By on April 8, 2021

The Biden administration expanded on its $174 billion proposal to boost electric vehicle sales on Thursday, suggesting that the United States government make it rain money on those purchasing EVs.

Technically a part of the $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, which has been expanded to include jobs and numerous environmental projects, the proposal makes a lot of special exemptions for alternative energy vehicles backed by large financial commitments. $100 billion will be set aside for new consumer rebates, potentially opening up the door for manufacturers that have already exhausted their quota of federal tax credits linked to zero-emission cars. 

Politico shared a U.S. Transportation Department email sent to congressional staff outlining additional details of the plan. The memo included allocating $15 billion to add another 500,000 EV charging points to the national network, $20 billion for electric school buses, $25 billion for establishing emissions-friendly public transit solutions, and an additional $14 billion in miscellaneous EV incentives. While the White House has not committed itself to explaining exactly how the funding will be broken down, the DOT email said the brunt of the money will go toward encouraging Americans to swap to electric vehicles and more energy-efficient appliances.

This comes after several years of Democrat leadership, aggressively advocating for EVs and influencing the markets as much as would be needed to achieve the desired outcome. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer was pitching a modified version of Cash for Clunkers that would have offered $454 billion (over ten years) to people trading in an older, gasoline-powered car for a modern electric one. The president also floated a highly similar Car Allowance Rebate System while campaigning in 2020.

“These are the most critical investments we can make for the long-term health and vitality of the American economy and the safety of the American people,” Joe Biden said last July. “Here we are now with the economy in crisis, but with an incredible opportunity not just to build back to where we were before, but better, stronger, more resilient, and more prepared for the challenges that lie ahead … And there is no more consequential challenge that we must meet in this next decade than the onrushing climate crisis.”

Though Biden and Schumer are just a couple of examples drawn from an incredibly deep well of politicians. Reuters noted that Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow and Representative Dan Kildee have been working on a bill to restore and expand the Obama-era EV tax credit system — which they elaborated upon in a recent interview.

From Reuters:

Kildee wants to skew the credit in favor of vehicles with more affordable vehicles with longer range, to “democratize the electric vehicle market.”

He said they are “looking at ways to make the credit more accessible to middle- and lower-income families, potentially even making the credit refundable.”

Kildee said EVs are “where the market is going — full stop. The only question that we have to answer is are these going to be vehicles made by American workers.” Kildee said they could also introduce a credit for used EV purchases.

Stabenow said it was important to give automakers incentives to produce electric vehicles in the United States.

“China has committed $100 billion to grab this market — both battery cell production but also in other component parts of electric vehicles,” Stabenow said. “We better take it seriously.”

While your author is generally skeptical of social engineering, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the original Cash for Clunkers program was not environmentally sound. Adopting a blind push into electrification, as China has, may also have unintended consequences. China’s heavy incentivization of EVs backfired as consumers started pulling out of the market, unsure of what the next round of regulations or incentives would look like. Subsequent cuts to subsidies then crippled the auto market and started negatively impacting some of China’s biggest auto brands.

We expect to see Republicans pushing back eventually, however they seem to be preoccupied with President Biden’s recent executive orders pertaining to gun control. As many are calling the actions unconstitutional, it’s likely to receive the brunt of the media focus. It could be days before they’ll able to organize comprehensive criticisms against the infrastructure/EV proposals. But we’re betting the response will be rather meek until the current administration better explains how the credit process is supposed to work and which entities will be eligible. As things currently stand, the only censures to be made are that it sounds like a heck of a lot of money to swell a plan we’ve tried already.

[Image: Welcomia/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

118 Comments on “Biden Planning to Pour $100 Billion Worth Of Rebates Onto EVs...”


  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    no more incentives, aside from maybe HOV lane status

    • 0 avatar
      Pig_Iron

      What do you mean? Why shouldn’t the working poor be forced against their will to subsidized the college debt of the children of the bourgeoisie. After all, the college “educated” are “the best and brightest” – they kept telling me so in my mandatory Critical Race Theory re-education struggle session.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “… And there is no more consequential challenge that we must meet in this next decade than the onrushing climate crisis.”

    Actually, it’s the 17th most consequential challenge.

    Gallup list of most important problems as of March, 2021:

    Coronavirus/Diseases
    The government/Poor leadership
    Race relations/Racism
    Immigration
    Economy in general
    Unemployment/Jobs
    Federal budget deficit/Federal debt
    Gap between rich and poor
    Unifying the country
    Healthcare
    Lack of respect for each other
    Ethics/moral/religious/family decline
    Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness
    The media
    Elections/Election reform
    Judicial system/Courts/Laws
    Environment/Pollution/Climate change

    • 0 avatar
      kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

      I’m going to agree here .. 100 FFFFing billion dollars could solve HUGE US education disparities in all manner of locations, with aid for teacher salaries and learning access issues. Better educated public, better people.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        kjh….

        No money for education.
        It is flushed down the drain.

        USA kids perform at 50% of the level of german or english kids with 2X the expenditure.

        the system is BROKEN

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        We already spend more per pupil than I believe all of the countries ahead of us. I’d like the question of why that is answered prior to simply spending more.

        • 0 avatar
          turbo_awd

          Maybe it’s because a large chunk of the spending goes to ensure we teach lies? Like how the USA is some paragon of virtue and excellence and we’re 10x better than any other country, ever? Or that “Intelligent Design” is a valid scientific theory?

          You can spend 10x more than any other country teaching brain-rotting lies, and guess what – your students won’t be any smarter..

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Yeah that’s a nice little angry soundbyte turbo, but most of that is just venting on your part and not actually taught in most states.

            No I’m looking for hard data that says we need to spend more. Not angry fantasy that schools are something that would be at home in an episode of the Handmaiden’s Tale, which is pretty far from most people’s opinion of public education.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          “We already spend more per pupil than I believe all of the countries ahead of us. I’d like the question of why that is answered prior to simply spending more.”

          We spend the most, but it isn’t working, so the ‘Murrican answer must be to SPEND MORE! That’ll fix it.

          It’s just like the constant yapping cries for “more gun laws!” Yes sir, that’ll fix…whatever.

    • 0 avatar
      GiddyHitch

      #1-16 don’t matter if we don’t address #17

      • 0 avatar
        turiMaximo

        THIS!!

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Mommy, Mommy!!! MY arbitrary, nonsensical obsession always matter more than all the other’s arbitrary nonsensical obsessions!!

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “Mommy, Mommy!!! MY arbitrary, nonsensical obsession always matter more than all the other’s arbitrary nonsensical obsessions!!”

            And if you don’t agree you must be CANCELLED and KILLED! Your obligation is not only to honor my arbitrary nonsensical obsessions, but actively to embrace them AND change everything about your life to make sure I get what I want!!! And if you don’t that’s just proof that you HATE me! You clearly are PHOBIC against what I want!!!!

      • 0 avatar
        285exp

        We’ll be dead of a lot more things higher on that list before #17 gets us, if it ever does. The predictions of the climate alarmists haven’t been particularly accurate.

      • 0 avatar
        Slocum

        Nonsense. ‘We’ (meaning the U.S.) can’t solve climate change with things like $100B EV boondoggles. The plain fact is that China now emits more CO2 annually than the US, the EU, and India *combined*. Like it or not, adaptation to a gradually warming climate is what we’re going to have to do.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Number 17 doesn’t matter if you don’t address number 2 because nobody is going to fix any of those until it is addressed

        Incidentally it is the one thing on that list we have direct control of yet here we are.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      That’s Gallop’s list based on the generic question of the general populace, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”

      EV’s are part of the “Infrastructure Plan” which should address multiple items on that list.

    • 0 avatar
      Phred_da_Phrog

      Yeah, but who cares about racism if we’re all starving to death from crop failures? Or our largest cities are under water and creating a refugee crisis not seen on this continent literally ever?

      • 0 avatar
        C5 is Alive

        “Yeah, but who cares about racism if we’re all starving to death from crop failures? Or our largest cities are under water and creating a refugee crisis not seen on this continent literally ever?”

        Fortunately, I don’t give a single s*** about any of those alleged and HIGHLY overwrought calamities.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      So is that the list of stuff that’s never going to change?

    • 0 avatar
      ktm

      You notice that every single issue that needs to be addressed is due to Republicans. Basically, we need to undo everything they managed to f***-up.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    Billions for everybody!!!!

  • avatar
    jalop1991

    so, how is this different than, say, Trump or Bush II doing the same thing?

    Except if Trump or Bush II did it, y’all would be screaming about how “he’s just giving billions to the car companies, who will charge $100K for a car so you can take the $50K credit!”

    But no, Sleepy Joe with the criminal son does it, and it’s somehow a “gift” to people??

    Regardless, the car companies will charge $100K for cars when they know that the buyer will see a $50K credit from Uncle Joe’s Money Printing Emporium.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @jalop1991 – The former president did nothing. Bush II just started a few wars. So what was your point?

    • 0 avatar
      swester

      To flip this back on you: it’s funny how conservatives get upset when Democratic presidents do this, but don’t seem to mind when the national debt skyrockets under Republican administrations.

      As for differences: Trump isn’t bloviating like a 8 year old on Twitter anymore, so that’s a refreshing change to have an adult propose a plan.

      Bush II and his cronies were too busy starting wars abroad to worry about silly things like advancing the country into the future.

      So there are two big differences. Shall we continue?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Again, what of the 8 years that followed Bush which again, I spent 2 and a half years of deployed downrange between those 2 wars. It’s cool to give Bush some heat for those decisions, but let’s not pretend the guy that followed was any less vested in them.

        For that matter, Trump ran on ending the war in Afghanistan as one of his promises, yet it goes on…a war that is almost old enough to drink.

        It’s almost like both sides do the same BS on this front (remember too that the last two Democrat nominees both supported and voted for both wars so let’s dispense with the BS here ..they are both 2 sides of the same rotten coin.)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Trump would finish that war. But Army and CIA are fully vested in heroin production which has increased substantially since US entry. Big money is made there. Why stop now?

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Yup, Taliban wouldn’t let the Afghanis grow opium so they had to go. CIA needed the money from the opium business

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Old_WRX

            how correct! Taliban came and cut opium production to nearly 0 (on the large scale) and bam!!! America came to save the day!

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Ummm… *another* auto bailout eleven years after the first?

    We’re so f***ed.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Draw four quadrants (‘labels’ are Excel spreadsheet style).
    Column Headings = “Individual Stimulus Payments”; Column A = “Support”; Column B = “Oppose”
    Row Headings = “Infrastructure Spending”; Row 1 = “Support”; Row 2 = “Oppose”

    So people in quadrant “A1” support individual stimulus payments and support the new infrastructure spending. I want to party with these people.

    If you are a restaurant server, hope that your table is not full of “B2” respondents.

    The “A2” mindset I could understand.

    The “B1” respondents have an interesting thought pattern (and/or their paychecks come from predictable places).

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Penalize petroleum.
    Subsidize electrics.
    Like it or not, it’s happening.
    I think the biggest challenge for the Democrats is to figure out how to route the e-car subsidies to UAW built vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

      That weird E-Mustang is a good start.. It is union built.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Yeah but they won’t be building many. Any mainstream money that is out there is still going for gas pickups, and will continue too even when the jackboots show up to persuade them otherwise. We have to remember, we’re dealing with truly insane people making a lot of the decisions.

        But yes have $200 billion more for EVs after every one has failed miserably but Tesla. They really think eventually by throwing money at it (trillions?) and they will succeed.

        “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again-expecting different results.”

        -Albert Einstein.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again-expecting different results.”

          Maybe it works out at a quantum level.

          In some respect us lowly peons are like Einstein and quantum mechanics. We don’t like the idea of randomness as the fundamental feature of any theory.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        KJH>>>>>

        Not Correct. E mustang is built in Mexico.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Nah they don’t need to do that, they can 100% screw the UAW six ways to Sunday while it’s leadership -and dwindling membership- will still blow them, officially.

      “Like it or not, it’s happening.”

      The end of Pax Americana and debut of a world by Orwell? Yup.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Of course, penalize petroleum so you can screw poor people and throw money to people who can afford EVs. Nothing like a good regressive tax and handouts to wealthy people.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        That’s what the poors “voted” for… really its those folks who get screwed by every election.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Elections have consequences. For some that consequence will be paying a bit more for transportation. If you can’t swing that you can grab a bus pass.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m all over the place sometimes but I have a great deal of empathy for ordinary people. When you push people who have nothing to lose to a breaking point, chaos usually ensues – I very much prefer a stable society.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            The problem Art, is that making people pay a “bit” more for transportation won’t force them to choose EVs, you’re going to need European level taxes to get prices to double or more current US prices to make it painful enough. Wealthy people can already afford to either suck it up and pay the increased taxes or buy an EV, and they don’t need a handout to do it, middle and low income people will be shouldering that burden, with no way for many of them to avoid it. But hey, can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, eh?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Like I (or President Obama) said @285, elections have consequences. This is what people voted for. Now I am supposed to feel sympathetic when the guy they voted for does exactly what he said he was going to do?

            You are exactly right BTW, this will have little impact on the wealthy, aside from lowering their tax burden a bit via a credit.

            I agree. I just have a hard time mustering any sympathy for voters that seem shocked that their candidate is now doing exactly what he said he’d do before the election.

            Maybe it’s time to set a higher standard than “he’s not the other guy”.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Where do I sign up for my free Tesla???

    • 0 avatar
      Slocum

      Free? I want a free Tesla, a free charging station (at both my house and my cottage) with free electricity, and how about a modest monthly ‘green stipend’ on top as a reward for being such an enlightened citizen? I don’t think that’s too much to ask when trillions are being thrown around.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @Slocum: One way to get the free electricity is to get solar, but instead of selling your excess back to the utility, you use it to mine crypto-currency. I haven’t run any numbers, but with the solar subsidies and the mining, you should be able to pay back any investments you do have to make fairly quickly. Then it starts to generate a profit from the mining. I think Musk is thinking the same thing and that’s one of the reasons he’s pre-occupied with crypto-currency lately. You could build mining systems right into the system.

        • 0 avatar
          bumpy ii

          The biggest problem with that is that any crypto-currency worth the time to mine is already far too overiterated for a few solar panels on your roof to handle. The necessary equipment and energy input is a vastly higher scale than that.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @bumpyii: “The necessary equipment and energy input is a vastly higher scale than that.”

            That’s not true. Neither on the equipment or the power needed. Let’s look at real numbers on a real device right in front of me.

            Right now for ethereum, something running pulling 80w (an nvidia 1660h GPU system) can get a 25 MH/s rate on Ethereum (at this moment I’m seeing 25.698 and 79.21 watts) and that’s probably good for $1.30 earnings a day and $40 per month. Double up on the 1660H for 50 MH/s and for the power cost of a couple of incandescent bulbs you get $80 a month. I’m looking at an actual running device for the numbers. I didn’t look this up on the internet. 4.8 kW per day out of a 40 to 60 kW solar system isn’t a big deal.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Another number I have is for a 8kWh per day system that seems to be bringing in about $400 a month of ethereum. Hard to get exact numbers since it’s gpus are virtualized and doing other work. The efficiencies come from using mobile parts like AMD Ryzen 4000 series (7nm technology) and NVidia GTX 1660H mobile GPUs (TU116 chips) running custom software on custom hardware optimized specifically for the platform. It’s all mil-spec parts too so it can take more abuse.

            A panel maker could build custom ASICs or other hardware into the controller. Don’t trust old articles on the internet. More power-efficient computing hardware is available now. What I do is virtualize my NVidia GPUs so when they aren’t doing other work, they can shift over to mining. The Ryzen 4000 series and 1660H Ti machines I’ve mentioned are sort-of mobile low-power copies/approximations of HPE Cray EX supercomputers. They have GPU and FPGA options installed. Some have Intel Myriad X VPUs as well. The code is custom.

            As blockchain technology proliferates, there will be more opportunities to monetize devices like solar panels or even autopilot computers in cars. They could shift over to blockchain transaction validation while their host vehicle charges. It might even be a way to make vehicles more affordable.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Subsidize me baby.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “… it sounds like a heck of a lot of money to swell a plan we’ve tried already”

    Agreed, and it should stop.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      You have to remember that:

      For every 100 billion stolen to fund direct subsidies to purchases of actual goods, there is another 1-5 TRILLION stolen, by way of “asset appreciation,” for the benefit of the connected halfwits who are in on the rackets.

      That’s what drives the whole thing. Not “saving the planet,” nor any other such nonsense.

      But simply ensuring that the connected dimbulbs stupid enough to believe any of the drivel is even remotely viable, are able to make millions, billions and trillions from their undifferentiated idiocy.

      All funded, at gunpoint, by the only ones who possibly can fund it: Those dwindling few who defiantly, against all better judgment, bother to still go to work and produce some actual value, rather than just destroy it on childish, trivial and PC vanity displays.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    I think Khrushchev is rolling. Circa 1960 he promised to turn socialism into communism mid 1980s. Looks like Biden decided to pass socialism phase straight to communism.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Once you have a central bank, you have, if not nominally communism, then something which economically differs in exactly not one single meaningful manner whatsoever.

      Ditto once you have arbitrary taxation of “income.”

      In both cases, the state commands exactly as great a share of purchasing power, hence people’s once-were freedom, as it darned well pleases. Without a single constraint whatsoever.

      Handing all powers of economic decision making to illiterate 5 year planners never works. It literally can not work. It makes a hard, mathematical, zero difference; whether the five year planers are handed control over all resources by way of being nominal apparatchiks; or because some more-powerful-than-even-the-Kremlin central bank is transferring it to them by way of arbitrary “asset” appreciation while pretending we have something the dumb and well indoctrinated are told to uncritically chant is “capitalism.”

      Or, at least in the long run it makes not one lick of difference at all. Short term, the mere act of being competent enough to climb the ranks of the Soviet hierarchy, is almost certain to ensure their five year planners are quite a bit less bad at it, than the utterly undifferentiated mass of rank idiots on “Wall Street,” who “made money” from sitting around picking random numbers while waiting for the mold in their decaying home’s walls to magically create value for them. This, and only this, being why the Chicoms, five year planners that they proudly are, are having exactly zero problem kicking “our” butts in any venue you can name.

      “We,” the once-was “land of the free” (how quaint…) are, literally, less than commies by now. That’s what financialization, central banking, progressivism and the rest of the nonsense has brought. It’s also all it has brought. As well as all it ever will bring. Since it is, after all, all it possibly can bring.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        I think what eats away the quality in so-called “democracies”, especially US-A, is the fact that politicians are bounded by next election, contribution money, party obligations etc. They don’t do good for the country.

        Short term solution – small salary, single consecutive term limit (can run again after 2 cycles), normal 401K contributions-no special pension, ban lobby, equal amount of money for each candidate, ban inter-state contributions, corporation are not people.

        But then, the problem is, they turned capitalism into some ugly thing. It is market capitalism here – where is production? China understands – means of production mean they can live without dependency on the world. US is totally dependent. China needs oil, so now they will buy it from Iran in Yuan.

        China adopted Soviet system everywhere. And by removing worthless apparatchiks, punishing corrupt ones they are able to build up. This is the difference from USSR. In USSR crime of apparatchik will go unnoticed. The party can’t throw bad light on itself. Actually, just today I was listening this one smart Israeli political observer. He touched on this – what kind party was USSR communist party if some of the top people in the party, leaders of the party in the republics pulled the country apart. CCP will not allow this mistake.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          if you ban overt lobbying, you simply get more of what we already have: Lobbyists moving to school districts where politicians’ kids go. Have kids in the same school. Hence preferential access.

          You can not, even in theory, avoid a takeover by a class of incompetent kleptocrats, as long as purchasing power can be obtained by simply printing it. As soon as you have a central bank who can print purchasing power out of this air, getting closer to this source of freshprint, becomes all which matters wrt obtaining wealth, hence power.

          This is all we have in The West by now. This is why we have such undifferentiated idiocioes as “the ownership society” (directly translated: To those who do produce nothing but instead just sit there; from those who are productive). And “too big to fail” (that’d be those closest to The Fed, not those who do anything of value.) And systemically enforced homelessness (in order to make sure those closest to The Fed can continue plodding along in their childish illusion that buildings decaying in the weather, somehow magically “go up…” while the dunces sit there watching CNBC.)

          No amount of term limits, weird bans nor other irrelevancies, will change anything, until purchasing power can only be obtained by producing something in return. As long as you can obtain purchasing power without producing anything, you are, by mathematical necessity, living off of stolen funds. Hence Kleptocracy. No amount of dicking around with weird rituals can ever change that.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “purchasing power can only be obtained by producing something in return”

            nice! I like this. We have too many do-nothing worthless parasites.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    Um… but what if an EV doesn’t meet my needs?

  • avatar
    slavuta

    What are we even talking about? Joe owns a printing press. He will print all the money he needs. And when you will finally need to carry $20,000 in your pocket, they will say that printing money is too expensive and cash is banned.

  • avatar
    SPPPP

    So, 100 billion dollars? That is a pretty big chunk of money. If we’re just making it rain with fiat currency, here’s a way to spend it.

    Well, the USA supposedly has about 550,000 homeless people. Figure that’s about 400,000 households. Take 20 billion dollars, and you could buy each one of those households a Tesla, Bolt, or Leaf. Singletons get a Model 3, Bolt, or Leaf, while families get a Bolt EUV, Model Y or Model X. Now every homeless family has somewhere safe(ish) to spend the night. Spend another 5 billion and set up free charging stations in a few areas across each major metro. Now displaced people have a “home base” where they can congregate, if they choose to.

    This step alone will increase EV adoption by 20% (going from about 2 million to 2.4 million cumulative battery-only EVs on the road in the USA).

    That still leaves 75 billion dollars that you can use to increase EV adoption. What to do next? There are about 150 million tax returns in the US each year. Maybe take the bottom 1% – that’s 1.5 million returns. Figure this means about 4 million people. Give each of them an EV too. If those people don’t want the EVs, they can sell them back to the government and get $50k each. The EVs will end up on the road in someone’s hands. This phase will keep 4 million people out of danger of homelessness and hunger for at least a year. That spends the remaining 75 billion and brings EV adoption to 3.9 million cars.

    These two steps will increase EV adoption by 95%, solve homelessness for the moment, and take a big chunk out of poverty.

    Chances of implementation – probably close to 0%. Unless … Are you reading this, el presidente?

  • avatar
    mcs

    I’m a supporter of EVs, but not a fan of the subsidies. It’s time for market forces to start taking over. The manufacturers need to keep working on the costs and making them something people really want. I’m also concerned that they could be pushing adoption too quickly. We need to keep the rate of EV adoption in line with infrastructure improvements. The free market would allow that to happen. I think that EV technology will be at a point in 2025 and later that more people will want them. Range and charging technology will be at a point that it’s more palatable to everyone. If technology is adopted too soon and before it’s ready, it will leave a bad impression and actually slow adoption.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    So I suppose I will look at a trade of my wife’s 6 month old Honda should this go down. I’d likely end up with roughly the same principal to pay off and may as well have some come off the tax bill.

    That’s honestly the only car I owe anything on so none of the others make sense (paid for toys or trucks). Incidentally I was going to just pay it off in the next few months but guess I’ll wait now and see if I can get me some of that sweet socialism (not that that matters, it would just be a way to get her a nicer upgrade for not much cash using money I was going to pay next April anyway so why not).

    Funding my replacement of a perfectly good and new car with a nicer new car at likely little to no cost to me and taking money out of my tax bill. What a country!

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    I just took my 14 Honda Accord with 44k miles into the local Honda dealer to have a safety recall checked. As usual, they wanted to buy the car and put me into a newer model. I countered with “The next car I buy will be a BEV. What do you have?” knowing full well that Honda doesn’t have any fully electric vehicles in the US.
    The closest car that meets my price and specs is a Chevy Bolt, but IMHO it is still over priced by about $10k in the configuration I want. Maybe Joe Biden’s proposal would plug that price gap. I would take a Tesla Model 3, buy they are way more expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      swester

      The Bolt is an incredibly fun EV package. FWIW, no one pays anywhere near MSRP for those. The incentives available have been pretty insane, with people able to easily buy a fully loaded Premier model in the mid-$20k range. I was able to lease one late last year for what amounts to effectively $180/mo. Hard to beat that with any vehicle, let alone a highly competent EV with decent range.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I doubt I will buy any new vehicle for a long long time. My newest vehicle is 8 years old with only 25k miles and my oldest will be 13 years old with 106k miles. Even with a tax credit or rebate the amount of cash or debt would not be worth it for driving 2k miles a year. I might eventually buy an EV but if I move to retirement community an electric golf cart would probably suffice. If I were to buy one it would probably be a Chevy Bolt or Nissan Leaf especially a Leaf since all I would use it for is to commute and run errands. You can buy a late model low mileage Leaf for a song.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I drove less than 1000K miles in my car from October 2020. And may be $1500 miles in all of my cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        slavuta,

        “I drove less than 1000K miles in my car from October 2020.”

        You must have skipped arithmetic in school. 1000k miles is 1,000,000 miles. I don’t think anyone on here would have thought that you had driven farther than that since October 2020. To do that you would have had to average over 200 mph 24/7.:-)

  • avatar

    From now on he will be known as a Helicopter Joe.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    When someone mutters “Dementia Joe”, you know you’re reading the post of an imbecile

    • 0 avatar

      Or “Not So Sure & Stumbling” Joe. It is more descriptive.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      They’re just being generous when they call him Dementia Joe, because that means there’s an organic reason for his incoherent word salads and serial falsehoods and that he’s not just a babbling idiot and shameless liar

      The 4 News anchor asked: “Are you vulnerable because of your son’s business dealings in China?”

      Biden answered: “No, I don’t believe so at all. My son’s business dealings were not anything where everybody that he’s talking about, not even remotely, number one.”

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        if you hate word salads you must have really been upset with that bloated mess named Trump

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          Biden is president now, not Trump. Orange Man Bad is not an excuse for foisting a clueless beard for the far left on the country. Defend Biden, tell us why his entire candidacy wasn’t just a lie.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            285exp,

            “Biden is president now, not Trump”

            Well put. It’s rather telling that the dems are still stuck on the EX-president as if anything that is f’ed up can just be dumped on Trump. How long are they going to use that, “The devil [Trump] made me do it!” excuse?

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          “if you hate word salads you must have really been upset with that bloated mess named Trump”

          Sorry, but Trump was far more coherent than Biden. Trump is a bit of an ass and says some stupid stuff (there’s no doubting that), but shows no obvious signs of dementia. But, Biden is definitely showing signs of a rather severe cognitive deficit.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      you don’t like “Dementia Joe”? How about – “brainless, puppet figurehead, lying racist, zombified by medication, sleepy, worthless tyrant POS Joe”?

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Is he a demented fool of a figurehead or is he a terrifying racist tyrant? You all can never make up your minds, even within the same sentence.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          “Is he a demented fool of a figurehead or is he a terrifying racist tyrant”

          Both! He has a problematic racial record, he is manipulated by his masters and he is a tyrant because he thinks that he is in charge of all the tyrannical law-bypassing actions. He even said that constitution is not absolute.

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          Embrace the healing power of “and”.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Ironic to see the right-wing types “name calling” in reference to President Joe Biden. That same group kept saying it was highly inappropriate and showed a lack of respect to do that sort of thing in relation to a sitting President.

            It will be an entertaining 4 years. All of the faux angst. LOL

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I realize slavuta meant 1k or 1,000 miles and not 1,000,000 miles.

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    The need to pour Imperial Federal Government rebates into EV’s goes to illustrate they are not yet a price competitive tech. Also, what is the auto manufacturer motivation to sell at competitive prices….is there are state and Imperial rebates tossed around?

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “The need to pour Imperial Federal Government rebates into EV’s goes to illustrate they are not yet a price competitive tech.”

      I think they are price competitive. I think sales are progressing well at this stage of the technology. I definitely don’t think they need the subsidies. Tesla sales are fine without them. No subsidy from the Feds and they can’t make enough of them to satisfy sales. What’s the problem?

      They absolutely are competitive at current prices. You can’t compare them with a similar size vehicle that has a CVT and a 3 or 4 cylinder. An electric powertrain is a premium since it has better torque, quiet, and smoothness. They sort of take the place of V8s and 12s. Traditionally, vehicles with premium powerplants cost more. Like a Chevy Bolt. You can’t expect it to cost the same as a 4 cylinder Honda Fit with a CVT. It has a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds and is quieter and smoother. It should cost more.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “No subsidy from the Feds and they can’t make enough of them to satisfy sales. What’s the problem?”

        It would be interesting to see if Tesla could up its production numbers and at what point does it meet demand for its products.

        “They absolutely are competitive at current prices.”

        I think this may vary depending on model and incentives. I also would add to it, are they *profitable* and competitive? There is only so much the OEMs can subsidize these, unless the goal is to never leave low volume niche status.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    TTAC: Not sure if you were aware, but Ford evidently released their Q1 Mach-E sales:

    https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/02/ford-mustang-mach-e-scored-6614-us-sales-in-opening-quarter/

    Only one quarter in, but so far in line with my expectations (20-25K per units per year).

    From the piece:

    “Naturally, 6,614 is a low number, but the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y also saw low sales in their opening quarters — because that’s how things work.”

    Because that’s how things work!

    What a tool.

    Meanwhile Model Y moved 10,151 units in March alone:

    “Model 3 sales shot up to 25,327 in March from 13,688 in February, and Model Y sales jumped to 10,151 from 4,630.”

    https://www.investors.com/news/tesla-stock-best-month-ever-china-sales-march-2021/

    Unless Ford’s little mistake starts gaining ground it will be a very distant second in the small CUV EV segment in 2021.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    I don’t care for the name calling @LOU, but c’mon man…I watched that press conference myself…It was an incoherrent mess. Maybe he is better than the last guy, but that doesn’t mean I want him anywhere near the freaking button either. He didn’t know what freaking room he was in and definitely seemed like he would be far more comfotable had someone put “Matlock” or “Murder, She Wrote” on the teleprompter for him than leading the free world. Those questions were all softballs and he was totally lost. Now imagine he had the Trump press corps out there. He’d have a stroke. It was as embarasing as watching the last guy.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    What’s wrong with Matlock? Still in reruns on Me TV. At least Matlock had a plot and a script which is more than most of today’s network shows.

  • avatar

    Doesn’t seem we have to choose, here. You can do EV subsidies, and continue to handle the other problems commenters have listed. Though, I do find climate a rather important focus. Schooling doesn’t matter much, if you can’t breathe. I would think we’re a ways off from that, but it does seem that dire.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dukeisduke: “I have seen numerous articles discussing how Elon is at odds with the Biden administration, only...
  • 3SpeedAutomatic: If you read the details of SAAB history, it was not able to amortize the growing development cost...
  • dukeisduke: There’s something to hate for everyone in the Bankrupt America Act.
  • ToolGuy: Stalin: “Wanna hear a joke?” Hitler: “Sure.” Stalin: “Moscow.” Hitler:...
  • mcs: I still favor subsidies for battery research over direct checks for vehicles. Improve the products and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber