MemberSeptember 20, 2021 at 8:06 am
The purpose of this bill is to protect legacy auto makers it’s not to stimulate the market or the technology. The original Bush era tax credit had the rationale that a subsidy would help to jump start the technology, at the time batteries were $1000/KWh and at that price a mass market for EVs was an impossibility. But a dozen years later the mission has been accomplished, the cost of batteries has fallen by a factor of ten and they continue their downward trajectory. The technology has a momentum of it’s own, it doesn’t need a subsidy or mandates any more. We are at the point where we’ve reached price parity with everything except the bottom end of the market. The F150 Lightning starts at $39K and in general is priced very equivalently to the ICE F150. When you take total cost of ownership into account it will be cheaper. Objectively an EV is better than an ICEV in every way except roadtrip fueling, home fueling is actually vastly easier. The performance is noticeably better, instant response, no gear hunting, quiet, and no tail pipe emitting smoke. The cost of fuel is much less even on states with high electricity prices, I’m paying 25 cents/KWh (about twice the national cost) in Massachusetts and my Model 3 still costs me about the same per mile as a Prius but it has the performance of a BMW. The reliability is higher because there is so much less to go wrong and in the future it should be even better. I’ve had a Model 3 for two years and it’s never been in the shop, I’m 67 and in all of my life I never had an ICE car that didn’t need work in it’s first year.
The way to get the best possible EVs in the future is to let the free market operate freely. There may be a role for the government in accelerating the availability of charging at rental properties. Private homes need no subsidy, installing an EVSE is the same cost as the paint option on a Tesla.