Batteries

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Limits China’s Ability to Benefit From Electric Vehicle Subsidies

    by

    The Biden administration issued new rules to prevent Chinese firms from supplying parts for electric cars set to receive billions of dollars in tax credits.The Biden administration proposed new rules on Friday aimed at shifting more production of electric vehicle batteries and the materials that power them to the United States, in an attempt to build up a strategic industry now dominated by China.The rules are meant to limit the role that firms in China can play in supplying materials for electric vehicles that qualify for federal tax credits. They will also discourage companies that seek federal funding to build battery factories in the United States from sourcing materials from China or Russia.The rules could encourage shifts in automotive supply chains, which continue to rely heavily on China for materials and components of electric vehicles. Automakers are also facing intense cost pressures as they try to modify their factories to make electric cars, and China offers some of the most advanced and lowest-priced battery technology in the world.The Biden administration is trying to use billions of dollars in new federal funding to change that dynamic and create a U.S. supply chain for electric vehicles.The climate law that President Biden signed in 2022 includes up to $7,500 in tax credits to consumers who buy electric vehicles made in the United States using largely domestic materials. The law also included a general ban on Chinese products. Lawmakers mandated that firms in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran be prohibited from providing certain materials to cars that received those tax breaks.But the law left open several questions, including what constitutes a Chinese or Russian company. Administration officials said those definitions included any entity that was incorporated or had headquarters in China or Russia, as well as any firm in which 25 percent of the board seats or equity interest was held by Chinese or Russian governments.Chinese companies that set up operations outside China appear to be able to benefit from the rules as long as the Chinese government is not a significant shareholder. That provision came as a relief to some automakers, which feared that the Biden administration might bar them from contracting with Chinese-owned mines or factories in the United States or other parts of the world.Lithium hydroxide is processed at a facility in Bessemer City, N.C. American companies are investing in factories and technologies aimed at developing the materials needed for electric vehicle.Travis Dove for The New York TimesThe law also requires battery makers that strike contracts or licensing agreements with Chinese firms to ensure that they are retaining certain rights over their projects. That provision is intended to make sure a Chinese firm is not effectively in control of such a project.Some conservative lawmakers had challenged Ford Motor’s plans to license technology from the Chinese battery giant known as CATL for a plant in Marshall, Mich., arguing that such a partnership should not be eligible for federal tax credits. Some Republican lawmakers suggested on Friday that the Treasury Department’s guidance did not go far enough to lessen the country’s dependence on China.“At a time when China is using massive subsidies to undercut U.S. manufacturers and throttle the global market for battery components, Treasury’s naïve new regulations would open the floodgates for American tax dollars to flow to Chinese companies complicit in trade violations and forced labor abuses,” said Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. The rules kick in for battery components in 2024, and in 2025 for critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel. They could be adjusted depending on industry comment.The rules could have a profound impact on the U.S. electric vehicle market, which is rapidly growing — battery-powered vehicles made up about 8 percent of new cars sold in the third quarter. Car and battery makers said Friday that they were still reviewing the rules, and that it would take time to determine how many models would qualify for tax credits.Tesla said on Friday that the two least expensive versions of its Model 3 sedan would qualify for only half the $7,500 credit starting in January. The Model Y sport utility vehicle also might not qualify for the full credit after Dec. 31, Tesla said. The Model Y and Model 3 are the top two electric vehicles by sales in the United States. Tesla buys some batteries from CATL.John Bozzella, the chief executive of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote in a blog post Friday that the rules struck “a pragmatic balance,” including by exempting trace materials. If the administration had banned all minor Chinese parts from the supply chain, no car models might have qualified for tax credits next year, he said.Many cars have already been disqualified from purchase credits by other rules, like a requirement that vehicles be assembled in North America. Only about 20 vehicles currently qualify for the program out of more than 100 electric vehicles sold in the United States.The rules also raised new questions about whether stricter requirements for supply chains could continue a trend of driving more shoppers to lease, rather than buy, vehicles.The prohibition on sourcing from China applies only to vehicles that are sold, not to those that are leased. Consumers can receive tax credits for electric vehicles they lease from auto dealers, and that has led to a boom in E.V. leasing.Jack Fitzgerald, chairman of Fitzgerald Auto Malls, which operates dealerships in Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania, said he had seen a spike in customers leasing electric vehicles. But he said concern about electric vehicle range and the availability of chargers, more than price, was holding back electric vehicle sales.“That’s the principal thing,” Mr. Fitzgerald said.Auto industry lobbyists have warned that extremely strict rules could stifle electric vehicle sales, and they have urged the administration to strike more trade deals to secure supplies of scarce battery minerals. But Paul Jacobson, the chief financial officer of General Motors, said the company had structured its electric vehicle operations to be successful regardless of the federal rules.“We’re not anchoring the business on saying this has to happen” with regard to regulations, Mr. Jacobson told reporters on Thursday. If regulations change, he added, “it’s not a backbreaking thing for us.”While the rules may create headaches for automakers, they are likely to benefit companies planning to supply batteries from factories in the United States.“It’s actually good news for us,” said Siyu Huang, chief executive of Factorial, a Massachusetts company that is developing next-generation electric vehicle batteries with support from Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and Stellantis, the owner of Dodge, Jeep and Ram.Acquiring large amounts of lithium, an essential ingredient in batteries, could be difficult because most of the metal is processed in China, Ms. Huang said. But the rules will encourage investment in U.S.-based refineries, she continued. “Its definitely going to be another incentive to build more domestic supply,” Ms. Huang said.John DeMaio, chief executive of Graphex Technologies, which is building a factory in Michigan to process graphite for batteries, said the rules might temporarily slow electric vehicle sales by making it harder to qualify for the tax credit. But in the long run, he added, they will encourage investment in domestic suppliers.“It might be a hiccup,” he said, “but in general it provides certainty and clarity to get people off the fence.”Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, said in a briefing with reporters that the rules would help advance the administration’s goals of building up an American clean energy supply chain while also cutting emissions in the transportation sector.“These changes take time, but companies are making the investments and Americans are buying these cars,” he said.Over the past year, companies have invested $213 billion in the manufacturing and deployment of clean energy, clean vehicles, building electrification and carbon management technology in the United States, according to tracking by the Rhodium Group and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That is a 37 percent increase from a year earlier..A lithium mine in northern Quebec. A majority of the world’s lithium and cobalt is processed in China.Brendan George Ko for The New York TimesStill, the global electric vehicle industry remains heavily anchored in China, which is the world’s largest producer and exporter of electric vehicles. China produces about two-thirds of the world’s battery cells, and refines most of the minerals that are key to powering an electric vehicle.The rules also restrict automakers from sourcing nickel used in their batteries from Russia, which is one of the world’s largest nickel producers.One of the challenges for automakers will be developing systems to track all the components of their battery through a long, and often opaque, supply chain.Vehicles that are reported incorrectly will be subtracted from an automaker’s eligibility for tax credits, Treasury said, and automakers that commit fraud or intentionally disregard the rules could be declared ineligible for the credit in the future. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Debates How Much to Sever Electric Car Industry’s Ties to China

    by

    Some firms argue that a law aimed at popularizing electric vehicles risks turning the United States into an assembly shop for Chinese-made technology.The Biden administration has been trying to jump-start the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles so cleaner cars can be made in the United States. But the experience of one Texas company, whose plans to help make an all-American electric vehicle were upended by China, highlights the stakes involved as the administration finalizes rules governing the industry.Huntsman Corporation started construction two years ago on a $50 million plant in Texas to make ethylene carbonate, a chemical that is used in electric vehicle batteries. It would have been the only site in North America making the product, with the goal of feeding battery factories that would crop up to serve the electric vehicle market.But as new facilities in China came online and flooded the market, the price of the chemical plummeted to $700 a ton from $4,000. After pumping $30 million into the project, the company halted work on it this year. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive. “I’d essentially be paying people to take the product.”The Biden administration is now finalizing rules that will help determine whether companies like Huntsman will find it profitable enough to participate in America’s electric vehicle industry. The rules, which are expected to be proposed this week, will dictate the extent to which foreign companies, particularly in China, can supply parts and products for American-made vehicles that are set to receive billions of dollars in subsidies.The administration is offering up to $7,500 in tax credits to Americans who buy electric vehicles, in an effort to supercharge the industry and reduce the country’s carbon emissions. The rules will determine whether electric vehicle makers seeking to benefit from that program will have the flexibility to get cheap components from China, or whether they will be required instead to buy more expensive products from U.S.-based firms like Huntsman.After pumping $30 million into the project, Huntsman halted work on it. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive.Callaghan O’Hare for The New York TimesCan the World Make an Electric Car Battery Without China?From mines to refineries and factories, China began investing decades ago. Today, most of your electric car batteries are made in China and that’s unlikely to change soon.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Resumes Work on E.V. Battery Plant in Michigan, at Reduced Scale

    by

    A battery plant in Michigan will be smaller than planned, Ford said, citing slower E.V. demand than expected, as well as labor costs.Ford Motor said Tuesday that it was resuming work on an electric vehicle battery plant in Michigan but significantly scaling back its plans in part because of slow E.V. adoption in the United States.A company spokesman said that Ford now expected the plant in Marshall, Mich., to create 1,700 jobs rather than 2,500, but that it still expected production to begin in 2026.Demand for electric vehicles is “not growing at the rate that we originally expected,” said the Ford spokesman, T.R. Reid. In the most recent quarter, large auto companies like Ford reported that E.V. sales had increased, but not at a rate sufficient to keep up with the Biden administration’s ambitious goals.The plant was originally planned to produce 35 gigawatt-hours’ worth of batteries annually, which Ford estimated was enough to equip about 400,000 vehicles. Now, the plant will produce 20 gigawatt hours annually, enough for roughly 230,000 vehicles, or a 42.8 percent cut.Ford did not specify exactly how much money it would be pulling back from the project, but said it would be roughly equivalent to its reduction in output. If the 42.8 percent cut in output was applied to its investment, it would represent a $1.5 billion reduction in the initially announced investment of $3.5 billion.Ford said in September that it was suspending construction because of concerns that it would not be able to manufacture products at a competitive price. At the time, the company was in the middle of contentious negotiations with the United Automobile Workers union.Rising labor costs were also a factor in Ford’s decision to scale back its plans for the factory, Mr. Reid said. Ford’s contract agreement with the U.A.W., which has been ratified by union members, raises the top wage for production workers by 25 percent.The agreement will allow U.A.W. members to be transferred to battery and electric-vehicle plants under construction, like the one in Marshall. If workers there choose to unionize, they will be protected under the U.A.W.’s contract.The U.A.W. hopes to keep its membership rates up amid the transition to electric vehicles, but the automakers have pushed back, arguing that it puts them at a disadvantage compared with their nonunionized competitors.The U.A.W. did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.Ford has also faced criticism from conservative lawmakers over its plan to license technology from CATL, a Chinese battery maker. Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, or LFP, are not currently produced in the United States. Some U.S. electric automakers, such as Tesla, import LFP batteries from China.It is not clear whether U.S. companies that license technology from other countries will qualify for government incentives to promote the shift from fossil fuels. Mr. Reid said Ford was “confident about the technology licensing agreement for this plant.” More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Battle Over Electric Vehicles Is Central to Auto Strike

    by

    Carmakers are anxious to keep costs down as they ramp up electric vehicle manufacturing, while striking workers want to preserve jobs as the industry shifts to batteries.A battle between Detroit carmakers and the United Auto Workers union, which escalated on Friday with targeted strikes in three locations, is unfolding amid a once-in-a-century technological upheaval that poses huge risks for both the companies and the union.The strike has come as the traditional automakers invest billions to develop electric vehicles while still making most of their money from gasoline-driven cars. The negotiations will determine the balance of power between workers and management, possibly for years to come. That makes the strike as much a struggle for the industry’s future as it is about wages, benefits and working conditions.The established carmakers — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — are trying to defend their profits and their place in the market in the face of stiff competition from Tesla and foreign automakers. Some executives and analysts have characterized what is happening in the industry as the biggest technological transformation since Henry Ford’s moving assembly line started up at the beginning of the 20th century.Nearly 13,000 U.A.W. workers walked off the job at three plants in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri on Friday after talks between the unions and the companies in three separate negotiations failed to result in agreements before a Thursday deadline. Pay is one of the biggest sticking points: The union is demanding a 40 percent pay increase over four years but the automakers have offered roughly half as much.But the talks are about more than pay. Workers are trying to defend jobs as manufacturing shifts from internal combustion engines to batteries. Because they have fewer parts, electric cars can be made with fewer workers than gasoline vehicles. A favorable outcome for the U.A.W. would also give the union a strong calling card if, as some expect, it then tries to organize employees at Tesla and other nonunion carmakers like Hyundai, which is planning to manufacture electric vehicles at a massive new factory in Georgia.“The transition to E.V.s is dominating every bit of this discussion,” said John Casesa, senior managing director at the investment firm Guggenheim Partners who previously headed strategy at Ford Motor.“It’s unspoken,” Mr. Casesa added. “But really, it’s all about positioning the union to have a central role in the new electric industry.”Under pressure from government officials and changing consumer demand, Ford, G.M. and Stellantis are investing billions to retool their sprawling operations to build electric vehicles, which are critical to addressing climate change. But they are making little if any profit on those vehicles while Tesla, which dominates electric car sales, is profitable and growing fast.Ford said in July that its electric vehicle business would lose $4.5 billion this year. If the union got all the increases in pay, pensions and other benefits it is seeking, the company said, its workers’ total compensation would be twice as much as Tesla’s employees.Union demands would force Ford to scrap its investments in electric vehicles, Jim Farley, the company’s chief executive, said in an interview on Friday. “We want to actually have a conversation about a sustainable future,” he said, “not one that forces us to choose between going out of business and rewarding our workers.”Attendees at the Detroit Auto Show looking at a 2024 Chevy Silverado EV in Detroit this past week. Talk of the autoworkers’ strike loomed over the show.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesFor workers, the biggest concern is that electric vehicles have far fewer parts than gasoline models and will render many jobs obsolete. Plants that make mufflers, catalytic converters, fuel injectors and other components that electric cars don’t need will have to be overhauled or shut down.Many new battery and electric vehicle factories are springing up and could employ workers from the plants that have shut down. But automakers are building most aggressively in the South where labor laws are tilted against union organizers, rather than in the Midwest, where the U.A.W. has more clout. One of the union’s demands is that workers in the new factories be covered by the automakers’ national labor contracts — a demand that the automakers have said they can’t meet because those plants are owned by joint ventures. The union also wants to regain the right to strike to block plant shutdowns.“We are at the dawn of another industrial revolution and the way we’re going is the way we went in the last industrial revolution — a lot of profit for a few and misery and not good jobs for the many,” said Madeline Janis, executive director of Jobs to Move America, an advocacy group that works closely with the U.A.W. and other unions.“The U.A.W. is really taking a stand for communities across the country to make sure this transition benefits everybody,” Ms. Janis added.Automakers have been racking up record profits during the last decade, but they cannot afford to lose time from work stoppages in their race to compete with Tesla and foreign automakers.The three companies are already struggling to get their electric vehicle business going. A new G.M. battery factory in Ohio has been slow to produce batteries, delaying electric versions of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup and other vehicles. Ford this year had to suspend production of its electric F-150 Lightning in February after a battery caught fire in one of the pickups that was parked near the factory for a quality check. And Stellantis won’t even begin selling any fully electric vehicles in the United States until next year.Those problems and Tesla’s growing sales could put the union in a strong position to extract a good deal.On Thursday, in a sign that automakers are willing to go much further than they had previously, G.M. offered a 20 percent pay raise over four years. That is half of what the union is seeking but far more than workers received in recent contracts. President Biden on Friday strongly supported the union in remarks at the White House. The administration has been pouring billions into programs to promote electric vehicles and does not want a strike to delay a centerpiece of its climate policy.Despite all the money that automakers have made in recent years, their executives express a profound unease about the growth of electric vehicles, which account for 7 percent of the U.S. new car market so far this year and are on track to surpass sales of one million this year. Managers are acutely aware that traditional companies like theirs have a poor track record of retaining dominance after a big change in technology. Witness the way that Apple sidelined Nokia and Motorola as cellphones became smartphones.Auto company executives and most industry analysts underestimated how quickly electric vehicles would catch on and cannot confidently forecast how sales, which have been bumpy lately, will grow in the future. “I don’t think anyone can perfectly predict what the adoption will be,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in an interview with The New York Times last month.Speaking to “CBS Mornings” on Friday, Ms. Barra said an excessive pay raise would undermine G.M.’s ability to continue producing vehicles with internal combustion engines while also developing electric vehicles. “This is a critical juncture where investing is very important,” she said.Still, unions and their supporters are unlikely to express much sympathy for auto executives. Ms. Barra and the leaders of Ford (Jim Farley) and Stellantis (Carlos Tavares) have gotten tens of millions of dollars in compensation packages in recent years. The companies’ shareholders have been rewarded with dividends and share buybacks.Unions “are not going to have a lot of patience for sob stories,” said Karl Brauer, executive analyst at iSeeCars.com, an online marketplace.Adjusted for inflation, wages for autoworkers in the United States have fallen 19 percent since 2008, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning research group.At the same time, union officials are aware of the changes in the industry and have said they do not want to handicap G.M., Ford and Stellantis as the companies try to recover ground they have lost to Tesla, which has aggressively resisted attempts to unionize its factories. The Detroit carmakers also face challengers like Rivian, a start-up that makes electric pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles in Illinois, as well as foreign-owned rivals like Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, whose U.S. factories, mostly in the South, are not unionized.“That’s the biggest challenge here,” Mr. Brauer added, “trying to commit to a long-term contract in an industry that is very uncertain and unpredictable over the next five years.”Union supporters say it would be wrong to blame workers if the traditional carmakers cannot compete with Tesla and other rivals.“If you look at the breakdown at what it costs to build an E.V., labor is a very small part of the equation. Batteries are the most,” Ms. Janis of Jobs to Move America said. “This idea that the U.A.W. is going to price Ford, G.M. and Stellantis out of the market is not true.”But other analysts said that a long work stoppage could help Tesla and foreign automakers gain ground on G.M., Ford and Stellantis.“If something happens to disrupt their business, does that give a leg up to the emerging electric vehicle makers?” said Steve Patton, who overseas the consulting firm EY’s work with auto companies. “Who stands to benefit if there is a protracted strike?” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    What to Know About the Potential Autoworkers Strike

    by

    The union and the carmakers remain far apart on wages.The United Auto Workers union, which represents about 150,000 workers at U.S. car plants, could strike against three of the country’s largest automakers on Friday if the union and the companies are unable to reach new contracts.The three automakers — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — could be forced to stop or slow production if an agreement isn’t reached by midnight on Thursday. The president of the U.A.W., Shawn Fain, said that Thursday was the “deadline, not a reference point.”The union is negotiating a separate four-year contract with each automaker. The U.A.W. has never struck against all three companies at once, preferring to target one at a time. But Mr. Fain has said he and his members are willing to strike against all three this time.What’s at issue in the labor dispute?Compensation is at the forefront of negotiations.The U.A.W. is demanding 40 percent wage increases over four years, which Mr. Fain says is in line with how much the salaries of the companies’ chief executives have increased in the past four years.As of last Friday, the two parties remained far apart, with the companies offering to raise pay by 14 to 16 percent over four years. Mr. Fain called that offer “insulting” and has said that the union is still seeking a 40 percent pay increase.What role is the switch to electric cars playing in the negotiations?The auto industry is in the middle of a sweeping transition to battery-powered vehicles, and G.M., Ford and Stellantis are spending billions of dollars to develop new models and build factories. The companies have said those investments make it harder for them to pay workers substantially higher wages. Automakers say they are already at a big competitive disadvantage compared with nonunion automakers like Tesla, which dominates the sale of electric vehicles.The U.A.W. is worried that the companies will use the switch to electric cars to cut jobs or hire more nonunion workers. The union wants the automakers to cover workers at the battery factories in their national contracts with the U.A.W. Right now those workers are either not represented by unions or are negotiating separate contracts. But the automakers say they cannot legally agree to that request because those plants are set up as joint ventures.What happened in the last U.A.W. strike?The U.A.W. most recently went on strike in 2019 against General Motors. Nearly 50,000 General Motors workers walked out for 40 days. The carmaker said that strike cost it $3.6 billion.The strike ended after the two sides reached a contract that ended a two-tier wage structure under which newer employees were paid a lot less than veteran workers. G.M. also agreed to pay workers more.How would a strike against the three automakers affect the economy?A long pause in car production could have ripple effects across many parts of the U.S. economy.A 10-day strike could cost the economy $5 billion, according to an estimate from Anderson Economic Group. A longer strike could start affecting inventories of cars at dealerships, pushing up the price of vehicles.The auto industry is in a more vulnerable place than it was in 2019, the last time the U.A.W. staged a strike. In the earlier part of the pandemic, car production came to a halt, sharply reducing the supply of vehicles. Domestic car inventories remain at about a quarter of where they were at the end of 2019.Will a strike have political ramifications?It definitely could.President Biden has called himself “the most pro-labor union president” and sought to solidify his ties with labor unions ahead of his re-election campaign. But the U.A.W., which usually endorses Democratic candidates including Mr. Biden in his 2020 run, has held off endorsing him for the 2024 race.The union fears that Mr. Biden’s decision to promote electric vehicles could further erode union membership in the auto industry. Mr. Fain has criticized the administration for awarding large federal incentives and loans for new factories without requiring those plants to employ union workers.Former President Donald J. Trump, who is most likely to secure the Republican nomination, has been seeking to win over U.A.W. members. He has criticized Mr. Biden’s auto and climate policies as bad for workers and consumers. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    UAW Standoff Poses Risk for Biden’s Electric Vehicle Commitment

    by

    A looming auto industry strike could test the president’s commitment to making electric vehicles a source of well-paying union jobs.President Biden has been highly attuned to the politics of electric vehicles, helping to enact billions in subsidies to create new manufacturing jobs and going out of his way to court the United Automobile Workers union.But as the union and the big U.S. automakers — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — hurtle toward a strike deadline set for Thursday night, the political challenge posed by the industry’s transition to electric cars may be only beginning.The union, under its new president, Shawn Fain, wants workers who make electric vehicle components like batteries to benefit from the better pay and labor standards that the roughly 150,000 U.A.W. members enjoy at the three automakers. Most battery plants are not unionized.The Detroit automakers counter that these workers are typically employed in joint ventures with foreign manufacturers that the U.S. automakers don’t wholly control. The companies say that even if they could raise wages for battery workers to the rate set under their national U.A.W. contract, doing so could make them uncompetitive with nonunion rivals, like Tesla.And then there is former President Donald J. Trump, who is running to unseat Mr. Biden and has said the president’s clean energy policies are costing American jobs and raising prices for consumers.White House officials say Mr. Biden will still be able to deliver on his promise of high-quality jobs and a strong domestic electric vehicle industry.The head of the United Automobile Workers, Shawn Fain, center, wants his union’s wages and labor standards to apply to nonunion workers who make electric vehicle components.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times“The president’s policies have always been geared toward ensuring not only that our electric vehicle future was made in America with American jobs,” said Gene Sperling, Mr. Biden’s liaison to the U.A.W. and the auto industry, “but that it would promote good union jobs and a just transition” for current autoworkers whose jobs are threatened.But in public at least, the president has so far spoken only in vague terms about wages. Last month, he said that the transition to electric vehicles should enable workers to “make good wages and benefits to support their families” and that when union jobs were replaced with new jobs, they should go to union members and pay a “commensurate” wage. He is encouraging the companies and the union to keep bargaining and reach an agreement, one of Mr. Biden’s economic advisers, Jared Bernstein, told reporters on Wednesday.A strike could force Mr. Biden to be more explicit and choose between his commitment to workers and the need to broker a compromise that averts a costly long-term shutdown.“Battery workers need to be paid the same amount as U.A.W. workers at the current Big Three,” said Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California who has promoted government investments in new technologies.Mr. Khanna added, “It’s how we contrast with Trump: We’re for creating good-paying manufacturing jobs across the Midwest.”At the heart of the debate is whether the shift to electric vehicles, which have fewer parts and generally require less labor to assemble than gas-powered cars, will accelerate the decline of unionized work in the industry.Foreign and domestic automakers have announced tens of thousands of new U.S.-based electric vehicle and battery jobs in response to the subsidies that Mr. Biden helped enact. But most of those jobs are not unionized, and many are in the South or West, where the U.A.W. has struggled to win over autoworkers. The union has tried and failed to organize workers at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, Calif., and Southern plants owned by Volkswagen and Nissan.A Ford Lightning plant in Dearborn, Mich. The U.A.W. worries that letting battery makers pay lower wages will allow G.M., Ford and Stellantis to replace much of their current U.S. work force with cheaper labor.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesAs a result, the union has focused its efforts on battery workers employed directly or indirectly by G.M., Ford and Stellantis. The going wage for this work tends to be far below the roughly $32 an hour that veteran U.A.W. members make under their existing contracts with three companies.Legally, employees of the three manufacturers can’t strike over the pay of battery workers employed by joint ventures. But many U.A.W. members worry that letting battery manufacturers pay far lower wages will allow G.M., Ford and Stellantis to replace much of their current U.S. work force with cheaper labor, so they are seeking a large wage increase for those workers.“What we want is for the E.V. jobs to be U.A.W. jobs under our master agreements,” said Scott Houldieson, chairperson of Unite All Workers for Democracy, a group within the union that helped propel Mr. Fain to the presidency.The union’s officials have pressed the auto companies to address their concerns about battery workers before its members vote on a new contract. They say the companies can afford to pay more because they collectively earned about $250 billion in North America over the past decade, according to union estimates.But the auto companies, while acknowledging that they have been profitable in recent years, point out that the transition to electric vehicles is very expensive. Industry executives have suggested that it is hard to know how quickly consumers will embrace electric vehicles and that companies needed flexibility to adjust.Even if labor costs were not an issue, said Corey Cantor, an electric vehicle analyst at the energy research firm BloombergNEF, it could take the Big Three several years to catch up to Tesla, which makes about 60 percent of fully electric vehicles sold in the United States.A strike could force Mr. Biden to choose between his commitment to workers and the need to avert a costly shutdown of the U.S. auto industry.Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesData from BloombergNEF show that G.M., Ford and Stellantis together sold fewer than 100,000 battery electric vehicles in the United States last year; in 2017, Tesla alone sold 50,000. It took Tesla another five years to top half a million U.S. sales. (The Big Three also sold nearly 80,000 plug-in hybrids last year.)The three established automakers had hoped to use the transition to electric cars to bring their costs more in line with their competitors, said Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions, a research firm. If they can’t, he added, they will have to look for savings elsewhere.In a statement, Stellantis said its battery joint venture “intends to offer very competitive wages and benefits while making the health and safety of its work force a top priority.”Estimates shared by Ford put hourly labor costs, including benefits, for the three automakers in the mid-$60s, versus the mid-$50s for foreign automakers in the United States and the mid-$40s for Tesla.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, said in a statement last month that the company’s offer to raise pay in the next contract was “significantly better” than what Tesla and foreign automakers paid U.S. workers. He added that Ford “will not make a deal that endangers our ability to invest, grow and share profits with our employees.”Mr. Biden and Democratic lawmakers had sought to offset this labor-cost disadvantage by providing an additional $4,500 subsidy for each electric vehicle assembled at a unionized U.S. plant, above other incentives available to electric cars. But the Senate removed that provision from the Inflation Reduction Act.Such setbacks have frustrated the U.A.W., an early backer of Mr. Biden’s clean energy plans. In May, the union, which normally supports Democratic presidential candidates, withheld its endorsement of Mr. Biden’s re-election.“The E.V. transition is at serious risk of becoming a race to the bottom,” Mr. Fain said in an internal memo. “We want to see national leadership have our back on this before we make any commitments.”The next month, Mr. Fain chided the Biden administration for awarding Ford a $9.2 billion loan to build three battery factories in Tennessee and Kentucky with no inducement for the jobs to be unionized.A BMW battery plant in South Carolina. The U.A.W. has struggled to unionize autoworkers in the South.Juan Diego Reyes for The New York TimesMr. Biden tapped Mr. Sperling, a Michigan native, to serve as the White House point person on issues related to the union and the auto industry around the same time. By late August, the Energy Department announced that it was making $12 billion in grants and loans available for investments in electric vehicles, with a priority on automakers that create or maintain good jobs in areas with a union presence.Mr. Sperling speaks regularly with both sides in the labor dispute, seeking to defuse misunderstandings before they escalate, and said the recent Energy Department funding reflected Mr. Biden’s commitment to jump-start the industry while creating good jobs.Complicating the picture for Mr. Biden is the growing chorus of Democratic politicians and liberal groups that have backed the autoworkers’ demands, even as they hail the president’s success in improving pay and labor standards in other green industries, like wind and solar.Nearly 30 Democratic senators signed a letter to auto executives this summer urging them to bring battery workers into the union’s national contract. Dozens of labor and environmental groups have signed a letter echoing the demand.The groups argue that the change would have only a modest impact on automakers’ profits because labor accounts for a relatively small portion of overall costs, a claim that some independent experts back.Yen Chen, principal economist of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit group in Ann Arbor, Mich., said labor accounted for only about 5 percent of the cost of final assembly for a midsize domestic sedan based on an analysis the group ran 10 years ago. Mr. Chen said that figure was likely to be lower today, and lower still for battery assembly, which is highly automated.Beyond the economic case, however, Mr. Biden’s allies say allowing electric vehicles to drive down auto wages would be a catastrophic political mistake. Workers at the three companies are concentrated in Midwestern states that could decide the next presidential election — and, as a result, the fate of the transition to clean energy, said Jason Walsh, the executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of unions and environmental groups.“The economic effects of doing that are enormously harmful,” he said. “The political consequences would be disastrous.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    UAW Votes to Authorize Strikes if Negotiations Fail

    by

    The United Auto Workers union is seeking big raises and other gains in contract talks with General Motors, Ford and Stellantis.The United Auto Workers union said on Friday that 97 percent of its members had voted to authorize strikes against General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis if the union and companies were unable to negotiate new labor contracts.The result gives the union’s president, Shawn Fain, the power to tell workers to walk off the job once the current contracts expire on Sept. 14.Strike authorization votes are normally formalities that pass by significant margins and do not ensure strikes. But this vote comes as the newly energized U.A.W. takes a more assertive stance with automakers, part of a larger shift in organized labor.G.M., Ford and Stellantis have posted strong profits for about a decade. That has emboldened Mr. Fain and his members to call for substantial wage increases, cost-of-living adjustments, and improved pensions and health care benefits.“This is our time to take back what we are owed,” he said on Facebook Live on Friday. “We are united, and we are not afraid,” he added.Mr. Fain, who was narrowly elected president this year in the union’s first direct election of its top leaders, appears to have united the union’s members. He appeared at rallies with workers in Detroit on Wednesday and in Louisville, Ky., on Thursday and Friday. About a dozen similar events are planned over the next two weeks. Such events were rare in contract talks over the last 20 years.“There’s nervousness, but there’s excitement,” Luigi Gjokaj, a vice president at U.A.W. Local 51, said at the Detroit rally. “If the company comes to the table and they’re fair, we’ll have an agreement. If it has to go to a strike, we are prepared.”Mr. Fain spoke to about 100 workers at that rally from the bed of a pickup truck just outside a Stellantis plant that makes the Jeep Wagoneer, a highly profitable sport utility vehicle.“We’re not asking to be millionaires,” he said to loud cheers. “We just want our fair share.”In a statement after the result of the strike vote was announced, Ford said it hoped to work with the U.A.W. toward “creative solutions during this time when our dramatically changing industry needs a skilled and competitive work force more than ever.”This month, Mr. Fain sent the companies a list of demands, including the possibility of working only four days a week and wage increases of 40 percent, noting that the chief executives of G.M., Ford and Stellantis have been awarded bigger compensation packages over the last four years. New hires at auto plants start at about $16 an hour and over several years can work their way up to the $32 an hour earned by veteran workers.G.M., Ford and Stellantis have suggested they will probably agree to some form of higher wages. In a fresh indication of how the talks may go, an Ohio battery plant owned jointly by G.M. and LG Energy Solution, a South Korean battery maker, agreed on Thursday to increase the wages of 1,900 U.A.W. workers by 25 percent on average.Mr. Fain had repeatedly criticized wages at the plant, which had started at about $16 an hour, as being too low. The plant is covered by a separate bargaining agreement from the one the union is negotiating for workers in G.M.’s wholly owned plants. Wages there will now start at about $20 an hour.The three manufacturers aim to minimize increases in labor costs in any new contract because they are spending tens of billions of dollars on a momentous transition to electric vehicles. The companies have suggested that agreeing to all or most of Mr. Fain’s demands would leave them at a competitive disadvantage against Tesla, the dominant maker of electric cars, and European and Asian automakers that operate nonunion plants in the United States.President Biden told reporters on Friday that he was “concerned” about a potential strike by autoworkers. “I’m talking with the U.A.W.,” he said.Mr. Biden said the transition to electric vehicles should not shortchange workers. “I think that there should be a circumstance where jobs that are being displaced are replaced with new jobs,” he said, adding that the pay for those new jobs “should be commensurate.”Former President Donald J. Trump, who is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, has seized on autoworkers’ unease about the switch to electric vehicles to court the U.A.W., which typically backs Democrats but has declined to endorse Mr. Biden so far.Despite the costs of investing in electrification, the three automakers are enjoying healthy profits.G.M. said in July that it expected to earn more than $9.3 billion this year, about $1 billion more than a previous forecast. Stellantis, which is based in Amsterdam and owns Chrysler, Jeep, Ram and other auto brands, made 11 billion euros (about $11.9 billion) in the first half of this year, a record. Ford expects earnings before taxes of $11 billion to $12 billion this year. All three companies make most of their profits in North America.“Regardless of what other opinions might be, business profits enable future investments, which support long-term job security and opportunities for all,” said Gerald Johnson, G.M.’s executive vice president for global manufacturing and sustainability, in a video message to employees last week.The U.A.W. typically names one company that it will focus on in negotiations and make the target of a strike if it cannot reach an agreement. The union has not done so thus far, although Mr. Fain has publicly sparred the most with Stellantis.After Mr. Fain presented his demands, Stellantis responded with proposals that would increase how much workers contributed to the cost of health care, reduce the company’s contributions to retirement accounts and allow the company to close plants temporarily with little advance notice.In a Facebook video, Mr. Fain angrily denounced the Stellantis proposals and tossed a copy in a wastebasket. “That’s where it belongs, the trash, because that’s what it is,” he said.Stellantis’s chief operating officer for North America, Mark Stewart, said in a letter to employees that he was “incredibly disappointed” by Mr. Fain’s remarks. “The theatrics and personal insults will not help us reach an agreement,” Mr. Stewart said.Tensions between the U.A.W. and Stellantis, which was formed in the 2021 merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot S.A., have been simmering since the automaker idled a Jeep plant in Illinois. One of Mr. Fain’s key objectives is getting the company to reopen the factory. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Lawmakers Challenge Ford and Chinese Battery Partner Over Forced Labor

    by

    Republicans are raising fresh concerns about CATL, the battery maker Ford is working with to bring new technology to the U.S., and its connections to Xinjiang.A partnership between Ford Motor and a major Chinese battery maker is facing scrutiny by Republican lawmakers, who say it could make an American automaker reliant on a company with links to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region.In a letter sent to Ford on Thursday, the chairs of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Ways and Means Committee demanded more information about the partnership, including what they said was a plan by Ford to employ several hundred workers from China at a new battery factory in Michigan.Ford announced in February that it planned to set up the $3.5 billion factory using technology from Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd., known as CATL, the world’s largest maker of batteries for electric vehicles. CATL produces about a third of electric vehicle batteries globally and supplies General Motors, Volkswagen, BMW, Tesla and other major automakers.Ford has defended the partnership, saying it will help diversify Ford’s supply chain and allow a battery that is less expensive and more durable than current alternatives to be made in the United States for the first time, rather than imported.But lawmakers, who previously criticized the partnership, cited evidence that CATL had not relinquished its ownership of a company it helped set up in Xinjiang, where the United Nations has identified systemic human rights violations.CATL publicly divested its share of the company, Xinjiang Zhicun Lithium Industry Company, in March, after its deal with Ford was announced. But the shares were bought by an investment partnership in which CATL owned a partial stake and a former CATL manager who holds leadership roles in other companies owned by the battery maker, corporate records show.The circumstances of the sale raise “serious questions about whether CATL is attempting to obscure links to forced labor,” wrote Representatives Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, the chairman of the select committee, and Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The lawmakers, citing details of Ford’s licensing agreement that are on file with the select committee, also criticized the automaker’s commitment to employ several hundred Chinese workers. Employees from China would set up and maintain CATL’s equipment at the Michigan factory until about 2038, the lawmakers said. The factory is expected to employ 2,500 U.S. workers, Ford has said.“Ford has argued that the deal will create thousands of American jobs, further Ford’s ‘commitments to sustainability and human rights’ and lead to American battery technology advancements,” they wrote. “But newly discovered information raises serious questions about each claim.”T.R. Reid, a spokesman for Ford, said the company was going through the letter and would respond in good faith. He said that human rights were fundamental to how Ford did business, and that the automaker was thorough in assessing such issues.“There has been an awful lot said and implied about this project that is incorrect,” Mr. Reid said. “At the end of the day, we think creating 2,500 good-paying jobs with a new multibillion investment in the U.S. for great technology that we’ll bring to bear in great electric vehicles is good all the way around.”CATL’s collaboration with Ford could be a bellwether for the electric vehicle industry in the United States. Critics have labeled the agreement a “Trojan horse” for Chinese interests and called for scuttling the partnership. If it succeeds, they say, reliance on Chinese technology could become the norm for the U.S. electric vehicle industry.Ultimately, China’s control over key technologies like batteries could leave the United States “in a far weaker position,” said Erik Gordon, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.“The profit margins go to the innovators who provide the advanced technology, not the people with screwdrivers that assemble the advanced technology,” he said.But CATL and other Chinese companies have battery technology not readily available from suppliers in the United States or Europe. The Michigan plant would be the first in the United States to produce so-called LFP batteries that use lithium, iron and phosphate as their main active materials.They are heavier than the lithium, nickel and manganese batteries currently used by Ford and other automakers but less expensive to make and more durable, able to withstand numerous charges without degrading. They also do not use nickel or cobalt, another battery material, which are often mined in environmentally damaging ways, and sometimes with child labor.Without the most advanced or least expensive batteries, U.S. carmakers could fall behind Chinese rivals like BYD that are pushing into Europe and other markets outside China. Americans may also have to pay more for electric cars and trucks, which would slow sales of vehicles that do not emit greenhouse gases.A battery unveiled by CATL last year delivers hundreds of miles of driving range after a charge of just 10 minutes.“The hard truth is that the Chinese took a huge gamble on electric vehicles and plopped down over a trillion Chinese dollars and subsidies on this industry, and it just so happens that gamble came up all aces,” said Scott Kennedy, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.“If you decide not to partner with a very large battery maker, then you’re essentially committing to delaying the U.S. energy transition,” he added.Ford plans to use batteries made with CATL technology in lower-priced versions of vehicles like the Mustang Mach-E and F-150 Lightning pickup. The least expensive version of Tesla’s Model 3 sedan comes with an LFP battery that CATL is widely reported to have supplied.For decades, Western companies have had a monopoly on the world’s most advanced technologies, and have sought access to the Chinese market while also safeguarding their intellectual property.But China’s dominance in electric vehicle batteries, as well as in the production of solar panels and wind turbines, has flipped that dynamic. It has created a particularly tricky dilemma for the Biden administration and other Democrats, who want to reduce the country’s reliance on China but also argue that the United States must quickly make a transition to cleaner energy sources to try to mitigate climate change.The solar and electric vehicle battery industry’s exposure to Xinjiang further complicates the situation. The Biden administration has condemned the Chinese government for carrying out genocide and crimes against humanity in the region.The United States last year barred imports of products made in whole or in part in Xinjiang, saying companies operating in the region are not able to ensure that their facilities are free of forced labor.In 2022, CATL and a partner registered a lithium processing company in the region called Xinjiang Zhicun Lithium Industry Company, which promoted plans to become the world’s largest producer of lithium carbonate, a key battery component.Through a series of subsidiaries and shareholder relationships, that Xinjiang lithium company has financial ties to a Chinese electricity company, Tebian Electric Apparatus Stock Company, or TBEA, according to records that The New York Times reviewed through Sayari Graph, a mapping tool for corporate ownership. TBEA has participated extensively in so-called poverty alleviation and labor transfer programs in Xinjiang that the United States considers a form of forced labor.A CATL battery plant under construction in Ningde, China, in 2021. The company has said it prohibits any form of forced labor in its supply chain.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesWhile the Chinese government argues that labor transfer and poverty alleviation programs are aimed at improving living standards in the region, human rights experts say that they are also directed at pacifying and indoctrinating the population, and that Uyghurs and other minority groups there cannot say no to these programs without fear of detention or punishment.CATL did not respond to a request for comment. In December, it told The Times that it was a minority shareholder in the Xinjiang company and strictly prohibited any form of forced labor in its supply chain.The Republican lawmakers also raised concerns about whether batteries made at Ford’s Michigan plant would qualify for tax credits that the Biden administration was offering consumers who bought electric vehicles as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.The law prohibits “foreign entities of concern” — like companies in China, Russia, Iran or North Korea — from benefiting from government tax credits. But because Ford is licensing CATL technology for the plant — rather than forming a joint venture, as has often been the case with automakers and battery suppliers — the batteries made in Michigan may still qualify for those incentives.The Biden administration has not yet clarified exactly how the restriction on foreign entities will be applied. But Ford officials said they had been in conversation with the administration about the Michigan plant, and were confident that the partnership would qualify for all of the law’s benefits.“We think batteries built by American workers in an American plant run by the wholly owned subsidiary of an American company will and should qualify,” Mr. Reid, the Ford spokesman, said. More