The Insane Biden-Harris Administration Is Mandating Tripling the Number of EVs Sold in the U.S Triple in Just Over Two Years!
Guest Post from Thomas Pyle at the Institute for Energy Research.
After years of impressive growth, sales of electric vehicles have greatly slowed. In 2017, battery electric vehicles combined with plug-in hybrid vehicles made up only 1.1 percent of total light-duty vehicle sales. But by 2023, these vehicles made up 9.3 percent of light-duty vehicle sales.
This was a massive increase in sales. But since January 2023, EV sales have plateaued. In fact, these vehicles made up 9.3 percent of light-duty vehicles sales in 2023 and 9.3 percent again for the first seven months of 2024. Generally, EV sales are higher in the second half of the year, so it’s likely there will be a slight increase in the percentage of EV sales for 2024 versus 2023.
The fact that EV sales have apparently plateaued doesn’t really matter except that the Biden-Harris administration has mandated a massive increase in EV sales. The Biden-Harris administration has done this in multiple ways, but maybe the most important is EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions standards for light-duty vehicles.
Below is EPA’s projected penetration rates of battery-electric vehicles plus plug-in hybrids (Table 75 here). It shows that by 2027, these vehicles will make up 32 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales, and by 2032, 68 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales.
By 2027, just over 2 years away, they are mandating that 32% of vehicle sales be EVs and plug-in hybrids. Since January 2023, EVs and plug-in hybrids have only averaged 9.3% of total sales.
Worse, the Biden-Harris administration has mandated that by 2032 EVs and plug-in hybrids make up 68% of total vehicle sales. There is no way EV sales are going to triple in two years and more than sextuple in eight years, especially given that McKinsey & Co. recently found that about half of EV owners may not be interested in purchasing another for their next vehicle. This is notable as most owners of EVs are “first adopters” who were enthusiastic about the promise of battery-powered cars.
The Biden-Harris EV mandate, if allowed to remain in place will harm the automobility of millions of Americans. Manufacturers must absorb the massive losses EVs are saddling them with by raising the cost of other vehicles. The gas-engine cars and trucks that the vast majority of Americans prefer will become prohibitively expensive for all but the rich. This would give Vice President Harris a chance to test out her electric buses.
#EVs #ElectricBuses #Harris #Biden-Harris #Mandates #Transition #EVmandate
The market is speaking - yelling actually. The sales are actually quite surprising considering the ev experience - cost, charging station, fires, battery life.
But then this is typic of the leftists - mandate hardship on everybody else but take a more easy route for themselves. Hypocrisy at its finest!
I agree that the EPA rule is misguided and tragically overambitious, coming as it does from a particularly apocalyptic view of climate change.
That being said, when I read the Federal Register description of the rule, linked above, it doesn't seem to mandate that vehicle sales reach a definite percentage by a definite year. Instead it looks like the rule requires engine emissions to meet a certain standard affecting pollutants emitted per mile, and do so by a certain year. So, by 2027, for example, an engine must emit no more than X grams of greenhouse gasses per mile. If that's true, then what's being mandated is not sales reaching a certain number, it's that the engines in cars available for sale must achieve a certain average amount of emissions. Which is an important difference.
Letters sent by auto dealers to the White House, objecting to the rule, also speak in terms of a mandate to produce different engines, not a mandate to reach a certain level of sales: https://evvoiceofthecustomer.com/. They say what we're facing isn't government forcing people to buy things, it's government forcing companies to make things that people don't want to buy.
I know that must seem like a useless distinction that only a left-wing troll would make. I'm not a left wing troll. I think EPA's rule is a terrible idea, just one of many to come out of this administration and the climate movement (the EPA rule shutting down fossil fueled power plants scares the hell out of me).
But isn't it important to describe those terrible ideas accurately, so we can be more convincing and so win more people to our side?
Maybe I missed something, this isn't my specialty. Thanks very much for this newsletter and content that is always food for thought, much appreciated.