Does the $9K loss figure "add up"?

[DucRider]

Without getting into what impact a GM "loss" on the Bolt might mean (good, bad or indifferent), I thought I'd do a rough EV vs ICE comparison to see what it would take for GM to have a $9000 loss on the Bolt (parts & labor).

Since we are not privy to the actual costs, we can take a different approach - look at the cost differential between a similar ICE vehicle and the Bolt. I decided to use the Cruze Hatchback as a comparison vehicle.

First, let's take a look at our best guess for the cost of the Cruze and the Bolt. Invoice price is readily accessible. The true sell cost to the dealer is another matter, but we can make a pretty good guess. The amount in the memo line is pretty close to what the dealer will actually wind up paying for the car.
http://www.mychevybolt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4945#p9713
It's about $1K less than invoice.
If we assume that GM is not making much on the Cruze (just $1K) and they are losing $9K on the Bolt, here is what we wind up with:

So for the $9K number to be true, the Bolt will cost ~$24K more to manufacture than the Cruze (more than double). Sounds high, but let's take a closer look.

The body, interior, suspension, etc are similar enough to be a wash. The drive train and battery (on the Bolt) are where the cost differential would originate.
We don't have access to part costs on the Bolt, but we do on the Spark EV and the Cruze.
I chose the Spark EV because retail parts prices are available on the electric motor and associated components. They won't match exactly, but should be in the ballpark. The Cruze Hatchback with auto trans is a decent ICE comparison for the Bolt (and the motor/trans/etc are common to many GM vehicles in that size and price range).

Retail Parts prices (from GM OEM parts sites):

Both will have cooling systems, gauge clusters, brakes, etc. Plus some miscellaneous parts unique to their fuel type (charging port, fuel filler neck & cap, etc.). I didn't add up every bolt and bracket, but took the major components (the whole assemble when available). I consider this portion to be a wash.

That leaves the battery pack.
We have a $145/kWh cell figure on the Bolt, so if they use 70 kWh (to get 60 usable), cell cost is ~$10K. If we allow a generous $7K cost for the tray, heater, cooling, brackets, etc that would put the cost to GM of the Bolt EV pack assembly @$17K (it's very likely less than that). Retail on the Spark EV pack is $11,889 and it has similar requirements for cooling/connectors/tray/etc.

So, in conclusion, for the ~$9K loss to be accurate, the battery pack would need to cost GM at least $24K (or $14K in assembly costs after the $10K in battery costs). In fairness, there might be some additional costs for an EV (relays, heavy duty wiring, etc) that might add a little over the cost of an ICE ($1K?, $2K?), but nowhere near what it would take to make up the difference.

Are these exact numbers? Not in the least. But close enough to make me question the validity of the $9K loss claim by "a person familiar with the matter".

Once again, this is not an argument on whether or not it is good or bad if GM is "losing money" on the Bolt, or the impact of ZEV credits, meeting CAFE requirements, etc., but an attempt to test the validity of the claim.

 

[oilerlord]

Gary, we're only guessing. No one outside of GM really knows if the Bolt is selling at a profit or loss but it's common for EV's to lose money. Fiat's CEO had no reason to lie about the $14,000 loss per car they incurred on every 500e sold:

"Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV’s battery-powered Fiat 500e is made for California alone, and Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that it was losing $14,000 per sale. The company’s pretty much giving it away, at a monthly lease-rate of as little as $69. Nissan Motor Co. has advertised lease deals for the Leaf at as low as $149."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom

Granted, that was back in 2014 when battery packs cost more, and on a very low production compliance car, but the 500e's battery was only 24kWh. Again, unless GM decides to release profit or loss figures - we're only guessing. As new EV's are concerned, the Bolt is currently the best deal available.

 

[DucRider]

Gary, we're only guessing. No one outside of GM really knows if the Bolt is selling at a profit or loss but it's common for EV's to lose money. Fiat's CEO had no reason to lie about the $14,000 loss per car they incurred on every 500e sold:

"Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV’s battery-powered Fiat 500e is made for California alone, and Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that it was losing $14,000 per sale. The company’s pretty much giving it away, at a monthly lease-rate of as little as $69. Nissan Motor Co. has advertised lease deals for the Leaf at as low as $149."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom

Granted, that was back in 2014 when battery packs cost more, and on a very low production compliance car, but the 500e's battery was only 24kWh. Again, unless GM decides to release profit or loss figures - we're only guessing. As new EV's are concerned, the Bolt is currently the best deal available.

You seem to accept that premise because it fits your preconceived notion. You site sources with a decidedly anti-EV slant.

Do you see anything in the above numbers that is significantly off?

 

[oilerlord]

You seem to accept that premise because it fits your preconceived notion. You site sources with a decidedly anti-EV slant.

Well, I tend to take CEO of Fiat at his word. I could go through a parts catalog and price out an entire 500e but it doesn't matter to me. I only accept the premise that EV's are sold at a loss because they usually are. I'm sure that Mercedes lost a boatload of cash on my B250e, but it doesn't change my opinion of the car itself. If GM has found a way to to make the Bolt profitable either on it's own or through credits, then great. Rest assured, people walking into GM showrooms will judge the Bolt on it's own merits.

If you actually read the Bloomberg link, it's decidedly upbeat about EV's, I read no anti-EV slant in the article - you do. After reading the article, I get the impression that GM is serious about grabbing market share - even if they have to sell the car at a loss to accomplish that. I take that as a 100% positive. Here's another except from the link:

"GM has reasons beyond compliance to promote the Bolt, according to Tim Mahoney, Chevy’s chief marketing officer. For one thing, it lures younger, technologically savvy buyers who probably wouldn’t have considered Chevrolet, he said. “It’s a statement about what we can do for the Chevy brand.”"

Does this sound like an anti-EV slant? I see it as GM looking towards the future.

 

[ScooterCT]

"Cost" is a really tricky thing. For example, consider the Airbus A380 super-jumbo aircraft. You have program development costs and aricraft unit costs. The development costs were humongous ($25 billion). Almost a decade after introduction, the actual unit costs per aircraft are only just now going into the black - and that is completely ignoring the $25 billion invested to design the aircraft. Essentially, the A380 was a $25 billion jobs program, with that investment completely written off.

Great, so what does that have to do with the Bolt $9K per vehicle loss? Well, it tells us that unless we're GM accountants, we're never going to know. Is the Bolt losing $9K when you factor in the amortization of the development program? Or is it a $9K loss on a unit basis? None of us has a clue, or ever will unless GM opens its internal books. Also, if you run $9K loss a vehicle across 30,000 Bolts in 2017, that's a $217 million loss. Even with GM earning $11 billion last year, it's hard for me to believe they're happily losing that much money on a pure EV platform just for bragging rights.

We're all taking wild guesses out here. My wild guess is Mary Barra green-lighted the Bolt because it gives GM a pure EV platform that can serve a whole family of vehicles. She's got a big arrow in her quiver in the event some MIT guy introduces a fantastic storage device. Hey, if that storage device appears, she made a brilliant investment. So I see the Bolt as a GM insurance policy. If a power storage revolution happens overnight, they're set. If not, they have a platform ready for when it does. That's the nature of an insurance policy - it costs you some money to prevent you from potentially losing a lot of money.

 

[SeanNelson]

Fiat's CEO had no reason to lie about the $14,000 loss per car they incurred on every 500e sold:

"Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV’s battery-powered Fiat 500e is made for California alone, and Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that it was losing $14,000 per sale.

The problem with quotes like this and with the information about the Bolt is that we have zero information about whether the figure includes development costs. Development costs will be a huge factor for a car with a limited production run. And if the Fiat figure includes development costs and the Bolt's doesn't, or if the Bolt's production run is much larger allowing the development costs to be amortized over a greater run, then we could easily be talking apples and oranges.

In other words, it's basically hearsay as far as using it as a basis for comparison goes.

 

[Anonymous]

That leaves the battery pack.
We have a $145/kWh cell figure on the Bolt, so if they use 70 kWh (to get 60 usable), cell cost is ~$10K. If we allow a generous $7K cost for the tray, heater, cooling, brackets, etc that would put the cost to GM of the Bolt EV pack assembly @$17K (it's very likely less than that). Retail on the Spark EV pack is $11,889 and it has similar requirements for cooling/connectors/tray/etc.

So, in conclusion, for the ~$9K loss to be accurate, the battery pack would need to cost GM at least $24K (or $14K in assembly costs after the $10K in battery costs). In fairness, there might be some additional costs for an EV (relays, heavy duty wiring, etc) that might add a little over the cost of an ICE ($1K?, $2K?), but nowhere near what it would take to make up the difference.

The thing is they have markeded in the negative this year, and probably next year also. But in late 2017, GM will be a marked leader in the world for other car manufacturers to follow. GM will hold the standard in the hatchback segment for EV's. And when prices go below $100/kWh, GM will be in whole other position than they are in now. GM' really dont need to do much as Panasonic/Tesla will probably alone push prices down alot, forcing LGchem to follow suit. GM proably have a goal on going balanced I'd say. Just to get a real marked share for future profitability.

The internals like OBC, electric engine etc. Will drop way more than at production start. Just hope they really can roll out 800 EV's a day...

Best regards
Margol

 

[oilerlord]

Great, so what does that have to do with the Bolt $9K per vehicle loss? Well, it tells us that unless we're GM accountants, we're never going to know. Is the Bolt losing $9K when you factor in the amortization of the development program? Or is it a $9K loss on a unit basis? None of us has a clue, or ever will unless GM opens its internal books. Also, if you run $9K loss a vehicle across 30,000 Bolts in 2017, that's a $217 million loss. Even with GM earning $11 billion last year, it's hard for me to believe they're happily losing that much money on a pure EV platform just for bragging rights.

It's a high stakes game. There's so much more to it than initial losses (if they are losses). GM is making an investment in the future. To that point, I also read this from Bloomberg:

"BMW’s increased spending on new technologies comes as China, the world’s largest auto market, considers quotas for zero- and low-emission vehicles. The country is looking at mandating that at least 8 percent of a carmaker’s sales in the country be either electrics or hybrids by 2018. The proportion would rise to 10 percent in 2019 and 12 percent in 2020".

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-04/bmw-third-quarter-profit-rises-on-suv-demand-in-europe-china

To me, the title of the article is irrelevant. The bigger picture is that China may introduce a CARB program of their own. If they do indeed mandate 8 percent of car sales to be electrics or hybrids. BMW (and probably GM) are positioning themselves to benefit should that happen.

To your point about a $217 million Bolt loss vs a $11B overall profit. The $11B is the big picture. The $217M loss (if that's what it is) is the cost of doing business while hedging their bets in the technology and other markets. No doubt CARB and CAFE on Volt, Spark, and Bolt helps keep that $11B profit rolling in on sales of profitable trucks and SUV's.

 

[ScooterCT]

https://electrek.co/2016/12/20/chevy-bolt-ev-profit-subsidize-gas-guzzling-cars-tesla-model-3-jp-morgan/

Another voice in the matter. Note that this data comes right from a day with the GM CFO. Personally, I don't care if they're making or losing money. I just care whether or not I can actually buy the thing out here in the unwashed parts of the USA.

s

 

[WetEV]

If we assume that GM is not making much on the Cruze (just $1K)

Probably a bad assumption. If I had to bet, I'd bet that GM loses a little money on the Cruze. Of course, I don't know for sure. GM sells smaller gasoline cars like the Cruze to lower the CAFE (Corporate Average Fleet Economy). GM has generally not profited in the past from selling small cars. The money is made selling SUVs, pickup trucks and similar larger vehicles.

I think that GM is likely making some money on each Bolt sold, but the development cost spread over the volume leads to a net loss.

If CAFE goes away, perhaps both the Cruze and Bolt might follow, as GM focuses on the high profit end of the business. Until the next gas price spike, making SUVs and such unsaleable, so GM will again go broke and will again get a government bailout. :shock:

Or perhaps GM will keep smaller cars as a way to get younger people to consider GM products now, and buy higher margin GM products in the future. In which case, GM might survive the next gas price spike much as Ford did the last one.

No crystal ball here. I expect to be surprised.

 

[Fargoneandout]

Given the dearth of details I place great weight on Chevy statements that the Bolt will be marketed in all 50 states. If the Bolt costs that much more to produce then to sell I see no reason why GM would not limit sales to only states where it must be marketed for compliance reasons.

Arguing whether Chevy loses money on the Bolts being made now is silly, because R&D costs to being it to market are amortized over the entire production run. And owing to GAAP rules for accounting, these costs get rolled into all of GM's P&L. To make this even more complex, Bolt R&D can be used to support future GM initiatives, just as GM used Volt and Spark R&D lessons when creating the Bolt.

Bob Lutz was likely just guessing.

 

[WetEV]

Ok. Let's accept assumptions we both agree on:

- Fiat is/was losing $14,000 per car

OK

- The battery in the Fiat 500e was $3K more expensive in 2014 than the battery of the Bolt is today

At least $3K. Probably more.

- $14,000 - $3,000 = $11,000.

Oh keep going. That's hardly the whole difference. MSRP of Bolt is 37.5K, and so far, no large discounts, MSRP of Fiat 500e 32K was 32K and was rumored to be heavily discounted in 2014. Like this:

500e for $20,500.

So $35k actual selling price for the Bolt less $20.5K is $14.5k.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/06/fiat-500e-best-ev-conversion/

Keep doing the math:

$11,000(loss) - $14500 selling price difference = 3500 profit for GM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/06/fiat-500e-best-ev-conversion/

as neither of us are privy to actual GM accounting numbers (notwithstanding summarized public 10Q's), we're both guessing. I have no idea what inverters, charging systems, heating/cooling/BMS, and other electrical bits cost either.

Or Fiat accounting numbers. Having once looked into a conversion of a gasoline car to an electric, I do have an idea of what the other bits cost. Not exact, mind you, as I would have been paying retail, and would have been as of 2010. Prices have dropped from 2010, and this is an area where you can get serious volume discounts for group buys.

Random example of today's retail pricing:

http://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=40&products_id=167

Yes, missing the battery pack and a few other bits.

You could buy a completed conversion for about $45k in 2013. That's about the estimated cost of the Fiat 500e in 2011, looking forward.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1057817_in-the-red-each-fiat-500-electric-car-loses-chrysler-10k

http://jalopnik.com/the-electric-converted-1963-zelectric-vw-beetle-is-a-514043175


As for the Bolt today and moving forward, I would expect that a more correct statement would be:

The Bolt in volumes of 40k a year will earn a profit of at least $9000 per car over a 4 year production run assuming the actual selling price averages $35k.

$15k base car, including NRE and overhead, $7k batteries, $4k electronics and motor.

Feel free to disagree.

I noticed you called the Fiat 500e a "tiny volume" car. While Bolts outsold 500e's by an approximate 3:1 ratio last month, do the 1162 Bolts sold in January qualify it as a "large volume" car? Just curious.

Many reviews of the Fiat 500e called it a conversion car. A conversion car, like you or I could do in our garage. Like the VW kit referenced above. Not designed for mass production, designed for a few hundred a month tops. Stated in multiple reviews as not designed for mass production, compliance only. Fiat sold about 5000 of them in 2014. Have they done a redesign? Even if Fiat didn't, Fiat 500e should be profitable now if they could sell for $32k. Which, they can't.

 

[oilerlord]

Perhaps discounting, and offering low cost leases account for part of the 500e's losses. Tough to make money on a car that you're offering on a $59 per month lease I suppose. Now that carsdotcom shows 1362 Bolts on dealer lots, clearly the initial excitement for them has waned. The 500e may indeed be a "conversion car" but I have little doubt that the Bolt will soon exist in the same buyer's market. While I don't believe we'll see $59 leases on Bolts anytime soon, lease prices are already falling.

 

[Nagorak]

One thing that stands out to me about the analysis in the OP is that it suggests that costs to make an EV are equal to an ICE, with the exception of the battery. The reason that struck me is because we hear that around 100$/kwh EVs are supposed to become cost competitive with ICEs. But if those figures are correct then EVs couldn't be cost competitive unless battery costs dropped to zero.

It seems like there's something else going on here. It could be that going by retail prices isn't accurate, or maybe with increased economies of scale the EV components also will become cheaper? It seems like it has to be about more than the battery.

I think the real answer to whether GM is making/losing money on the actual production of the Bolt is going to come down to the Tesla Model 3. GM can afford to lose money on the Bolt. Tesla really can't lose money on the M3. If the M3 is not profitable in actual production then they are sunk. GM has an advantage compared to Tesla in that it already has established manufacturing facilities. There's no reason to believe it would lose money making the Bolt if Tesla doesn't.

 

[DucRider]

One thing that stands out to me about the analysis in the OP is that it suggests that costs to make an EV are equal to an ICE, with the exception of the battery. The reason that struck me is because we hear that around 100$/kwh EVs are supposed to become cost competitive with ICEs. But if those figures are correct then EVs couldn't be cost competitive unless battery costs dropped to zero.

That may be true today, but many of the other EV components (motors/inverters/chargers/etc) are far from reaching the production volumes that will result in minimum cost. As volume increases, I would expect to see cost reductions in all components specific to an EV, not just the battery.
The comparison used retail pricing of Spark EV components - produced in very small numbers relative to any ICE (and the engine and drivetrain are shared across multiple platforms for even greater volume benefits). This contributes to a "worst case" scenario for EV costs - which is just fine for this comparison. The Bolt EV specific components could very well cost significantly less than their ICE equivalents.

When produced in significant volume, I can't see any way that an electric motor and its associated electronics will cost more than a small fraction of what it costs to produce a fuel efficient ICE and it's associated electronics.

 

[oilerlord]

I think the real answer to whether GM is making/losing money on the actual production of the Bolt is going to come down to the Tesla Model 3. GM can afford to lose money on the Bolt. Tesla really can't lose money on the M3. If the M3 is not profitable in actual production then they are sunk.

Huh? TSLA is a growth play...the company has nothing to do with earnings or profitability. Tesla just released it's annual report today. The company lost $773M in 2016:

Wall Street keeps pouring money into Tesla only because of it's growth, and the M3 only feeds into that. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that the M3 WILL lose money. The perception (at least with investors) is that Tesla may one day corner the market on electric cars, and the batteries that power them. As long as that perception exists, Tesla can continue it's practice of burning cash. Growth is everything. Profitability (at least for now) doesn't matter.

So, in terms of the Bolt, does the $9K loss figure "add up"? If Tesla - the recognized leader in electric cars can't make a profit on expensive luxury cars, how does the Bolt have even a chance at profitability on their cost-cutting econobox. Further, this "game changing" car has managed to sell only 2114 units this year. 952 Bolts sold last month? What a joke. No game has been changed.

http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Anyone that thinks a low-volume car like the Bolt is going to be profitable for GM is fooling themselves.

 

[WetEV]

I think the real answer to whether GM is making/losing money on the actual production of the Bolt is going to come down to the Tesla Model 3. GM can afford to lose money on the Bolt. Tesla really can't lose money on the M3. If the M3 is not profitable in actual production then they are sunk.

Huh? TSLA is a growth play...the company has nothing to do with earnings or profitability. Tesla just released it's annual report today. The company lost $773M in 2016:

Which was less than the $834M spent on R&D in 2016.

Tesla is making and selling Model S and Model X cars for a profit. Tesla is making money on selling cars and spending that profit and more on R&D. If the business wasn't a growth prospect, selling cars for a profit is what Tesla would be doing. A company doesn't need much R&D if technology is static.

Wall Street keeps pouring money into Tesla only because of it's growth, and the M3 only feeds into that. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that the M3 WILL lose money.

Really? That's an amazing projection that the Model 3 will lose money. Care to back it up?

So, in terms of the Bolt, does the $9K loss figure "add up"? If Tesla - the recognized leader in electric cars can't make a profit on expensive luxury cars, how does the Bolt have even a chance at profitability on their cost-cutting econobox.

Tesla does make a profit on cars, so recalculate that.

Further, this "game changing" car has managed to sell only 2114 units this year. 952 Bolts sold last month? What a joke. No game has been changed.

Compare the Bolt with a historic "game changing" car. First full year of sales looks like this:

1909 .Jan .Feb .Mar .Apr .May ..June ..July ...Aug ..Sept ..Oct .Nov Dec .....Total
Total 298 383 .933 ..648 1,222 1,856 1,911 1,689 1,308 ..852 .513 ..563 ....12,176

http://www.mtfca.com/encyclo/fdsales.htm

Of course, any car that isn't selling for a thousand a month before May is a real loser, right? Just like the Ford Model T was a real loser?

Anyone that thinks a low-volume car like the Bolt is going to be profitable for GM is fooling themselves.

I'm not sure of a lot of things.

Is the Bolt going to be a low-volume car, selling a 12,000/year or less? Or is the Bolt and derivatives going to sell 30,000 this year, 60,000 next year, 120,000 in 2019 and 240,000 in 2020? I don't know, and I don't see how you do.

What's the actual sales price going to look like? GM can probably earn money at much lower prices at high enough volumes. How much lower? I can only guess.

Oh, and beyond that. What's the gasoline price going to look like over the next 4 years? Higher prices will improve both GM's sales volume on the Bolt, and the actual sales price from GM's point of view.

What's the competition going to do?

 

[phil0909]

Wall Street keeps pouring money into Tesla only because of it's growth, and the M3 only feeds into that. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that the M3 WILL lose money.

Really? That's an amazing projection that the Model 3 will lose money. Care to back it up?

"The early Model 3s will be horribly negative margin, particularly on day one, when I say literally day one. Because you're starting at a tiny, tiny rate, as you spool up this giant machine. So, it's – like, no company on Earth could – it's not a function of Tesla. It is like physically impossible. "?So, you have to get the production rate to some reasonable capacity percentage of the system."

- Elon Reeve Musk
2/22/17

 

[Nagorak]

Yes but the idea is the Model 3 will eventually make money. If Tesla ramps up to 500k vehicles and it's still losing a lot of money then I don't think they'll be in a good position. At some point that future profitability has to arrive.

If Tesla produced 500k M3s with a $9k loss on each then they'd be losing's $4.5 billion dollars per year. Even at 250k that would be a pretty big loss, and I don't think they could sustain it. That is so suicidal that I think they must believe they can produce the car at a profit, at least once volume ramps up.

GM already has volume production coming out of their plants, even if not specifically with the Bolt. It should be a lot easier for them to approach profitability even at say 30k per year.

 

[oilerlord]

Which was less than the $834M spent on R&D in 2016.

Tesla is making and selling Model S and Model X cars for a profit. Tesla is making money on selling cars and spending that profit and more on R&D. If the business wasn't a growth prospect, selling cars for a profit is what Tesla would be doing. A company doesn't need much R&D if technology is static.

While it's fun to remove R&D out of TSLA's income statement to make an argument that the company "could have" been profitable, the reality is that expense is crucial to the company's future, allowing them to keep new technologies & products in the pipeline - not much different than Pfizer does spending money researching & developing new drugs.

Really? That's an amazing projection that the Model 3 will lose money. Care to back it up?

Don't have to, Elon Musk already said this himself. Phil beat me to it.

Tesla does make a profit on cars, so recalculate that.

I did. Tesla lost $773M last year, $888M in 2015, and $294M in 2014. You just choose to ignore it.

Compare the Bolt with a historic "game changing" car. First full year of sales looks like this:

1909 .Jan .Feb .Mar .Apr .May ..June ..July ...Aug ..Sept ..Oct .Nov Dec .....Total
Total 298 383 .933 ..648 1,222 1,856 1,911 1,689 1,308 ..852 .513 ..563 ....12,176

http://www.mtfca.com/encyclo/fdsales.htm

Of course, any car that isn't selling for a thousand a month before May is a real loser, right? Just like the Ford Model T was a real loser?

Are you seriously comparing Bolt sales volume with a car from 1909? I hope you're joking because I'm still laughing.

What's the competition going to do?

Toyota continues to flip-flop on plans to build a BEV.

"In the midst of the rapid increase in regulations relating to zero emission vehicles around the world, there are two options to achieve zero emission vehicles: FCVs and EVs. Toyota has committed to making efforts in every direction on various powertrains when it comes to the development of environmentally friendly vehicles, and in relation to this, we have worked on the development of EVs as well."

https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/07/toyota-could-abandon-hydrogen-in-favor-of-evs/

Circles back to the compliance car argument, doesn't it?