To the editor: In making the case against the federal tax credit for electric vehicle buyers, Veronique de Rugy stresses the fact that those who purchase EVs are mostly wealthy. The implication is that ordinary middle-class drivers do not benefit.
This does not jibe with my reality.
I am a retired L.A. city school teacher. After some research, I purchased a 2024 Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. At a suggestion from the dealer, I leased the car for three years.
I got $1,000 for my old car, came up with $5,500 as a down payment and was “blessed” with rebates and credits totaling $14,000. With the car’s net cost around $20,000, I was able to set my monthly lease payment at about $280.
My current cost of fuel: nothing.
My current increase in power usage: almost nothing since I have solar panels.
My current monthly car cost (except for the lease payment of $280): virtually nothing
My feeling from helping to minimize the climate crisis: tremendous satisfaction.
Gerald Schiller, Newbury Park
..
To the editor: The Times’ “keep” editorial on the federal EV tax credit and De Rugy’s “kill” counterpoint both present excellent arguments. They stress climate change, government revenue and effects on the poor and the wealthy.
However, neither mentions hybrids as a compromise.
Both EVs and hybrids use less fuel than cars powered solely by gas. Therefore, drivers of these vehicles pay less or no gasoline tax, which goes toward maintaining and improving our roads.
The state charges EV and plug-in hybrid drivers an additional fee at vehicle registration renewal, but depending on miles driven, it might not make up the difference. Perhaps the state should consider charging as part of the registration fee a “miles driven fee” for all.
Maybe this explicit and more transparent fee could lower state taxes on gas and make California more affordable for residents and tourists.
George Wolkon, Pacific Palisades
..
To the editor: From my perspective, De Rugy’s arguments were better than those presented in the editorial. While the credit may help create jobs in the EV industry, a like number of jobs will be lost producing gas-powered vehicles.
De Rugy makes a more persuasive case that this credit does little to reduce emissions, as most EV buyers would make the purchase without the subsidy.
It should be noted that electric vehicles already receive a subsidy by not paying the gasoline tax. In addition, electric vehicles can qualify for the carpool lane in California, a misguided policy that increases congestion, which adds to pollution. Congestion tolls would be better for the environment.
Allen Wisniewski, Redondo Beach
..
To the editor: De Rugy feels EV tax credits are ineffective, increase the deficit, are unfair to the poor and let the government pick winners and losers.
I disagree, but she may prefer the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
Studies show that pricing carbon emissions, as the act does, and returning collected fees equally to all Americans are among the most effective ways to reduce planet-warming emissions without increasing the deficit.
The poorest two-thirds of us would break even or save money, with the poorest among us saving the most and seeing the quickest and greatest improvement in air quality. The policy is technology-neutral — it rewards least carbon-intensive producers without picking winners or losers.
Tom Hazelleaf, Seal Beach
