Congress Says Nay to Expanding EV Tax Credits

From The Truth About Cars

By Matt Posky on December 23, 2019

Prior to Congress taking the rest of the month off to relax and presumably gear up for an impeachment trial, they first had to settle their year-end tax package. Automakers were hoping that would include an extension of electric vehicle tax credits, but it was a doomed proposition.

An extension was initially included in the bipartisan Driving America Forward Act, which manifested this spring, before being incorporated into the Democrat-friendly GREEN Act (Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now). That got it through the House but not the Republican-controlled Senate, which wasn’t interested.

While the current $7,500 EV tax credit remains in place, Tesla and General Motors have both reached their 200,000-vehicle quota. Naturally, they (and other automakers) lobbied for an expansion, one which would have seen a $7,000 credit kept in place until a manufacturer sold 600,000 electric automobiles. Several Republican lawmakers openly shared their distaste for the plan, though few more openly than Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who had an opposing bill — called the Fairness for Every Driver Act — interested in reducing subsidies on the grounds that EV credits have already done enough.

Citing the over $4 billion in federal credits EV shoppers had already received, Barrasso claimed  the system has already encouraged automakers to commit t manufacturing more electric cars, arguing it’s no longer fair to burden taxpayers.

Barrasso said it’s time to refocus on infrastructure (including adding more EV charging stations), allowing states to expand on subsidies if they choose, remaining highly critical of where those federal credits have been going. “Nearly 80 percent of the tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000 a year,” he said. “These car buyers don’t need a taxpayer subsidy.”

Full article here.

72 thoughts on “Congress Says Nay to Expanding EV Tax Credits

    • Subsidies are NEVER given because they are needed. Need is not even on the most distant horizon.
      The motive for subsidies is to shift the momentum of consumer choices, usually to achieve social engineering objectives.
      Anytime a subsidy is considered, ask “who is being bribed? and to what end?”

    • “Nearly 80 percent of the tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000 a year,” he said. “These car buyers don’t need a taxpayer subsidy.”

      Many states do not have road maintenance tax set up for people with EV’s. More tax avoidance for people that can most afford it and don’t need another subsidy.

      • But they have plans to solve this. Tax by the miles driven.

        Of course the proposals suggest a constant monitoring of every car in order to achieve this. Constant monitoring of every car’s location, all the time. I mean, there’s no other way, is there? It’s all for your own good. I mean, who would even consider checking the mileage at your annual inspection? That’s obviously way too easy and not intrusive enough!

        As usual, every solution to CAGW ™ just must involve more surveillance, more taxes and more government…

        • re: “Of course the proposals suggest a constant monitoring of every car in order to achieve this. Constant monitoring of every car’s location, all the time.”

          Pricing by the route driven __has__ to be on their minds … that requires mode than just an odometer reading.

          • It’s a good excuse to monitor every car, all the time, I will admit that. But it’s just an excuse. It doesn’t occur now, so why would it have to be introduced? Unless, of course, you just want to introduce more surveillance…

          • Monitoring may be useful, especially from a traffic planning and analysis perspective.

            But tax $$$ is the driver, not becoming Big Brother.

          • Jim I was responding to ZigZagWanderer’s comments that it would be an excuse for surveillance. The chain of “reply” possibilities had ended, so I had to reply to yours for the comment to appear on the chain…

          • re: “I was responding to ZigZagWanderer’s comments ”

            Let me address that: The temptation for surveillance is ever-present; look at what’s being uncovered with regard to the FBI et al and previous administration personnel and their ‘action’ on the incoming administration circa 2016.

            The bottom line, too, is: If they can do it to him, they can easily “do it to you”.

  1. I wish the $7500 credits still in the pipeline would have been killed as well. It’s infair to only assist buyers of EVs. And it reinforces the hoax narrative that we desperately need EVs.

  2. It needs subsidies to be “viable”.

    And EU is creating an “airbus” (whatever that is) of the car battery.

  3. (including adding more EV charging stations),

    That will be a form of subsidy, will it not?
    This is not high on my list of things I’d like the Government to do.

    • Not only more charging stations but also the infrastructure that supports them. Uprated electricity distribution cabling, substations, new generation capacity will all be required. Entire subdivisions will require these upgrades too.
      Townie designers have not even considered the less populous states like Wyoming or Montana and the greatly reduced range of EVs in the cold. Nor have they considered such things as emergency evacuations such as those for major hurricanes where power outages often precede the worst of the storms. Evacuations at relatively short notice from Miami to Georgia for example; finding as the battery needs charging that power is down all around. I can carry or store spare gasoline for extended range or for emergency, I cannot store recharging for an EV.
      As politicians seem so keen to virtue signal by imposing EVs on everyone, then let them lead from the front and make it part of the legislation that members of Congress and the Senate (and for that matter Members of Parliament) and their families are legally barred from traveling in any vehicle using an internal combustion engine.
      The green deals would be rapidly abandoned.

      • I am in Georgia with family and property in NC, SC, FL, MS, and LA. I realized decades ago that if I had to go to someone during an emergency (which I have had to do), I could siphon the gas out of the vehicles I would not be taking (using gas cans on hand) if necessary, plus take the gas stored for my lawn equipment, and get there and back without getting more gas. Fortunately, nothing has been that severe, but there is comfort knowing I could do it.

        Numerous times family members have had to leave their homes because of hurricane threats. My house is the ‘refugee center’. I hate to think of the potential problems if they had to evacuate in an EV.

        • Oh Jtom… no no no.. you clearly just do not understand.
          We will only need to buy an emergency solar panel for our electric car and drive for FREE!!!!!

          Make sense now?

  4. Not only is it true that the subsidies go to the wrong people but that whole system seems to be designed to not just keep a gulf between rich and poor but to actively make that a bigger gap.

    • “Not only is it true that the subsidies go to the wrong people but that whole system seems to be designed to not just keep a gulf between rich and poor but to actively make that a bigger gap.”

      That is the thesis of (Marxist) commenter Andreas Hopf on the Seeking Alpha Tesla page articles, at https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/TSLA

  5. “(including adding more EV charging stations),”

    Barking up the wrong tree. Battery cost is measured in £/kWh. Lithium-ion battery packs are currently £250 per kWh, which means that the cost of the pack is about 40% of the total cost of the car. By comparison, a Métalectrique pack costs £36 per kWh, which is 6% of the cost of the car.

    https://www.metalectrique.com/faqs

    • Perry

      Interesting. Although there’s no mention (I can find with a cursory read) of power and speed. Is the 1,500 miles achieved at 20mph?

      Nor do I want to be disparaging, this sounds like sensible technology irrespective of the motivation to develop it. The blurb about aluminium smelters running on renewable energy is, of course, utter nonsense, but they can be forgiven that if the system is effective.

      • Hint…aluminum/air batteries were a telephone exchange back-up power system in the 1950s. Until NiCad….

    • As HotScot says, it is an interesting battery (not and accumulator), but the problem as I see it at the moment is the electrolyte, which the company will keep a monopoly on and not reveal its formula.
      Add to that, that this is a whole and totally new concept where all future transportation, for as long as the patent holds for the electrolyte lasts, will depend on this company alone.
      Service stations have to have arsenals of the batteries to swap and small ones as reserve tank replacements.
      The concept is interesting with the much higher energy density, but as long as this technology is not opensource, I doubt any feasibility study will show it as prudent to impose on a national or regional scale. What would EPA say, when they cannot be told the composition of the electrolyte?

      • re: “which the company will keep a monopoly on and not reveal its formula.”

        I read that as “not covered by patent.”

        That is, literally, open to ‘exploitation’ by others then, at which point the inventor has no legal recourse as to IP (intellectual property) protections.

      • To sell any chemical product in the US the producer must provide an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) which includes the composition. Keeping the formula secret is a con man’s trick anyway since any decent analytical lab can reverse engineer the composition. If they’ve really got something revolutionary they would patent it. If they can’t get a patent it’s likely “prior art” and you need to ask why isn’t it already commercially available?

        • Someone could have a process to achieve some chemical combination or arrangement.

          I know what the metal is that is laid down in a 20nm IBM PC processor, but I don’t know how to lay it down on the chip within acceptable tolerances.

          The “trade secret” could be the process.

          You may not be able to patent a new chemical combination that one way or another is a “battery.” Aspects of nature have become more difficult in recent years to get awarded a patent, under “Section 101.”

      • Are you joking? Making aluminum hydroxide from aluminum isn’t that complicated chemically, isn’t it?

    • Battery cost, 40% ? I thought Tesla replacement batteries cost about 10K. Includes 2K labor for install. Day in shop. What about the landfill extra cost? Two thousand pound battery per car last about 8 years ? 100,000 miles? If a Toyota midsize car can be driven for about seven years ( ? ), (WUPT), with same CO2 emissions of production of a Tesla battery, how stupid are EV owners ? Scam on tax payers. Solutions to problems need to solve said problem. Smoke and mirrors. ….HAPPY NEW YEAR to all. We are winning !!!

  6. Subsidies is always wrong. First ones to get the EV subs was the really rich. Now when ending, people who soon can afford EV cars don’t get any subsidies.

  7. All green subsidies in the UK are regressive. As a result, increasing numbers of the poor suffer from both food and fuel poverty.

  8. Government subsidies for EVs are monumental wastes.
    Basics:
    Sea levels have risen 300-400 feet since the end of the last ice age, and they’ll continue to rise until we head toward another ice age. EVs and wind turbines aren’t going to do anything—not f…. thing—to stop sea levels from rising.

    Regards,
    Bob

  9. Good comments Phillip Bratby. This is the disgraceful reality of green energy in the UK:

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/a-citizens-assembly-on-climate-change-is-the-cowards-way-out/

    In just England and Wales, Excess Winter Deaths (“EWD”) totaled 50,100 souls in Winter 2017-2018. That is THREE TIMES the average per capita EWD rate of the USA and Canada, in part due to excessively high energy costs in the UK. The global warming scam is killing off your elderly and poor – it is Britain’s national disgrace.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2017to2018provisionaland2016to2017final
    ______________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/#comment-2833176

    To clarify, the 50,100 Excess Winter Deaths that occurred in December 2017 through March 2018 was only for England and Wales – and did not include Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is about 35,000 more Excess Winter Deaths than the average per capita EWD rate for the USA or Canada, and it is a national tragedy and a national disgrace.

    Excessively high energy costs in the UK are probably the primary cause of these EWD’s – remember this the next time you see demonstrators protesting the fracking of gassy shales, or protesting fossil fuels, or blocking traffic and blocking trains to “fight global warming”.

    These anti-fossil fuel activists are by far the greatest killers in the UK, but since they kill off the elderly and the poor they get a free pass.

    I’m with the good people of Canning Town.
    https://youtu.be/9P1UXYS6Bmg
    ________________________

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-6532731/Worst-year-energy-bill-price-hikes-come.html?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a05cb99bb8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_28_01_43&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-a05cb99bb8-20138661&requestPublishPermission=true&login#newcomment

    “Green energy” schemes are costly failures, which are not green and produce little useful “dispatchable” energy. Grid-connected wind and solar energy increase electricity costs and destabilize the grid – they do not even reduce CO2 because of the need for nearly 100% spinning reserve, to fill in when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.

    The German national audit office recently concluded that Germany has squandered $800 billion on wind power, primarily due to intermittency.

    These costly, inefficient green energy schemes have resulted in major increases in power costs, resulting in “energy poverty”, well-documented in the UK and Germany.

    Excess Winter Deaths in the UK last winter were 50,100, or half the average of the 100,000 per winter in the USA, which has five times the UK’s population. The UK term “Heat or Eat” reflects the reality that poor people must choose between heating their homes in winter or buying food.
    _______________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/04/excess-winter-deaths-in-england-and-wales-highest-since-1976/#comment-2544753
    [excerpt]

    It is not a guess – Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) is a defined parameter.

    It is actually a significant percentage of total deaths, especially in some countries. British EWD’s are high, but not the highest – see our paper and the Lancet paper for more country stats.

    Excess Winter Deaths = (Deaths in Dec-Mar inclusive) minus 0.5*((Deaths in Previous 4 months)+(Deaths in following 4 months))

    Excess Winter Deaths can be influenced by higher or lower deaths in the previous or following 4 months – for example, the April 2018 EWD estimate for Winter 2017-18 for England and Wales was 48,000 but the actual EWD announced was 50,100, which was influenced by the April-July 2018 death stats.
    ________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/04/excess-winter-deaths-in-england-and-wales-highest-since-1976/#comment-2543446

    The 50,100 Excess Winter Deaths from 2017-18 is an update from the 48,000 preliminary estimate of April. Note this figure is just for England and Wales, not the entire UK – Northern Ireland and Scotland are not included.

    48,000 BRITS DEAD AFTER WORST WINTER IN 42 YEARS
    Hayley Coyle, Daily Star, 7 April 2018
    https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=cc6bacc6dd&e=da89067c4f

    The UK is being hit by its worst winter death toll in 42 years. It is estimated that 20,275 Brits more than average died between December and March. It means this winter is set to total at least 48,000 deaths due to cold weather – which works out at an average of one death every three and a half minutes. Campaigners have called the deaths a “national tragedy” as cold weather victims fatalities could be prevented – especially in the elderly. –Hayley Coyle, Daily Star, 7 April 2018
    ______________________________________

    I predicted this Excess Winter Death debacle several times on wattsupwiththat:

    HERE IN 2013

    AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954

    AND HERE IN 2015
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/20/terrorism-and-a-cold-winter-refugee-crisis/#comment-1649569

    Excerpt:

    “Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.
    ,,,
    In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths. European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels. When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.”

    Joe d’Aleo and I also wrote this article on Excess Winter Mortality in 2015:
    https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

    Regards, Allan

  10. EVs are not environmentally friendly. The EV’s dirty little secret, their carbon footprint is larger than similar sized gasoline/diesel cars, not just because fossil fuels are the primary source of energy to charge their batteries, but the energy intensity making the battery. Mining Lithium and Cobalt, rare Earths from China, and an incredible amount of energy producing the battery itself. One reason why EVs cost more to produce than gasoline/diesel cars, though the vehicle itself is easier to assemble.

    https://principia-scientific.org/study-tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-driving-on-gas/

    https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/19/the-widespread-social-and-environmental-destruction-behind-electric-car-batteries-and-e-mobility/

  11. One of the common myths is that the subsidies benefit the taxpayer buying the EV. An analysis of the supply and demand curves shows that most if not all the benefit of the subsidy goes to the Seller. The natural demand curve is the price of the EV net of the subsidy. (That is the price the buyer is buying the car at, not the price before the subsidy). This causes an artificial shift in the supply curve whereby the seller is selling the car at the higher subsidized price based. The amount of the subsidy going to the seller vs the buyer is a function of the elasticity of the product. In the case of EV’s most of the subsidy goes to the seller.

  12. Best to level playing field and see who wins. BTW this also includes taxing per mile driven instead of gas tax as gas tax inflates true cost of ICE car. Leveling playing field will create competition and bring about innovation.

    • Any taxation scheme is “fair” only in approximation. In the US for the most part, both federal and state fuel taxes go to maintain and police the roads. In Europe much of the fuel tax is folded into general revenue — needed to pay for all those “free” services.

      A retail fuel tax is simple to administer and tends to collect money in the same localities that have to fund the roads (i.e., if you visit a neighboring state and purchase fuel, the tax collected goes to maintain the same roads you’re using). It also has the indirect effect of collecting more from heavier vehicles, which exact more wear on the road surface.

      There are a lot of complaints about the free ride given to EVs, but I think people over-estimate the effect. I own a hybrid and so far this year I have driven it 12,460 miles and purchased 336 gallons of fuel. The average state fuel tax in Georgia is $0.3515 per gallon, so I’ve been taxed a total of $118 to use the roads (assuming all the fuel purchased was in Georgia). If I had the V6 version of the same car, I would have purchased roughly 540 gallons of fuel and paid $190 in state taxes.

      Georgia charges $200 an annual EV usage fee (currently tied with West Virginia for the highest in the US), which effectively assumes an EV “consumes” 569 gallons of fuel, or gets 22 miles per gallon driving the same distance.

      In other words: in Georgia EV owners are subsidizing me. And pickup truck owners subsidize us both.

      It’s clear some kind of usage fee should be assessed on EV’s but Georgia’s is excessive. Currently Florida and Alabama have no fees, so EV owners living there but driving extensively in Georgia do get a free ride.

      It’s also clear that increasing the percentage of both EVs and hybrids on the road will push the per-gallon fuel taxes higher.

      The real free ride (literally!) that EVs get in Georgia is they are exempted from the HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lane charges. This is supposed to be a “convenience fee” to avoid congestion and can be up to $8 one-way for trips down I-85 into Atlanta. EVs congest the roads just as much as any other vehicle and this exemption is a pure give-away subsidy that has no public utility.

  13. “Nearly 80 percent of the tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000 a year,”
    Well, what a surprise!
    All of these green subsidies/incentives, directed at the public, go to the more affluent.
    The less wealthy, can’t afford to buy new cars in the first place.
    So, they get hit twice, miss out on the subsidies & get hit by the taxes that those who can afford to buy EVs, avoid.
    So, Vehicle Excise Duty, Congestion Charges & fuel duties.

  14. Taking away the subsidies in China is having an effect on sales already falling-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/china-races-to-build-its-own-tesla-as-economy-slows-subsidies-phase-out/ar-BBYlEld
    They’re flat out trying to catch up and corner the battery market-
    https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3043032/chinese-electric-car-battery-makers-out-show-world-they-have
    Even in China they can’t knock out a Tesla M3 under $50k and like Panasonic with the battery gigafactory none of them are getting a decent feed out of making EVs so it’s a boutique market that’s going nowhere and needs to hike it prices soon or go under.

  15. It will be interesting to see what the tax credit expiration does to used Tesla sales. Because losing the federal tax credit will increase the effective cost of purchasing a new Tesla, it also has the effect of increasing the relative value of used Teslas; the price of used Teslas will likely rise as a result.

    Thus early Tesla buyers who qualified for the full tax credits now have a more favorable market to sell them used. In effect they benefit from both granting the subsidies and removing them.

    A spike in used Tesla sales and a corresponding dip in new sales suggests that early owners are taking advantage of that increased valuation to exit the EV experience and go back to IC vehicles (including hybrids).

  16. What a mess. The government knows as soon as they start treating EVs like actual cars, taxing them for road use somehow, and especially charging environmental fees for cleanup from accidents and destroyed EVs, that the market will utterly collapse.

    These things have only ever been able to survive thanks to government largesse. Let them compete fairly, for once, like they did at the beginning.

    • States are already imposing road usage taxes on EVs. Not all of them yet but you can be sure it will happen universally.
      As of yet wrecked Teslas command fairly good resale value on the salvage market. This will get even stronger if Tesla embraces the aftermarket repair concept that makes gas cars fixable, As for environmental fees I don’t understand, the State has nothing to do with a wrecked car, gas or electric, insurance and the free market are the microbes cleaning things up. Suppressing fire is costly, or cleaning up a pierced diesel fuel tank, isn’t too much different, hauling off a car carcass for recycling.
      As for the tax incentives I’m glad to see them go, I’m tired of hearing the inane argument of tax breaks for the rich. Ah duh, isn’t that how Washington works.
      Lastly, electric cars are so much better at being cars than gas cars even you one day will give them a try

        • re: “How is a ev better then a petrol or diesel powered car?”

          Short-trip driving doesn’t ‘foul’ the engine (esp. the oil, etc) as it does for an ICE that isn’t driven long enough to drive-off condensate that has formed in the oil pan, oil galleries, camshaft and lifter areas?

          I could make use of such a vehicle (ev) for local use.

        • The performance is unbelievable in terms of acceleration. And it is instant.No lag at all. You only have to watch the multitude of people road testing Teslas 3’s on Youtube to get a sense of just how much fun they are. And while they are expensive at the moment the price will come down and is somewhat compensated by the cheaper running cost. There is also little maintenance because there are so few moving parts. They are quieter too because there is no exhaust/engine noise. So Sunny while they are not perfect yet…. they are still pretty damn good.

          • Yeah, fastest way to burn out your reliability is to try out that “performance” at every chance. You will still burn out the oil lubricated diff’s (Yes, they are not direct drives, how do you think they get so much torque with a small motor?), CVJ’s, brake disks/pads etc.

          • ICE motors last longer than EV batteries, and cost less to replace.

            The cheaper operating costs come from the fact that gasoline is taxed to support roads, and electricity isn’t. However most states have plans for eliminating that subsidy.

            Most new cars are so quiet that road noise is the biggest noise.

            EV’s are so far from perfect, that perfect isn’t even on the horizon yet.

          • @simon. Really? You are telling us that Mark is making it up that ICE engines last longer and cost less to replace than EV batteries? What are you smoking? I have 140K miles on my pickup ICE engine and I expect to get at least another 200K before I have to replace the engine, and I’m sure that it will cost less than $2K to replace it. EV batteries get at the MOST 150K miles in hot climates (the warmer it is the more miles you will get). Even if all the costs were comparable ICE vs EV (most of the costs of EV-infrastructure upgrades etc-are ignored) just the time differential in ‘refueling’ (3min vs nearly an hour-at best) makes an EV a non-starter from my point of view.

          • Patrick
            “You will still burn out the oil lubricated diff’s (Yes, they are not direct drives, how do you think they get so much torque with a small motor?)”
            I’m sorry, do your homework….There is no differential in a Tesla 3. They are direct drive. Read al about it (before commenting would be a good idea.)
            https://www.popsci.com/tesla-model-3-track-mode/

          • David A
            “Why will the price come down. Tesla loses millions every year. In 2020 the lose their federal subsidy.”
            Firstly Tesla are not the only company investing in this technology. Secondly they made a profit last quarter which is why their share price is at an all time high. Thirdly almost all technology comes down in price as mass production ramps up. Battery tech is moving ahead extremely fast. I know their are knuckle dragging nay sayers around but, that is always the way with new tech.

          • “Simon December 28, 2019 at 9:51 am

            I’m sorry, do your homework….There is no differential in a Tesla 3. They are direct drive. Read al about it (before commenting would be a good idea.)
            https://www.popsci.com/tesla-model-3-track-mode/

            From your linked article; The Model 3 doesn’t have a limited-slip differential on the wheels, which would allow for different amounts of torque to be sent to each wheel. Instead, it has an open differential, which sends equal amounts of torque to each wheel.

            So, that is two motors, two differentials (They are sealed self-contained units which includes an inverter, a motor and a final drive/differential assembly followed by 4 drive shafts and 8 CV joints to the wheels. Do you know what a limited-slip diff is? The writer doesn’t seem to know either.

  17. Now, who killed the electric car? Those EVIL Republicans killed the electric car. Shame on the EVIL Republicans in the Senate! They murdered the electric car! But don’t worry, the subsidy will be BACK … as soon as the Senate flips (D).

    Speaking of subsidies … how many $$$ Billions $$$ are Steyer and Bloomberg spending on their “green-up” America now ads? Why don’t they just use those funds to directly subsidize Elon Musk’s operation? Nope. It seems the rent seekers are looking for FARRRRR MORE ways to exploit the taxpayer’s deep pockets than just EV subsidies.

    All for your own good, doncha know. The free marketplace never knows what’s “good for you”. Only mother government will “save you” from yourself … by FORCING proper behavior on you.

  18. With government subsidies and mandates, governments control the markets and the decisions of all market participants. Despite scientific uncertainty and certain ineffectual “solutions” to those uncertainties, governments have discovered this control and it is irresistible. It’s working quite well for them on energy production already. EVs are just an adjunct to it all.

    I am so old I remember Steve Milloy going on and on about the misuse of the precautionary principle. Government noticed.

  19. Citing the over $4 billion in federal credits EV shoppers had already received 😐

    I feel angry reading that 4 billion is wasted on the co2 scam.

  20. Every automaker (almost) has decided to go all electric in the near and fairly near future. By 2025, I doubt that shpowrooms will even have gas powered cars. The reason for the vast increase in EV sales was partly the result of the $7500 tax credit, but note thatt Tesla is selling morecars per year now than when it still had the tax credit. It is batttery price reductions which have had the greater impaact – just 6 years ago a relatively small Tesla roadster battery pack cost $40,000 to replace. These days a much larger pack goes for less than $11,000.
    And there are fast public recharging sttaions and batteries charge faster as well.

    • re: “By 2025, I doubt that shpowrooms will even have gas powered cars.”

      Haven’t we been here before (with predictions like this)?

    • “…By 2025, I doubt that shpowrooms will even have gas powered cars…”

      Shpowrooms may not, but showrooms will.

      “…just 6 years ago a relatively small Tesla roadster battery pack cost $40,000 to replace. These days a much larger pack goes for less than $11,000…”

      Baloney. Musk said the Model 3 modules would be $3k-7k (way to narrow it down, lol). There are 4 modules in the Model 3…so that’s $12k to $28k according to the overpromising and under-producing Musk, which is not less than $11k. Other models are more expensive.

    • ColMosby,
      “Every automaker (almost) has decided to go all electric in the near and fairly near future. By 2025, I doubt that shpowrooms will even have gas powered cars.”

      Dream on, they can’t possibly make enough electric cars to replace all of the ICE cars that will be needed for sale in 2025.

      • Nor can they possibly produce power, power distribution and required infrastructure required to manifest their nightmare.

    • Wow. A complete retooling of the entire industry in five years. You really understand the auto industry! Yep, All of the automakers’ marketing departments have decided to hype all electric (almost). Until that gets old and then the creative geniuses will be off as a herd in some new direction.

      When are MSRs coming? Next Tuesday?

    • No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it still won’t become true. There are no major car companies that have pledged to go all EV. A few of them have pledged to increase the number of hybrids they are making. There isn’t a single major maker who has pledged to stop making ICE cars.

      You can charge fast, or you can charge many times. You can’t do both.

    • The costs for building a new line, or re-tooling an existing line for EV’s, are extremely high. Many makers have assembly lines that can cater for two or more models in their range. Honda in the UK (Mid 90’s when I worked for them) for instance could make the Civic and Accord on the same line. Most makers look at the long-term production costs for a new line or retooling and that simply does not happen over night, or even in 5 years. Most makers are trying to integrate an electric motor and power pack in to existing bodies/chassis with minimal changes because of the costs involved, unlike Tesla, who designed and built their cars from scratch.

  21. Citing the over $4 billion in federal credits EV shoppers had already received,

    Barrasso claimed the system has already encouraged automakers to commit t manufacturing more electric cars, arguing it’s no longer fair to burden taxpayers

    –> Barrasso claimed that the system had already encouraged automakers to make more electric cars, arguing that it was no longer fair to burden taxpayers.

  22. Prior to Congress taking the rest of the month off to relax and presumably gear up for an impeachment trial –> Prior to Congress taking the rest of the month off to relax and presumably gear up for an impeachment trial or decide lacquering their toe-nails to mix-up office time burdens

Comments are closed.