Does Trump's Election Spell the End for Federal EV Subsidies?

[DaveinOlyWA]

Bottom line most people aren't going to buy a car they don't want just because you put $7500 on the hood, particularly when that barely offsets the higher price relative to a comparable ICE.

Some people seem to be having trouble with this, so I'll try to make it very clear. The federal EV credit doesn't make people want to buy an EV. It instead enables those with lower incomes who already want an EV to buy, or at least lease one (in which case they then get the opportunity to buy the vehicle for the residual). If you are affluent enough to scoff at the $7500, then just take my word for this, instead of scoffing because it doesn't make any difference to you, personally.

+1

[WetEV]

...just a smidgen under 2/10ths of a % Pretty insignificant after almost six years. This year, U.S. sales of PEVs are running around 0.7% nationally, IIRR.

My opinion that the fraction of cars on the road being plugins being up to 0.2% is very significant. The sales rate is higher, but is likely to be more volatile.

Look at the replacement cycle. Average age of a car on the road is about 11.4 years in the USA. We are half way through one cycle. It is unreasonable to expect to change types of cars in anything less than multiple replacement cycles. A lot longer than 6 years.

Some people are more likely to try something new. So I expect a small fraction the first cycle. In my view, plugins are doing as I expected and hoped they would.

[Firetruck41]

Some people seem to be having trouble with this, so I'll try to make it very clear. The federal EV credit doesn't make people want to buy an EV. It instead enables those with lower incomes who already want an EV to buy, or at least lease one (in which case they then get the opportunity to buy the vehicle for the residual). If you are affluent enough to scoff at the $7500, then just take my word for this, instead of scoffing because it doesn't make any difference to you, personally.

You might be right, but I don't really care about the individual in that case. The government goal should not be helping a few people buy cars they otherwise couldn't afford, they should be making a significant dent in adoption/perception of EVs, if not, stop wasting money on making a few people feel good.

[WetEV]

The government goal should not be helping a few people buy cars they otherwise couldn't afford, they should be making a significant dent in adoption/perception of EVs, if not, stop wasting money on making a few people feel good.

The goal of the EV subsidy was to get EV production past the point of high startup costs and unknown market. It has done that. While it might be best to let the subsidies phase out as originally planned, EVs are past the hump. If technology and energy prices stay unchanged, EVs will stabilize then grow market share for the commuter market and the performance market. These markets are now too big to be ignored, even as is still a tiny fraction of the total car market. Battery technology improvements will only help. The next gasoline price spike, same.

The early ending of EV tax credit, MPG average rules and such is less than ideal, but compared with the other worries about a Trump Administration, a very small worry indeed.

[LTLFTcomposite]

Then this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming. The United Nations estimates that if every country were to make every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent and there was no cheating, carbon dioxide emissions would still be cut by only one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sounds like the Paris treaty needs to be repealed and replaced too.

[Durandal]

Bottom line most people aren't going to buy a car they don't want just because you put $7500 on the hood, particularly when that barely offsets the higher price relative to a comparable ICE.

Some people seem to be having trouble with this, so I'll try to make it very clear. The federal EV credit doesn't make people want to buy an EV. It instead enables those with lower incomes who already want an EV to buy, or at least lease one (in which case they then get the opportunity to buy the vehicle for the residual). If you are affluent enough to scoff at the $7500, then just take my word for this, instead of scoffing because it doesn't make any difference to you, personally.

Ironically enough, you can only collect the $7500 if you had that much tax liability to begin with, which means your household income is probably above the $100,000 mark. Not huge if you're moderately well to do in California, but for lots of areas, it's unlikely. For anyone above that mark, no the $7500 doesn't matter.

The exception to that is leases, of course, as that amount is applied to the lease, and that is most certainly helpful for lower income people. It also helps people such as myself to get a super cheap Leaf used. (So in my case, I bought my 2012 for $6,000 instead of the $13-14k it likely would have been if these credits did not exist.)

I get what you're saying, but unless the person is leasing the vehicle, it's unlikely that a person of a lower income could take advantage of the credit or even still afford the car even after the $7500 credit. I forgot where I read the stats, but I remember owners of the Nissan Leaf having a higher average household income than the US median.

[LeftieBiker]

You can't say, essentially, that I'm mistaken except for being correct. I leased my 2013 with an income of $24k a year, and the original lease was $149 a month. Someone who has a middle class income and a lot of tax liability would benefit greatly from the federal credit if they bought a Leaf. The demographics of who actually buys them now says more about cultural preferences than about how affordable the Leaf is now.

[WetEV]

Then this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

This does need to be restated:

It should not need to be restated in 2016 that climate change is real and mostly man-made.

Then Bjorn Lomborg goes off the deep end. Lomborg's stick, if you haven't read him before, is to first acknowledge the reality of climate change, then minimize the impact and exaggerate the cost of trying to reduce future climate change, then push some magic factor that might solve it at no cost if we just don't do anything to try to solve the problem of climate change. The magic factor has changed over the years, but the rest of the plot is intact. This time he is hawking investment into "green energy technologies". Last time I looked it was solar energy.

I don't disagree that we should be researching new technologies. And deploying solar energy.

I don't disagree that the Paris accord is just a start. Both new technologies and the increasing impact of climate change will enable a larger reduction in the future.

As for Donald Trump, his position will depend on who he is talking to. I have not a clue what Trump will do. I don't think Trump does as well.

[craig]

I attend several electric car forums, so I cannot recall if this is the one where you get deleted for even insinuating that climate change might not be a factually established claim?
Regardless, electric cars are the wave of the future. Electricity is infinitely renewable, from a plethora of sources, while oil, though plentiful now, is a limited and dwindling commodity.
Why burn something up if you don't have to?

[WetEV]

I attend several electric car forums, so I cannot recall if this is the one where you get deleted for even insinuating that climate change might not be a factually established claim?

No worries. We talk with everyone.

Regardless, electric cars are the wave of the future. Electricity is infinitely renewable, from a plethora of sources, while oil, though plentiful now, is a limited and dwindling commodity.
Why burn something up if you don't have to?

+1