ShareThis Page
Hybrid & electric vehicles: Unplugged logic |

Hybrid & electric vehicles: Unplugged logic

Battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles still can’t compete for buyers on a level playing field. That’s the conclusion of a new study whose recommendations collide head-on with economic common sense.

Commissioned by Congress and conducted by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, the study found such vehicles’ higher prices continue to steer buyers away and “recommended that the government do more,” Automotive News reports. The study called for more battery-research funding, extending federal tax credits for buyers “beyond the current production limits” and converting them into rebates at dealerships, and standardizing high-speed charging plugs and payment systems.

In other words, at the very time is reporting that current owners of hybrid and electric vehicles are defecting to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles because of lower gasoline prices, the government study is calling for more of the same taxpayer-shafting, innovation-stifling, competition-preventing crony capitalism, “green” boondoggles and winner-picking.

Those should be reasons to end, not perpetuate and expand, such federal market meddling.

But not if you’re Roland Hwang. He’s the director of the National Resources Defense Council’s transportation program. He warns that ending buyer tax credits would “stall the market.” And he was the study’s co-author, which makes clear its inherent, wrongheaded bias against taxpayers and for government distorting markets.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.