DOCSLIB.ORG

Tesla%Motors%

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tesla%Motors% American University Kogod School of Business Tesla’s Direct-To-Consumer Sales Model: A Perfect Fit? Margaret Moore University Honors Program Capstone Professor Parthiban David Spring 2014 Moore 1 Abstract In the United States, the ubiquitous method by which automotive companies sell cars and light trucks to consumers is via a franchise sales model. Recently, Tesla Motors bucked this trend by offering its electric-powered automobiles through manufacturer- owned retail stores, which elicited a substantial amount of legal pushback from some states. This study investigates Tesla Motors’ business model through the framework of a situational analysis to better understand the maverick. The report facet of the capstone seeks to determine and explain that while Tesla is currently best suited to engage in a direct-to-consumer sales model, as the company reaches the middle market and establishes a strong consumer following it would do best to transition to a more traditional franchise sales model. Moore 2 I. Introduction Tesla Motors is well known for a variety of reasons, ranging from its luxury electric automobiles to its founder and CEO, Elon Musk. While these famous attributes of the company to most people frame their perception of Tesla positively, the recent press surrounding Tesla’s legal battles regarding their direct-to-consumer sales model has been explosive. With states blocking the sale of Tesla automobiles within its borders, Tesla needs to find a way to operate and successfully ensure that consumers can easily purchase a Tesla automobile should they desire to do so. This paper seeks to answer whether Tesla Motors is right to engage in a direct-to-consumer sales model in the United States, and if so, should the automobile manufacturer continue engaging in the aforementioned sales model in the future or instead transition to the traditional franchise sales model? This report seeks to answer this research question by first looking at the current automotive sales environment in the United States. Next, the history of direct-to consumer sales models in the United States is highlighted, touching upon Ford’s attempt through the Ford Retail Network to sell directly to consumers as well as Fisker Automotive’s failure in this space when using a franchise model. To determine why these companies did not find the direct-to-consumer sales model successful and why Tesla is facing opposition, the current legal landscape that protects the franchise model is evaluated. After, the benefits of the direct-to-consumer sales model are examined in an effort to convey why Tesla seeks to defend its current sales practices. Then the benefits of the franchise model are evaluated to identify if this model would benefit Tesla now or in the future. Finally strategic recommendations are made before the conclusion of the report. Moore 3 II. Current Automotive Sales Environment In 2012, the United States had 17,635 new-car franchised dealerships, up 95 franchised dealerships from the year prior (NADA). As can be seen in Figure 1, this number has declined over the decades. The number of new cars being sold by each automotive dealer has declined, on average, in recent years, even amidst the decline in the total number of dealerships (Figure 2). Any automobiles sold directly from the manufacturer, such as in Tesla’s sales model, would not be factored into this analysis; however, after extensive research, Tesla appears to be the only well-publicized automobile manufacturer engaging in direct sales in the United States in April 2014. Figure 1 Number'of'Automotive'Dealerships'in'the'US' 60,000" 50,000" 40,000" 30,000" 20,000" 10,000" Number'of'Franchised'New3Car'Dealerships' 0" 1947" 1949" 1951" 1953" 1955" 1957" 1959" 1961" 1963" 1965" 1967" 1969" 1971" 1973" 1975" 1977" 1979" 1981" 1983" 1985" 1987" 1989" 1991" 1993" 1995" 1997" 1999" 2001" 2003" 2005" 2007" 2009" 2011" Source:'NADA'Industry'Analysis' Moore 4 Figure 2 Important to note are the expenses incurred by new-car dealerships, as these are expenses that Tesla Motors must incur when they establish and run their direct-to- consumer sales operation. New-car dealerships in the United States had an average annual payroll of $2.9 million, with the total payroll totaling $51.6 billion (NADA). The new-car dealerships held substantial inventory in 2012 as compared to recent years, totaling almost 3.8 million vehicles (Figure 3). Tesla would be able to avoid holding much of the inventory that dealerships are required to hold, as Tesla employs a just-in- time manufacturing model. This manufacturing model for Tesla means that the company only produces vehicles after consumers have already purchased them, requiring virtually no inventory. Now that the current automotive sales environment has been explored, Moore 5 automotive manufacturers’ attempts to engage in direct-to-consumer sales are next discussed. Figure 3 III. History of Direct-To-Consumer Sales Model Tesla is not the first company to attempt to use a vertically integrated direct sales model to sell to consumers. From 1997 until 2002 Ford implemented the Ford Retail Network, in which the automotive manufacturer sold vehicles directly to consumers by acquiring dealerships in Salt Lake City; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma; San Moore 6 Diego; and Rochester, New York (Klayman). Ford said they wanted to engage in the retail business to learn more about it and potentially make the sale of their vehicles more efficient (Box). Also, Ford wanted to block the larger automotive dealer networks from further growing in size and obtaining too much leverage over the franchisor (Box). Ford’s dealers, however, despised Ford’s approach and were concerned that Ford may favor their factory-owned stores over their dealer-owned counterparts (Box). By September 1999, the results were reported by CNW Marketing Research to be disappointing (Mobile Register). Art Spinella, an analyst of the marketing research firm, reported that, “There has never been an auto dealership owned by the factory that has ever made a dime,” because automakers do not know how to sell cars (Mobile Register). These poor results led the automaker in 1999 to begin to slow down the pace at which it consolidated regional markets (Klayman). By 2000, many states established laws that barred automobile manufacturers in response to Ford’s experiment (Harris). In 2002 Ford ultimately had to give up on the Ford Retail Network (Klayman). However, more Ford incurred more costs with their experiment than the $200 million financial toll of selling their retail stores (Bloomberg). The company lost an enormous amount of goodwill with regards to its dealers (Harris). General Motors has attempted in the past to engage in direct-to-consumer sales buy running its own dealerships through its independent subsidiary, General Motors Retail Holdings (Associated Press). When GM publicized the plan in 1999, the company projected that General Motors Retail holdings would purchase or partner with dealerships in their largest US markets, with the goal of controlling 5-10 percent (or up to 800) of GM’s dealerships in 10 years (Mobile Register). General Motors, like Ford, claimed to Moore 7 engage in the direct-to-consumer sales model, “…(to) improve market performance where we lag, enhance our revenues, understand our customers better and look for ways to reduce distribution costs and improve the customer’s buying experience,” according to Roy Roberts, group VP of GM North American Vehicle Sales, Service, and Marketing (Beran). General Motors ultimately eliminated General Motors Retail Holdings after facing legal barriers to widespread implementation (Hyde). Interesting to note, however, was that unlike its other Big 3 counterparts, Chrysler never attempted to branch into direct-to-consumer sales. Chrysler’s president at the time when Ford and GM started their forays into retail stores, James P. Holden, called the direct-to-consumer sales model one of “those fad diets” and expressed his confidence in private dealers (PRNewswire). Next, another electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer is assessed, one that engages in a franchise model. IV. Evaluation of EV Manufacturer Using Franchise Sales Model In terms of smaller automobile manufacturers who only make electrically powered automobiles, some of their failures may be attributed to unsold inventory, or not properly exploiting the benefits of the direct-to-consumer sales model rather than their demise being caused by using the aforementioned model in the first place. At Fisker Automotive for instance, battery issues coupled with unsold automobiles are the factors attributed to Fisker applying for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 23, 2013 (Keane). These unsold automobiles are a result of the large inventory levels required when employing the franchise sales model. Thus, once a wider consumer base exists for electric automobiles and the general public accepts the safety and reliability of said Moore 8 vehicles, then economies of scale can be employed as opposed to the conservative practice of engaging in just-in-time manufacturing because the risks to Tesla of becoming the next Fisker Automotive drastically subside. Next, the legal landscape surrounding the direct-to-consumer sales model is explored. V. Legal Landscape of Direct-to-Consumer Sales Model Since Tesla’s inception, the company has been required to defend its direct-to- consumer sales model. As seen in Figure 4, Tesla Motors has faced direct opposition from Arizona, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Texas under the guise of protecting consumers. In those states, Tesla Motors cannot sell or discuss their pricing and terms with potential customers in their retail showrooms (Farnham). Instead, interested customers have to purchase their Tesla automobiles out of state, which is incredibly burdensome (Wilhelm). Tesla is seeing some success in states such as Ohio, where they were granted the right to directly sell their automobiles to consumers so long as each retail location has a state-issued license (Kaiser).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Na Plant Locations 092110 Lt Veh Only.Qxp
    North America car and truck assembly plants – 2010 & beyond AM GENERAL FORD T Mishawaka, Ind. – Ford Transit Connect electric Also see AutoAlliance (gliders, assembly only, production counted in Turkey) UNITED STATES B Chicago – Ford Explorer (new, November), Taurus; Lincoln MKS AUTOALLIANCE T Dearborn, Mich. – Ford F-150, Harley Davidson F-150 C Flat Rock, Mich. – Ford Mustang, Mazda Mazda6 sedan T Detroit Chassis Plant (Detroit) – Ford F-series chassis T Kansas City, Mo.: (One Plant) BMW SUV Plant – Ford Escape, Escape Hybrid; Mercury Mariner, Mariner Hybrid; Mazda Tribute B Spartanburg, S.C.† – BMW X3, X5, X6 Truck Plant – Ford F-150 Super Cab, Super Crew Cab, King Crew Cab T Kentucky Truck (Louisville, Ky.) – F-series Super Duty (F-250 - F-550), CAMI Expedition; Lincoln Navigator T Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada – Chevrolet Equinox, Equinox Sport; T Louisville, Ky. – Ford Escape (4th qtr‘11), Explorer (ends Dec. 16), GMC Terrain Explorer SportTrac (ends Oct. 26); Mercury Mountaineer (ends Sept .28) T Michigan Assembly (Wayne, Mich.) – changeover until Jan. 5, 2011 Ford Focus NOTE Per Renee at CAMI: CAMI became a wholly owned T Ohio Assembly (Avon Lake, Ohio) – E series vans, Transit (2013) subsidiary of GMCL on Dec. 10, 2009. CAMI is, however, still aseparate legal entity and its production numbers should, T Twin Cities (St. Paul, Minn.) – (permanent layoff Dec. 24, 2011) – therefore, be reported separately from GMCL. We do not Ford Ranger, Mazda B series expect the amalgamation of CAMI and GMCL to occur until at least Dec. 31, 2010 (maybe later). Once the amalgamation C Wayne, Mich. – (permanent layoff Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 ) FISKER AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC., Et Al.,1 ) Case No
    Case 13-13087-KG Doc 157 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) FISKER AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,1 ) Case No. 13-13087 (KG) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) MOTION OF THE DEBTORS FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (A) AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF BEILINSON ADVISORY GROUP, LLC AS RESTRUCTURING ADVISORS FOR THE DEBTORS, EFFECTIVE NUNC PRO TUNC TO THE PETITION DATE AND (B) WAIVING CERTAIN TIME-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 2016-2(H) The above-captioned debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) file this motion (the “Motion”) for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Order”): (a) authorizing the Debtors’ employment and retention of Beilinson Advisory Group, LLC and its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and independent contractors (collectively, “BAG”), as their restructuring advisors in connection with these chapter 11 cases effective nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date (as defined below), including the engagement of Marc Beilinson as Chief Restructuring Officer; and (b) waiving certain time-keeping requirements pursuant to Local Rule 2016-2(h). In support of this Motion, the Debtors submit the Declaration of Marc Beilinson, the Debtors’ Chief Restructuring Officer (the “Beilinson Declaration”), attached hereto as Exhibit B. In further support of this Motion, the Debtors respectfully state as follows: 1 The Debtors, together with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. (9678); and Fisker Automotive, Inc. (9075). For the purpose of these chapter 11 cases, the service address for the Debtors is: 5515 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Monthly Is Property of John Doe Total Toyota Brand
    A publication from April 2012 Volume 01 | Issue 02 global europe.autonews.com/globalmonthly monthly Your source for everything automotive. China beckons an industry answers— How foreign brands are shifting strategies to cash in on the world’s biggest auto market © 2012 Crain Communications Inc. All rights reserved. March 2012 A publication from Defeatglobal spurs monthly dAtA Toyota’s global Volume 01 | Issue 01 design boss Will Zoe spark WESTERN EUROPE SALES BY MODEL, 9 MONTHSRenault-Nissan’sbrought to you courtesy of EV push? www.jato.com February 9 months 9 months Unit Percent 9 months 9 months Unit Percent 2011 2010 change change 2011 2010 change change European sales Scenic/Grand Scenic ......... 116,475 137,093 –20,618 –15% A1 ................................. 73,394 6,307 +67,087 – Espace/Grand Espace ...... 12,656 12,340 +316 3% A3/S3/RS3 ..................... 107,684 135,284 –27,600 –20% data from JATO Koleos ........................... 11,474 9,386 +2,088 22% A4/S4/RS4 ..................... 120,301 133,366 –13,065 –10% Kangoo ......................... 24,693 27,159 –2,466 –9% A6/S6/RS6/Allroad ......... 56,012 51,950 +4,062 8% Trafic ............................. 8,142 7,057 +1,085 15% A7 ................................. 14,475 220 +14,255 – Other ............................ 592 1,075 –483 –45% A8/S8 ............................ 6,985 5,549 +1,436 26% Total Renault brand ........ 747,129 832,216 –85,087 –10% TT .................................. 14,401 13,435 +966 7% RENAULT ........................ 898,644 994,894 –96,250 –10% A5/S5/RS5 ..................... 54,387 59,925 –5,538 –9% RENAULT-NISSAN ............ 1,239,749 1,288,257 –48,508 –4% R8 ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tesla: Supercharging the Future by Akash G. Nandi an Honors Thesis
    Tesla: Supercharging the Future by Akash G. Nandi An honors thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science Undergraduate College Leonard N. Stern School of Business New York University May 2013 Professor Marti G. Subrahmanyam Professor Joseph Foudy Faculty Adviser Thesis Adviser 1 I. Introduction...................................................................................................................Page 4 A. The Inefficiency of Cars Today B. Thesis Objective C. Thesis II. Research and Resources...............................................................................................Page 7 A. Research Framework B. Research Perspectives C. Resources and Data III. Tesla in Context.............................................................................................................Page 9 A. The Global Auto Industry B. Tesla: The Innovative Disrupter C. Sparking the Electric Revolution IV. The Man Behind the Machine...................................................................................Page 12 A. Elon Musk B. Entrepreneur from the Start C. Space X V. Tesla Motors Overview...............................................................................................Page 15 A. Company Offerings B. Phase I. Roadster C. Phase II. Models S and X 2 D. Phase III. Project BlueStar VI. How It Works: The Model S......................................................................................Page 18 A. The Design B. The Mechanics VII. How Did They Do It?..................................................................................................Page
    [Show full text]
  • August of 2019 Newsletter
    Traveling with the Payson Arizona AUGUST 2019 PRESIDENT Steve Fowler THE RIM COUNTRY CLASSIC AUTO CLUB IS A NON-PROFIT If you read your e-mails, you know that Richard Graves ORGANIZATION FOR stepped down as President, so this monthly missive THE PURPOSE OF: falls to me. I’d like to express my gratitude to the Providing social, educational members of the board and others who became aware and recreational activities of the changes for their unwavering support. We for its membership. anticipate a smooth transition. Also, many thanks to Participating in and support- those who have come forward this year and ing civic activities for the betterment of the community. volunteered to spearhead activities for a particular Encouraging and promoting month. This has thus far worked out quite well and the preservation and restora- helped spread the load out to more members. I think tion of classic motor vehicles. that those who have done so would agree that it is not Providing organized activities involving the driving and a particularly difficult task, just takes a little effort to showing of member’s cars. put ideas into motion. This also holds true on the efforts involved in putting on our annual car show. The old saying that “many hands make light work” is very RCCAC meets at true, and we actually have fun doing it! 6:30p.m. on the first It was with much sadness and surprise that we learned Wednesday of the month at of the passing of Ron Trainor this past month. I’d had Tiny’s Restaurant, 600 the opportunity to work with him on his Impala and to E.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirming Or Amending the Average Specific Emission Of
    L 315/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2014 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 30 October 2014 confirming or amending the average specific emission of CO2 and specific emissions targets for manufacturers of passenger cars for the calendar year 2013 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2014) 7877) (Only the Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, and Swedish texts are authentic) (2014/770/EU) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 8(5) and Article 10(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) The Commission is required, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, to confirm each year the average specific emissions of CO2 and the specific emissions target for each manufacturer of passenger cars in the Union as well as for each pool of manufacturers formed in accordance with Article 7(1) of that Regulation. On the basis of that confirmation, the Commission is to determine whether manufacturers and pools have complied with the requirements of Article 4 of that Regulation. (2) Pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 the average specific emissions of manufacturers for 2013 are calculated in accordance with the second paragraph of that Article and take into account 75 % of the manu­ facturer's new cars registered in that year.
    [Show full text]
  • FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC. Mikael Elley Director, Information Technology Sapphire 2011 Orlando, May, 2011
    Sapphire 2011 Orlando, May, 2011 FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC. Mikael Elley Director, Information Technology AGENDA . About Fisker Automotive . Business Opportunities and Implementation Objectives . Why SAP . Implementation Scope . Sustainability . Critical Success Factors . Questions FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC ABOUT FISKER . Fisker Automotive founded August 2007 . Henrik Fisker, Co-founder, CEO and Chief Designer . Design director, board member at Aston Martin . President and CEO, Designworks USA . Designed BMW Z8, Aston Martin DB9 & V8 Vantage . Bernhard Koehler, Co-founder and COO . 20+ years at BMW . Led business operations for Ford Motor Company . Developed concept cars for BMW, MINI, Aston Martin . Mission: To create environmentally conscious vehicles with style, power and performance . Created premium luxury EV market . Karma Electric Vehicle with extended range launched in 37 months . Global retail network in place . US manufacturing facility opens 2012 . Long term new-product plan in place FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC ABOUT FISKER RESPONSIBLE LUXURY PURE DRIVING PASSION FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC ABOUT FISKER RESPONSIBLE LUXURY PURE DRIVING PASSION FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC KARMA STATS . 400 HP . 60 MILE RANGE . 0 – 60 MPH – 5.9 SEC . OVER 300 MILES OF EXTENDED . 981 LB/FT at 0 RPM RANGE . ALL ELECTRIC ZERO EMISSIONS . 1/3 FEWER CO2 EMISSIONS THAN A . 67+ MPG TYPICAL HYBRID FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC OPPORTUNITY . To get „operational‟ and launch the Karma program . Go from Start-up to Enterprise „overnight‟ FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC BUSINESS OBJECTIVES Business Objectives: Flexible . Go „Vanilla‟ . Leverage „out of the box‟ best practices functionality . Standard functionality only Scalable . One integrated platform . All major business processes Cost „real-time‟ integrated on one Effective platform Easy to use . Start simple, implement and Efficient quickly and cost effectively FISKER AUTOMOTIVE, INC WHY SAP .
    [Show full text]
  • Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Value Proposition Study
    DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge: Web site: http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD: 703-487-4639 Fax: 703-605-6900 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: 865-576-8401 Fax: 865-576-5728 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Dr. Fabio Albano Through 10, Inclusive, As Follows
    Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/09/2020 08:03 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by E. Johnston,Deputy Clerk 20TRCV00731 Assigned for all purposes to: Torrance Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Gary Tanaka 1 PATRICK BALDWIN, ESQ. (SBN 93337) CHRISTOPHER MADER, ESQ. (SBN 199605) 2 ' BALDWIN MADER LAW GROUP 1500 Rosecrans Avenue, No. 500 3 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 4 Phone: (310) 706-4062 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dr. Fabio Albano 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 8 h 9 DR. FABIO ALBANO, an individual, CASE NO.: 10 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF v. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 HENRIK FISKER, an individual; DR. GEETA FISKER, an individual; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 14 FISKER, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SPARTAN ENERGY ACQUISITION Fraudulent Inducement 15 CORPORATION, a Delaware Intentional Misrepresentation 16 Corporation; and, DOES 1 through 10, Promissory Fraud inclusive, Negligent Misrepresentation 17 Conversion Defendants. Declaratory Relief 18 Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment 19 Constructive Fraud 20 Breach of Contract Constructive Trust 21 Discrimination — Fair Employment and Housing Act 22 (13) Harassment — Fair Employment and Housing Act 23 (14) Retaliation — Fair Employment 24 and Housing Act (15) Successor Liability 25 Plaintiff Dr. Fabio Albano hereby complains against Defendants Henrik Fisker, Dr. Geeta 26 Fisker, Fisker, Inc. ("Fisker"), Spartan Energy Acquisition Corporation ("Spartan") and Does 1 27 28 through 10, inclusive, as follows: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 1 - SUMMARY 1. Dr. Fabio Albano is a renowned pioneer and expert in the field of solid-state batteries and the author of 44 US and international patents.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Motor Vehicle Industry
    The U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Confronting a New Dynamic in the Global Economy Bill Canis Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business Brent D. Yacobucci Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy March 26, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41154 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Confronting a New Dynamic in the Global Economy Summary This report provides an in-depth analysis of the 2009 crisis in the U.S. auto industry and its prospects for regaining domestic and global competitiveness. It also analyzes business and policy issues arising from the unprecedented restructurings that occurred within the industry. The starting point for this analysis is June-July 2009, with General Motors Company (GM or new GM) and Chrysler Group LLC (or new Chrysler) incorporated as new companies, having selectively acquired many, but not all, assets from their predecessor companies. The year 2009 was marked by recession and a crisis in global credit markets; the bankruptcy of General Motors Corporation and Chrysler LLC; the incorporation of successor companies under the auspices of the U.S. Treasury; hundreds of parts supplier bankruptcies; plant closings and worker buyouts; the cash-for-clunkers program; and increasing production and sales at year’s end. This report also examines the relative successes of the Ford Motor Company and the increasing presence of foreign-owned original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), foreign-owned parts manufacturers, competition from imported vehicles, and a serious buildup of global overcapacity that potentially threatens the recovery of the major U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Fed Fleet Brochure Cover
    U.S. General Services Administration FedFleet 2020 www.gsa.gov/fedfleet Page 1 of 22 Federal Acquisition Service January 27, 2020 Dear Federal Fleet Professional, On behalf of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), I welcome you to FedFleet 2020. FedFleet is a unique, educational experience that assembles fleet management and automotive procurement professionals for a week of training, opportunities to speak with vendors and see new model year vehicles. FedFleet 2020 includes breakout sessions on a wide range of topics including: new GSA offerings, deep dives into policy, best practices surrounding aspects of fleet management, as well as vehicle manufacturer panels. Your FedFleet registration grants you access to the FedFleet Computer Lab and over 40 training sessions. New this year, an industry expert will speak about the future of the automotive industry. Industry Panel sessions are an opportunity for vehicle providers to address the federal fleet community, and the hugely popular New Fleet Manager 101 course has been moved to Monday, January 27 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Lastly, you may now earn continuous learning points (CLPs) for attending FedFleet. Be sure to have your attendee badge scanned as you enter and exit each session. More details about CLPs can be found at www.gsa.gov/ FedFleet. Your FedFleet 2020 registration provides you an opportunity to engage with nearly 50 industry- specific fleet vendors and exclusive access to the 2020 Washington Auto Show. For the third year GSA Fleet is offering guided tours of the showroom floor of vehicles offered through GSA Fleet. And lastly be sure to stop by the GSA Fleet booth on the exhibit floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Analysis
    Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Analysis Richard Raustad Electric Vehicle Transportation Center Florida Solar Energy Center 1679 Clearlake Road Cocoa, FL 32922-5703 [email protected] Submitted as: Final Research Project Report EVTC Project 6 – Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Analysis Submitted to: Ms. Denise Dunn Research and Innovative Technology Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 E-mail: [email protected] Contract Number: DTRT13-G-UTC51 EVTC Report Number: FSEC-CR-2053-17 February 2017 The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 1 Acknowledgements This report is a final research report for the Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Analysis project of the Electric Vehicle Transportation Center (EVTC) at the University of Central Florida (UCF). The Electric Vehicle Transportation Center is a University Transportation Center funded by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The EVTC is a research and education center whose projects prepare the U.S. transportation system for the influx of electric vehicles into a sustainable transportation network and investigate the opportunity these vehicles present to enhance electric grid modernization efforts. The EVTC is led by UCF's Florida Solar Energy Center partners from UCF’s Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering, the University of Hawaii, and Tuskegee University.
    [Show full text]