mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

EV Transition Will Take Decades, Says GM CEO Mary Barra

Amid lowered electric vehicle consideration in the United States, several automakers dialed down ambitious short-term EV-adoption goals, including General Motors. That being said, GM Chair and CEO Mary Barra recently commented that the Detroit-based automaker’s transition to an all-electric future will now play out over the course of decades.

According to a report from CNBC, Barra clarified The General’s plans to eventually phase out ICE-powered vehicles in its lineup.

Photo of GM CEO Mary Barra.

“I wouldn’t say we’re recommitting,” Barra remarked in a recent interview. “You know, we said back in 2018 that we’re committed to an all-electric future. But as we make this transformation, it’s going to happen over decades. And that’s why I couldn’t be more proud of our gas-powered fleet as well.”

Of course, exactly what Barra means by decades leaves plenty of room for interpretation. General Motors arguably initiated its modern development of all-electric vehicles in the 2010s, and stated that it would offer a 100-percent electric fleet by 2035. As such, the transition timeline is already three decades (2010s, 2020s, and eventually 2030s), but if consumer demand just isn’t there, we can assume that the 2035 deadline would be pushed back.

As a reminder, The General recently announced that it’s shifting the overarching strategy of its adaptation of EVs, and now has plans to reintroduce plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) to the North American market. Previously, General Motors had elected to bypass hybrids entirely, with GM President Mark Reuss going so far as to claim that PHEVs weren’t necessary on the path to an EV-only future.

Looking forward, the first of these GM PHEVs are expected to arrive in the United States by 2027. Interestingly, General Motors has been in the process of rolling out a few PHEV models in China, such as the Buick GL8 and the Chevy Equinox, yet has no plans to import said hybrids to the United States.

Reinforcing this sentiment, Reuss stated that “We know how to do it, and we’re going to do a few [PHEV models]. I can’t tell you what yet, but they won’t be imported.”

Be sure to subscribe to GM Authority for GM EV newsGM business news, and more obsessive-compulsive GM news coverage.

As a typical Florida Man, Trey is a certified GM nutjob who's obsessed with anything and everything Corvette-related.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. It’s amazing how out of touch so many executives have been lately with the general public. Incredible really.

    Reply
    1. Thats why we need a Boeing style corporate cleansing in America.

      Reply
    2. It’s open to interpretation. I don’t think she is speaking for GM specifically but rather the industry as a whole. The important thing is that GM continues the R&D in that field but maintains their ICEs and PHEVs to remain profitable and be able to fund EV R&D projects. Better to remain profitable during the transition than to be an EV only carmaker and have no alternatives to fall back on. The affordable Bolt is a good start.

      Reply
  2. No man can serve 2 masters. You can’t please the globalist at the WEF and the middle class (aka, your clientele wink wink 😉) you must choose one Mary! You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Reply
    1. It won’t make any difference if the transition doesn’t occur sooner than later because at the rate the average climate temperature is increasing, the earth is going to become more and more uninhabitable, so where will that leave us? All one has to look at is the fact that New Deli, India had a high temperature of 126 degrees Fahrenheit last week, and that is in the shade! Down in Texas it is boiling, and it is only early June! Here in the U.S. we have not only experienced more tornados and more severe tornados, literally 40 or so at a time. Also in regions that don’t typically experience tornados, like in Maryland. The whole idea of transitioning to EV’s as soon as possible is(was) to forestall the consequences of radical climate change. Yes, there has always been climate change, but it has taken place over tens of thousands of years. But if you look at a graph of the average temperature change that has taken place since the advent of the industrial revolution, roughly 150 years, it is absolutely frightening. So if you don’t care to do your part then keep on driving your ICE cars and see where that gets us.

      Reply
      1. if we were to ban all ICE powered cars from the roads it would not make one DAMN but if difference in lowering the temperature. We can be the fools and give up our ICE cars but I don’t see India or China doing anything to reduce their “carbon footprint” even though China is producing EVs on a large scale.

        I don’t think the “end of the world” will be the result of global warming: toxic politics and the hatred man has toward each other will do this world in sooner.

        Reply
      2. Sean: You really need to educate yourself man….. I drive 3 BEVs, and have solar panels on my house, but I have not been fooled by climate alarmists. Almost all of their predictions have been totally wrong.

        Search on TONY HELLER MY GIFT TO CLIMATE ALARMISTS.

        There, you will find portions of graphs seeming to indicate plenty of data indicating Climate is getting really horrible. Of course, when you look at the sources that the information was taken from – it is obvious that many people are trying to scam the uninitiated.

        Its less than 13 minutes of your time with all kinds of official data. – less time than it took to frame this response. But basically:

        1). The hottest time in recent memory was the 1930s. It was also the driest time, therefore it is not surprising that lost acreage from forest fires are down 80% from then – another lie that has been told. The horrid ‘Dust Bowls’ caused huge damage, which is a result of the above.

        2). There was an additional hot period of time around 1900 in the USA.

        3). Sea Ice Extent is seasonal…… This is why recent expeditions around the arctic have frozen in place and these ‘Climate Tourists’ needed to be rescued by Russian Icebreakers. Of course, 120 years ago, explorers found open passages due to much less ice at the time.

        By almost any metric, the polemic given generally is nonsense, and some climatologists have predicted the COLD decades are ahead of us. During a portion of my lifetime, mechanization greatly increased from 1940-1970 yet it got colder almost every year. Magazine articles for the lay public predicted a premature ICE AGE, but real climate scientists admitted that they just are not sure what will happen, a candid admission.

        I suspect you won’t research this, however it is so easy to do that others might. The real data is so clear cut even a child could see that this is all a big scam, it being a way to so far – use it to fleece money and launder it back to millionaires and billionaires. They want to use it as a club to further coerce people..

        Like saying silly things like RACISM is due to excess climate change. But this kind of thing will just get more extreme the more gullible people become.

        Reply
      3. gentlemen ,start your engines

        Reply
  3. Imagine being paid $50 million a year to be so wrong about something so obvious. I’m pretty sure anyone who isn’t living in a bubble knew that going full EV by 2035 wasn’t realistic. None of these execs and politicians pushing hard for EVs know what it’s like to live like a normal person, living in an apartment, or in an average area with poor EV infrastructure, or having a slim budget that prohibits throwing money at a charger at home, or paying the premium for an EV in the first place. These companies need some common sense at the top.

    Reply
    1. Corporate stupidity is alive and well.

      Reply
    2. The smug ivory tower elites have never been to flyover country.

      Reply
  4. She is such a mixed-up mess. And folks lambaste me for saying how out of touch and slimy auto execs have become since the start of the pandemic. It’s almost an embarrassing industry.

    Reply
  5. After reading this and realizing I must have missed the previous article in Dec 22 that was hyperlinked here…I’d say Mark Reuss is just as much to blame for this. We all like to curse out Mary, but Mark should get some shade too.

    Reply
    1. Absolutely correct.

      Mark is the President and is essentially responsible for the operating side of the business. He in large part makes the calls on the product portfolio, gets Mary and the BOD’s buy in and is responsible for it’s execution.

      Frankly this management team has blown so many strategic calls and wasted so many billions it’s hard to believe the company has a functioning BOD at all.

      The only thing the M and M pair can hang their hat on is sustained profitability based solely on inflated pricing and relentless cost cutting and downsizing. Nowhere in there is a plan to significantly grow the company.

      Reply
      1. No..No, remember that the company will grow mainly from Mary transforming it into a technology and software powerhouse selling subscription services. The auto business is just her side project to enact her All EV and technology business.

        Imagine the amount of cash that has been burned in this electrification and technology path. The Cash that could have and would have been saved if she allowed it to be split off like investors asked for almost a decade ago. I have to imagine it is north of $50 Billion.

        Reply
  6. I’m confused as to why this is a story. Nothing has changed. 2035 was the year for non-HD vehicles to be electric. It will be beyond that for all vehicles to be electric. Cars last, on average, 12 years. So, a car purchased today would still be on the road after 2035.

    Reply
    1. Right. Even if the last ICE vehicle were sold tomorrow it would take decades before the last one was off the road. Hell, there’s that red Barchetta my uncle has out at his country place..

      Reply
      1. The one that used to be a farm before the motor law?

        Reply
  7. I read an article recently on Forbes that even in China some families are starting to turn to PHEVs instead. One woman even explained that most Chinese families have only one car and unless they only drive within the city the BEV just doesn’t work for them regardless of how much cheaper they are there.

    Reply
    1. I agree that if you only have one car, an ICE/PHEV might be the best choice for now. But how many homeowners in the US only have one car, especially if they have a family? Additionally, people make it sound like EV technology will not change in the coming years. ICE vehicles have been around for over 100 years, and modern EVs are about 15 years old. Imagine the technology changes over the next decade.

      The question isn’t if EVs will replace ICE/PHEV vehicles. It’s when.

      Reply
      1. I want to be clear here. I am not opposed to EVs. I am opposed to being forced into buying something I don’t see myself ready to own yet. These aren’t TVs we are talking about here. These are expensive investments that are practically necessities in the US just to get around. The cars are still too expensive in my eyes for less convenience. Imagine being forced to get a smart phone when they first came out where they were hundreds of dollars more than your old style flip phones? Eventually you realize your phone also replaces your camera, GPS, and palm pilot. I am a late adapter and prefer to wait for the tech to get to a point where there is literally no benefit to sticking with the old stuff. That way I don’t jump into it and then regret my purchase. I want it enjoy the new tech from the getgo. That was the case with smartphones, with LED lighting, and LCD TVs. Electric cars aren’t there yet. They’ll get there with advancement like you said, but until then, nobody is going to force me to get one. Its hard enough to afford decent cars these days I am not paying a fortune for what I currently see as a downgrade just to make some left leaning greenies happy. One thing though, I do have multiple cars and a house prepped to take a level 2 charger. Given these it may be a bit easier for me to transition. But keep in mind, I also have a wife to convince and if she sees range drastically change with cold weather I may get the classic “why the hell did you waste our money on this crap?”

        Reply
        1. Who’s forcing you to buy anything? Every EV GM sells, except for the Hummer, has an ICE equivalent. GM or any other company can’t magically wake up in 2035 and start producing EVs. Cars take about four years to design and bring into production. So, we’re not far off for vehicles planned for 2030 to hit the drawing (CAD) board.

          Reply
          1. You can’t have an honest conversation here if you are going to ignore the elephant(s) in the room pushing the ban on ICE and going “all in” on EVs by 203X.

            Reply
          2. What do you think ICE bans are? These are indirect forms of forcing something on the public. Luckily Connecticut is realizing the disaster this will create for local dealerships if people still refuse to buy EVs and go put of state of an ICE. Which is what will happen here in NJ if Phil Murphy doesn’t come back down to earth and come to terms with this very real reality. I already told my wife if the prices of these cars don’t come down by Phillys mandate deadline I will start buying ICEs or PHEVs in Pennsylvania.

            Reply
  8. Looks like the reality of the green wet dream set in. Billions spent on the EV-Only future that was just more than a decade away. The voice of the customer finally made its way to downtown Detroit. Who could have predicted that a mix of solutions was the right answer?

    Reply
  9. So, Rip Van Barra just woke up?

    Reply
  10. So, can we bring a 7th Gen Camaro with a V8? Until then, not interested in GM products.

    Reply
    1. And a next gen Malibu and ICE replacements for the XT4, 5 & 6?

      Reply
  11. Zero crashes. Zero emissions. Zero congestion. It’s more like zero intelligence. Zero awareness. Zero ambition and zero sales. Anybody that leads a company to build a 9500 pound “green” behemoth vehicle for 100 grand and thinks this is a good idea should be adding ketchup and mustard to hotdogs instead.

    Reply
  12. Spoken like a true CEO
    I’m gonna take millions from GM and not actually make the hard decisions that are needed in the meantime. Then have a new CEO come in when I notice we are nosediving into Bankruptcy and bounce.

    Shareholders will once again be left high and dry

    Reply
    1. This is what we are seeing in almost every industry. Out of touch rich Boomer execs getting ESG bonuses from Blackrock and Vanguard to push their agendas. The old execs will soon retire with a fortune and leave the mess to the next gen of execs to figure out.

      Reply
  13. I’m sorry, but I’ve got to say it— I told you so!!
    Some of Mary’s leadership decisions:
    * all electric after 2035
    * change GM logo to gm
    * change Chevy Bowtie to Black
    * cancel Camaro
    * initiate $25000+ accessory groups on Cadillac
    * Initiate cars with 2 free colors only – Cadillac
    * get into bed with the Chinese

    Reply
    1. You forgot
      * force customers to buy 3 years of Onstar to save that poor business model.
      * Build a Toaster on wheels that doesn’t meet multiple Federal regulations

      Reply
  14. Agreed with most of the comments here. I’ve rarely heard anything she says making the slightest sense , and when she talks all day and says nothing it comes across as totally scripted. A plastic person..

    In fact, she is totally wrong again, unless batteries get as free as thumb drives. With solar panels being 1/4 their present cost.

    Otherwise, we will always have an oil industry.

    Reply
  15. I love how so many people on this site love to criticize GM’s management. It makes me feel I must be in the presence of CEOs and Presidents of major corporations because this site has so much insight into how a very large corporation can be run better.

    All the advice on this site can be summarized as V8s, more sedans, Escalade, Corvette, Silverado, a new Camaro, and keeping the Malibu. If GM does anything else, it is doomed.

    Reply
    1. Quite the opposite. Most of us on this site have asked for OPTIONS, including V8s and EVs and hybrids. There is one side pushing for everyone to be “all in” by a certain date, and it wasn’t most of us here.

      Reply
      1. I like how people are worried about 2035 instead of what’s available today/next year. Worry about what your options are in 2035 in 2035. Electric flying cars might be the thing.

        GM is right. PHEVs are costly and the worst of both worlds. You’re either paying for an ICE you’ll rarely use or carrying around batteries that are used for long distances. You must charge, refuel, change oil, transmission fluid, spark plugs, etc. There’s a reason many automakers went with start/stop technology. You get a lot of benefits from hybrid/PHEV without the cost.

        Let’s be realistic. would we even have this conversation if EVs had a 400+ mile range and could charge in 10 minutes?

        Reply
        1. Our options have already been cut this year/next year. No more V8s from Stellantis, that includes, Challengers, Chargers, trucks, and SUVs. gm killed the Camaro already. Does Toyota sell V8 pickups and SUVs anymore? Yet none of us are here saying to BAN EVs or not make them an OPTION for people. We simply don’t want forced into them.

          Reply
          1. You can’t blame Mary for what Stellantis and Toyota are doing. Discontinuing the Camaro makes sense. It’s a low-volume, cheaper car (compared to the Corvette) that shares a platform with nothing else. From a profitability standpoint, the Camaro has a greater chance of returning as an EV than it ever would as an ICE vehicle unless GM made it an ICE CUV/SUV that nobody wants. As far as V8 goes, many are getting rid of them because V6 can provide “like” power and is more flexible in their product lines. It all comes down to cost.

            Reply
            1. Speaking of low volume and cost, that’s the issue with EVs in general right now. Most are LOSING money hand over fist. Ford is even losing 6 figures for each EV sold. Yet here we are.

              Reply
              1. The difference is that all of GM’s EVs use the same battery cell/module, just with different numbers of modules. They also use one of five drivetrains and one of three motors. They don’t have any emissions requirements, and GM also makes its own battery cells, drivetrains, and motors.

                Compare that with Ford, where little is shared between the Mach-E and Lightning. They are one-off vehicles. Also, Ford buys the motors and battery cells from a third party.

                Reply
                1. And yet gm has still lost and continues to lose multiple BILLIONS per year in the EV business, with untold amounts of taxpayer money being thrown at both the manufacturer and consumer.

                  Reply
            2. The Camaro shares a platform with the CT4 and CT5 along with the assembly plant.

              Reply
              1. What’s worse is that the camaro shared engines with trucks (lt1/l86/lfx/lgx) and corvette (hand me down lt4). Not to mention the 10spd auto developed with Ford. It was pure parts bin. The Camaro was not a burden on the product portfolio- GM ignored it and then threw in the towel because . . . it had been ignored to the point of no return . . . and they no longer wanted to build a powertrain for it. But they do for Cadillac and the trucks. So where does that put us . . . I suppose it would still be around if they could have figured a way to put the Equinox powertrain in it . . .

                Reply
        2. And while hybrids have all those cons and you see them as the worst of both worlds, they also have all these pros and I see them as the best of both worlds:

          -AWD capable
          -More power
          -More efficiency
          -More flexible
          -More range
          -Much quicker to refuel
          -Us enthusiasts still get a V8 to listen to and feel while the car has become more efficient

          That’s why we want OPTIONS. You buy what works for you and we’ll buy what works for us.

          Reply
          1. Options are great, but they come at a price (profit). For every option you want, someone else wants a different set of options. So you have more inventory, more parts, more storage, more manufacturing variability. All that leads to lower profits. There’s a reason Tesla is so profitable. Basically, every car in a model is the same except for color and AWD/RWD.

            Reply
            1. Auto companies have already lost BILLIONS with this botched EV push. Not to mention taxpayers and shareholders.

              Reply
              1. Has GM lost billions? GM says every Ultium vehicle is profitable. Also, you have to get out of the narrow view that EVs are unprofitable because of the R&D. From that view, all cars are unprofitable in their first couple of years as they recoup design, development, and factory costs.

                GM got out of the European and Australian markets because they did have negative profit margins.

                Reply
                1. According to news articles, they lost almost $6 billion just in 2022 & 23.

                  Reply
            2. When a customer buys a car, they could care less about that company’s profits. The want something that is desirable to them at a reasonable price. The company that offers customers this will be the one that thrives and is profitable long-term

              Reply
    2. She’s made more than her share of extremely costly mistakes. Like discontinuing more vehicles than they make, often when their popularity is growing.

      Adding features people don’t want and making needless changes that make the car worse is just dumb.

      The overall market speaks by voting with their feet. That’s why GM’s overall market share is slowly heading towards the basement.

      Reply
    3. Yeah, the Silverado and Corvette dump those piles…….no one buys those.

      I’m mean, theres out of touch and there’s your post.

      Reply
  16. I swear the more money 1 has the less brain cells they have as well. So far out of touch.

    Reply
  17. She should have NEVER stood on national television telling the world how GM will be all electric by 2030 for Cadillac and the remainder of the company a few years later. She made a fool of herself and GM. She should be fired.

    Reply
    1. You have a revisionist history. She said Cadillac will be all-electric by 2030. GM medium and light-duty vehicles will be electrified by 2035. Nothing she has said since contradicts any of that at this point.

      Do you have news we don’t have that says Cadillac will be selling ICE vehicles in 2030? Do you have news that GM will sell medium and light-duty vehicles after 2035? I’m sure their plans can change without notice, but they haven’t said anything to contradict that. They did say they are going to make some PHEV. That’s it.

      Reply
      1. Cadillac will still have an ICE Escalade in 2030, I would bet money on it.

        By then might have just cleared out the 298 day inventory of Lyrics dealers have on the lots too…..

        Reply
  18. It’s amazing how out of touch Mary Barra and her fellow members of the manmade global warming religion are. I worked at Pontiac Product Planning, during the good years, and after that Powertrain Division Product Planning. Mary Barra reminds me of Roger Smith in many ways.

    Reply
  19. Reuss is still out of touch with the market! if they are only doing a few PHEVs. That’s what is going to sell alongside ICE and EVs. Ford leadership at least recognizes that and is making all models with a hybrid option. Ford will continue to eat GM’s lunch, and eventually exceed their market share, if the current GM leadership team continues along the path they’re on. Hybrid sales are up significantly, and (iMO) will continue to grow. Give me a PHEV with around 100 miles of electric range and mid 30’s mpg on gas, with decent 0-60 performance (under 7 seconds) and you’ve got a winner. I will never go all electric until they get 600+ miles of range, are not affected by cold weather, and charge quickly (5-10 minutes), and have cost parity with ICE vehicles (I won’t pay much more for an EV). That won’t likely happen until the next decade with solid state batteries.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel