In a recent letter to the editor, Veronique de Rugy argued against the federal tax credit for electric vehicle (EV) buyers, suggesting that such incentives primarily benefit the wealthy who can afford these cars, leaving middle-class drivers out in the cold. However, that hasn’t been my experience at all.
I’m a retired teacher from the Los Angeles school system, and after some thorough research, I decided to go for the 2024 Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. Based on the dealership’s advice, I chose to lease the car for three years.
I received $1,000 for my old vehicle and put down $5,500. Thanks to a combination of rebates and credits totaling $14,000, the net cost of my new car was about $20,000, bringing my monthly lease payment to roughly $280.
Here’s the kicker: My fuel costs are zero. Thanks to solar panels, my increase in energy consumption is negligible. Apart from the monthly lease, my car-related expenses are next to nothing. Plus, it feels great to be contributing to the fight against climate change.
Moving to another perspective, in The Times’ editorial discussing De Rugy’s point of view, there was a glaring omission: the role of hybrid vehicles as a middle ground. Both EVs and hybrids are more fuel-efficient than traditional gas-powered cars, meaning their owners contribute less in gasoline taxes typically used for road maintenance.
Currently, EV and plug-in hybrid drivers pay an extra fee when renewing their vehicle registration, but this might not fully cover the difference, especially if they don’t drive much. Introducing a “miles driven fee” for all drivers could be a more transparent solution, potentially reducing gasoline taxes and making California living costs more manageable for everyone, including visitors.
From another angle, De Rugy’s take on the debate resonated more with me. While the credit might boost jobs in the EV sector, we must consider the offsetting job loss in the gas vehicle industry. Her argument that these credits don’t significantly cut emissions is compelling, as buyers might proceed with their purchase even without the subsidy.
Something else to consider: Electric vehicles already enjoy indirect benefits by avoiding gasoline taxes and qualifying for carpool lanes—a controversial policy that can lead to more traffic congestion and pollution. Implementing congestion tolls could be a more effective environmental strategy.
Finally, while De Rugy critiques EV tax credits as ineffective and skewed against lower-income individuals, she might appreciate the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This legislation proposes pricing carbon emissions and redistributing the fees back to the public, which studies suggest could be highly effective in lowering emissions without expanding the deficit.
For the majority of lower-income and middle-class Americans, particularly those most affected, this strategy represents a promising avenue for both economic and environmental gains, without unfairly favoring certain technologies over others.
