When Government Chooses Your Car

This report, When Government Chooses Your Car, provides a comprehensive analysis of the current landscape of electric vehicles (EVs) within the U.S. motor vehicle market, emphasizing the challenges and complexities surrounding a forced transition towards electrifying our transportation system.

Proponents of a forced transition to electric vehicles often present it as a universally beneficial scenario, overlooking various hidden costs. This analysis highlights the financial implications for individual owners, the economy, and society, emphasizing the need for a balanced assessment in public policy discussions.

Costs of EVs

• Electric vehicles typically have higher upfront costs than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. In Q1 2024, the average price of an EV was 42% more than that of an ICE vehicle, a gap that persists even after taxpayer subsidies. This price difference is primarily due to the cost of batteries.
• Charging an EV can be complex and expensive. Electricity prices vary widely, influenced by factors such as time of day and regional utility rates. Home charging is cheaper than public charging, but the cumulative costs of charging infrastructure and potential future increases in electricity rates must be considered. The growing demand for electricity to support EVs may lead to higher rates for consumers.
• Installing and maintaining charging infrastructure involves significant expenses, which are often underestimated. While the federal government has allocated taxpayer subsidies for this purpose, progress has been slow, and the burden may ultimately fall on individuals and the private sector.
• While some claim EVs have lower maintenance costs due to fewer moving parts, the evidence is mixed. Electric vehicles can incur higher repair costs, primarily due to expensive battery replacements. Insurance premiums for EVs are also typically 20% higher than for ICE vehicles, reflecting perceived higher repair costs.
• EVs depreciate more rapidly than conventional vehicles, with some models losing up to 50% of their value within the first year. Battery replacement costs can reach $30,000, further diminishing resale value. The high upfront cost and low resale value make EVs less financially attractive than ICE vehicles. Due to their heavier weight, EVs contribute to increased wear on roads and bridges, leading to higher maintenance costs for infrastructure that are not typically accounted for in EV ownership costs.

• While EVs eliminate tailpipe emissions, their heavier weight and faster acceleration may increase particulate emissions from tire wear. Studies suggest that tire emissions can significantly exceed tailpipe emissions, contradicting claims of overall environmental benefits from EV adoption.
• EVs require significantly more mineral inputs than conventional cars, leading to potential shortages and increased prices as demand rises. The environmental impact of mining these minerals is also considerable, adding another layer of cost to the transition.

Barriers to EV Adoption

• Furthermore, electric vehicle adoption faces significant barriers often overlooked in federal policy discussions.
• Surveys indicate limited interest in EVs, with concerns about cost, battery range, charging time, and infrastructure availability contributing to reluctance. The size and range of batteries are crucial, as larger batteries increase costs and range anxiety deters buyers.
• Battery lifespan is also a concern, as frequent fast charging can significantly degrade battery health over time.
• Unlike gas stations, building a robust charging network is complex and costly. The current infrastructure is inadequate, and new installations face challenges in terms of location and efficiency.
• Additionally, the electric grid is already struggling to meet peak demand and will face additional strain from increased EV charging. This situation is exacerbated by regulatory hurdles that limit the development of stable energy sources.
• EVs require significantly more minerals than traditional vehicles, complicating mass production. Mining and processing these materials are time-consuming, creating short-term supply limitations despite long-term availability. These factors suggest that achieving widespread EV adoption may be more challenging than often assumed.

Myths Fueling EV Policy

• The discussion surrounding electric vehicle (EV) adoption is heavily influenced by organizations and companies advocating for a rapid transition, often promoting misleading claims.
• The fuel cost savings presented on EV EPA stickers are based on assumptions
  that don’t reflect reality. For instance, the annual fuel cost calculation assumes an electricity rate of $0.12 per kWh, while rates in places like California are significantly higher. The purported five-year savings of $9,900 decreases substantially when compared to more efficient gasoline vehicles like the BMW 3 or hybrid models.
• Advocates often tout the energy efficiency of EVs using the misleading metric of MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent). However, when considering energy loss in the electrical power system, the Tesla’s efficiency is overestimated. A more accurate energy balance shows that while EVs lose only 10% of energy during use, they suffer significant losses during electricity generation.
• Although EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, their overall carbon footprint— including battery production and electricity generation—can be significant. Life Cycle Assessments reveal that EVs often have a higher production-related carbon footprint than conventional vehicles, with breakeven points varying based on driving distance and energy sources used for electricity.
• The notion that EVs enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil is flawed. The U.S. is now a net oil exporter, while the supply chains for EVs, particularly batteries, are primarily dominated by China, potentially creating new dependencies.
• The belief that renewable energy sources can meet the electricity demands of widespread EV adoption is unrealistic. Current growth rates for wind and solar are insufficient to accommodate the added demand, and transitioning to EVs could lead to greater reliance on fossil fuels, contradicting the original environmental justifications for their adoption.

Proponents of a forced transition to EVs argue that an all-electric future would be beneficial; however, this report outlines the considerable costs and tradeoffs that are often overlooked. Policymakers must recognize that as consumer preferences and economic factors shape vehicle purchases, any aggressive regulatory push could impose substantial costs on individuals and the broader economy. History shows that top-down mandates often fail to achieve their intended outcomes, imposing significant costs and generating resentment among those most affected by the regulations. Instead, this report advocates for a market-driven approach to vehicle adoption, allowing consumers to choose the most suitable options for their needs.

________

The Full Paper Here