ShareThis Page
Unplug Tesla’s Treasury connection |
Featured Commentary

Unplug Tesla’s Treasury connection


Should you spot a Tesla electric car on the road, see if the driver is smiling. He should be smiling at you for contributing $7,500 to the purchase of his luxury automobile.

That’s because every Tesla Model S or X — which range in price from $66,000 to $150,000 — qualifies for a $7,500 federal tax credit.

It’s time for taxpayers to stop subsidizing status symbols for the wealthy.

The good news is the tax credits, which were included in the 2009 stimulus bill with support from President Obama, only apply to the first 200,000 electric vehicles sold by each manufacturer.

Tesla has now sold more than 85,000 cars in the U.S. With the introduction in late 2017 of the Model 3, which has a tentative base price of $35,000, Tesla will soon reach 200,000 vehicles sold, and the subsidy will then be phased out.

The bad news is there is talk of extending federal credits for electric vehicles. If you doubt this will happen, look at the wind and solar industries, which have used the same argument to extend their subsidies successfully half a dozen times, most recently last December.

Before the subsidy-seekers really get going, let’s look at the full extent of government handouts for Tesla.

The Los Angeles Times revealed in May 2015 that Tesla had received benefits of $2.4 billion. These included $284 million in federal tax credits, $517 million from selling California zero emission vehicle credits to other automakers and $1.3 billion in incentives from Nevada for siting its huge new battery factory there.

Elon Musk, the billionaire founder, CEO and largest shareholder in Tesla, reacted angrily to the LA Times story. He claimed that the handouts Tesla received were “a pittance” and “one-thousandth of what the oil and gas industry get in a single year.”

Musk’s claim is highly misleading. True, the International Energy Agency in 2014 estimated that total global subsidies for motor vehicle fuels were $550 billion annually. However, most of that goes to keeping fuel prices low in countries with nationalized oil companies — such as Saudi Arabia, which recently raised gasoline prices by 50 percent in January to 90 cents a gallon.

In the United States, the oil and gas industry does get approximately $4 billion per year in federal handouts. These payments should be eliminated.

On the other hand, federal, state and local taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel average 48 cents a gallon. Electric vehicles make no contribution to maintaining our roads or our mass-transit systems.

Musk has another argument up his sleeve to justify taxpayer largesse lavished on his company: to save the world from global warming.

Even if we agree that greenhouse emissions need to be reduced, subsidizing electric vehicles makes no sense. With low gasoline prices now and probably far into the future, consumers are flocking back to larger gas-powered vehicles. Thus, the tiny market share for electric cars is going to remain tiny for a long, long time.

Wealthy people who want a Tesla as their third or fourth vehicle can pay the full market price. And they should!

Myron Ebell is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

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.