The push for electric vehicle (EV) adoption is largely premised on misleading claims, and could bring enormous costs for U.S. consumers and the economy, a new meta-study shared exclusively with the Daily Caller News Foundation found.
Federal regulators and multinational corporations have attempted to push EVs on the American public in recent years, with the Biden-Harris administration introducing strict tailpipe emissions standards, and major automakers implementing lofty electric production targets. However, widespread EV adoption may not be as feasible as lawmakers and auto executives once claimed, with a new meta-analysis from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) noting EVs can have a variety of drawbacks for consumers when compared to their gas-powered counterparts, including elevated upfront costs, lower resale values, limited driving range and a lack of charging infrastructure.
“We argue the EV transition is going to take a lot of government coercion to make happen,” Kenny Stein, vice president of policy at IER and the study’s lead author, told the DCNF. “It is a very difficult process, and it is not a very desirable process to force.”
Much of the reason a U.S. EV transition will not occur without government force, according to the study, is cost. The price of an average EV in the first quarter of 2024 was $53,048, compared to just $35,722 for conventional vehicles, according to car shopping guide Edmunds, meaning many EVs continue to be less affordable than their gas-powered counterparts even with the U.S. Treasury Department’s $7,500 tax credit.
The IER study also cites elevated depreciation as a constraint on EV adoption, noting that the average five-year depreciation for an electric car is $43,515 compared to $27,883 for a gas-powered vehicle, according to vehicle valuation company Kelley Blue Book. The rapid depreciation is largely driven by battery replacement costs, which range from $7,000 to as much as $30,000.
In addition to sheer cost, the study found “range anxiety” — the concern among drivers that they will run out of charge before reaching their destination or a charging station — is a major source of consumer reluctance to purchase EVs. While “range anxiety” can be reduced by increasing mileage, expanding an EV’s range requires a larger battery, which in turn drives up vehicle cost and creates a difficult tradeoff for consumers.
A lack of charging infrastructure also contributes to range concerns, and has proven difficult to fix despite ample government funding, the study found. For example, the bipartisan infrastructure bill of 2021 allotted $7.5 billion to subsidize thousands of new EV charging stations, but only seven stations in four states had been built as of April.
The combination of range issues and high costs has helped drive a slackening in EV demand, with EV sales growing 50% in the first half of 2023 and 31% in the first half of 2024, less than the 71% increase in the first half of 2022. Moreover, a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found 46% of respondents were “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to purchase an EV, while just 21% were “very” or “extremely” likely to make the change.
If thousands of new charging stations are built and demand rises due to the alleviation of range concerns, the transition would create a variety of new infrastructural challenges, namely that it would reduce the reliability of an already constrained U.S. powergrid.
“Up until two years ago or so, electricity demand in the United States was flat so nobody worried about running out of electricity. But with the data center boom and AI [artificial intelligence], there’s been a sudden spike in demand for electricity, and demand is expected to continue growing,” Stein told the DCNF. “Now you’re suddenly talking about not having enough electricity to supply everyday use at the same time we are trying to force pre-existing transportation systems to run on electricity. When you combine that EVs are more expensive and less flexible with the possibility we may be running out of electricity to keep homes cool and to operate industrial facilities, the logic of pursuing [the EV transition] gets even worse.”
Electricity demand has grown by 1.3% annually for the past three years — more than double the average growth rate from 2010 to 2019, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The surge has been driven largely by a boom in artificial intelligence and data centers, with commercial electricity accounting for 60% of growth in total U.S. power demand between 2021 and 2023.
On the supply side, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pushed to reshape the power grid by effectively requiring America’s existing coal plants will have to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to control 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032 if they want to stay running past 2039, and certain new natural gas plants will have to cut their emissions by 90% by 2032. The EPA rule “leaves coal-heavy regions, like the one covered by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, vulnerable to reliability problems in the near future,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow for the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in grid analysis, previously told the DCNF.
Grid reliability is already wavering, with hundreds of millions of Americans at risk of experiencing power shortages this winter if weather conditions are harsh, according to power grid watchdog the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
The IER study also identifies a set of “myths fueling electric vehicle policy,” including that EVs are necessarily better for the environment.
“One of the biggest sources of emissions from vehicles is tire wear, because tires are made primarily from oil, and as your tires roll along the ground, they degrade and release particulates into the air,” Stein told the DCNF. “Electric vehicles are much heavier than gas-powered cars due to their batteries, which requires them to have heavier tires that wear faster, so EVs actually have much higher particulate emissions than comparable internal combustion engine vehicles.”
A 2020 study from environmental engineering consultancy Emissions Analytics found particulate wear emissions were 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions, with later research conducted by the consulting firm finding a Tesla Model Y produced 26% more tire emissions than a comparable hybrid vehicle.
Additionally, the IER study notes EVs require six times the mineral inputs of conventional cars, which in turn calls for emissions-intensive mining processes that produce toxic waste.
“For average Americans, the tradeoff calculation obviously is not working,” the study’s authors wrote. “This is not due to misinformation; indeed… there is plenty of pro-EV misinformation. It is simply that…there are negative tradeoffs to EVs. In designing policy, these negative factors must be considered rather than simply ignored.”
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.
Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.
“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.
Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”
“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.
Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.
“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.
The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.
Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.
Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.
“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.
Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.
“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.
“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.
Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.
Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.
Nissan is reportedly abandoning merger talks with Honda, scrapping a $60 billion deal that would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. The collapse raises questions about Nissan’s turnaround strategy as it faces challenges from electric vehicle competitors and potential U.S. tariffs.
Key Details:
Nissan shares dropped over 4% following the news, while Honda’s stock surged more than 8%, signaling investor relief.
Honda reportedly proposed making Nissan a subsidiary, a move Nissan rejected as it was initially framed as a merger of equals.
Nissan is struggling with financial challenges and the transition to EVs, still reeling from the 2018 scandal involving former chairman Carlos Ghosn.
Diving Deeper:
Merger talks between Nissan and Honda have collapsed, according to sources, after months of negotiations to form an auto giant capable of competing with Chinese EV makers like BYD. The proposed deal, valued at over $60 billion, would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. However, differences in strategy and control ultimately derailed the discussions.
Reports indicate that Honda, Japan’s second-largest automaker, wanted Nissan to become a subsidiary rather than an equal merger partner. Nissan balked at the idea, leading to the collapse of negotiations. Honda’s market valuation of approximately $51.9 billion dwarfs Nissan’s, which may have fueled concerns about control. The failure of talks sent Nissan’s stock tumbling more than 4% in Tokyo, while Honda’s shares rose over 8%, reflecting investor confidence in Honda’s independent strategy.
Nissan, already in the midst of a turnaround plan involving 9,000 job cuts and a 20% reduction in global capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restructure on its own. Analysts warn that the failed merger raises uncertainty about Nissan’s ability to compete in an industry rapidly shifting toward EVs. “Investors may get concerned about Nissan’s future [and] turnaround,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said.
Complicating matters further, Nissan faces heightened risks from U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Potential tariffs on vehicles manufactured in Mexico could hit Nissan harder than competitors like Honda and Toyota. The stalled deal also impacts Nissan’s existing alliance with Renault, which had expressed openness to the merger. Renault holds a 36% stake in Nissan, including 18.7% through a French trust.
While both Nissan and Honda have stated they will finalize a direction by mid-February, the collapse of this deal signals deep divisions in Japan’s auto industry. With Nissan’s financial struggles and the growing dominance of Chinese EV makers, the company must now navigate an increasingly challenging market without external support.
