SageBrush wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 7:46 pm
GRA wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 6:38 pm
^^^ +1. Every $7,500 going to someone who doesn't need it to buy a PEV could instead be 2 x $3,750, 3 x $2,500 or 5 x $1,500 to someone who does, and who doesn't have the income to qualify for the full fed. credit in any case. If you are going to have subsidies they should decrease, not increase, as the buyer's income rises.
I assume the point of subsidies is to get as many people into PEVs as possible, to achieve the largest, fastest reduction in emissions at the lowest cost. The most cost-effective way to accomplish that isn't by subsidising a few people at the top end to buy cars beyond the ability of the mass-market buyer to afford. We needed more LEAFs and Volts and fewer Model S/X.
The LEAF and the Volt both received $7,500 subsidies and few people in the US bought them, financial means notwithstanding. YOU should understand this dynamic better than most, since you continue to drive an ICE despite the subsidy to get you into a car with some inconvenience. Since $7,500 was not enough, how does $3,500 sound to you ?
Your presumptions have failed the reality test. All you have left is resentment towards those with more money and hackneyed rationalizations.
If $7,500 a wasn't enough, that suggests a few things. The cars were still too expensive, the non-financial incentives were lacking, and/or the advertising was inadequate in explaining the benefits. I can understand the LEAF not seeming worth the money, given its short range as well as the almost total lack of public charging infrastructure at the time.
The Volt strikes me as a case where it simply had too much AER, seriously boosting its price given the very high battery cost/kWh at the time, making the price comparison with an HEV or ICE non-competitive. Along with a different body type (CUV), giving it say 20 vice 35 miles AER would have helped close the price gap. That along with $7,500, or even $3,750 would have made the car more competitive.
Of course, another approach would have been to impose an income limit, and use the money saved to boost the subsidy even higher, to $10,000 or $11,250. But those levels are just an indication of why I dislike customer subsidies in the first place, and using the money for something else such as building a charging network would IMO have been more valuable. That's one thing that Tesla got right
If the cars were simply too expensive to compete and didn't provide any perceived advantage to more than a tiny niche of buyers at the time, which was arguably the case, then it was too early to try and we should have done something else, like more incentives for HEVs. Of course, higher fuel prices would have had the biggest effect.
As for my own understanding failing to get me into a PEV, it's not just some
inconvenience, it's a whole lot of it for no benefit, given my highly atypical use case. Plus the lack until recently of a car that net most of my major requirements. I've said before that if an AWD PHEV CUV with a smallish battery pack had been available in 2066 or 17, I would have gone for it despite my wanting to go full ZEV. But neither GM or anyone else built that car. The RAV4 Prime comes closest, but it's too big and I don't vwabt to pay for size I don't need. Now, while I've considered getting something like a Niro PHEV despite its lack of AWD and being a bit short of cargo space, I figure I'm too close to being able to buy a ZEV that will meet my needs. It makes more financial sense to wait for a few more years, when I expect both the cars and, just as important to me, the infrastructure will finally be available.
As to resentment towards those with more money, nah. I could pay cash for a Model Y if it met my needs and I wanted one, but I simply don't consider any car worth that much of my life.