To the editor: In making the case against the federal tax credit for electric vehicle buyers, Veronique de Rugy stresses the truth that those that buy EVs are largely rich. The implication is that strange middle-class drivers don’t profit.
This doesn’t jibe with my actuality.
I’m a retired L.A. metropolis faculty instructor. After some analysis, I bought a 2024 Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. At a suggestion from the supplier, I leased the automotive for 3 years.
I bought $1,000 for my previous automotive, got here up with $5,500 as a down cost and was “blessed” with rebates and credit totaling $14,000. With the automotive’s web value round $20,000, I used to be in a position to set my month-to-month lease cost at about $280.
My present value of gas: nothing.
My present improve in energy utilization: virtually nothing since I’ve photo voltaic panels.
My present month-to-month automotive value (apart from the lease cost of $280): just about nothing
My feeling from serving to to reduce the local weather disaster: large satisfaction.
Gerald Schiller, Newbury Park
..
To the editor: The Instances’ “hold” editorial on the federal EV tax credit score and De Rugy’s “kill” counterpoint each current glorious arguments. They stress local weather change, authorities income and results on the poor and the rich.
Nevertheless, neither mentions hybrids as a compromise.
Each EVs and hybrids use much less gas than vehicles powered solely by fuel. Subsequently, drivers of those autos pay much less or no gasoline tax, which fits towards sustaining and enhancing our roads.
The state prices EV and plug-in hybrid drivers an extra price at automobile registration renewal, however relying on miles pushed, it may not make up the distinction. Maybe the state ought to take into account charging as a part of the registration price a “miles pushed price” for all.
Perhaps this specific and extra clear price may decrease state taxes on fuel and make California extra inexpensive for residents and vacationers.
George Wolkon, Pacific Palisades
..
To the editor: From my perspective, De Rugy’s arguments have been higher than these introduced within the editorial. Whereas the credit score might assist create jobs within the EV business, a like variety of jobs can be misplaced producing gas-powered autos.
De Rugy makes a extra persuasive case that this credit score does little to cut back emissions, as most EV patrons would make the acquisition with out the subsidy.
It needs to be famous that electrical autos already obtain a subsidy by not paying the gasoline tax. As well as, electrical autos can qualify for the carpool lane in California, a misguided coverage that will increase congestion, which provides to air pollution. Congestion tolls can be higher for the setting.
Allen Wisniewski, Redondo Seashore
..
To the editor: De Rugy feels EV tax credit are ineffective, improve the deficit, are unfair to the poor and let the federal government decide winners and losers.
I disagree, however she might desire the Vitality Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
Research present that pricing carbon emissions, because the act does, and returning collected charges equally to all Individuals are among the many only methods to cut back planet-warming emissions with out growing the deficit.
The poorest two-thirds of us would break even or get monetary savings, with the poorest amongst us saving essentially the most and seeing the quickest and biggest enchancment in air high quality. The coverage is technology-neutral — it rewards least carbon-intensive producers with out selecting winners or losers.
Tom Hazelleaf, Seal Seashore
