EV's

[Hards Alumni]

If I purchase a car, I'm driving it until either someone blasts the daylights out of it, or it basically dies on me. Dadgummit, I want my money's worth!

Foe example:

1975 Chevy Nova -- 125,000 miles. Sold because I didn't need it anymore.
1981 Buick Skylak -- GM "X" Car. Absolute piece of crap, fell apart at 65,000.
1987 Ford Taurus -- Traded at 90,000 miles for a Mark VIII. OK car but didn't want the lack of reliability at the time.
1994 Lincoln Mark VIII -- 153,000 miles and the air bag suspension failed.
2005 Nissan Maxima -- 86,000 miles. Kept it until I was blasted by a woman who ran a stop light.
2008 VW Eos -- Still going strong, 103,000 miles. Great toy.
2011 Buick Enclave -- 156,000 miles -- Kept it until the transmission, computer and air conditioning gave out.
2012 Buick LaCrosse -- 86,000 miles. Kept until my wife said we had too many cars. Sold for $11,000.
2015 BMW 5 Series -- 50,300 miles. Will have for another decade.
2023 Nissan Murano -- leased, 9,000 miles. Overpriced residual. Unless Nissan negotiates, will be gone at the end of the lease and we will purchase the same car at a lower price. Should last 150,000 miles.

So people do hold for the car's lifetime. That's the only way I buy new (or gently used).

Amateur numbers.  Current build vehicles should run 300k minimum.  More if you're interested in replacing more things.

[MU82]

From Fortune:

In California, where there are Teslas as far as the eye can see and rapid charging stations aplenty, new drivers are opting out of the $605 billion Elon Musk–led car universe.

Among the top three passenger cars sold in California in the first quarter this year, Elon Musk’s Tesla Model 3 dropped from first place to third, behind the Toyota Camry and the Honda Civic, according to the California New Car Dealers Association’s first quarter auto outlook on Monday. Toyota was the top brand in California this quarter, notching a 9.3% increase in registrations, followed by Honda, which marked an 18.6% rise so far this year. Tesla registrations have dropped in California year to date, with a 7.8% drop in the first quarter, following a 9.8% drop in the last quarter of 2023.

California makes up 32.5% of registrations of battery electric vehicles in the U.S., and the sluggish popularity of Tesla among new-car registrants comes at a particularly vulnerable time for Tesla as a company and for its CEO. Musk is facing significant pressure from investors who want to see him adopt the norms of a more traditional CEO, step back from his grandiose social media presence, and provide a more concrete timeline for producing an affordably priced Tesla. The company reported last week that revenues dropped 9%, which was its largest drop since 2012, while net income dropped a whopping 55% in the first quarter. Three of its top executives, including well-known insider Drew Baglino, resigned in the space of two weeks, which further rattled investors.

[Uncle Rico]

From Fortune:

In California, where there are Teslas as far as the eye can see and rapid charging stations aplenty, new drivers are opting out of the $605 billion Elon Musk–led car universe.

Among the top three passenger cars sold in California in the first quarter this year, Elon Musk’s Tesla Model 3 dropped from first place to third, behind the Toyota Camry and the Honda Civic, according to the California New Car Dealers Association’s first quarter auto outlook on Monday. Toyota was the top brand in California this quarter, notching a 9.3% increase in registrations, followed by Honda, which marked an 18.6% rise so far this year. Tesla registrations have dropped in California year to date, with a 7.8% drop in the first quarter, following a 9.8% drop in the last quarter of 2023.

California makes up 32.5% of registrations of battery electric vehicles in the U.S., and the sluggish popularity of Tesla among new-car registrants comes at a particularly vulnerable time for Tesla as a company and for its CEO. Musk is facing significant pressure from investors who want to see him adopt the norms of a more traditional CEO, step back from his grandiose social media presence, and provide a more concrete timeline for producing an affordably priced Tesla. The company reported last week that revenues dropped 9%, which was its largest drop since 2012, while net income dropped a whopping 55% in the first quarter. Three of its top executives, including well-known insider Drew Baglino, resigned in the space of two weeks, which further rattled investors.

You don’t understand the brilliant gambits of Elon

[MU82]

You don’t understand the brilliant gambits of Elon

"Let's see ... who buys EVs? Woke tree-huggers! So ... who should I pizz off so much that they won't want to buy my EVs? Woke tree-huggers! No wonder everybody calls me a genius!"

[MU82]

These are the folks Musk has decided to support.

(From Verge)

Republican lawmakers are attempting to overturn the twin pillars of the Biden administration’s climate platform: tax credits for electric vehicles and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to curb tailpipe emissions.

The effort involves new bills introduced by members of Congress, as well as lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, all with the goal of rolling back the minimal progress made by the Biden administration to reduce the share of planet-warming carbon emissions produced by the automotive sector.

Last month, 25 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit intended to overturn the EPA’s recently finalized tailpipe rules aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2032. In a statement, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman accused President Biden of being “willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda.”

Coleman and his Republican peers have help. Last week, Michigan Rep. John James introduced legislation to dismantle those same rules, arguing the standards are “a clear example of EPA overreach as it picks winners and losers by setting emission standards at a level that only electric vehicles can meet.”

The bill is now picking up steam with cosponsors, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY), the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, who called the EPA rule “radical.”

The EPA rules require automakers to build less polluting passenger vehicles starting in 2027, but they stop short of completely phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Still, several Democratic-controlled states, like California and Maryland, have pledged to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.

Another attempt to stifle EV adoption comes from Senator John Barrasso (WY) who introduced legislation last week along with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (WV) to roll back federal tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. Supporters of the so-called “Eliminate Lavish Incentives To Electric (ELITE) Vehicles Act” claim it will keep China from exploiting loopholes in the Treasury Department that could give it access to taxpayer incentives.

The act also looks to defund investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Biden’s infrastructure law commits $7.5 billion in spending to install a national network of EV charging stations. Wyoming state lawmakers have also attempted to ban the sale of EVs in the state by 2035 in response to lobbying by incumbent oil and gas companies.

Environmental groups are jumping in to defend the EPA and oppose efforts to overturn clean air policies, including the Environmental Defense Fund, which said that the EPA policies reduce deadly pollution and create good jobs. The EDF also points out that Kentucky specifically has benefitted $14 billion in investment and gained 14,000 jobs related to clean vehicles. Other environmental groups say the US risks falling behind China and other competitors in the global shift to EVs.

These GOP-led efforts could eventually make it to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority that has proven rather hostile to the idea of the EPA’s mission to reduce pollution. The court has already taken away a tool that helped the agency regulate power plant emissions.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is allowing some leeway on rules governing what electric vehicle models can take advantage of a $7,500 federal tax incentive. In the final guidance, some automakers that have EV battery packs with imperceptible trace amounts of minerals like graphite that originate from China or other “foreign entities of concern” now have a two-year extension to fully adhere to the Inflation Reduction Act.

During the run-up to the November election, Republican politicians, led by former President Donald Trump, have seized on electric vehicles as a wedge issue in the ongoing culture wars. As a result, Republican voters routinely express disinterest in buying electric vehicles in recent surveys. Now they’re looking to reverse EPA policies and stifle electric vehicle adoption, despite evidence that robust EV adoption could improve air quality for children.

[Uncle Rico]

These are the folks Musk has decided to support.

(From Verge)

Republican lawmakers are attempting to overturn the twin pillars of the Biden administration’s climate platform: tax credits for electric vehicles and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to curb tailpipe emissions.

The effort involves new bills introduced by members of Congress, as well as lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, all with the goal of rolling back the minimal progress made by the Biden administration to reduce the share of planet-warming carbon emissions produced by the automotive sector.

Last month, 25 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit intended to overturn the EPA’s recently finalized tailpipe rules aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2032. In a statement, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman accused President Biden of being “willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda.”

Coleman and his Republican peers have help. Last week, Michigan Rep. John James introduced legislation to dismantle those same rules, arguing the standards are “a clear example of EPA overreach as it picks winners and losers by setting emission standards at a level that only electric vehicles can meet.”

The bill is now picking up steam with cosponsors, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY), the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, who called the EPA rule “radical.”

The EPA rules require automakers to build less polluting passenger vehicles starting in 2027, but they stop short of completely phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Still, several Democratic-controlled states, like California and Maryland, have pledged to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.

Another attempt to stifle EV adoption comes from Senator John Barrasso (WY) who introduced legislation last week along with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (WV) to roll back federal tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. Supporters of the so-called “Eliminate Lavish Incentives To Electric (ELITE) Vehicles Act” claim it will keep China from exploiting loopholes in the Treasury Department that could give it access to taxpayer incentives.

The act also looks to defund investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Biden’s infrastructure law commits $7.5 billion in spending to install a national network of EV charging stations. Wyoming state lawmakers have also attempted to ban the sale of EVs in the state by 2035 in response to lobbying by incumbent oil and gas companies.

Environmental groups are jumping in to defend the EPA and oppose efforts to overturn clean air policies, including the Environmental Defense Fund, which said that the EPA policies reduce deadly pollution and create good jobs. The EDF also points out that Kentucky specifically has benefitted $14 billion in investment and gained 14,000 jobs related to clean vehicles. Other environmental groups say the US risks falling behind China and other competitors in the global shift to EVs.

These GOP-led efforts could eventually make it to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority that has proven rather hostile to the idea of the EPA’s mission to reduce pollution. The court has already taken away a tool that helped the agency regulate power plant emissions.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is allowing some leeway on rules governing what electric vehicle models can take advantage of a $7,500 federal tax incentive. In the final guidance, some automakers that have EV battery packs with imperceptible trace amounts of minerals like graphite that originate from China or other “foreign entities of concern” now have a two-year extension to fully adhere to the Inflation Reduction Act.

During the run-up to the November election, Republican politicians, led by former President Donald Trump, have seized on electric vehicles as a wedge issue in the ongoing culture wars. As a result, Republican voters routinely express disinterest in buying electric vehicles in recent surveys. Now they’re looking to reverse EPA policies and stifle electric vehicle adoption, despite evidence that robust EV adoption could improve air quality for children.

Tough break for Tesla

[jficke13]

[...]

Coleman and his Republican peers have help. Last week, Michigan Rep. John James introduced legislation to dismantle those same rules, arguing the standards are “a clear example of EPA overreach as it picks winners and losers by setting emission standards at a level that only electric vehicles can meet.”
[...]

Once, a long, long, time ago. I was listening to Jeff Wagner's show on 620. I have no idea what the topic was, but something he said stood out to me in a way that I remember it all this time (honestly, like 10-15 years at least) later. He said "the tax code has no business incentivizing behavior."

This is a more transparently idiotic version of "[the government should not] pick winners and losers."

We incentivize things CONSTANTLY via the tax or other governmental structural regime because for one reason or another there's a rationale for wanting more of Incentivized Thing X vs less of it. An obvious example is long term capital gains vs short term capital gains. The government, the SEC, and the IRS, together have decided to "pick a winner" and that winner is holding securities for at least one year. Or at least to make there be a material difference in the tax consequences of doing that compared to holding a security for less than a year.

Anyway, this is all a long winded way of saying that whenever someone grumble grumbles about the government picking winners and losers being <spooky voice> bad, what they're really saying is they'd prefer the government pick a different winner than the winner they've chosen because their own personal preferences align with the thing that was not incentivized.

[MU82]

Well said.

I mean, Florida just outlawed lab-grown meat. The party of small government and letting the market decide is telling people what they can and cannot eat, and has opted to choose the beef/pork/chicken industries over those that would produce lab-grown meats.

And Dems do this kind of thing, too, so I don't mean to pick on the GOP. That's just the freshest example, as DeSantis signed it into law last week.

Winner-picking happens constantly, and the other side whines about it constantly.

Still, it's amazing that Musk would side with those who would ban Teslas. That would be like Cook siding with those who would ban iPhones.