Gov. Henry McMaster, center right, and state Commerce Secretary Harry Lightsey, right, attended a groundbreaking ceremony Wednesday, June 7, 2023 in Florence for Japan-headquartered AESC’s proposed battery cell plant. (Provided by Florence County Economic Development.)
COLUMBIA — Some of South Carolina’s earliest electric-vehicle-related manufacturers have pumped the brakes on production plans. But according to the industry, it’s far from pulling the plug in the Palmetto State.
Electric vehicle sales continued to rise in 2024, both nationally and globally. Still, the speed of that growth has not met with early expectations.
And now the fledgling industry faces further headwinds as the Trump Administration seeks to roll back a hallmark clean energy funding package that supercharged the development of battery and electric vehicle plants in the United States during the Biden administration.
Automakers and battery companies were in a frenzy to move production into the country. And South Carolina bet big, seeking to stay relevant and hold on to its massive automotive sector amid a seismic shift in the industry.
But reality did not live up to automakers’ rosy growth projections, forcing some to retool their plans.
The world’s largest producer of lithium for electric vehicle batteries mothballed its proposal for a mega refinery in Chester County after the price of the precious mineral sank. A pair of battery recycling plants in Richland and Berkeley counties are behind schedule. And automakers have eased away from their all-electric goals in favor of a mix of electric and plug-in hybrids.
Major electric vehicle lithium project paused. Other SC battery recycling investments continue.
Tax breaks withdrawn
The latest implication of that lag in electric vehicle demand came this month, when a battery cell maker backed away from expansion promises at a plant still under construction in the Pee Dee.
In a way, Envision Automotive Energy Supply Co. (AESC) had tiptoed into the state. Rather than one big announcement of its plans to produce battery cells for BMW, the company rolled out three separate rounds of investment and jobs promises in Florence, starting in 2022.
The last of those growing pledges came in March 2024, before the doors ever opened on the company’s planned facility. But now the company is saying never mind to that third expansion promise, which would have brought a second building to AESC’s campus.
In turn, South Carolina withdrew its offer of $111 million in additional state funding. Such an incentives claw back is rare.
Still, many remain optimistic. The construction of the original plant, which will supply BMW’s Spartanburg County assembly plant, remains on schedule for production to start in 2026, according to the state’s economic development agency.
The second building was supposed to produce battery cells for a BMW plant in Mexico, but the company now thinks the first factory will be enough to meet the needs of the German automaker’s two facilities.
Despite missing out on an additional 1,080 jobs and $1.5 billion in investment, AESC’s remaining plant would still mark the largest deal struck in the region, according to the state Department of Commerce.
It “will transform the local economy by creating (an) increased tax base and opportunities for citizens that will have an extraordinary impact on the Pee Dee and the state,” the agency said in a statement.
The Japanese-headquartered firm still plans to spend $1.6 billion and hire more than 1,600 people, but it no longer has a timeline for a future expansion.
Rather than indefinitely tying up state capacity to issue low-interest bonds, the state opted to withdraw and renegotiate at a later date if the project is revived.
“Any project for which state funds have not been expended and which does not move forward for whatever reason would be treated in a similar manner,” according to the Commerce statement.
The state is still expected to issue $121 million in bonds and award $135 million in grants for what remains of the facility’s plans.
“I think they just wanted to be sure, with everything that’s going on nationally and politically, that they’re building where demand is,” said Rep. Roger Kirby, D-Lake City.
Other major projects
Construction also continues at a different major South Carolina battery project — one that marked the largest single investment in state history.
Redwood Materials, founded by Tesla’s former Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel, delayed its construction by a year, breaking ground on the $3.5 billion site in early 2024. The company expected to start accepting batteries for recycling at the end of last year.
But it appears that goal was unmet.
Company spokeswoman Morgan Crapps said production hiring will begin in the coming months. Redwood has said it will employ 1,500 South Carolinians when it reaches full capacity.
Job listings on its website are for engineers and IT professionals.
To support the project, South Carolina economic development officials have promised to issue $226 million in bond funding.
Meanwhile, the White House issued an executive order “terminating the green new deal” and immediately pausing the payout of funds supporting electric vehicle infrastructure authorized by Congress in 2021 and 2022.
That specifically includes a federal program to increase the number of electric vehicle chargers along U.S. interstate highways.
South Carolina lags behind much of the country in availability of charging stations for drivers of the battery-powered cars. And it had yet to spend $40 million in initial federal funding issued to the state. The state also left a second, $30 million round of funding on the table that it was set to receive over the next couple of years.
SC lags in electric car charging but more public stations are expected come 2025
Among other anticipated recipients of federal grant funding was EnerSys, the world’s largest industrial battery maker approved for $200 million to put toward a lithium-ion battery cell facility in the Upstate.
The Pennsylvania-based company had finalized negotiations to receive the funding just three days before the inauguration. It is unknown whether it has since secured those dollars or lost them to the funding freeze. The company did not immediately respond to questions from the SC Daily Gazette.
Automakers adjust
When it comes to the automakers themselves, plans remain on track. The bulk of support for electric vehicles was in the form of consumer tax credits that can only be revoked by Congress.
And if President Donald Trump follows through on threats to enact 25% tariffs Mexican-made goods, it would impact the whole auto industry, not just electric vehicles. South Carolina imported $5.5 billion worth of goods from Mexico in 2023, according to the most recent trade data. That includes various vehicle parts.
BMW won’t begin assembling electric vehicles and batteries in the Upstate until next year. When it does, a company spokesman told The Post and Courier, it will make a combination of gas-powered, plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles. The German automaker also exports about 60% of the vehicles it makes in South Carolina rather than selling them into the U.S. market.
Volvo started producing an all-electric SUV at its facility in Ridgeville last June, selling most of the 1,800 vehicles it built in the second half of last year overseas.
What has the executives most concerned is the possibility of the U.S. raising tariffs of European goods from 2.5% to 20%. In an earnings call with investors, the Swedish automakers went as far as to suggest it could shift the production of some models currently produced in Europe to South Carolina, where it has additional capacity and could get around the tax, which could mean more jobs here.
Of South Carolina’s automakers, only Scout Motors, a Volkswagen subsidiary opening shop in the Midlands, is reliant on the U.S. market. At a reveal party in November, CEO Scott Keogh told South Carolina politicians it would be making both electric and plug-in hybrids at its Blythewood facility to best meet consumer demands.
Keogh told reporters that even if Congress were to roll back tax credits of $7,500 that’s meant to reduce the cost of electric vehicles and make them more appealing for consumers, it would not impact the company’s business model.
“You can’t plan a strategic business case over how our government moves or doesn’t move,” Keogh said. “You got to make a business case on, ‘Are we making a really cool product that a customer really wants to buy at a really good price?’ And that’s what we’ve done.”
In 2024, 1.3 million electric vehicles were sold in the U.S., according to Kelly Blue Book, an increase of 7.3%. Global sales came to 17.1 million vehicles.
State EV fees
In South Carolina specifically, hybrids and electric vehicles collectively make up 3.6% of the roughly 3.4 million registered vehicles, state Department of Transportation Secretary Justin Powell recently told a House budget-writing panel. Those 122,000 vehicles represent a 22% average annual increase in the total number of hybrids and EVs added to South Carolina’s roads since 2020, he said.
“It’s a small part of our fleet, but they’re growing rapidly,” Powell said, noting legislators may want to consider increasing the state’s biennial fees for drivers who pay little-to-nothing at the pump.
In 2017, the Legislature passed a law increasing the state’s per-gallon gas tax by 12 cents over six years, bringing it to a total of 28.75 cents per gallon when fully implemented in 2023. The law also created new fees paid every other year: $120 for fully electric vehicles and $60 for hybrids. The fees were meant to help cover road costs. But EV drivers are still paying many times less than drivers of gasoline vehicles
Powell called it a fairness issue. South Carolinians with gasoline-fueled vehicles pay $200 to $300 a year in gas taxes, depending on how much they drive, to support road maintenance and construction. Drivers of plug-in electric vehicles, no matter what the model, pay what amounts to $60 yearly.
“It’s something you’ve got to keep an eye on in the coming years” as the number of EVs increase, Powell said.
SC Daily Gazette Editor Seanna Adcox contributed to this report.