Cores) from the 3 large General Electric designed Reactors are still 'UNDER' their respective Spaghetti (twisted wreckage) plants filling the Pacific Ocean with nice Radioactive Decay Byproducts.

        Forget about trying to actually clean those up - any HARDENED robot they have to try to get anywhere near the things crap out due to the unbelievably high radiation levels.

        You are welcome to go and try to volunteer to go get 'em yourself if you like.

        Now I charge my car with Nuclear power from Canada at times. But the basic problem with Nuclear is that you can have 40 years of perfect operation, and then One Very Bad Day.

        This is of course ignoring such Euphemisms as 'Routine Releases', and everything else the Nuclear Industry sweeps under the rug.

1 2