New EV tax credit ban proposed in the American Vehicle Security Act

[Redaktion]

If Senator Joe Manchin has his way with the newly proposed American Vehicle Security Act legislation, a lot of the electric vehicles that currently qualify for the US$7,500 of new EV tax credit will be left without subsidies. In it, Senator Manchin argues that EVs whose battery components are not made in the US shouldn't be getting subsidies.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/New-EV-tax-credit-ban-proposed-in-the-American-Vehicle-Security-Act.685595.0.html

[vertigo]

Good, but they need to go further and just ban these subsidies altogether. It's ridiculous how people, many of whom can't even afford to get new vehicles themselves, are subsidizing others, many of whom probably don't need the assistance and/or even need a new vehicle, just so they can have a fancy new ride and feel special because they have an EV. If someone can't afford a new car on their own, they shouldn't buy one, period. They should stick to buying what they can afford, i.e. a used vehicle. This whole thing is a massive waste of taxpayer money, which should NOT be used to help people make unnecessary personal purchases. It amazes me any of this is legal. Even the Democrats, who are the main ones who want this, shouldn't want it, because that money could be spent on food and housing and other basic needs assistance rather than on luxury purchases. After all, Democrats are the ones always saying how we should help the underprivileged, yet these programs are doing the opposite of that. Same with crushing cars that were still suitable for use instead of giving them or selling them at low cost to those that could use them. I really just don't understand the logic to any of this.

[ArsLoginName]

You bring up an interesting idea about those who trade in for a qualifying EV and their old ICE as there are many who could benefit from a newer cleaner used vehicle. But once this vehicle enters the used market, it may be priced out of their range once dealer mark-up of $4k to $6k (or more) is added on. So those who qualify for the EV credit are saving $7.5k while those who don't are still left with the same costs for a used vehicle. I wonder if there is a way all income brackets can benefit.

But the end benefit of going electric is that all electricity sources are domestic whether natural gas (okay maybe some from Canada), renewables (wind, hydro, solar, geothermal), nuclear, or coal. No more shipping and importing oil from other parts of the world. So the end benefits are to consumers (since costs less $/mile to operate an EV), businesses (since there is a part targeting them) and our own internal utilities and energy sector companies. Now whether the grid can handle all the need for electricity is a separate question as I am unsure if there are any incentives for grid infrastructure upgrades.

[vertigo]

So the end benefits are to consumers (since costs less $/mile to operate an EV)...

But that's problematic, too, under these subsidies. People are getting taxpayer help to buy new vehicles for less, which in turn further helps them because it's cheaper. Meanwhile, people that are lower income and can't afford a new EV, even with these subsidies, are not only still paying the higher prices for gas, which I'm pretty sure I've seen talk of making it even higher to discourage ICE (and which would further penalize those people), but they're still paying road taxes which, so far, most/all EV owners are not, as that has yet to be added into the charging fees, at least in most areas. So one group of people, who arguably don't even need help since they can afford to buy what amounts to an expensive luxury purchase even with the subsidies, get to first use taxes to help them buy the car, then they get to pay less taxes as a result.

On top of that, this all puts more load on the production and distribution of electricity, which will de facto cause the cost of electricity to increase (and I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason for it doing so, though there are of course other factors as well). This means electricity for lighting, cooking, heat, hot water, etc are going to be more expensive. And who it that mostly going to affect? The people still driving ICE clunkers because they can't afford a new toy courtesy of their fellow taxpayers. So as I said, if anything, Democrats should be opposed to these subsidies. It just makes no sense. Except, it does: people don't generally reason things out fully, and people just want freebies, so any program that will provide that is going to have enough people pushing for it, even if it's against their supposed "beliefs." And that's both sides, by the way. Republicans are generally staunchly opposed to freebies and government handouts, yet are constantly giving them to companies, because a multi-billion dollar corporation, I mean person, is somehow more deserving of it than individual people are, even when the executives of said company are getting salaries and bonuses that are often at least a significant percentage of the subsidies and/or tax benefits they're seeking. We're giving away the farm and wondering why we constantly have to raise the debt ceiling.

[ricegf]

So the end benefits are to consumers (since costs less $/mile to operate an EV)...

On top of that, this all puts more load on the production and distribution of electricity, which will de facto cause the cost of electricity to increase (and I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason for it doing so, though there are of course other factors as well).

If we make more of something, the price goes down, not up - although with electricity I doubt the price difference will matter much.

By the way, once all vehicles go electric by about 2040, the grid will need 27% additional capacity. This isn't much of a challenge, as grid capacity doubled each decade between 1950 and 2000. It's what is Electrical Engineers do, after all!

[vertigo]

If we make more of something, the price goes down, not up - although with electricity I doubt the price difference will matter much.

By the way, once all vehicles go electric by about 2040, the grid will need 27% additional capacity. This isn't much of a challenge, as grid capacity doubled each decade between 1950 and 2000. It's what is Electrical Engineers do, after all!

But that's assuming we're making more. Though I did see yesterday that at least sometimes the increased revenue to the utilities from EV charging has caused them to lower the prices, so there is that. But that doesn't mean that's always the case, and also electric prices in general are rising and are expected to continue to do so.

As for grid capacity, it's already at or over capacity in many areas, hence the need for rolling blackouts. Even without this sudden, unexpected increase in demand caused by EVs, they've already failed to keep pace with maintaining and upgrading the grid, so why should anyone expect it to keep up with this increased demand? From what I've seen, many experts are already concerned about it.