TOM PATTERSON: Moving Beyond Our Electric Vehicle Obsession

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Since their introduction over a decade ago, electric vehicle (EV) subsidies were promoted as a temporary measure to foster a nascent market, positioning EVs as viable competitors to internal combustion engines (ICE). Initially, these initiatives were justified by the potential for reduced emissions, contributing to efforts against climate change.

However, data reflects a grim reality. The Expedia Automotive Trend Report reveals that in 2024, a mere 7.9% of new car registrations were for EVs, with only 9.3% of the 286 million vehicles on U.S. roads being electric. This underperformance persists despite extensive governmental support aimed at enhancing EV market penetration.

Incentives abound for those purchasing new EVs, with buyers eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit and additional state-specific subsidies. For used EVs, assistance can reach up to $4,000, while commercial vehicles can secure $40,000. Home chargers also qualify for a $1,000 subsidy.

Interestingly, despite significant taxes on fuels used by ICE vehicles, public funding supports EV charging infrastructure. Additionally, battery manufacturing receives subsidies, creating a complex financial landscape that recalls past failures, such as the costly Solyndra episode.

The financial viability of several EV manufacturers has come into question. Canoo’s reported losses amount to $900 million with just 122 cars produced, while Lordstown Motors generated a mere 56 vehicles, leaving taxpayers on the hook for failed loans.

Notably, EV drivers benefit from a system that allows them to sidestep contributions toward road maintenance since they do not pay traditional gas taxes. Current analysis indicates that while the out-of-pocket costs for EV operation might resemble those of conventional fuels, extensive subsidies inflate these figures startlingly.

Utility companies are already facing challenges as the demand for electricity to support EV operations rises. The Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that without production and purchase subsidies, the average cost of an EV would jump by nearly $49,000. This financial burden raises questions about the effectiveness of these investments in reducing emissions.

Critically, the environmental impact of EVs depends on electricity generation methods. Presently, fossil fuels remain a primary source for this electricity, undermining the purported benefits of EV adoption. Additionally, the energy-intensive processes involved in battery manufacturing and disposal cast further doubt on their overall sustainability.

Despite these concerns, governmental mandates remain stringent. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aims for significant increases in EV sales, requiring that 32% of new automobile sales be EV or hybrid by 2027, escalating to 70% by 2032 and aiming for zero carbon emissions by 2050.

However, many observers remain skeptical about achieving these ambitious targets, especially given the lack of similar commitments from major global polluters like China and India. The reluctance of American consumers, who seem disinclined to sacrifice economic stability for uncertain environmental goals, adds another layer of complexity.

As car manufacturers grapple with these mandates, some are reconsidering their positions. Ford anticipates substantial losses—up to $5.5 billion—for its EV segment this year alone. The expectation of government bailouts raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of these policies.

EVs undoubtedly possess a certain appeal and can enhance driving experiences for enthusiasts. However, the question looms: why should those uninterested in EVs shoulder the financial weight of their incentives?

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, has served as an emergency physician and was an Arizona State senator for a decade in the 1990s, including a term as Majority Leader. He authored Arizona’s original charter schools bill.