My understanding is that Tesla opened it up, because the US government would fund EV charging stations, as long as they support more than one auto maker?
So it's not exactly a government free success story.
So it's not exactly a government free success story.
The government program exists exactly for that sort of situation, where traditional banks are unwilling to take the risk on an unproven business model.
I have heard second hand that early EV credits helped them get off the ground, but I haven't checked that personally...
Feature, not bug.
That was literally the entire point of the (Bush era) Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing policy: to inexpensively achieve pollution reduction by nudging almost-there clean vehicle technologies "over the line" from non-viable to viable. Why are we suddenly complaining when it did exactly what we intended in the first place?
Inexpensive? Big check (see Clinton's try for a typical case). Accelerated pollution reduction with huge health benefits? Also check.
Where's the problem? I'm not seeing a problem. :-\
When you say "feature, not bug" I'm not sure if you're saying the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech, or if the feature is that Tesla would have not survived without a government loan. Either meaning is hard to connect to the rest of your comment.
I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
Apples and oranges.
Traditional banks have a profit motivation. That's their only job.
Governments have a public health and well-being motivation. They try to achieve that at minimum cost.
It's wrongheaded to view government merely a "broken bank" in this scenario. It's actually that government is judged by totally different metrics, ones which they achieved very successfully.
>I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
Clinton's try for cleaner vehicles, of course. That was the previous attempt before Bush tried his ATVM loan program.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announce...
It's relevant because it shows the typical-case cost for government achieving (or more accurately, not achieving) their public health goals in this sector. It shows how the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was actually a fantastically cheap and successful policy program when compared to its peers.
I agree with 1, but disagree with 2. The loan programs for scaling new massive tech are wonderful and hugely accelerate tech development, IMHO. My only possible complaint is that there are not more failed loans, as I have a bigger risk tolerance.
Government subsidy to stimulate the economy is good.
Tesla on the other hand creates a lot of jobs, invests in US factories, invests into R&D, pays a lot of taxes, and most importantly - delivers on the vision of transition to clean energy.
Without Tesla, America would still be driving even more gas guzzling SUVs and pickups.
So the relationship is mutually beneficial for the company, country, economy, and ecology
in teslas case at least there is clear ecological and experience benefit to consumers to show for all the “subsidies”
You call it subsidy, I call it accelerating EV transition
The charging station funding is to help GM and Ford, they can't figure out how the charging thing works, and they don't want to compete fairly, so my tax dollars and yours, they go to help these legacy carmakers.
But even if it was all pure "get other companies work around regulations", those regulations were created to reduce future costs to people, and the public coffers. By subverting them, in spirit, if not in letter, Telsa made profit not just by selling cars, but also by selling our future, something rarely accounted for.