$11b Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act Introduced, Industry Says "No Thanks"
The Detroit News reports that two versions of the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010 will be introduced today in the House and Senate. Both bills would spend about $11b by sending $800 million to $1 billion five to eight “deployment communities.” One of the EDVDA’s bipartisan sponsors, Rep Judy Biggert (R-IL) explains that these funds
will help regional communities establish themselves as models for the development and installation of the next generation of transportation infrastructure, including public charging stations
The bill is being backed by several small EV firms, like A123 Systems and Bright Automotive, under the rubric of the Electrification Coalition. And despite the fact that everyone loves a good subsidy, the mainstream automakers are not amused.
risks resulting in federal resources becoming overly concentrated in a small number of communities, which could establish electric cars as boutique vehicles… Electric cars and their infrastructure should be available to everyone nationwide, not just people in select communities
Another sign that the big boys don’t like this bill: not a single member of Michigan’s congressional delegation has signed onto the bills yet. In an interview with EETV, the Electrification Coalition’s Policy Director Sam Ori defends the bills’ local focus as necessary to keep government costs down and maintain fiscal responsibility.
The legislation is said to require qualifying local regions to put 700k EVs on the road in six years and extend $2,000 local tax breaks for EV purchases. The federal funds would be spent to extend tax credits for purchasing home charging equipment, and funding detailed local infrastructure-building plans. And according to a late-breaking tweet from the DetN’s David Shepardson, the
Senate bill creates a $10 million prize for whoever invents the 500-mile battery
Legislation has not yet been posted online, but we’ll link to the bills as soon as they become available.
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Cprescott People do silly things to their cars.
- Jeff This is a step in the right direction with the Murano gaining a 9 speed automatic. Nissan could go a little further and offer a compact pickup and offer hybrids. VoGhost--Nissan has laid out a new plan to electrify 16 of the 30 vehicles it produces by 2026, with the rest using internal combustion instead. For those of us in North America, the company says it plans to release seven new vehicles in the US and Canada, although it’s not clear how many of those will be some type of EV.Nissan says the US is getting “e-POWER and plug-in hybrid models” — each of those uses a mix of electricity and fuel for power. At the moment, the only all-electric EVs Nissan is producing are the Ariya SUV and the perhaps endangered (or maybe not) Leaf.In 2021, Nissan said it would make 23 electrified vehicles by 2030, and that 15 of those would be fully electric, rather than some form of hybrid vehicle. It’s hard to say if any of this is a step forward from that plan, because yes, 16 is bigger than 15, but Nissan doesn’t explicitly say how many of those 16 are all-battery, or indeed if any of them are. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111963/nissan-ev-plan-2026-solid-state-batteries
- Jkross22 Sure, but it depends on the price. All EVs cost too much and I'm talking about all costs. Depreciation, lack of public/available/reliable charging, concerns about repairability (H/K). Look at the battering the Mercedes and Ford EV's are taking on depreciation. As another site mentioned in the last few days, cars aren't supposed to depreciate by 40-50% in a year or 2.
- Jkross22 Ford already has an affordable EV. 2 year old Mach-E's are extraordinarily affordable.
- Lou_BC How does the lower case "armada" differ from the upper case "Armada"?
Comments
Join the conversation
I wonder what the real reason for opposing this those mainstream automakers might have. Perhaps simply that they aren't making any electric cars at the moment, so more of the benefit would go to whichever of their competitors get there first. On the other side, it's a bit absurd to be talking about fiscal responsibility while contemplating the idea of throwing a few billions of dollars at EVs. I suppose that should be translated as "that's all the money it's possible to get for my cause, for the moment." It's not as if the market just needs a little push and then the electric car will take off for real, this time. If that were the case it would've done so already, sometime in the past hundred years. The lack of infrastructure is not much of a barrier; it's not like it's particularly difficult to find access to electricity. So we're presumably going to need continued massive government support to keep people buying them until the world changes to the point where they actually make sense. Some day there will be better batteries and more expensive gasoline. I'm sure that having perhaps a few million more electric cars than there might otherwise be running around while we wait for that day serves some great social purpose that justifies spending all that money. Oh right, climate change, that's it. It's a really innovative approach; instead of putting a tax on CO2 emissions (as they effectively do with some apparent success in Europe for example) they'll just pay people money to buy battery-powered cars. This way, they tax everyone who doesn't buy one, whether or not they drive at all. The costs are spread more widely and are nicely hidden, so it's clearly much more fair this way. It leaves the vast majority who will still power their motors with gasoline with no particular incentive to burn less of it, but they've come up with the new and improved CAFE for that, now with triple the complexity and double the perverse incentives. Oh, government, your wisdom is truly astounding.