Soviet-style central planning does not work!
by Rob Roper
VT Digger recently posted an article lamenting that we Vermonters are not heeling to the mandate to transition our vehicles to electric. Alas, “As of October 2023, there were just under 11,000 plug-in EVs registered in the state, David Roberts, a consultant for the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, told the House Transportation Committee…. But meeting state emissions goals [under the Global Warming Solutions Act] for the transportation sector would require that there be about 27,000 plug-in EVs registered in Vermont by 2025 (including plug-in hybrids) and 126,000 by 2030.” We’re not going to get there. It’s totally unrealistic.
Why? WE CUSTOMERS/VOTERS DON’T WANT THESE FREAKIN’ CARS!
At least not nearly to the extent the climate alarmists in Montpelier demand. Still, they persist in forcing down our throats this technology that is too expensive and far too impractical for the overwhelming majority of drivers. This is bad policy on so many levels inflicted upon us by people who simply don’t care.
The growth in EV ownership in Vermont, what there is of it, is driven in large part by huge taxpayer and electric ratepayer subsidies that are grotesquely regressive. As VT Digger reports, “In an attempt to meet those targets, the state has introduced a slew of incentive programs in recent years on top of existing federal incentives to encourage Vermonters to go electric. The state programs include Replace Your Ride program, which grants $3,000 to drivers who give in old cars that use fossil fuels, and the MileageSmart program, which offers Vermonters up to $5,000 to buy a used plug-in EV or hybrid.”
This is on top of government subsidy money doled out directly to auto manufacturers. In 2023, for example, the Biden administration offered $12 billion in grants and loans for auto makers and suppliers to retrofit their plants to produce electric vehicles – THAT CONSUMERS DON’T WANT.
That’s all money transferred from hard working Vermonters’ bank accounts to a politically favored class of drivers – who are by and large wealthier than those paying the bills.
Energy reporter Robert Bryce just published a fantastic article on just how regressive and politically motivated the EV push really is, and who is taking advantage of all this taxpayer funded largess.
Last October, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, released a remarkable study that found “counties with affluent left-leaning cities” like Cambridge, San Francisco, and Seattle [and Burlington?] “play a disproportionately large role in driving the entire national increase in EV adoption….”
87% are white. Last March, Gallup reported, “a substantial majority of Republicans, 71%, say they would not consider owning an electric vehicle.”
So, what’s happening here is lower-income tax/ratepayers are being forced to subsidize the climate fetishes and virtue signaling of rich, white liberals.
Beyond these more person-to-person wealthfare transfers, Bryce cites statistics showing that the money is overwhelmingly flowing into wealthier, liberal cities and states — another form of wealth transfer.
Despite all this, Automakers are, according to NASDAQ, “already losing money on their EV investments. Ford, for example, lost about $36,000 for every EV it sold last quarter.” Bryce cites bigger numbers:
Ford reported an operating loss of $1.3 billion in its EV division during the third quarter. That translates into a loss of $62,016 for each of the 20,962 EVs it sold during the period. means that FoMoCo has already lost about $3.1 billion on its EV business this year. As I noted in these pages in July, the company said it expected to lose $4.5 billion on its EV business in 2023.
Honda and General Motors “were ending a $5 billion plan to develop lower-cost EVs together just a year after announcing the effort.”
This is not, to use a favorite term on the Left, sustainable.
In other news, the rental car company Hertz just announced that they are dumping 20,000 electric vehicles and switching back to gas-powered vehicles. “Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said in a note Hertz’s move was another sign that EV expectations need to be “reset downward”. (Source: Reuters)
Last month, 3900 car dealers sent a letter to President Biden stating, “The reality, however, is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. BEVs are stacking up on our lots,” and urging the administration to back off unrealistic EV mandates. Further they state the obvious that such goals, “require consumer acceptance to become a reality. With each passing day, it becomes more apparent that this attempted electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic based on current and forecasted customer demand.”
Reality, however, is not a concept the Vermont supermajority in the legislature is familiar with. Nor is any concern for the actual policy preferences of a majority of their constituents. In fact, at the first meeting of the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee in their discussion of priorities for 2024, Senator Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) expressed his desire to, “Stop the practice of selling cars, trucks, and SUVs that burn gas.”
Asked if he thought Vermont joining the California Clean Cars Initiative, which phases out the legal sale of ICE vehicles by 2035 wasn’t enough, MacDonald said no, “I’d like to get ahead of that.” To which his colleague Senator Becca White (D-Windsor) enthusiastically pointed to her own bill to do just that, S.24, An act relating to the Clean Fuels Program.
To which I reply, screw these people and the horses they expect us all to ride in on.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Energy, Environment
senator mark macdonald/// a clown 20 years ago, and still performing/// you keep on voting for these ……. ////ops have to be careful or i will get a no trespass notice////
I used to look at people who drove Tesla especially the model S as people with extra money.
Now I view them as people with no sense.
Suckers ?
Mr. Roper continues to present facts and logic to us and presumably Vermont legislators. This tactic will not work- and has not worked with recent legislatures.
Emotion, money and power is the driver for a majority of the elitists that intend to rule over Vermont. That BEV transportation is a folly- both economically and practicably is fact and evidence abounds- Just today there are news reports of BEV charging issues in the midwest, due to cold temperatures. It’s a serious drawback to have one’s Tesla dead, at a supercharger site, unable to charge due to low temperatures. ms. white and mr. macdonald can wish all they want, but the physics of batteries and temperature limitations aren’t going to change because the legislate them away.
If one were to look at S.24 as introduced- it won’t take reading many paragraphs to realize that ms. white had very little to do with writing this proposal. Someone skilled in the art of environmental law crafted this bill- and found an eager and willing sponsor in ms. white. Someone, with lots of funding designed this legislation for their group’s benefit- not yours, mr. roper’s or anyone else in Vermont.
The rhetoric pushed that CO2 levels have such impact on earths’ atmosphere might be wrong- and like the “science” of Covid, cannot be challenged isn’t the way “science” works- but it is a very successful ploy to extract money for one’s benefit at the expense of the whole of society.
78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
1%. Everything else- of which CO2 is .04%
Vermont does NOT have a CO2 problem. Vermont DOES have a voting problem.
A voter education problem maybe ? Montpelier is an echoe chamber for all things looney . When Snow White, and the Seven Dwarfs is the only movie to see in a given area, you’re going to see a fairy tail on the big screen .
HI Frank, I have no interest in trying to convince legislators of anything. My hope is to show the voters what exactly it is they are voting for, thus inspiring them to change how they vote. Also key in this equation is providing future candidates and activists with the facts they can use to successfully run against these buffoons along with, hopefully, some inspiration to do so.
Flip it: we need more CO2, not less. The globalists are using climate change hoax to create energy shortages. The always use fear.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/climate-scientists-say-we-should-embrace-higher-co2-levels-5551562
Time indeed to be really angry at a slew of legislators who have decided to live in a delusional, unpractical world. Do they understand the old adage, “When it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
The gas powered car is a marvel of efficiency, reliability, and safety.
On the opposite side, electric cars have multiple problems, not the least their tendency to spontaneously burst into a raging, unquenchable inferno, but also lack charging infrastructure, charging time required, grid capacity and increased electricity cost, diminished cold weather performance, the difficulty of finding a technician, purchase and repair cost, range anxiety and limited selection.
https://evchargingsummit.com/blog/challenges-facing-the-ev-industry-today/
It is time for these legislators to admit they made a blunder with the notion that Vermont must lead the world in CO2 emissions reductions. There are serious problems facing Vermont but CO2 is not one of them. It is ok legislators to recognize your mistakes, you may actually be lauded for it.
“Do they understand the old adage, “When it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? We are talking about people that believe in magic bullets, and magic guns. Unfortunately physics is not a science that they dabble in .
As a low income Vermonter working 2.5 jobs at the moment. I’m always pi***d off when I see the green energy subsidies on my electric bill. Which for us usually amount to about 1/2 of it as we use little electricity. (our electricity is very unreliable now thanks to the rich white liberals at the bottom of the hill charging there X mobile). That and my Federal, State, Local and education taxes are now well north of 50% of my income. This sure seems sustainable……
I’ll take a horse over an EV any day.
no comment//// this is like running over the same pot hole every day and wonder why your tires are flat////
“So, what’s happening here is lower-income tax/ratepayers are being forced to subsidize the climate fetishes and virtue signaling of rich, white liberals.”
And to those that did not allready know this, the dumping of EVs on the market last week by Hertz should have even made those clueless supporters think twice.
Still, no legislative (or any media mouthpiece) response to the question about what to do with their expired, depleted, broken, and otherwise obsolete solar panels with such a short life span of 20-30 years. Guess who pays to clean up their their toxic brownfields after they have all flown the coop. There is no justice in socialism/communism.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/07/08/spent-solar-panels-likely-to-end-up-in-landfills-because-recycling-them-isnt-economical/
A whole lot of bloviating going on here by people who have never driven an EV. I don’t know anyone who owns one who doesn’t love it, and, I never seen one broken down or out of juice on the side of the road…anywhere.
By the way, EVS are much less likely to catch fire then gasoline-powered car.
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-evs-less-likely-to-catch-fire-than-gas-powered-cars/
I don’t know the Proud Tesla owner down the road from us. It seems that their Tesla is in the shop more than the driveway. I understand the batteries had an issue in our most recent cold snap. Also I have seen an electric car burn, very impressive. Would make excellent terrorist weapon.
Hi Brian. I don’t have a problem with EVs per se. If you want one, go forth and pursue happiness as you see fit. What I do have a profound objection to is my being forced to contribute to your $3000 to $10,000 government subsidy/tax break to put one in your driveway. Plus another subsidy to upgrade your electric system so you can charge the thing. It is also extremely unfair that it is mostly lower income people being forced to pay wealthfare to people up the income ladder. None of this is morally or economically justifiable.
The last I knew EV owners are not being taxed for using, and maintaining the highways as gasoline and diesel vehicles do. I think they are still driving on our highways for free .
Lower income people drive electric cars, too ($15-20k for a good used one). They benefit from the subsidies, and they save a boatload of cash by not needing to buy any gas. Speaking of subsidies, maybe you should give back all the money that you saved with subsidies that make your gasoline so cheap. (I don’t have an EV because the used ones aren’t cheap enough yet, but when I do get one, it will be charged with my solar panels which are 15 years old and still generating 100% of the power that they produced when new.)
https://www.driveelectricvt.com/blog/used-electric-cars-update
From the Bryce article I linked to:
“The hard reality is that EVs have long been a niche-market product rather than a mass-market one. Further, that niche market is primarily defined by class and ideology. Some 57% of EV owners earn more than $100,000 annually, 75% are male, and 87% are white.[xii]”
I can’t even imagine paying to charge an EV with Washington Electric rates, among the highest in the country, but oh, so “green.” Just like all the other greenwashing, EV’s are not better for the environment, just better for some taxpayer subsidized pocketbooks and some libby wealth display / virtue signals.
So, looking at that those same statistics another way, Rob, 43% EV owners earn less than $100,000, I’m guessing a substantial number of those could be considered lower income, 25% are women, and 13% are non-white. Not bad demographics for an emerging technology that is considered by some to be beyond the reach of the average American.
SUVs were a niche market not long ago.
How in the hell did we get to this ludicrous point? Ah yes, the science. Well guess what folks. We Vermonters have been sold a pig in a poke. Some snake-oil shyster has brought his wagon to town and promised his tonic will cure all manner of ailments. Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been going on since well before humans walked this planet. It turns out the temperatures that have been measured for their “studies” come from two cities. Pavement, buildings; all manner of things that raise temperatures are in cities. If you measure in rural areas you will find just the opposite, there is global cooling. Where do my facts come from you ask. I have citations from actual scientists who do not receive funding from the benefactors of EV vehicles. Speaking of which, did you know that “fossil fuels” do not come from dinosaurs? CO2, the gas of life, was found on Titan. Well I’ll be damned, must be dinosaurs were on Titan too. No idiots, read the actual truth from reputable scientists.
Something else to consider, since EVs do not pa gas taxes which go to fund the highways and byways of Vermont, perhaps the legislature should adopt an EV road usage fee. That could be easily assessed (say $250-$500 per year) via the DMV when registering or renewing the plates on an EV.