Were America's Electric Car Subsidies Worth the Money?

America's electric vehicle subsidies brought a 2-to-1 return on investment, according to a paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research. "That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States," reports the New York Times. "Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars."


"What the [subsidy legislation] did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers," said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper. Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs. Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. 

The chief economist at Cox Automotive (which provided some of the data) tells the Times that "we could do better", but adds that the subsidies were "worth the money invested". But of course, that depends partly on how benefits were calculated:

[U]ing the Environmental Protection Agency's "social cost of carbon" metric, they calculated the dollar cost of each model's lifetime carbon emissions from both manufacturing and driving. On average, emissions by gas-powered vehicles impose 57% greater costs than electric vehicles. The study then calculated harms from air pollution other than greenhouse gases — smog, for example. That's where electric vehicles start to perform relatively poorly, since generating the electricity for them still creates pollution. Those harms will probably fade as more wind and solar energy comes online, but they are significant. Finally, the authors added the road deaths associated with heavier cars. Batteries are heavy, so electric vehicles — especially the largest — are likelier to kill people in crashes. 

Totaling these costs and then subtracting fiscal benefits through gas taxes and electricity bills, electric vehicles impose $16,003 in net harms, the authors said, while gas vehicles impose $19,239. But the range is wide, with the largest electric vehicles far outpacing many internal combustion cars. 

By this methodology, a large electric pickup like the Rivian imposes three times the harms of a Prius, according to one of the study's co-authors (a Stanford professor of global environmental). And yet "we are subsidizing the Rivian and not the Prius..."
<a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Were+America's+Electric+Car+Subsidies+Worth+the+Money%3F%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F10%2F14%2F0020245%2F%3Futm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png"></a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F24%2F10%2F14%2F0020245%2Fwere-americas-electric-car-subsidies-worth-the-money%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png"></a>



https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/10/14/0020245/were-americas-electric-car-subsidies-worth-the-money?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed
 at Slashdot.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/10/14/0020245/were-americas-electric-car-subsidies-worth-the-money?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed