U.S. House Ways and Means chair questions Ford agreement with CATL in Marshall project

Washington — The chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee wrote a letter Monday to Ford Motor Co. arguing the company’s planned battery plan in Marshall, Michigan, may go against the intent of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Ford is building a $3.5 billion battery plant in the small town east of Battle Creek to power its new electric vehicles. It is licensing technology for the project from Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd., or CATL, which is based in China and is the world’s leading EV battery maker.

A truck rolls down C Drive, past property where Ford plans to build a 2.5-million-square-foot electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility in Marshall. A key Republican member of Congress is questioning whether Ford's plan to license technology from a Chinese company runs afoul of the Inflation Reduction Act.

That arrangement has come under fire from Republicans in Congress, who have argued the project may pose a national security risk and would unjustly benefit from taxpayer subsidies through the IRA. Ford, whose global headquarters are in Dearborn, has said the company will wholly own and control the battery facility.

“I am alarmed about how Ford has structured this project in the context of the IRA’s clean vehicle credits and am concerned that other automakers may seek to use loopholes in the IRA to avoid guardrails meant to protect American enterprise and workers,” Rep. Jason Smith, R-Missouri, wrote in a letter to Ford CEO Jim Farley.

The letter also included a series of questions about Ford’s relationship with CATL and its intention to claim tax credits related to electric vehicle production or sales.

The $7,500 consumer discounts on electric vehicles included in the IRA bar any company that uses battery components made or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern” from benefitting — one of multiple provisions aimed at pushing automakers away from supply chains that are heavily dominated by China.

The U.S. Treasury has not yet released rules indicating how this part of the law will be applied, but Smith questioned whether batteries produced at the planned Marshall plant would qualify.