So what...? "Oops. Sorry kids. Can't go to Yellowstone this year... gas is up $0.04, and it'll cost us an extra $150, so we can't take a vacation this year." The ONLY vehicles that have EVER been measured by the cost of their fuel are EVs. It's a ploy by lazy journalists paid by the fossil fuel industry to write meaningless articles demeaning vehicle electrification. Or, as Don Draper once famously said, "It's toasted."
This is an incomplete analysis, because it doesn't include the cost of gas tax. The reason gas is expensive somewhere and cheap elsewhere, is because the taxes are different. States will offset that cost in other forms of taxes as soon as they have to, rendering these savings largely moot as more people switch to EVs. In many places gas taxes go to support road maintenance, so much of the "savings" from EVs is pure externality. I assume that eventually gas taxes will subside, and car registration fees are going to be increased as a result, since it's not as it EVs tear up the roads less than ICs. I believe that a typical EV is heavier than its in-class IC comparator. My point is this is a transient phenomenon, so it's not something to build a policy around.
It includes the price paid, including electrical subsidies. Taxes are fundamentally an attempt to capture externalities. That's never going to change. The reason EVs are less expensive than they could be is the subsidies, which vary state by state. Which is the point of the analysis. They vary month-by-month, too, so a total lifecycle analysis is going to be fraught no matter what. What's this "will" kemosabe? On the West Coast, at least, taxes on plates make up craptons of the difference. King County partially financed ST3 by saying "yeah we know we used to charge you for registering your car by how old it is, how much it cost new and how much it weighs but we're including NADA blue book prices now" and everyone's collector car tabs went up by like two thousand dollars. But the analysis doesn't capture that either because it only applies to the counties they looked at. And in many places driver licenses and plate fees do the exact same thing. ROFL I thought you lived in America? Taxes never subside! Taxes only go up. I live in one of the most liberal states in the nation and we have a sales tax instead of an income tax. Why? Because absolutely no one believes the legislature will approve the latter but rescind the former. No, we'll be stuck with both, like California. Your argument boils down to "they're not using my chosen ICE-favorable externalities." You're right, they're not. They're extrapolating total cost of ownership at the given moment which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do on its face considering the automotive environment we're in. I don't see this as an article about "buiding policy" so much as it's an article about navigating the game on the ground.This is an incomplete analysis, because it doesn't include the cost of gas tax.
The reason gas is expensive somewhere and cheap elsewhere, is because the taxes are different.
States will offset that cost in other forms of taxes as soon as they have to, rendering these savings largely moot as more people switch to EVs.
In many places gas taxes go to support road maintenance, so much of the "savings" from EVs is pure externality.
I assume that eventually gas taxes will subside,
Tax rates may not subside, but for a usage tax, tax receipts necessarily subside when the thing being taxed is being used less. The trouble here is that gas taxes, like all usage taxes, are designed to encourage lower usage, because, in theory, lower usage is better for the environment and leads to lower wear and tear on the roads. In this instance, the use tax receipts are going to fall, and the wear and tear on the roads will increase over time, because (a) the cars are heavier on a unit basis, and (b) people will drive more because it costs them less. Whether it's better for the environment depends largely on local energy generation. I don't have a problem in theory with using taxes to increase EV usage in the short term, per se. I have a huge fucking problem giving a tax rebate to someone buying a Model S or a Hummer or an Audi RS. If you can afford one of those cars you don't deserve a tax credit. Period. This is obviously a general problem in America. We love to design tax breaks to nominally "help", then use it as a giveaway to rich people.Taxes never subside!
Henry Petroski made a compelling argument that necessity isn't the mother of invention, luxury is. We don't create things to solve problems, we create things to solve problems slightly better because we're lazy. The Segway was never intended for poor people. It's a scooter with the wheels on sideways that requires a Celeron to stay upright. But without Segways there aren't those single-wheeled things cruising around town that I see people commuting on. Without a fuckton of force-feedback we have no drones. Without drones we don't have half the tech industry trying to figure out how to deliver stuff and people without roads. NOBODY played GM Impact games because GM didn't bother investing the Impact with cachet. Hummers? Oh fuck yeah for some reason a surplus military jeep that's been the greatest embarrassment since the Gama Goat became the pinnacle of luxury transport so which did they sell more of? There's no Henry Ford without Wilhelm Maybach. Also, you're being ridiculous - the tax bracket that buys Model Ss and Audi RSs gets hella more tax breaks than the tax bracket leasing a Chevy Volt and you know it. Being able to brag about the tax breaks is THE motivator for the $150k-a-year set. If you would like to diminish the use of fossil fuels, you need fossil fuels to visibly diminish on MTV's cribs. I mean I could go on but hopefully you get the point - you gotta get the starfuckers, man. Tax receipts usually subside? Fuck yeah but by then you've gotten your rebate. You seem to be attempting to triangulate some weird "gas cars are actually cheaper because they pay more of their fair share of the road" argument that just comes across as "I hate electric vehicles" and that's fine. I drove a Leaf, drove a 911 and went 911 so hard. But you're arguing with a spreadsheet, dude.
I don't hate EVs. I am annoyed by the lack of consideration around all the thorny issues that switching to a primarily EV fleet entails, of which there are a lot, many of which have very high costs and unclear benefits. None of them are reasons not to build EVs, or even to encourage some people to switch. But every asshole with a "TKS ELON" license plate treats you like you're Union Carbide for even suggesting that maybe EVs aren't a panacea. And I do get the point. And I hate the starfuckers, too! I try my hardest not to take life advice from the Kardashians, but I'm sure I'll buy an EV too when it makes sense. Curb Your Enthusiasm new season just started and it features Larry David driving an Audi electric SUV. On that show he's gone from driving a Camry to Prius to an i3 to now whatever the EV equivalent of a Q7 is.
I parked next to Larry David in 2008. He drove a Prius. I think where we disagree is I am entirely aware of all the thorny issues around EVs, but have also been sheep-dipped in all the thorny issues about them since 1994. Internal combustion? I mean, I took apart my first Volkwagen at the age of 6 so all their thorny issues have lived in my head for 40 years. "people getting around" is a public policy issue and smearing each other with our externalities has been the game since we first sat astride horses. Yeah - the EV fuckers are smug. They used to be smug hippies, now they're smug bankers. Bankers drive more adoption. I worked on a vehicle in this museum.Would I much rather the old crowd? hells yeah. But frankly, all the people out there who hate driving should be in an autonomous electric vehicle with seats that face backward. It's better for all of us. And if that means fucking with the externalities, I'm an externality fuck-wither.