There’s this concept of a “Joker origin story” that implies something terrible happens to turn someone into the Joker. It might be the failure of the social safety net, a harsh chemical accident, the murder of a spouse, or, in many versions, the Joker’s failure to become a popular standup comedian. If GM CEO Mary Barra is going to turn into the Joker it might be the Trump administration that finally does it.
Yesterday, an exclusive report came out indicating that one of the priorities in the next Trump administration is the elimination of the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles. Given that much of the Trump administration’s plans read like some sort of Marjorie Taylor Green fan fiction (RFK Jr heading HHS, a DOGE commission, Matt Gaetz as AG) this is another clear sign that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is getting his way.
Is this bad for Tesla? It’s a little bad for Tesla, but it’s so bad for everyone else that it could be borderline existential for some automakers. What are they going to do? If you’re Hyundai, you’re going to make your North American boss the boss of the whole darn company. Ford? I’m not sure. Ford’s in a weird position, and it’ll be about $165 million short as it has to pay the second-biggest fine in NHTSA history.
That’s enough politics for The Morning Dump. I just got the latest update on vehicle inventory and it looks like the big incentive drive Stellantis is on is finally working.
The IRA Tax Credit Repeal Is Quite The Concept
With apologies to David, I’m feeling in the mood for pop culture references. If you’ve never seen The Princess Bride or read the book, please stop now and go do one or both of those things. I think The Princess Bride is one of those rare instances where the book is better than the movie and, simultaneously, the movie is better than the book.
There’s a famous scene where, faced with a crafty but diminutive Sicilian mercenary, the Dread Pirate Roberts challenges the mercenary to a battle of wits. The pirate says he’s put a little poison in one of two wine goblets and the Sicilian will have to reason out which goblet contains poison. At the last minute, the Sicilian switches the goblets and takes a drink, assuming he’ll live.
If you’ve watched the movie you know what happens next. Both goblets contained poison, it’s just that the Pirate had built up a tolerance for it and so wasn’t seriously harmed.
This is as apt a metaphor as I can come up with for President Trump, with the support of Tesla, saying he’ll end the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles produced in the United States. Tesla’s most popular vehicles all take advantage of the $7,500 instant tax rebate and it will, likely, depress the company’s car sales. This is a little bad for Tesla. It’s way, way, way worse for everyone else.
Tesla is the most efficient electric automaker in the world if you look at the company’s margins and production and it got here thanks to years and years of government subsidies. The success of Tesla isn’t just the genius of one lone businessman, it is the genius of the American taxpayer, who has repeatedly backed the company indirectly with carbon credits and directly with loans and tax credits totaling billions of dollars. One could argue that America made Elon Musk the richest man in the world and the benefit we get, as taxpayers, is an extremely competitive global automaker who builds some of the best cars, including many in America.
This doesn’t make Tesla different or more special than any other American automaker as they all, historically, have benefited from tax breaks, loans, and many of the same tax credits that Musk got. The difference is that Musk spent that money much more strategically, first to build a bunch of successful companies, and more recently to buy immense influence with a President and a political party.
I want to be careful not to overstate the impact of the $7,500 tax credit, which prioritizes American-made cars over cars made anywhere else. Carmakers were already planning to build electric cars before the tax credit, which came as a bit of a surprise, and this planning had less to do with government incentives and way more to do with the general mania over electric cars( Remember, the initial EV tax credit, which benefited Tesla greatly, was designed to phase out after 200,000 cars). What’s important about the tax credit is that, now, in an EV market that’s slowing down, it helps keep the efforts of these companies alive.
If you’re a major automaker like Toyota, which has tentatively made electric investments but has a lot of hybrids, this isn’t fatal. You’ll be fine. If you are one of the many, many companies that use the discount to take $7,500 off a lease this hurts a lot. If you’re a company like Hyundai that uses the leases and is already pretty far along in building a plant I don’t know if you’re going to stop or go forward.
General Motors, of all automakers, is maybe hurt the most. The company was so close to being profitable producing electric cars on the backs of this discount and it going away is going to suck. I’m curious to see the guidance the company gives if this actually happens. Ford’s been planning a cheap, skunkworks electric car, but does that happen in this environment? Probably. There’s a slow inevitability to electric cars, it’s just a question of how slow it gets. You can critique companies for basing decisions on politics and government incentives, which is fair, though I’m not sure there’s a large company on the globe that doesn’t at least have to consider these when planning for the future and they’re supposed to provide stability during transition periods.
Tesla, though, thinks it’ll be fine if this happens. Reuters broke the story, so I’ll let them explain:
Musk himself pointed out as much in a July earnings call, saying losing the subsidy under Trump would “probably benefit Tesla” in the long term.
Tesla sold just under half of all U.S. EVs in the third quarter, according to data from Cox Automotive. Other automakers with notable EV sales such as GM, Ford and Hyundai, individually trail far behind. But Tesla’s U.S. EV rivals collectively have steadily eroded its market share, which exceeded 80% in the first quarter of 2020.
Nicholas Mersch, portfolio manager at Purpose Investments, a Tesla investor, said Tesla can withstand a potential sales hit from losing subsidies because the automaker’s “engineering and manufacturing prowess” lowers its costs.
“Getting rid of the subsidy means that competitors can’t catch up and won’t be able to compete on a cost basis,” Mersch said
This can’t be a surprise to anyone as then-candidate Trump said he’d do this exact thing in August.
The politics of this are extremely whacky. In spite of voting against the Inflation Reduction Act, many Republicans are quite happy with all the jobs the IRA has created disproportionately in Republican districts and states. In fact, here’s a letter signed by a bunch of Republicans in Congress stating they’ll block any reductions to tax credits:
Today, many U.S. companies are already using sector-wide energy tax credits – many of which
have enjoyed bipartisan support historically – to make major investments in new U.S. energy
infrastructure. We hear from industry and our constituents who fear the energy tax regime will
once again be turned on its head due to Republican repeal efforts. Prematurely repealing energy
tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground,
would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing. A full repeal
would create a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and
received next to nothing in return.
The Inflation Reduction Act is an imperfect bill that feels like only 80% of what was necessary if you really wanted to reform our car sector or make non-Tesla automakers competitive, but it was better than nothing. Pulling the plug now on this and other environmental credits is, as the Republicans themselves say, “a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and received next to nothing in return.”
We wouldn’t get anything, but Tesla would. It’s as if the industry was stranded on a small island that was submerged every night by a rising tide. We all funded the building of a platform and a rope ladder to get everyone to safety and Tesla was the first one to make it to the top. Rather than try to help everyone else make it up the ladder, we’ve just given Elon Musk a pair of scissors.
For many car dealers, this isn’t an issue, but for others, the tax credits are a big deal. While carmakers have, via its trade group, pushed for a reduction in greenhouse gas requirements, which Trump has signaled he’ll give them, they’ve also largely signaled support for the $7,500 tax credit.
Could this pass? I’m not a political reporter so I don’t know.
While Republicans took control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, they did so only narrowly and will require broad support from all ends of the party to be successful in passing legislation. If it were a matter of just repealing a bill this seems like a stretch. However, I think America is about to again be introduced to the concept of “reconciliation” which allows a lot of budget-related bills to be passed without going through the normal process. It is, somewhat poignantly, how President Biden snuck the IRA through Congress the first time.
Again, I don’t know what happens, I just know that Elon Musk said it would be a little bad for Tesla and extremely bad for everyone else, and, in this case, I’m inclined to take Elon Musk at his word.
Jose Muñoz Becomes First Non-South Korean To Head Hyundai Motor Company
In my few interactions with Joze Muñoz as head of Hyundai and Genesis in North America I’ve found him to be polite, affable, and able to explain his goals in a simple and straightforward way. Hyundai has been quite successful here in North America and it was no surprise when he was elevated to COO of the global company. It’s even less of a surprise that now, in the incoming Trump era, that Munoz has been tapped as CEO of the whole thing.
From the company:
Muñoz will oversee the execution of the company’s customer-focused vision of ‘Progress for Humanity’, building on its leadership position in next-generation mobility, including electrification, diversified powertrain offerings and hydrogen technology. He will also focus on advancing the company’s global management system to further strengthen Hyundai Motor’s status as a global brand.
It’s going to be a tough gig, but Hyundai feels like it’s in a good position relative to many other automakers.
Ford To Fork Over Up To $165 Million For Slow Recall
Ford’s on the hook for up to $165 million in NHTSA penalties for its response to a recall involving malfunctioning backup cameras.
The three-year consent order agreed to by Ford and the NHTSA includes a civil penalty of up to $165 million, which is exceeded only by the Takata air bag consent order in the regulatory agency’s 54-year history. An investigation that began in 2021 found the company didn’t recall vehicles with defective rearview cameras in a timely manner or provide accurate and complete recall information as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
It’s not all bad. If Ford doesn’t screw up they’ll get $55 million back and the company also gets to put $45 million of investment into making sure this doesn’t happen again.
Ram Isn’t The Worst Anymore
Stellantis has been tighter than Bill & Ted with its incentive spending this year, but that’s finally changing and, shocker, they’re selling cars. Above is the Days Supply chart from Cox Automotive showing how many days of inventory various brands have. That’s from this summer.
Here’s the new one:
Now only Jaguar is so bad that it literally doesn’t fit on the chart anymore, but Jaguar partially has to do that because it’s not making new cars for a while. Ram, while still not great, is at least not not great enough to fit on the chart!
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
Here’s B.B. King doing “Sweet Little Angel” live. Untouchable. It’s so beautiful he starts to cry in the middle of it.
The Big Question
Who is screwed the most and who is screwed the least in this deal? Do you think they’ll do it? Are EV incentives a waste anyway?
TIL Matt Hardigree is a comic book fan. The less you talk about the three jokers story the better.
I don’t see why it will make a difference. People are buying lots of ice vehicles that cost the same as EVs. They don’t get a tax credit. And if your tax liabilities aren’t equal to or greater than the $7500 you don’t get the full amount. And if you end up with no tax liabilities before trying to take the $7500, you get nothing. So, for poorer people you get nothing. (some of us save some every year until we can buy a car outright)
Leasing can get the full credit (to the manufacturer, who can pass it along to you) regardless of income, vehicle cost, etc., so everyone can benefit that way. There’s also the $4000 used EV credit.
Not that it’s a perfect system, by any means, but there are some ways for people to benefit without sufficient tax liability.
“success of Tesla isn’t just the genius of one lone businessman”
If Melonhead is a genius, we’re all fucking idiots
Melon Husk/Leon Mush dipshit should be in jail w/ Trump
I think Ford is likely screwed the most on the $7,500 phase out. GM has enough vertical integration on the Ultium platform that they can come the closest to competing with Tesla on costs. Until we see Ford’s “skunkworks” car, we can’t know for sure. I believe Ford is building their own battery plant so maybe they’ll be fine long term.
The bigger impact will be if Trump hits Mexico with tariffs. The Equinox and Blazer are both built there, as is the Mach E. So GM and Ford would have to have a major scramble to figure things out and I don’t know if those products are profitable enough to justify building out an entire US factory for them
Perhaps we would see the Equinox production moved to Kansas with the Bolt, but the Mach E is old and unprofitable as is, so I suspect that would just go away
Trump is not President yet, Biden is.
That’s good! Why should some of us who don’t even own vehichles have to pay tax to subsidy the cosmic dimbulbs who want to drive EVs?
The depreciation of the EVs is very frighteningly fast, and nobody wants to buy the secondhand EVs. Not to mention the explosive tendency of the lithium-ion batteries that produce lot of toxic chemical during the runaway fire.
We didn’t have any tax credits in the 1970s, encouraging us to buy the fuel efficient vehicles when the oil crisis hit us. So, why should the EV idiots be entitled to the tax credits?
Kinda like France lowered taxes on diesel for decades. That creates demand, which drives investment in R&D, making competitive products rendering the subsidies useless in the end.
The tax credits are there to push the private market in a good direction. Climate change is real, even if you believe oil company misinformation
I pay for tax credits for oil companies all the time.
As far as fires go, sorry that you believe everything you read on the internet. I’m not sure if anyone ever told you this but gasoline is flammable too and gas powered cars are actually more likely to catch fire than EVs. And gas goes up much fast than an EV fire. Thermal runaway typically takes a long time to get going, giving the chance to escape the vehicle. Not that anyone ever actually changes their mind when faced with facts.
The free market does not take into account air pollution, both acute (e.g. smog) and chronic (CO2). People in the 70s had reason to improve fuel economy (to lower their costs), but not emissions. It was government regulations that made the air cleaner, via catalytic converters and evaporative emission controls. The EV incentives exist because we lack the political will to appropriately tax carbon.
Also, whether you own a car or not, your taxes subsidize all vehicles, primarily by paying for roads.
What a nuanced and well thought out comment.
Because people whose foresight extends beyond the tip of their own nose recognize the cost of ICE vehicles in the form of pollution is paid by everyone, and that’s a problem.
Who is screwed the most? American consumers.
If every other American EV manufacturer has their EV development and sales pipeline kicked in the nuts to varying degrees by political decision making whilst EV importers are also hamstrung by different political decision making, leaving one predominant EV maker with a limited range of vehicles and a capricious approach to customer relations then I fail to see how US consumers wouldn’t be screwed.
But if you hand a politician a screwdriver then don’t be surprised if it becomes an impromptu dagger.
Yet another outstanding piece by Hardibro. Informed, balanced in ways that matter, well supported, clearly written. This dude is fkn good.
I must give kudos to David for being a levelheaded editor and listening to his audience.
That’s much more than I can say for most websites.
Darn those Chinese for subsidizing their car makers…oh, wait.
Earth had a good run.
Earth will survive, humanity will not.
Venus also survives – but it’s a hellish place to be.
At this point so is Earth. Or at least the u.s.
Lifeless planets are a dime a dozen.
I saw a documentary recently that supposed that Venus may well have been a planet teeming with life – but runaway greenhouse warming occurred due to some unknown event, which eventually boiled off the oceans and burned off the atmosphere.
Similar to how the Middle East and Greece used to be quite lush – but desertification occurred due to chopping down all the trees….
One never knows – It could have been a populous Earth-like planet that was being gradually degraded, until some techno-clone came along and decided that one planet away would be a better place to be King…
Tesla’s mission statement says its primary goal has always been “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy by safely building, selling, servicing, and delivering all-electric vehicles…” Musk has referenced it many times, expressing the importance of motivating the other car companies to transition to BEVs as quickly as possible (even if it is to Tesla’s detriment, ultimately — I recall from an interview). So, if revoking subsidies is his true preference (and not just a theoretical postulation), then Tesla’s mission statement is no longer his motivation.
One of the best quotes I ever heard about Elon is that (paraphrasing): “Elon wants Earth to be saved, but only if he’s the one who gets to save it”.
It’s almost like he’s a lying sack of human excrement.
Also what does that mission statement have to do with being “an AI/Robotics company now”
Hi$ motivation ha$ alway$ been $
All the Big 3 need to do is make a small, aerodynamic EV designed to get acceptable range on a small battery, and add lots of horsepower with RWD to also appeal to sports car enthusiasts, and get a head start on the Chinese offerings. They don’t need no tax credits. GM’s built a massive Equinox barge with an MSRP of $40,000. They can build one-third of that vehicle for close to half that cost. They could make a more efficient BYD Seagull with more performance, and would have double the budget per car to work with to have an acceptable price.
Man, I love Fantasy Land. How long have you been living here?
For what it’s worth, I’m an electrical engineer. I have built(but not completed) my own electric car conversion, and have worked on a friend’s EV conversions and designed a custom 3-wheeler EV for him from scratch that he put together with my input. I have also built a custom electric velomobile, converted another velomobile I bought to electric, and built multiple ebikes one of which is mine.
GM needs to make their own version of the BYD Seagull, which retails in China for $11,400. It has a 40 kWh pack. Keep in mind that the GM EV1 had a real-world 130-170 mile range on a 27 kWh pack in the 1990s(the EPA rated range is lower, but its methodology is not indicative of the real world). This is not rocket science. By focusing on trucks and CUVs/SUVs to the detriment of all else, the automakers have ensured that affordable long-range EVs won’t exist.
Bolt.
The Seagull is 2,700 lbs with a 40 kWh pack. The Bolt gains 1,000 lbs over that and is a more bloated vehicle, and designed to look like a mini CUV when they should have focused on aero efficiency to reduce pack size for the same range in order to cut costs. A Bolt with half the aero drag and half the battery would be amazing.
Half the size would be like an old Geo Metro and I don’t think GM would ever sell more than a few thousand units of that
Just because *you* would want it doesn’t mean it would sell well. I want a 5 seat cheap convertible but the market doesn’t buy them so they don’t get made.
America *had* micro cars. They didn’t sell well, so they stopped being made.
The Bolt is just about the smallest car that can feasibly sell
I was thinking more along the lines of a Geo Prizm, but very streamlined and with more legroom. Or perhaps imagine a Bolt, with less focus on bland GM corporate styling zeitgeist for less cost and half the battery mass by making it as slippery as a 1999 GM Precept, but still achieving similar highway range per charge to the Bolt(city rang matters a lot less). What I describe was technically feasible 25 years ago in a 150-200 mile range package on batteries inferior to today’s offerings
An oft-repeated complaint among detractors is the cost of EVs, and the cost of new cars in general. The automakers can choose to make an inexpensive, BASIC, acceptably comfortable, quality, long-range EV and see what happens on the market, or they can choose not to. We don’t know how they would sell because such a thing has never been offered in the USA. It’s an entirely new niche that has never existed in the US market, but one for which potential consumers have expressed demand. These automakers are definitely scared of the Chinese offering cars similar to what I describe right here in the USA, so much so that the automakers bribed our government to keep such cars out, and no American citizen so much as got a vote on that decision.
As a current taxpayer who grew up working class and struggled early in life, I object to being forced to subsidize vehicles designed to appeal to conspicuous consumption, vehicles which are generally only affordable by spoiled upper middle class suburbanites using credit, and an auto industry perpetuating that wasteful and unsustainable paradigm.
We need affordable, decent EVs. The Chinese are proving these vehicles can be made, and if the US automakers refuse to make them, then let cash strapped Americans who demand an inexpensive EV buy the Chinese offerings. If the U.S. automakers won’t lose any market share because supposedly no one wants cheap cars, then what’s the harm? Why are they so scared of something no one supposedly wants?
There’s a large degree of hypocrisy in government policy and the US auto industry in general, yet it seems unrecognizable to so many people.
There have been plenty of gas cars that size that didn’t sell at all. The Chevy Aveo, Ford Fiesta, Chevy Sonic and Nissan Versa immediately spring to mind. All were discontinued in the US due to poor sales. So why would an EV do any better?
In the modern world of monster trucks, tiny cheap cars don’t sell at all when it’s not that much more money for a crossover that’s more substantial
If that’s the case, why not let the Chinese bring in their small EVs and gas cars, without tariffs?
The Big Three spend an AWFUL lot of money in lobbying to ever allow that to happen. America is an oligarchy
They see the small, inexpensive Chinese EVs as a threat for some reason. Otherwise, why waste money on lobbying the government to keep them out if no one is going to buy them?
The fact is, small cars and midsized sedans, with a focus on aero drag reduction, are really the proper application for EV technology in cars. But for each one of these vehicles sold that displaces the sale of a large truck or CUV/SUV, that is tens of thousands of dollars in profit the big 3 don’t get in exchange for the narrower margins on the more modest vehicles.
I don’t think it’s the BYD Seagull they’re worried about. It would probably be more expensive in the US than the “$11,500” it sells for in China, regardless of the tariffs, and may not pass crash tests, as is. It has just 30kWh of battery which is going to be ~120 miles of range, which is a non-starter for most people, even if it shouldn’t be. It has 74hp, which again, is going to disqualify it for a lot of people. It’s just not going to be a big seller with those specs. By the time you get it to the US, bump up the battery and power and such to something acceptable, it’ll be nearing $20k and it’ll go the way of all the other little cars that failed here.
What manufacturers are worried about are cars like the BYD Seal, the Model 3 competitor, or the Sea Lion, the Model Y competitor. They would put a lot of pressure on the mainstream vehicles manufacturers are hoping will sell: Equinox, ID.4, Mach E, etc., and just be another vehicle that embarrasses junk like the bZ4x.
The version with 30 kWh is actually around $9,000USD.
The cost difference to make a 74 hp EV and a 374 hp EV is in the $1,000-2,000 range. The control electronics and motor are not that different between the two, although one will require a more power dense battery than the other.
If a “penalty box” EV cost around $20k, and had massive amounts of performance, it would occupy a niche that has never existed, and which would fill other niches which no longer exist but for which consumers have expressed interest(but at a lower price point than has been the tradition, because thy are increasingly cash strapped).
A 40kwh pack isn’t feasible in the US. Consumers won’t buy anything in large numbers that has less than 250 miles of range.
The car you’re describing is the Bolt, and it’s coming back next September
A 40 kWh pack is very feasible in a low drag car. The GM EV1 only needed 0.160 kWh/mile to hold 70 mph on flat ground. There’s your 250 mile range.
I’m sure they would sell dozens of EV1 sized cars with 40kwh packs
In other words: A Neue Classe BMW 2 Series.
Or a Mercedes-Benz CLA-EV
Or a Mini Cooper EV
But without the premium badge premium.
Consider a modernized 4-seater EV1 with similar CdA to the original, except with a hatchback. With an under 40 kWh LiFePO4 pack, and keeping the car basic and not loaded with crap, they’d be able to get the curb weight under 3,000 lbs and cost under $25k. If it used the Equinox motor/controller and was RWD, it could also be an amazing performer able to hang with cars twice its cost.
Sounds like a task for Bishop.
This sounds fun to me. Intriguing. I’d probably think about buying it.
but…
I’d probably wind up buying the electrified 718 instead, because I’d be buying it as a fun toy, and I bet the new Porsche will be a funner toy.
The car you are talking about is an electric Saturn SL1. The real little compact car was a fine tool of its time, but it went extinct for a reason. These things are experienced as cramped penalty boxes by 90% of the population, and that’s just the driver’s seat. Any unfortunate passenger loathes the format. People have gotten much bigger. Expectations have gotten much higher. The safety perception of tiny aluminum foil cars on a road dominated by dumbasses in Tahoes, which is probably rooted in fact, takes away the “I’ll get it for my kid” market. The Prius and the Bolt probably reflect the minimum size of vehicle that almost anybody would CHOOSE in modern America, and those are pushing it. Most people in America have the power of choice in these things.
The only people choosing small cars today are people who like sports cars: Expert drivers or people who fancy themselves as such. That market is tiny and not dominated by people thinking of economy: Miatas, 718s, BRZs, etc. And I believe you’ve called most of those “fat pigs” or similar at some point.
Arranging trade laws for Chinese companies to bring in the tiniest cheapest cars they can make is lose-lose for everyone involved in that negotiation. Constructing the law to only allow in those will be a thankless career-killer for the politician who tries it. For the Chinese companies-oh-wait-I-mean-the-Chinese-government it’s also pointless. They would lose money on those things, just like everyone else has. If they’re statutorially prohibited from using those to bring people to the brand, expand their market share, sell their more expensive cars, and ya know, compete with the other car companies, they won’t be interested. At best we’d get the sort of crap you see on Temu that’s basically industrial surplus boxed and shipped because why not? Nobody is going to see that as a smart buy at $15,000 versus literally any other car at half or twice the price. If Chinese companies are allowed to bring their full portfolio over, they will run the board, as that’s how totalitarianism works. They have an effectively infinite bankroll to win that game, and we are smart to not let that happen.
The EV1 was also a rich man’s toy, and aerodynamics are not going to have a big cultural pull.
I appreciate your technical expertise, but these ideas of behavior modification are fantasy.
It might be interesting to see data on how many people own homes or have direct access to EV chargers where they live. This is going to be a pretty big determinant for acceptance of those vehicles since the public charging infrastructure isn’t that reliable, and the time differential between gasoline fill ups and topping off an EV is significant.
Think about this from the consumer side, in terms of how a vehicle fits into the life of those who have families. Single parents, non-technical people, those who work multiple jobs. People aren’t going to accept sitting at a filling station for over an hour with kids in the car to charge an EV because the apartment complex doesn’t have a station. It’s a pain in the ass that costs more money to buy. For a lot of people, a five-minute trip to the gas station currently solves this problem. It’s a real reason why, for them, electric cars are unappealing. And there are a lot of people who fit that demographic.
Leasing is an option to make it cheaper, sure, but a great number of people do not like that value proposition – you do not have an asset at the end. Say what you will about depreciating assets and cars; having something tangible you can trade to defray the cost of your next car reduces out of pocket costs and financing costs – which, at current interest rates, lot of Americans are struggling to manage.
Those living in apartments and high-density housing where EV chargers aren’t available or cannot be installed are not going to be benefitted by a smaller EV. They would be wiser to choose a hybrid.
Hybrids may be the key to electric vehicle acceptance, as the range-extender nature of the engine can help people who don’t understand the technology that it’s safe, reliable, and even better for general purpose motoring than gasoline-only transport.
The biggest problem of all in this EV push is that there’s no vision for this beyond “we need EVs”. Someone, somewhere in the Department of Transportation and in our automotive industry has to overcome this inertia to effect real change.
We can get there, but there’s a lot of underlying problems to solve that incentives and tax policy aren’t addressing directly. It’s a must that the DOT, state and local governments, and manufacturers get on the same page for electrified vehicles and the infra to support it for the masses. We’ve seen this work before with mileage and safety mandates. But we lack the will and we currently aren’t functioning well as a country, which makes this really hard.