Commentary: The EV Subsidy Train Picks Up Speed (July, 2019)

July 16, 2019

By John McClaughry

Chairman Anthony Roisman of the Public Utility Commission has made it official. Vermont is facing a “Pearl Harbor moment”. We in Vermont must launch a “wartime effort” like the United States did in 1942, to establish dominance over the lurking menace of “climate change”.

The occasion for this alarming metaphorical excess was the release by the PUC of a report commissioned by the 2018 legislature, entitled “Promoting the Ownership and Use of Electric Vehicles in the State of Vermont”. Its punch line is “Bold legislation, including identifying and appropriating meaningful funds to enable additional EV adoption and EV charging station deployment, will continue to establish Vermont as an EV-supportive environment, and will facilitate progress towards Vermont’s GHG emissions reduction responsibilities.”

The measure of our success will be the appearance of sixty thousand electric vehicles on Vermont’s streets and highways by 2025. If the legislature votes enough subsidies to enable Roisman’s “wartime effort” to attain that goal, today’s 3,000 EVs will increase to 60,000. That will require an astonishing 54% growth rate compounded annually for six years.

Transportation produces 47% of the State’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan – the one no legislator ever voted on – calls for reducing transportation sector GHG emissions by 30% by 2025. Thus, the Report avers, “if Vermont is to meet its GHG reduction goals, it is critical that barriers to the deployment of EV infrastructure and to the purchase and use of EVs themselves be addressed and eliminated to the extent possible.”

To that end, the 2019 legislature created a new EV subsidy program. Says the Report: “Given the uncertainty surrounding the federal tax credit, it is becoming increasingly important for the State of Vermont to take a larger role in providing incentives for EV purchases if the State is to meet its emissions-reduction goals, at least until EVs reach cost-parity with internal combustion engine vehicles.”

As I observed last month, the new law offers more EV purchase and lease incentives to “help all Vermonters to benefit from electric driving including [of course!] Vermont’s most vulnerable.” If you’re sufficiently economically challenged, you can fight climate change by driving a $40,000 EV that will be the envy of your neighbors, at least until they find out how much subsidy it took to close the deal.

The legislature responsibly charged the PUC with finding a way “to achieve the goals… without shifting costs to electric ratepayers who do not own or operate EVs”. It did discuss that issue, but showed no hesitation about shifting costs to taxpayers. In effect, the Report wants to spend carbon tax revenues to subsidize thousands of EVs, even though the legislature doesn’t dare pass a carbon tax bill that Gov. Scott will assuredly veto.

How about asking EV drivers to contribute to highway maintenance? The Report rejects an EV registration surcharge. It is willing to explore a per-kilowatt hour fee for EVs, but notes a host of inequities and complications that would ensue, especially for electric utilities charged with billing and collecting it. It’s pretty clear that growing numbers of subsidized EVs will continue to ride free on Vermont’s roads for the indefinite future – if for no other reason than charging them for the privilege would dampen the EV enthusiasm that the legislature is so keen on stimulating.

In the course of preparing the Report, Roisman’s PUC managed a year of hearings among “stakeholders”. The group included state agency officials, electric utility officials, and auto industry participants. But it also included a parade of self-appointed “stakeholders”, a Grecian chorus dedicated to inflating the menace of climate change and demanding a vast collection of subsidies, taxes, mandates, and prohibitions to stamp it out. Just to name seven: Union of Concerned Scientists, Regulatory Assistance Project, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Vermont Natural Resource Council, VPIRG, and of course the chief  EV lobby group, Drive Electric Vermont.

And who represented the real “stakeholders”, the motorists, ratepayers and taxpayers of Vermont? As usual, nobody.

There is a place for (unsubsidized) EVs, when and where they meet the needs and desires of consumers. And leaving aside the obligatory endorsement of the beliefs of the climate change activists, it must be said that the Report contains a lot of useful information and analysis of the complexities of the issue, clearly and fairly presented. Once they get past Roisman’s Pearl Harbor metaphor, legislators will benefit from reading it, if they keep their wits about them.


John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

H. Brooke Paige July 16, 2019 at 10:19 pm

Pie in the Sky Promises with a Little Pixy Dust Thrown in for Luck !

I would have expected a more intellectual than “We in Vermont must launch a “wartime effort” like the United States did in 1942, to establish dominance over the “LURKING” menace of “climate change”. Lurking REALLY ?

I doubled checked to make sure I was correct: “Lurking [ˈlərkiNG] adjective – remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush.”

Wouldn’t “looming” have been the word to use, unless Mr. Roisman intended to give the impression that the menace is sneaky !

But I digress, the real issue is that EV vehicles are ill-suited to Vermont’s mountainous typography and frigid climate – problems that only “pie-in-the-sky” optimism can pretend to overcome ! Further, how will the commission accommodate 60,000 Vermont owned EVs and an equal number of vacationers with EVs, lured to the state by tourist promotion of our friendly “green” environment ? Where will they find the space to accommodate 15,000 – 20,000 charging stations to allow for the “refueling” of these vehicles that can only travel 150 – 250 miles before they need to stop for a half hour (or longer) “fill-up” ?

Lastly, no one wants to discuss where all of this power actually is generated OR who is paying for it ! While they would like us to believe is magically created and cost nothing to provide – I stopped believing in fairies and pixy dust when I was a little boy !

So many question, so few answers !


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...