Category: Transportation

U.S. EV Sales Are Slowing: Implications for the Auto Industry

Throughout the past decade, analysts and policymakers have promoted electric vehicles (EVs) as the cars of the future, highlighting their potential to provide effective, environmentally friendly transportation for individual and business purposes alike. Pure EV sales in the United States rose from just over 10,000 in 2011 to nearly 500,000 in 2021, and the country is expected to add 1 million new EVs to its roads in 2023, aided by government subsidies. However, over the past year, the EV market has been struggling with price cuts and rising inventories; in August 2023, it took about twice as long to sell an EV in the U.S. as it did the previous January. Given the expectations for an EV takeover of the automotive industry, it is important to understand what is driving this slowdown, and how it may affect individuals and businesses in the years to come.

The Transportation of Tomorrow

Though fuel-powered motors were traditionally preferable due to their superior energy storage and range, concerns over their environmental impact in the late 20th century propelled people to consider electricity-powered substitutes. Hybrid EVs, which use electric motors alongside internal combustion engines, became more widespread starting in the 1990s, while fully battery-powered electric cars, which only use energy stored in on-board batteries, have increasingly become practical options in the consumer market starting in the 2010s, though their recharging requirement remains a sore spot. Given the efficiency gap between fuel-powered motors and contemporary battery technologies, as well as typically higher costs for EV production, governments have often stepped in to offer economic incentives for EV purchasing and manufacturing, attempting to guide long-term automotive supply and demand toward sustainable transport options.

Government incentives for EV adoption have grown steadily over the past three decades, with large markets like the U.S. and EU commencing efforts in the 2000s, later followed by developing economies such as China and India. For years, the U.S. federal government and state governments have offered tax credits for producers and consumers adopting qualified electric drive motor vehicles, with states like California going even further by offering HOV lane access for EVs operated by a single occupant. President Biden designated increased EV adoption as a substantial element of his Investing in America agenda, setting a goal for 50% of all new vehicle sales in the U.S. to be electric by 2030. However, despite increasing environmental awareness and policy pressures, consumer demand has not always followed suit.

Wavering Consumer Demand

Currently, there is an oversupply of electric vehicles in the industry, reflecting continued automaker and government investment against slowing consumer demand. While most American consumers view adopting EVs as an inevitability, their anxieties relating to the range that the battery can produce and a lack of public charging infrastructure still induce uncertainties over dependability. During the COVID-19 pandemic, shelter-in-place orders reduced the need for frequent personal transportation, allowing consumers greater flexibility to adopt EVs. However, now that pandemic restrictions no longer present a substantial external variable and more workers are required to return to the office, vehicles powered by internal combustion engines remain preferable as the most reliable transport option. This is supported by the changing profile of the EV consumer – the percentage of EV shoppers trading in a vehicle they already own has doubled over the past decade, indicating that many EV consumers do not rely on them as their primary mode of transport. Amplifying the charging concern, a Pew Research Center survey from July found that Americans have low levels of confidence that the U.S. will build necessary EV infrastructure, including critical charging ports, dampening enthusiasm that the Biden administration’s EV goals will be met on time.

On the other hand, pricing continues to be another hurdle for greater EV adoption. According to Cox Automotive, the average transaction price for a vehicle in the U.S. was around $48,000 in September 2023; for EVs, the number was between $53,000 and $60,000. The higher price tag for EVs tends to be a result of manufacturing costs remaining more expensive than they would be for producing gasoline-powered vehicles, given the auto industry’s substantially longer experience making internal combustion engines compared to EV technologies and the still-inflexible EV supply chain. High interest rates render borrowing money for car payments more expensive, along with inflation reducing consumer purchasing power and global supply chain disruptions contributing to the issue as well. According to S&P Global Mobility, while 86% of U.S. car buyers were considering an EV in 2021, the number fell to 67% in 2023. Despite government tax credits, investing in a relatively more expensive EV purchase is a hefty request for many American consumers concerned about short-term costs in today’s economy.

Effects on the Auto Industry

The auto sector is facing the classic problem for a sector in transition, i.e., growing supply to pace with developing demand. The current market condition is not a problem of declining demand but supply outpacing demand and the auto industry is already making corrections. Ford, having opened reservations for its fully electric F-150 Lightning model in May 2021, closed them by the end of the year due to excess supply, and by September 2023, announced it was ramping up production of its hybrid F-150s in response to lowered than anticipated sales of the Lightning. Lucid, a high-profile luxury EV brand, has seen two consecutive quarters of weaker than expected demand, most recently delivering 600 fewer of its Air luxury sedans than Wall Street had expected in the second quarter of 2023. Tesla’s aggressive price cuts have hindered the growth of competition in the EV industry, with two-thirds of all EVs sold by the Elon Musk-owned automotive giant, as consumers find it difficult to afford suitable alternatives. At the end of the second quarter of 2023, several automakers announced their decision to move to the Tesla charging standard, stranding many vehicles on factory floors with an obsolete charging outlet, thus further exacerbating the dilemma.

Pushback against public sector efforts to mandate EV adoption may also reshape expectations for how the auto industry will move forward in the coming decade. On November 8, the U.S. Senate voted 50-48 to overturn Biden’s decision to waive some “Buy America” requirements for government-funded electric vehicle charging stations. Western lithium and graphite miners have started charging the EV supply chain higher prices to reduce dependence on Chinese supply of these materials. Owing to anxieties over cheap Chinese-manufactured EVs flooding the American market as has happened in Europe and a potential Chinese monopoly of rare earth minerals critical in EV production, these protectionist moves on an already inflexible EV supply chain are likely to further delay progress toward the administration’s vehicle electrification aims. EV adoption also remains inconsistent across U.S. regions, being significantly lesser in states like Texas where gas prices and home energy rates are lower, compared to others like California where the opposite is true. Nonetheless, there are reasons to remain optimistic about the long-term growth of EV sales in the auto industry – an S&P study in 2023 showed that people were willing to accept charging times of less than an hour and less range on an EV compared to a gasoline equivalent, and while the number of EV buyers fell from 2021 to 2023, it was still higher than in 2019. Understanding that a gradual shift towards electricity-powered vehicles is still probable, individuals and businesses alike should note that it will likely occur over a longer period than analysts and policymakers predict. Meanwhile, greater hybrid vehicle production and purchasing could generate a slew of new opportunities in the short to medium term.

 

This article was authored by William Samir Simpson.

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more news on Electric Vehicle Sales, visit the NLR Utilities & Transport section.

Study: Vehicles with Higher Front Ends Pose Greater Risk to Pedestrians

According to a recently published study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), vehicles with higher, more blunt front ends are more dangerous to pedestrians. IIHS says that vehicles with a hood height higher than 40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian accidents than vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less.

Pedestrian accident deaths have risen 80% since their lowest point in 2009. In 2021, more than 20 people died per day after being hit by a vehicle.

Over the last 30 years, the average vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller, and 1,000 pounds heavier in the US. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood.

The IIHS study examined 17,897 crashes involving a single passenger vehicle and a single pedestrian. Using Vehicle Identification Numbers to identify the vehicles, they calculated front-end measurements corresponding to 2,958 unique car, minivan, large van, SUV, and pickup models. Vehicles with pedestrian automatic emergency braking systems were excluded from the study, along with others that could affect the likelihood of a fatality, such as speed limit, and age of the struck pedestrian.

Front-End Height affects Fatalities

The study found that vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees or less, were 45% more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than those with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less. Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front end angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44% more likely to cause fatalities.

Researchers looked at several other vehicle characteristics, including the angle of the windshield, the length of the hood, and the angle of the hood. Among these, the slope of the hood had the biggest effect. There was a 25% increase in the risk of fatality for vehicles with flat hoods (those with angles of 15 degrees or less) compared to vehicles with more sloping hoods.

Researchers found that vehicles taller than 35 inches were more dangerous to pedestrians because they tend to cause more severe head injuries. Of the vehicles taller than 35 inches, those with more blunt front ends were more dangerous than those with sloped front ends, because they cause more frequent and severe torso and hip injuries.

“Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2023
For more news on Vehicular Safety, visit the NLR Insurance Reinsurance & Surety section.

E-Scooter and E-Bike Injuries Soar

Injuries caused by e-scooters and e-bikes increased steeply from 2021 to 2022, highlighting the serious risks associated with these transportation devices (officially known as “micromobility products”).

According to a new report from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), titled “Micromobility Products-Related Deaths, Injuries, and Hazard Patterns,” these kinds of injuries increased by almost 21 percent from 2021 to 2022.

This marks the continuation of an alarming upward trend, illustrating that the 2023 increase is much more than a fluke: these types of injuries have increased by an average of 23 percent each year since 2017.

Digging into the data on e-bike injuries

To help you better understand the new data on micromobility devices, here are some of the most notable revelations from the latest CPSC report:

  • 46% of all e-bike injuries from 2017 to 2022 occurred in 2022.
  • Although children under the age of 15 constitute only 18 percent of the U.S. population, they made up 36 % of those injured by micromobility devices from 2017 to 2022.
  • There were 360,800 micromobility product-related emergency department visits from 2017 to 2022.
  • From January 2021 to November 2022, there were 19 deaths associated with micromobility device fires.

In light of the dangers of e-bikes and related devices—now backed up by this extensive and detailed data—CPSC called for “more than 2,000 manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of [micromobility devices] to review their product lines and ensure they comply with established voluntary safety standards to reduce the serious risk of dangerous fires with these products or face possible enforcement action.”

E-bike and e-scooter safety tips

While using an electric bike or scooter can be dangerous, there are numerous ways to protect yourself so you can enjoy these devices’ physical and mental health benefits while minimizing their overall risks:

Micromobility device-specific safety tips

  • According to CPSC, you should only use micromobility devices that you are certain were “designed, manufactured, and certified for compliance with the applicable consensus safety standards.”
  • Only use the supplied charger to charge your e-bike or related device, and only charge it when you’re present (in case of a dangerous malfunction). Always make sure to unplug it when you’re done charging.
  • Only use an approved replacement battery pack; likewise, never use a micromobility device with a battery pack that was modified with used cells or by unqualified individuals.
  • Do not dispose of lithium batteries in the trash. Bring used batteries to a hazardous waste collection center or specialized battery recycler.

General bike and scooter safety tips

  • Always wear a helmet in case of a fall.
  • Every time you take out your bike/scooter, check the following parts for damage:
    • Handlebars
    • Brakes
    • Throttle
    • Bell
    • Lights
    • Tires
    • Cables
    • Frame
  • To ensure vehicles and pedestrians can see you, slow down, remain aware of your surroundings, and use your bell or horn to let others know you’re there.
  • Do not ride your bike or scooter after consuming alcohol or other drugs.
  • Don’t share your scooter with another person. Only one person should ride it at a time.
  • Avoid bumps and other obstacles

If you’ve been injured by an e-bike or another lithium battery-powered device, you have options for asserting your rights and may be entitled to compensation. With the support of a legal team that understands micromobility-related injuries, your case will have the best possible chance of succeeding.

COPYRIGHT © 2023, STARK & STARK
For more articles on e-bike and e-scooter injuries, visit the NLR Personal Injury section.

U.S. Department of Transportation Finalizes EV Charging Infrastructure Rules

Effective as of March 30, 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) within the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) announced the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements final rule  (the “Final Rule”) (23 CFR 680).  The Final Rule included several significant updates to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on June 9, 2022 which we summarized in our prior article. These updates function to establish a set of minimum standards and requirements for electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure projects funded with federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”), and with these updates in place, interested parties will have certainty with respect to NEVI-funded projects.1

The key updates included in the Final Rule are located in the following sections:

  1. Installation, operation, and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure (§ 680.106)

  2. Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.108)

  3. Data requested related to a project funded under the NEVI Formula Program, including the format and schedule for the submission of such data (§ 680.112)

  4. Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.114)

  5. Information on publicly available EV charging infrastructure locations, pricing, real-time availability, and accessibility though mapping applications. (§ 680.116)

Installation and Operation

The Final Rule contains modified language clarifying that any time charging stations are installed, there must be a minimum of four (4) ports, notwithstanding the type of port–including Direct Current Fast Charger (“DCFC”) and AC Level 2 chargers. Additionally, charging stations may also have non-proprietary connectors. This modification allows permanently attached non-proprietary connectors to be provided on each charging port so long as each DCFC charging ports have at least one permanently attached CCS type 1 connector and is capable of charging a CCS compliant vehicle.  These modifications will allow for increased accessibility to owners of all types of electric vehicles.

Concerned commenters expressed distain toward the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for lack of clarity on whether the Final Rule would apply to the NEVI formula program, Title 23, and publicly accessible EV chargers funded as a project on a federal aid highway. The FHWA responded in the Final Rule with modified language to confirm its applicability across these programs. To address concerns about opposition to the rule as applied to Title 23 projects, the language in the Final Rule was revised to provide increased flexibility in the use of funds to install different types of chargers, including for projects not located along Alternative Fuel Corridors and installing AC Level 2 charges and DCFCs at lower power levels. Additionally, AC Level 2 charger capability was modified to incorporate the ability to charge at 208-volt.

The Final Rule also reevaluated and modified charging capacity. Modifications require that each DCFW must simultaneously deliver up to 150 kW. Additionally, each AC level 2 port is required to have the capability of providing at least 6 kW, however, the customer has the option to accept a lower power level to allow power sharing or to participate in smart charge management programs. Smart charge management involves controlling charging power levels in response to external conditions and is typically applied in situations where EVs are connected to charges for long periods of time, such that prolonging charging for the benefit of the grid is not objectionable to charging customers. In contrast, power sharing involves dynamically curtailing power levels of charging ports based on the total power demand of all EVs concurrently charging at the same station. Power sharing is permissible above the minimum per-port requirements for DCFC and AC Level 2 chargers. Further, each DCFC port must support output voltage with a permitted range between 250 and 920 volts. This all allows for greater flexibility to manage the cost of the stations designed to meet current and future demand for increases in power, given the strong market trend towards EV charging power capacity above 150 kW for DCFC and above 6 kW for AC Level 2 charging.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking required charging stations to remain open for 24 hours, but commenters believed this requirement did not present a realistic standard nationwide. In the Final Rule, the language was amended to allow for less restrictive charging hours for charging stations located off designated AFCs and requires that the charging station must be available for use at least as frequently as the business operating hours of the site host, with discretion to the site host to allow longer access.

Payment and Price Transparency

Payment and Price Transparency received both modification and expansion under the Final Rule. State programs may allow for certain charging stations to be free, and as such, language in the Final Rule was modified to specify that payment mechanisms may be omitted from charging stations if charging is provided for free. Regarding acceptable payment methods, the Final Rule explicitly incorporated payment by mobile application in the “contactless payment methods” definition. Further, the Final Rule modified acceptable payment methods to include an automated toll-free calling or an SMS option as an additional payment method. While there is no guarantee that every individual will have access or the ability to speak on the phone or send a text, the FHWA sees this addition as a step in the right direction to help bridge the accessibility gap in access and payment for EV charging.

The Final Rule also altered price transparency to require that the dollar per kWh be transparently communicated prior to initiating a charge, and that other fees be clearly explained prior to payment.

Charging Station Information, Data Sharing, and Interoperability of EV Charging Infrastructure

The Final Rule also modified uptime requirements. The uptimes calculations were clarified by modifying the definition of when a charger is considered “up” and further modifying the equation to calculate uptime to the nearest minute to make the calculation more uniform across all charging station operators and network providers.

Open Charge Point Protocol (“OCPP”) and ISO 15118 are key components of interoperability. OCPP is an open source communication standard for EV charging stations and networks, and ISO 15118 is hardware that specifies the communication between EVs including Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. In the Final Rule, the FHWA discussed that OCPP version 2.01 has significant improvements over previous versions and contains compelling benefits to the EV charging ecosystem. As such, the Final Rule contains modifications regarding the charger-to-charger network requiring that charging networks conform to the newer OCPP version 2.01 by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Additionally, FHWA requires charging station conformance to ISO 15118 and Plug and Charge capability by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Although many chargers on the market today are not yet using ISO 15118, the FHWA sees value in establishing a national standard for compliance. .

Annual data submittal, quarterly, and one time submittal requirements were modified to be completely streamlined and requiring any data made public to be aggregated and anonymized to protect confidential business information. The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation will establish and manage a national database and analytics platform that will streamline submission of data from States and their contractors along with providing ongoing technical assistance to States.

The Final Rule removed interoperability requirements and instead requires that chargers remain functional even if communication with the charging network is temporarily disrupted.

Community Engagement

For NEVI formula program projects, community engagement outcomes were modified in the Final Rule to require inclusion in the annual state EV infrastructure deployment plan rather than a separate report. This will allow for the type of information and data from the States to be most beneficial for informing and improving community engagement. Though we will have to wait until release of the annual Plan guidance to receive details regarding content expectations, commenters suggested several ways the report could be developed, including (i) conditioning funding for future years on meeting robust engagement requirements, including community engagement and equity and inclusion efforts by States (ii) describing how community engagement informed station and siting operations (iii) describing how workforce opportunities were integrated into community engagement efforts; and (iv) describing engagement with disabled community members.

The Future of EV Infrastructure

We will quickly see the significant effects the Final Rule will have on customers and manufacturers alike in enhancing EV charging capacity across the United States in this rapidly changing and ever-growing sector. As regulators, developers, and financiers of EV infrastructure evaluate the Final Rule, the Foley team is at the ready with significant experience, knowledge and expertise related to each element of this transformation, including issues related to the automotive, manufacturing, supply chain, regulatory, IP, private equity, tax equity, project finance, and public-private financing issues.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more Environmental Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FOOTNOTES

1 For a summary of the NEVI Formula Program, refer to our February 2022 article linked here.

Tenth Circuit Declares No Remedy for Hemp Farmer Whose Federally Legal Plants Were Seized

In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published opinion in Serna v. Denver Police Department, No. 21-1446 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2023), upholding the dismissal of a hemp farmer’s lawsuit against local government officials in Colorado who confiscated his plants.

The farmer – Francisco Serna – brought suit under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”) which legalized hemp across the country and included limitations on states’ ability to prohibit the transportation of certain hemp plants and products across state lines. However, the three-judge panel concluded that no provision within the law allows for a private right of action by an individual to challenge instances of perceived unlawful governmental interference.

Serna grew hemp in Texas and intended to bring several plants home with him from Colorado. But when he attempted to get the plants – consisting of “plant clones or rooted clippings” – through Denver’s airport, a police officer confiscated them under a departmental policy to seize plants containing any discernible level of THC. Even though Serna had documentation showing that the plants’ THC level was beneath the limit authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill – and therefore compliant under federal law –  the officer took the plants anyway.

Serna’s Legal Proceedings

Serna sued the Denver Police Department and the confiscating officer under Section 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill, which prohibits states from interfering with interstate transport of hemp and products that comply with the law. Serna asserted that because his plants were complaint, the defendants violated the provision. However, a federal magistrate judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the district court adopted.[1] Serna then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit also held that no private right of action existed for Serna to employ. The court’s conclusion rests on the determination that Congress did not intend that hemp farmers, like Serna, should constitute a protected class under the 2018 Farm Bill. Without that status, they cannot sue. The court focused on the plain language of Section 10114(b), reasoning that it “makes no mention of [a] purported class of licensed [hemp] farmers” and merely provides that “no state…shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp” across its borders. Thus, the provision pertains only to “the person regulated rather than the individuals protected,” which is fatal to the private right of action inquiry. The court compared Section 10114(b) with other federal statutes that do create private rights of action, such as Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which specifies that “[n]o person…shall…be subjected to discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

Takeaways

The unfortunate result of this decision is that individuals who comply with the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill during the course of their business operations cannot seek recourse from improper government meddling. As a result, the law is significantly less protective than anticipated. Rather than suing to protect their interests, entrepreneurs like Serna must instead depend upon other actors – perhaps state attorneys general – to pursue these types of cases. However, those non-stakeholders generally have less incentive to pursue lawsuits, particularly against peer law enforcement agencies, leaving hemp operators with no remedy to enforce their rights under the 2018 Farm Bill.

In a broader sense, the Serna case is a cautionary tale for those who expect federal descheduling of marijuana to resolve the regulatory complexities currently faced throughout the cannabis industry. If hemp operators working with products that are federally legal are unable to utilize the courts to challenge unlawful seizure of their products, then the effectiveness of federal legalization of cannabis may require an express private right of action.

Going forward, Serna has a limited period of time to request that the case be re-heard by the Tenth Circuit en banc (i.e., by the entire eleven-judge court) – otherwise, the three-judge panel’s opinion will remain the operative, binding outcome.

[1] The magistrate judge and the district judge differed on their bases for concluding that Serna could not sue under the 2018 Farm Bill. Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that Section 10114(b) neither created a private right of action nor a private remedy. The district judge, on the other hand, concluded that Congress did authorize a private right of action but no private remedy to enforce it was evident. This additional divergence is another example of how the 2018 Farm Bill is susceptible to conflicting interpretations, which will likely only increase going forward as other courts consider the issue.

Article By Emily M. Leongini, Shahiedah Shabazz, and Morgan R. Pankow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Washington’s Focus on the Electric Vehicle Supply Chain in 2023

If a picture is worth a thousand words, the “photo-op” of the president test driving Ford’s new electric F-150 in May of 2021 was the burning image that foretold the US policy direction for the electric mobility industry.

In 2022, the president and US Congress solidified their support of the industry by passing sweeping legislation aimed at funding and incentivizing US electric mobility manufacturing for the next decade and beyond.

Looking ahead to 2023, the Administration will be writing the rules to implement that support. This will take the form of rulemaking for key statutes such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS Act, and the more recent Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). On the non-tariff front, Congress passed, and the president signed, the 2021 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

Background

  • The IIJA authorized $18.6 billion to fund new and existing electric vehicle (EV)-related programs, including a nationwide network of 500,000 EV charging stations and monies for publicly accessible alternative fuel infrastructure. Also, the law injected $10.9 billion in funding for transitioning school buses, transit buses, and passenger ferries to low- and/or zero-emissions alternatives.
  • The CHIPS Act allocated $11 billion in support of advanced semiconductor manufacturing research and set up a $2 billion fund to support technology transfers from laboratory to applications.
  • The IRA, perhaps the most significant development from Washington, DC, injected billions of dollars in tax credits and other incentives to spur US domestic manufacturing of electric vehicles.
  • In December 2022, news came that a United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Dispute Settlement Panel had completed its findings on a complaint by Mexico and supported by Canada that the United States has been misinterpreting the product origin calculations for “core parts” for USMCA vehicle qualification. In January of 2023, that ruling was made public. See Long Awaited USMCA Panel Decision on Automotive “Core Parts” – What Happened and What’s Next.
  • In June 2022, the Administration published its “Strategy to Prevent the Importation of Goods Mined, Produced, or Manufacture with Forced Labor.” Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has launched a vigorous and highly intrusive enforcement strategy for a number of key sectors, including the automotive industry.

What to Know

Based on the legislative developments from the last year, the EV industry should expect:

  • Import Enforcement. If 2022 was the year of federal infusion of funding and policy development, 2023 will be the year of import enforcement and accountability. Supply chains will be scrutinized, and compliance will have to be demonstrated. In addition, claims of tariff preferences under US trade agreements will be closely monitored to guard against fraudulent product descriptions or county of origin. In terms of US forced labor legislation, a January 2023 article in a well-read trade media reported on a meeting with US Trade Representative Katherine Tai at which the Ambassador “suggested that auto or auto parts imported from China could be in CBP crosshairs.” (International Trade Today, January 6, 2023 Vol 39, No 4).
  • Accountability. With the massive funding from Congress and the White House, federal agencies will be scrutinizing how monies have been spent, particularly whether they have been spent to meet the goals to incentive US domestic production. Global supply chains will come under the microscope. A December 2022 Treasury Department publication can be read here.
  • Corporate Readiness. Companies that engage in the global marketplace dread the unknown. There is no crystal ball. But what corporate executives can do to mitigate the risk of potentially bad news on the trade front is to monitor developments, conduct self-assessments, and, where possible, build in flexibilities.
  • Know Your Customer. Know Your Suppliers. Know Your Suppliers’ Suppliers. A common thread weaving throughout these developments on the trade front is Washington’s not so subtle objective of determining the essential source of imported products. That effort will shift the onus onto the private sector, with companies having to provide far more transparency into their product’s life span.

For product development and marketing executives in the electric mobility sector, 2023 is potentially a very good news story. But for general counsels and corporate compliance and procurement officers, the uncertainties of regulatory change will require extra attention. In the interim, company officials are taking a fresh look at the current legal and regulatory exposures of their supply chains to be best prepared for the trade policy changes ahead. The adage “when in uncertain times, start with what you know” is particularly relevant today.

To that end, the USMCA can play a critical “bridge” for many companies with strategic business interests in the US market.

Article By Birgit Matthiesen, David R. Hamill, Antonio J. Rivera, and James Kim of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Congress Votes to Impose Bargaining Agreement to Avoid Nationwide Railroad Strike

Both the House and Senate have passed legislation under the Railway Labor Act to avoid a railroad strike by imposing the bargaining agreement brokered by President Joe Biden in September 2022.

The House already voted in favor of the legislation. (For details of the bill, see our article, President Biden Calls on Congress to Avoid Mass Railroad Strike.) With the Senate also voting to pass the main bill, by an 80-15 vote, the threat of a strike has been averted. The legislation moves to the president for his signature. Biden has indicated he will sign the bill.

While the House voted in favor of the separate, additional piece of legislation that would have added seven paid sick leave days annually for the rail workers, the Senate did not have enough votes to pass that bill. President Biden vowed in a separate statement to seek paid leave in the future not just for rail workers, but for all workers.

What was passed by Congress in its joint resolution was short and succinct. The three-page joint resolution stated that all tentative agreements entered into by the rail carriers and the unions were considered in effect as if they had been ratified. The exact terms of each collective bargaining agreement vary by union and were not part of the bill that was passed. This is a result of the special powers given to Congress under the Railway Labor Act.

All contracts contained generous wage increases: roughly 24 percent over four to five years with one extra day of leave. However, the other detailed terms will vary across the dozen national craft unions.

Article By Jonathan J. Spitz, Richard F. Vitarelli, James M. Stone, and James Verdi of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For for labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Global Dispute Resolution: The Future of Virtual Legal Proceedings Is Shaped by Soaring Travel Costs

While we may have passed through the worst of the global pandemic, it has unquestionably left a deep and lasting impact on our personal and professional lives. Restrictions that left everyone housebound for months on end resulted in adaptations to daily behaviors and how we do business—some of which are here to stay.

Progress in the Form of Virtual Proceedings

During the pandemic, keeping businesses afloat was challenging across the board in all industries. Videoconferencing was often the only option to connect with colleagues or to participate in a meeting of any kind, and the use of platforms like Zoom skyrocketed. Like most other businesses and professional organizations, legal forums around the world were closed for a time. When they began to reopen, they discovered a new (virtual) operational environment that arose out of necessity.

International arbitration centers and courts across the globe followed suit, reopening with a mandate to conduct business remotely. While they had already developed protocols for using technology to increase accessibility and efficiency before 2020, the use of videoconferencing in international arbitration centers and courtrooms took off rapidly and pervasively once the pandemic hit. The ramped-up schedule of online proceedings continues in international arbitration centers and courts now that they are increasingly comfortable with the virtual format, and protocols have been developed and vetted.

 

 

 

Many believe that these recent technological developments were long overdue. The pandemic essentially propelled the justice system to modernize its administrative and operational policies. Remote Courts Worldwide (a website created during the pandemic to encourage the global community of justice workers to exchange ideas related to remote alternatives to traditional court proceedings) documents that virtual hearings, arbitrations, and court proceedings are embraced by stakeholders in many countries.1 The consensus is that smart, efficient, industry-disrupting change has brought the international justice system into the twenty-first century. Virtual proceedings are a welcome change for many reasons, not the least of which is the prohibitively high cost of in-person attendance.

International Travel Costs & Virtual Legal Proceedings

The cost of air travel has increased markedly in 2022. Demand issues, inflation, and high fuel costs have driven up per-person airfares. According to the 2022 Global Business Travel Association’s Business Travel Index Outlook – Annual Global Report and Forecast, total international business travel spending is downby 50% from pre-pandemic levels, but individual airfares are on track to rise nearly 50% this year over 2021 and are predicted to continue to rise in 2023.2

An intercontinental long-haul business class ticket from the United States will usually average between $3,000 and $5,000 roundtrip onboard major national carriers. Fares are often the highest on flights longer than twelve hours (i.e., to the Middle East, Australia, or Southeast Asia) and may range from $5,000 to $12,000.3

COMPARING COSTS FOR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE

The following is an example of a business travel cost profile for an international arbitration hearing taking place in London and involving three US attorneys, two Paris attorneys, two local witnesses, and three litigation support personnel. The average business trip to London is 5.8 days4, during which these travelers will require accommodations for five nights, food for six days, and ground transportation for six days.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL EXPENSES & TRAVEL TIME TO LONDON FOR ONE LEGAL PROCEEDING

 

 

Person Traveling Number Originating City Airfare Travel Time Hotel Food Ground Total
US Lawyers 3 Chicago $3,079 $5,850 $2,200 $750 $400 $36,837
Paris Lawyers 2 Paris $325 $1,950 $2,200 $750 $400 $11,250
Witnesses 2 London $0 $0 $1,500 $350 $250 $4,200
Trial Consultant 1 New York $2,325 $2,400 $2,200 $750 $400 $8,075
Trial Presenter 1 Los Angeles $3,944 $3,300 $2,200 $750 $400 $10,594
Graphic Designer 1 Dallas $3,079 $3,000 $2,200 $750 $400 $9,429
Total In-Person Attendance               $80,385

 

Notes: Airfares based on Delta business class in November 2022. Travel time based on Chicago to London 9hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; Paris to London 3hr. x 2(RT) @$325/hr.; NY to London 8hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; LA to London 11hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr.; Dallas to London 10hr. x 2(RT) @$150/hr. 

As demonstrated in the chart above, the cost of travel time can be as much or more than the cost of flights to attend an international arbitration or other legal hearing. Spending many hours traveling to and returning from the various steps of an international proceeding is not only an expense for a client, but productivity is also lost for the legal professionals involved.

If time is money, there could not be a more direct equivalency than the legal industry’s billable hour, and often lawyers apply the same hourly rate for travel hours as for work hours. When complex matters demand a legal team, these costs are multiplied. Then there is the issue of witnesses who would need to travel and perhaps wait around to testify, not to mention the time commitment and expenses related to other on-site billers and support staff. Add in the unpredictability of airline delays, and costs will continue to mount.

VIRTUAL HEARINGS SAVE MONEY (AND THEY’RE HERE TO STAY)

 

 

 

With the cost of international air travel rising sharply, remote hearings are a practical alternative to in-person proceedings. International travel is expensive, and the virtual option means that it is no longer necessary to count travel as a “cost of doing business” when pursuing an international dispute. The widespread use of technology in global dispute resolution proceedings gives attorneys and their clients the option to participate remotely, which is a compelling cost saver for all parties.

Industry news reports tell the story:

Technology has become ubiquitous in international arbitration.5 Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams.6 Beijing’s “Internet Court” enables people to file lawsuits online.7 In India, 19.2 million cases have been heard virtually in the High Court and district courts.8

Such reports are convincing evidence of the commitment to the continuation of virtual proceedings in legal forums around the globe. Remote and hybrid proceedings in the international legal setting appear to have a very secure future.

Put Your Best Foot Forward in Virtual Legal Proceedings

Technology in the courtroom is not particularly a new concept, and international arbitration centers were working in the direction of modernizing when they had to fast-track guidelines to convert to primarily virtual hearings.9 The wholesale adoption of online proceedings may have caught some firms unprepared from a technical production standpoint.

References:

  1. See www.remotecourts.org.
  2. See gbta.org.
  3. Keyes, Scott. The Complete Guide to Business Class Flights. Scott’s Cheap Flights. April 28, 2022.
  4. Johnson, Georgia-Rose. Business Travel Statistics. Finder.com. February 18, 2021.
  5. Vishnyakov, Mikhail. CIArb Guidelines on the Use of Technology, The Law Society Gazette. March 18, 2021.
  6. Yates-Roberts, Elly. Japan expedites court proceedings with Microsoft Teams. Technology Record. February 4, 2020.
  7. China: Beijing’s ‘Internet Court’ enables people to file lawsuits online. Remote Courts Worldwide. September 20, 2022.
  8. Harris, Joanne. Access to justice: India leads post-Covid shift in courts’ use of technology. International Bar Association. October 12, 2022.
  9. Caroni, Barnardo. Fast Track Arbitration and Virtual Protocols in the COVID-19 ERA: Some Suggestions from Asia. October 20, 2022.

Article By IMS Consulting & Expert Services

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.

Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act Aim to Build a More Equitable EV Market

In February of this year, it was high time for me to buy a new car. I had driven the same car since 2008, and getting this-or-that replaced was costing more and more every year. As a first-time car buyer, I had two criteria: I wanted to go fast, and I wanted the car to plug in.

Like many prospective purchasers, I started my search online and by speaking with friends and who drove electric vehicles, or EVs for short. I settled on a plug-in hybrid sedan, reasoning that a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) was the best of both worlds: the 20-mile electric range was perfect for my short commute and getting around Houston’s inner loop, and the 10-gallon gas tank offered freedom to roam. In the eight months since I’ve had the car, I’ve bought less than ten tanks of gas. As the price of a gallon in Texas soared to $4.69 in June, the timing of my purchase seemed miraculous.

When it was time to transact, the dealer made vague mention of rebates and tax credits, but didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the details. Enter Texas’s Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Purchase or Lease Incentive Program (LDPLIP). Administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the program grants rebates of up to $5,000 for consumers, businesses, and government entities who buy or lease new vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane), and up to $2,500 for those who buy or lease new EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Rebates are only available to purchasers who buy or lease from dealerships (so some of the most popular EVs in the U.S. don’t qualify). There is no vehicle price cap, nor is there an income limit for purchasers. In June of 2022, the average price for a new electric vehicle was over $66,000, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates. But the median Texan household income (in 2020 dollars) for 2016-2020 was $63,826.

According to the grant specialist to whom I initially sent my application, the TCEQ has received “a vigorous response” from applicants, however, the TCEQ is limited in the number of rebate grants that it can award: 2,000 grants for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and 1,000 grants for vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane).

The grant period in Texas ends on January 7, 2023, but on July 5, 2022, the TCEQ suspended acceptance of applications for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. As of the writing of this post, the total number of applications received and reservations pending on the program’s website is 2,480.

In comparison with Texas’s rebate program, the EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 demonstrate a commitment to building a more equitable EV market. While EVs may be cheaper to own than gas-powered vehicles—especially when gas prices are high—a lot of lower and middle-income families have historically been priced out of the EV market. The IRA takes several meaningful steps towards accessibility and sustainability for a more diverse swath of consumers:

  • Allows point-of-sale incentives starting in 2024. Purchasers will be able to apply the credit (up to $7,500) at the dealership, and because sticker price is such an important factor for so many purchasers, this incentive will make buying an EV more attractive up front.
  • Removes 200,000 vehicle-per-manufacturer cap. Some American manufacturers are already past the maximum. Eliminating the cap means bringing back the tax credit for many popular and affordable EVs, which should attract new buyers.
  • Creates income and purchase price limits. SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks under $80,000, and all other vehicles (e.g. sedans) under $55,000, will qualify for the EV tax credit. For new vehicles, purchaser income will be subject to an AGI cap: $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for a joint filers.
  • Extends the tax credit to pre-owned EVs. As long as the purchase price does not exceed $25,000, purchasers of pre-owned EVs (EVs whose model year is at least two years earlier than the calendar year in which the purchase occurs) will receive a tax credit for 30% of the sale price up to $4,000. The income cap for pre-owned EVs is $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a joint filers.

A purchaser who qualifies under both programs can get both incentives. Comparing Texas’s state government-level incentives and those soon to be offered at the federal level reveals a few telling differences—new vs. used, income caps, purchase price caps, post-purchase rebates vs. up-front point-of-sale incentives—but the differences all fall under the same umbrella: equity. The IRA’s tax credits are designed, among other things, to make purchasing an EV more attractive to a wider audience.

Of course, the EV incentive landscape has greatly changed since the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 first granted tax credits for new, qualified EVs. The LDPLIP wasn’t approved by the TCEQ until late 2013, so the U.S. government has arguably had more time to get it right. Some might say that the fact that Texas’s program offers the purchaser of the $150,000+ PHEV the same opportunity to access grant funds as the purchaser of the $30,000 EV means that the LDPLIP is even more “equal.”

It is worth noting that the IRA also sets a handful of production and assembly requirements. For instance, to qualify for the credit, a vehicle’s final assembly must occur in North America. Further, at least 40% the value of the critical minerals contained in the vehicle’s battery must be “extracted or processed in any country with which the United States has a free trade agreement in effect” or be “recycled in North America”—and this percentage increases each year, topping out at 80% in 2027. There is also a rising requirement that 50% of the vehicle’s battery components be manufactured or assembled in North America, with the requirement set to hit 100% in 2029. It is unclear whether automotive manufacturers and the U.S. critical mineral supply chains will be able to meet these targets—and that uncertainty may cause a potential limiting effect on the options a purchaser would have for EVs that qualify for the tax credit.

Time will tell whether the intentions behind the EV tax credits in the IRA have the effect that this particular blogger and PHEV owner is hoping for. While we wait to see whether this bid at creating an equitable EV market bears fruit, we can at least admire this attempt at, as the saying goes, “giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits.”

Article By Dania Abbasi of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Hackers Caused a Traffic Jam in Moscow

Hackers caused a massive traffic jam in Moscow by exploiting the ride-sharing app Yandex Taxi and using it to summon dozens of taxis to a single location. While Yandex has not confirmed the attacker’s identity, the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed responsibility on Twitter. The group has been actively taking aim at Russian targets in response to the Russian Federation’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Yandex claims that it has implemented new algorithms to detect this type of attack in the future and will compensate the affected drivers.

This traffic jam is a new application of an old hacktivist tactic: flood the system to make it unusable. Other techniques in this vein include blackouts (which target fax machines) and distributed denial of service (which targets websites and networks). No word yet on whether this new rideshare jam exploit will merit a snappy title.

Blair Robinson contributed to this article. 

For more Global Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.