Interestingly, the LA Times editorial board fails to mention if they have replaced their own fossil fueled vehicles with EVs. Also, a pretty big admission
Editorial: Replacing the Chevy Bolt with electric SUVs would be a climate tragedy
Can we pour one out for the Chevy Bolt?
When the small electric hatchback came onto the market six years ago, it was a game changer: The relatively affordable battery-powered vehicle with 238 miles of range on a single charge demonstrated the mass-market potential for EVs.
The Bolt has only grown in popularity, as its range improved, gas prices spiked and sticker price cuts made it one of the cheapest electric vehicles on the market. If you can find one for the suggested retail price of $26,500, you could get it for less than $20,000 dollars, after the $7,500 federal tax credit.
But last week, General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced the company will end production of the Bolt at the end of the year as it reconfigures the Michigan plant where it is made to build large battery-powered pickup trucks. Not only does it echo GM’s decision a generation ago to kill off the EV1, its first fully electric vehicle, but the Bolt’s demise is a disappointment for consumers and a step backward in the fight against climate change, including President Biden’s goal of cutting the nation’s air pollution in half by 2030.
Would this be the same Biden who takes a huge amount of fossil fueled travel weekly, and doesn’t travel in an EV?
Discontinuing a small, lower-cost EV like the Bolt to make room for bigger, more expensive models will make it harder for Americans to afford to go electric. This the wrong direction to be heading when the U.S. needs to replace polluting gas- and diesel-powered cars and trucks with clean, zero-emissions vehicles quickly.
In other words, the LATEB is telling us that EVs are mostly too expensive for most people to afford, unless you get a tiny vehicle (the Bolt is 163 inches long with an interior space of 67 cubic feet. The Honda Civic sedan is 169 inches, with 99 cubic feet) with a small combined range of 259 miles. When completely optimal. And it slow charges.
“The industry has decided that if they’re going to have to make EVs, they might as well make the same gigantic behemoths that they’ve been making before,” said Dan Becker, who directs the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.
As far as SUVs go, that’s what people want. Most do not want sedans. I personally think it is a mistake ending the Bolt. Maybe redesign it, make it a bit bigger. The Bolt is the size of a subcompact, which most manufacturers have stopped making in the US due to low sales.
That’s not too reassuring. Consumer groups are right to be worried that discontinuing lower-priced models like the Bolt will reduce options and shut out an entire segment of drivers who want to buy electric cars but won’t be able to afford them.
So what can be done to push back against ballooning sizes and price tags?
Obviously, more government!
That makes it more important than ever that California continue to modernize and streamline its clean vehicle rebate programs, which have been hampered by long waiting lists, inconsistent and insufficient funding that have prevented people from buying electric cars. The state recently increased incentives for low and moderate-income Californians to buy zero-emission vehicles, allowing them to apply for rebates of up to $7,500. But more can be done to smooth out these programs, such as making them redeemable at the dealership or point of sale rather than forcing car buyers with limited incomes to wait months for reimbursement.
Nice to know that the EB doesn’t understand how tax incentives work. Most will not get $7,500 in cash. Does anyone think the dealers want to take what are essentially vouchers, knowing that it will take months for them to get reimbursed? And where is all this cash coming from?
Read: LA Times Is Very Upset Over Dumping Bolt For SUV EVs »