Automotive
Continuing EV Bloodbath Leaves Harris With A Lot To Answer For
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Once the ongoing effort by the legacy media to reinvent presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as a dynamic leader and competent campaigner passes, we will presumably enter the part of the presidential race in which we actually examine her real record on the key issues.
When — or if — that time ever arrives, the vice president will have a lot to explain where energy policy is concerned.
Last week I provided a high-level overview of some of the radical policies Harris has supported over her time in office in California and Washington, D.C. Today, I will address Harris’s advocacy for electric vehicles and buses, and the expanding bloodbath it has helped to create.
Let’s begin with a speech Harris delivered in Brandywine, Maryland on December 13, 2021. There, Harris spoke to an audience including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, assorted Maryland officeholders, and workers at the Brandywine Highway Maintenance Facility. As part of her remarks, the vice president delivered a ringing endorsement of electric vehicles and her administration’s plans to try to subsidize them into automotive market dominance.
“The pollution from vehicles powered by fossil fuels has long harmed the health of communities around our country,” Harris said. “But there is a solution to this problem, and it is parked right behind me … electric cars, trucks, and buses — they don’t produce tailpipe emissions that irritate the nose and eyes, that decrease lung function, that increase susceptibility to respiratory illness.”
Harris added: “That means manufacturing millions of electric cars, trucks, and buses right here in our country. That means outfitting thousands of EV — electric vehicle — repair garages, just like this one. And it means installing a national network of EV chargers.”
That speech took place after congress had enacted the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act containing more than $200 billion in clean energy subsidies. Congress passed the Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act and its $369 billion in similar subsidies eight months later.
How has all that worked out for America three years down the road? As I pointed out a few weeks ago, every pure play EV maker in the U.S. is now either in bankruptcy or teetering on the brink. Ford reported last week that its EV division, Ford Model e, lost about $50,000 per unit sold during the second quarter, and that was the best quarterly result the company has reported in over a year. Even Tesla has started the year with a pair of disappointing quarterly results amid rapidly slowing consumer demand for electric vehicles.
The Biden-Harris dreams of subsidizing a national fleet of high-speed EV chargers into existence has also come up a crapper. The Washington Post and others reported in April that Granholm’s Energy Department has invested a whopping $7.5 billion to install 5,000 such charging stations around the country but had only managed to activate 7 to that point.
Harris also endorsed a $5 billion EPA-managed program included in the Infrastructure law to fund the adoption of battery electric buses for targeted school systems around the country. Thus far, EPA has released two tranches of federal grants totaling $1.9 billion, but to disappointing results. Of the 389 school districts targeted by the grants, just 23 have reported successful acquisition of a total of 60 buses that have been placed into service. But another 50 of those districts have since withdrawn from consideration by the program.
“EPA anticipates that transitioning to new technology school buses will take time, which is why the project period is two years with an option to extend where needed and justified,” said EPA spokeswoman Shayla Powell.
Oh.
IRA subsidies for EV city buses have created perhaps the worst set of boondoggles of all. The electric buses are so costly, require such high maintenance and have such limited charging ranges that even extremely liberal cities like Austin, Texas and Jackson, Wyoming have quit trying to change over their fleets. The 2023 bankruptcy of heavily subsidized Proterra, the biggest EV bus maker, hasn’t helped.
It is hard to identify any aspect of the Biden-Harris suite of EV-related policies that can honestly be called a success. As her party’s apparent nominee, Harris will have much to answer for — that is, if the media ever gets around to asking the relevant questions.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Automotive
Biden-Harris Admin’s EV Coercion Campaign Hasn’t Really Gone All That Well
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The future direction of federal energy policy related to the transportation sector is a key question that will be determined in one way or another by the outcome of the presidential election. What remains unclear is the extent of change that a Trump presidency would bring.
Given that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is a major supporter of former President Donald Trump, it seems unlikely a Trump White House would move to try to end the EV subsidies and tax breaks included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Those provisions, of course, constitute the “carrot” end of the Biden-Harris carrot-and-stick suite of policies designed to promote the expansion of EVs in the U.S. market.
The “stick” side of that approach comes in the form of stricter tailpipe emissions rules and higher fleet auto-mileage requirements imposed on domestic carmakers. While a Harris administration would likely seek to impose even more federal pressure through such command-and-control regulatory measures, a Trump administration would likely be more inclined to ease them.
But doing that is difficult and time-consuming and much would depend on the political will of those Trump appoints to lead the relevant agencies and departments.
Those and other coercive EV-related policies imposed during the Biden-Harris years have been designed to move the U.S. auto industry directionally to meet the administration’s stated goal of having EVs make up a third of the U.S. light duty fleet by 2030. The suite of policies does not constitute a hard mandate per se but is designed to produce a similar pre-conceived outcome.
It is the sort of heavy-handed federal effort to control markets that Trump has spoken out against throughout his first term in office and his pursuit of a second term.
A new report released this week by big energy data and analytics firm Enverus seems likely to influence prospective Trump officials to take a more favorable view of the potential for EVs to grow as a part of the domestic transportation fleet. Perhaps the most surprising bit of news in the study, conducted by Enverus subsidiary Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), is a projection that EVs are poised to be lower-priced than their equivalent gas-powered models as soon as next year, due to falling battery costs.
“Battery costs have fallen rapidly, with 2024 cell costs dipping below $100/kWh. We predict from [2025] forward EVs will be more affordable than their traditional, internal combustible engine counterparts,” Carson Kearl, analyst at EIR, says in the release. Kearl further says that EIR expects the number of EVs on the road in the US to “exceed 40 million (20%) by 2035 and 80 million (40%) by 2040.”
The falling battery costs have been driven by a collapse in lithium prices. Somewhat ironically, that price collapse has in turn been driven by the failure of EV expansion to meet the unrealistic goal-setting mainly by western governments, including the United States. Those same cause-and-effect dynamics would most likely mean that prices for lithium, batteries and EVs would rise again if the rapid market penetration projected by EIR were to come to fruition.
In the U.S. market, the one and only certainty of all of this is that something is going to have to change, and soon. On Monday, Ford Motor Company reported it lost another $1.2 billion in its Ford Model e EV division in the 3rd quarter, bringing its accumulated loss for the first 9 months of 2024 to $3.7 billion.
Energy analyst and writer Robert Bryce points out in his Substack newsletter that that Model e loss is equivalent to the $3.7 billion profit Ford has reported this year in its Ford Blue division, which makes the company’s light duty internal combustion cars and trucks.
While Tesla is doing fine, with recovering profits and a rising stock price amid the successful launch of its CyberTruck and other new products, other pure-play EV makers in the United States are struggling to survive. Ford’s integrated peers GM and Stellantis have also struggled with the transition to more EV model-heavy fleets.
None of this is sustainable, and a recalibration of policy is in order. Next Tuesday’s election will determine which path the redirection of policy takes.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Automotive
Trudeau’s new vehicle ban is a non starter
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
The Trudeau government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles is a nonstarter for three powerful reasons.
First, Canadians want to drive gas-powered minivans and diesel pickups.
Second, Canada does not have the electrical power to fuel these battery-powered cars.
Third, Canadians do not have the money to build the power-generating stations that would be needed to power these government-mandated vehicles.
Let’s start on the showroom floor.
The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
In about 10 years’ time, Canadians will not be allowed to buy a new vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine because the government will forbid it.
Canadians disagree with this.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 59 per cent of Canadians oppose the federal government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles.
Among those who are decided on the issue, 67 per cent of Canadians, and majorities in every demographic, oppose the Trudeau government’s ban.
Now let’s look under the hood.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars. The government hasn’t presented any plan to pay for the power plants, transmission lines and charging stations for these government-mandated vehicles.
That leaves a big question: How much will this cost taxpayers?
Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.
Let’s look at why this will cost so much.
The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh in electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,500 kWh of energy per year.
The average household’s electricity use would jump by about 40 per cent if they bought one EV and charged it at home.
Canada is home to 24 million cars and light trucks that run on gasoline and diesel, according to Statistics Canada.
If all those vehicles were powered by electricity and batteries, that fleet would use about 108 million mWh of power every year.
For context, one large CANDU nuclear reactor at the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario generates about 7,750,000 mWh of power per year.
Canada would require about 14 of these reactors to power all of those electric cars.
Building a large nuclear reactor costs about $12.5 billion.
That’s a price tag of about $175 billion just for all the power plants. The Natural Resources report estimates the transition to electric vehicles could cost up to $300 billion in total, when new charging stations and power lines are included.
Who would be paying that tab? Normal Canadians through higher taxes and power bills.
Canadians cannot afford the cost of these mandatory electric vehicles because they’re broke.
Canadians are broke largely because of high taxes and high inflation, both driven by the Trudeau government’s wasteful spending.
About half of Canadians say they are within $200 of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills each month. That’s also known as barely scraping by.
Food banks are facing record demand, with a sharp increase in working families needing help. That means parents who are holding down jobs are still depending on donated jars of peanut butter to feed their kids.
Rubbing salt into the wound, the federal government also put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt to build EV battery factories.
The roadside sobriety test is complete, and the Trudeau government is blowing a fail on this policy.
Canadians are opposed to the Trudeau government banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars.
Canadians don’t have the money to build the new power plants, transmission lines and charging stations these vehicles would demand.
It’s time to tow this ban on new gas and diesel vehicles to the scrapyard.
Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director and Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
The Destructive Legacy of Gender Theory’s Popular Pioneer
-
Economy1 day ago
One Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
-
espionage2 days ago
Reporter releases names of 4 Canadian politicians allegedly involved in foreign interference
-
Economy1 day ago
Gas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion
-
Automotive1 day ago
Biden-Harris Admin’s EV Coercion Campaign Hasn’t Really Gone All That Well
-
Alberta1 day ago
Preparation, swift response define wildfire season
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment, Bill 24 – Stronger protections for personal rights
-
Business12 hours ago
Premiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs