News - American Energy Alliance

August Recess Carbon Tax Roundup

August 15, 2019 by Jordan McGillis Leave a Comment

In what has become a July ritual, members of Congress—from both parties and in both chambers—introduced long-shot carbon tax bills last month. With the swamp’s summer heat as a motif, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) advanced the Climate Action Rebate Act and in the House of Representatives John Larson (D-Conn.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), and Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) put forth the America Wins Act; the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act; and the Stemming Warming and Augmenting Pay Act, respectively. No matter the trappings, a carbon tax would mean less purchasing power and a lower standard of living for Americans. Nevertheless, these bills vary in their structures and, thus, have their own unique failings. Whether it be the revenue-recycling strategy, the point of taxation, or the parameters used to conjure a given bill’s social cost of carbon estimate, each carbon tax has a flaw that will prove fatal—either for the bill itself in the legislative process or, if signed into law, for the American economy.

With this post we’ll break down the highlights and lowlights from 2019’s summer carbon tax crop.

Climate Action Rebate Act — Sen. Coons

$15 per metric ton in 2020, increasing by $15 every year
Increasing by $30 following any year in which an emission reduction target is missed
Rebates 70 percent of net revenue to low- and middle-income Americans on a monthly basis
Remainder spent on government investment in energy and infrastructure projects, as well as on assistance for workers harmed by the tax

Quote from Sen. Coons: “To address this threat, we need an innovative strategy that can reduce emissions and generate economic growth, not hinder it. I’m proud that this legislation will create a cleaner environment, while investing revenue directly into workers, families, and communities—helping to spur innovation, create new jobs, and ease the transition to a cleaner energy future. I am hopeful that we will continue to have bipartisan conversations about addressing this issue.”

AEA comment: Sen. Coons’ invocation of economic growth is dubious in light of the widespread economic modeling results that show a lump-sum rebate revenue-recycling strategy to be particularly detrimental to economic performance. A carbon tax will hinder economic growth relative to baseline expectations, but not all revenue uses have the same effects. Reducing distortionary taxes elsewhere—a “tax swap”—shows the most promise for maintaining or even augmenting economic growth. Instead, the Coons plan would, in essence, be a new spending package.

America Wins Act — Rep. Larson

$52 per ton, rising 6 percent annually above inflation
Spends $1.2 trillion over 10 years on infrastructure projects including: roads, bridges, tunnels, transit, rail, aviation, sewer systems, levees, flood protection, dams, ports, waterways, drinking water systems, broadband, energy infrastructure, the electric grid, schools, healthcare, and public housing
Spends $44 billion on energy research
The remainder of the revenue would go towards rebates for low-income households and assistance including pension boosts and green jobs training for coal communities

Quote from Rep. Larson: “We cannot wait any longer to address our global climate crisis. The America Wins Act would reduce greenhouse gas emissions above and beyond our Paris Climate Accords commitments, while funding historic investments in rebuilding America’s infrastructure and combatting climate change. Over ten years, over $1 trillion would be invested in all types of needed infrastructure from transportation to clean water, while also dedicating significant funding to clean energy and climate change related programs, and supporting climate justice through assistance to frontline and carbon-reliant communities. It’s time that we make our goals a reality and save our planet.”

AEA comment: Rep. Larson, at the very least, deserves credit for his honesty. This bill is an unabashed revenue raiser that would syphon money from the private economy and utilize it towards an array of social ends, many of which are far removed from any effects climate change might have.

Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act — Rep. Lipinski

$40 per ton starting in 2020
Increases by 2.5 percent above inflation for every year that the United States does not meet emission reduction targets
Coal, oil, and natural gas would all be taxed where they enter the U.S. economy—at the mine mouth, pipeline, or at the U.S. border
Uses 94 percent of net revenue on payroll tax cuts and increases to social security benefits
5 percent on the Low-Income Home Energy Program
1 percent on the Weatherization Assistance Program

Quote from Rep. Lipinski: “This bill incentivizes adoption of cleaner renewable technologies, and will break our addiction to fossil fuels that are so damaging to our environment. This bill will also be a boon to taxpayers and has the advantage of providing predictable pricing to businesses over time to encourage deployment of clean energy technologies, stimulate innovation, and mitigate global climate change. I have helped lead the charge for carbon pricing since I helped introduce the first bipartisan carbon fee bill in 2009, and will continue to be a champion for real commonsense solutions to climate change.”

AEA comment: Giving credit where it’s due, it is mildly refreshing to see a bill that would use the carbon tax’s revenue to reduce harmful taxes elsewhere. Some analysts have found that tax swaps of this sort can be economically beneficial. (Others have argued to the contrary. See: tax interaction effect.) But what must be respected is that any economic benefit of a carbon tax swap would flow entirely from the reduction of taxes elsewhere, not from the imposition of the new one. This says more about our existing tax code than it does about the merits of taxing greenhouse gas emissions.

Stemming Warming, Augmenting Pay Act — Rep. Rooney

$30 per metric ton starting in 2020
Annual increase of 5 percent above inflation
If in two straight years emission reductions miss targets, an automatic $3 per ton increase will be charged
Uses 70 percent of net revenue to reduce payroll taxes
20 percent of the net revenue would be used to establish a carbon trust fund—designated for state block grants used to offset higher energy costs for low-income households and advanced research and development programs on climate adaptation and energy efficiency
10 percent would be paid to Social Security beneficiaries
Places a 12-year moratorium on Clean Air Act regulations that can be removed if emissions targets are not met

Quote from Rep. Rooney: “Those industries that choose to pollute our environment should bear the burden of cleaning it up. Putting a price on carbon will level the economic playing field in the energy sector, unlock market-driven innovation, and lead to the deployment of low, zero, and negative carbon technologies. It will help create millions of new jobs and slash U.S. carbon emissions dramatically, making it a powerful tool for curbing climate pollution.”

AEA comment: Like Lipinski’s bill, Rooney’s deserves credit, albeit to a lesser degree, for utilizing the tax swap approach. Further, the moratorium on Clean Air Act regulations of greenhouse gas emissions would be entirely appropriate. But the plaudits stop there. Rep. Rooney states, “…industries that choose to pollute our environment should bear the burden of cleaning it up.” This statement is suspect in two ways.

First, industrial entities that emit greenhouse gases do so because consumers in the marketplace desire their products and services. Manufacturers, power plants, and transportation companies emit greenhouse gases because we, the customers, value what they have to offer. Their goods and services make our lives better in myriad ways. Their choosing, as the Congressman puts it, to emit greenhouse gases is precipitated by our choosing to buy from them. The suggestion that “industries that choose to pollute” can be isolated from our economy and society at large is nonsense.

Second, while a tax on greenhouse gas emissions would in theory reduce said emissions, it would not serve to “clean up” past emissions. Rooney’s statement would seem to imply that the tax ought to be used to fund direct air capture or the planting of carbon dioxide-digesting trees, but nothing of that sort is to be found.

Conclusion

This year’s carbon tax crop is sure to rot in the field, thanks to the public’s minimal appetite for energy taxation. Be that as it may, the annual rite indicates how pro-carbon tax thinking is developing and gives us the opportunity to sharpen our own argumentation. Pulling alongside the lump-sum rebate revenue-recycling approach (typically marketed as a “dividend”), the tax swap approach favored by Rooney and Lipinski has shown a resurgence and will require attention in the coming months.

Filed Under: Blog, Carbon Tax, Congress Tagged With: America Wins Act, carbon tax, climate action plan, congress, Representative Rooney

AEA to Senate: Highway Bill is Highway Robbery

July 30, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (July 30, 2019) – Today, Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso highlighting concerns about the recently introduced America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act. Included in the legislation is an unjustified, $1 billion handout to special interests in the form of charging stations for electric vehicles. AEA maintains that provisions like this are nearly impossible to reverse in the future and create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to the wealthiest vehicle owners in the United States.

Read the text of the letter below:

Chairman Barrasso,

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to consider the reauthorization of the highway bill and the Highway Trust Fund today. At least some part of this consideration will include provisions that provide for $1 billion in federal grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This is among $10 billion in new spending included in a “climate change” subtitle. All of this new spending is to be siphoned away from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), meant to provide funding for the construction and maintenance of our nation’s roads and bridges. The HTF already consistently runs out of money, a situation that will only be exacerbated by these new spending programs.

We oppose this new federal program for EV infrastructure for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

The grant program, once established in the HTF, will never be removed. Our experience with other, non-highway spending in the trust fund (transit, bicycles, etc.) is that once it is given access to the trust fund, the access is never revoked. Our nation’s highway infrastructure already rates poorly in significant part due to the diversion of highway funds to non-highway spending.
As we have noted elsewhere, federal support for electric vehicles provides economic advantages to upper income individuals at the expense of those in middle and lower income quintiles. This grant program would exacerbate that problem.
This program will result in taxpayers in States with few electric vehicles or little desire for electric vehicles having their tax dollars redirected from the roads they actually use to subsidize electric vehicle owners in States like California and New York.
This program is duplicative. There is already a loan program within DOE that allows companies and States to get taxpayer dollars to subsidize wealthy electric vehicle owners.

For these and other reasons, we oppose the provisions that would create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to wealthy, mostly coastal electric vehicle owners. This giveaway not only redirects taxpayer money from the many States to the few, in looting the Highway Trust Fund it also leaves those many States, including Wyoming, with less money to maintain their own extensive road networks.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Pyle

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: electric vehicles, Environment and Public Works, highway trust fund, infrastructure, Senate, subsidies, transportation, transportation bill

Senator Barrasso Submits to the Subsidizers

July 29, 2019 by Thomas Pyle 2 Comments

This week brought the unfortunate news that Sen. Barrasso, normally a steady hand in energy policy discussions, has reportedly agreed to Democrat demands for new subsidies for expensive green dreams. The senator from Wyoming has apparently given the nod to include subsidies for electric vehicle charging stations in an infrastructure bill expected to be unveiled today. Left unclear is why, exactly, federal taxpayers should be on the hook for subsidizing the build-out of a retail network for a niche consumer product.

It should be obvious that subsidizing retail outlets for a particular product is not a proper role for government, but since we are here, let’s look at this in other contexts. Should federal taxpayers subsidize the construction of gas stations? After all, the vast majority of cars are gasoline-powered. Or speaking of niche products, should federal taxpayers pay for the construction of E85 pumps, which can dispense fuel with up to 85% ethanol? There are far more flex-fuel capable vehicles on the road than electric vehicles. Or more speculatively, compressed natural gas (CNG) is a potential transportation fuel, should federal taxpayers pay for that? Is there a limiting principle here? Drone ownership is growing rapidly, should the federal government subsidize charging stations for drones? Should the federal government subsidize the construction of Apple stores, too?

Subsidizing retail outlets for a particular product should be facially ridiculous. The rationale for federal funding for infrastructure is to provide the kinds of goods that everyone uses: roads, bridges, ports, maybe even stretching to cover sewerage or water treatment if local governments are not able to provide. The point isn’t to pay for private infrastructure. Amazon’s nationwide infrastructure of warehouses provides a valuable service to millions of Americans, but no one would suggest that the federal government should subsidize those buildings.

Other than electric vehicles being a fetish for environmental leftists, there is no reason for their charging infrastructure to qualify for special treatment. Electric vehicles are less than 2 percent of the vehicle fleet in the United States. Electric vehicles already receive a federal tax credit for purchase, preference in federal regulations like the fuel economy mandate, as well as extensive state and local level subsidies and mandates. The federal government under the Obama administration even forced Volkswagen to commit $2 billion to building electric vehicle infrastructure as part of a legal settlement.

Now Sen. Barrasso seems to have agreed to add on yet another layer of support for electric vehicles. The question has to be asked: when is enough, enough? Sen. Barrasso is on record in numerous other contexts opposing federal support for particular products, picking winners and losers. He has even introduced legislation to eliminate the electric vehicle tax credit. So why is he making an exception for electric vehicle charging stations?

Fundamentally, taxpayers should not be paying for private infrastructure. Many people enjoy the convenience of having a coffee shop on every corner, but it is not the federal government’s job to support the build-out of this caffeine infrastructure. Where there is a need for electric vehicle infrastructure, private companies can provide it. Electric vehicles should be no exception. Senator Barrasso shouldn’t let the Democrats inject their Green New Deal into the highway bill.

Filed Under: Blog, Electric Vehicles Tagged With: electric vehicles, highway trust fund, infrastructure, subsidies

Nationwide Free Market Coalition to President Trump: Hold Firm on CAFE Reform

July 11, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 30 organizations, led by the American Energy Alliance, sent a letter to President Trump today expressing its unified support for his administration’s effort to reform the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandate.

The coalition comprises leading free market think tanks in Washington, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, and Americans for Tax Reform, along with more than 10 groups based in state capitals across the country. The coalition argues that the Trump administration’s proposed changes to the Obama-era expansion of the fuel economy mandate are both legally appropriate and economically necessary, despite arguments to the contrary from a group of automakers. The Obama-era CAFE expansion allowed regulators in the State of California to hijack our system of federalism at the expense of car buyers from coast to coast. The proposed changes would put car buyers back in the driver’s seat, save them money, and reestablish the states’ and the federal government’s proper roles with respect to the national fuel efficiency mandate.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle issued the following statement:

“American families choose cars, trucks, and SUVs based on our own unique needs. In a free market, automakers would compete to give us the best combination of features, including safety, performance, and, yes, fuel economy, at the lowest price. No one wants an unelected bureaucrat from Sacramento getting the final say on how we get from place to place.”

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, made the following comment:

“California bureaucrats should not decide what kind of cars and trucks Americans are allowed to drive. That decision rightly belongs to consumers, not regulators. Californians may have to live under the thumb of California politicians and bureaucrats but no one in Iowa or Michigan voted for California’s nanny state rules.

Allowing the government of California to dictate national standards for the rest of the country has led to higher vehicle prices for consumers while forcing them to subsidize vehicles preferred by California’s regulators. ATR urges President Trump to maintain his stance on reforming the federal fuel mandate and to revoke the special waiver granted to California under the Obama administration.”

Jason Hayes, Director of Environmental Policy for Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy, issued these remarks:

“Existing law restricts any state from setting a national fuel economy standard. But the previous administration’s extreme CAFE standards have paired with California’s unlawful demands, effectively allowing one state to mandate a national fuel efficiency standard. One state forcing the other states to abide by their regulatory structures ignores the concept of federalism and, in this case, ends up increasing automobile prices for every other American.

American drivers have repeatedly demonstrated that a primary concern when considering a new car purchase is the ability to afford their monthly payments. Michigan residents and our big three auto manufacturers should not be forced to buy and build more expensive cars to meet the whims of California regulators. The proposed CAFE standards represent the best option to ensure free-markets continue to operate, technological advances are implemented, and American consumers can purchase the vehicles they want at prices they can afford.”

The full letter and list of signatories can be read here.

For more information on the President Trump’s CAFE reform, click here.

To view AEA’s latest public opinion research on the topic, click here.

Filed Under: CAFE, Press Releases Tagged With: Barack Obama, CAFE, California, california waiver, department of transportation, Donald Trump, EPA, fuel economy, Fuel Economy Mandates, Mary Nichols, NHTSA, transportation

Key Vote: H.R. 3055 Amendments

June 19, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

In voting on amendments to H.R. 3055, the American Energy Alliance urges all members to support amendments #135, #143, #147, and #158, and oppose amendments #54, #128, #132, and #176.

NO on amendments #54, #128, #132, and #176: All these amendments seek to obstruct or prevent development of our domestic energy resources located in offshore federal waters. Domestic energy production creates jobs and economic growth, provides revenue to federal and state governments, and reduces our need for imports. Congress should not be preemptively blocking possible future development.

YES on amendment #158 (Graves): Regarding the same issue as the above amendments, this amendment would strike the bill’s harmful language which unreasonably interferes with development of domestic energy resources.

YES on amendment #135 (Duncan): While the administration has withdrawn and replaced the Clean Power Plan, prohibiting funding would prevent efforts to revive the regulation through litigation.

YES on amendment #143 (Duncan): Developing the energy resources located in a small part of ANWR is long overdue and the decision of Congress to authorize that development should not be revisited.

YES on amendment #147 (Mullin): While the administration is working to fix the unnecessary and harmfully restrictive methane rule, prohibiting funding would prevent efforts to revive this regulation through litigation.

AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy with the above votes. Should a vote on any of these amendments occur, AEA will include it in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: American Energy Scorecard, congress, Key Vote

The Art of the Push Poll

June 14, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – As you may have seen, there’s a new poll out from Frank Luntz and the Climate Leadership Council that purports to show widespread GOP support for a carbon tax. Here’s what The Hill reported:

“Prominent GOP pollster Frank Luntz is warning Republican lawmakers that the public’s views on climate change are shifting and that ignoring the issue could cost them important votes at the ballot box.

In a memo circulated to Republican congressional offices on Wednesday, Luntz Global Partners warned that 58 percent of Americans, as well as 58 percent of GOP voters under the age of 40, are more concerned about climate change than they were just one year ago…Luntz Global conducted the online poll of 1,000 voters on behalf of the Climate Leadership Council, which is promoting its own carbon tax and dividend plan. The survey found that GOP voters supported the plan by a 2-1 margin.”

We’ve got some serious doubts.

For starters, check out the wording here:

“Business and environmental leaders are proposing a bipartisan climate solution that charges fossil fuel companies for their carbon emissions and gives all the money directly to the American people through a quarterly check. This new climate solution is called ‘Carbon Dividends’, because all households would receive a quarterly cash payment as part of an effort to solve climate change. Would you support or oppose this plan?”

In layman’s terms, they’re asking: “Would you like fossil fuel companies to send you a big wad of cash?”

For more, read the full response from AEA President Tom Pyle.

For media inquiries, please contact Jordan McGillis
[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: carbon tax

The Art of the Push Poll

June 13, 2019 by Thomas Pyle 1 Comment

As everyone in Washington knows, public opinion polls are political instruments. While we would all like to believe that polls give us a window into the minds of voting Americans, the truth is somewhat murkier. Most operatives in this town employ two types of polls. The first type is a genuine attempt to gauge public opinion on ideas, policies, and terminology. But that type of poll is usually kept closer to the vest. The typical poll that public ultimately lays its eyes on—often through the lens of the news media—serves a different purpose. Lobbying groups use the second poll in an attempt to frame public discourse in their favor. In the swamp, we call this a push poll.

The recent Climate Leadership Council (CLC) carbon tax poll conducted by Frank Luntz is a perfect illustration. To the uninitiated reader, Miranda Green’s coverage in The Hill would give the impression that President Trump and the Republicans in Congress who almost unanimously oppose a carbon tax are on an island, detached from their constituencies. “Luntz Global conducted the online poll of 1,000 voters on behalf of the Climate Leadership Council, which is promoting its own carbon tax and dividend plan,” Green wrote. “The survey found that GOP voters supported the plan by a 2-1 margin.”

But even a cursory skim of the language presented to respondents by Luntz Global reveals a very different story. Here’s the exact wording of the question upon which the claim of two to one Republican support for a carbon tax is based:

In layman’s terms, the question asks: “Would you like fossil fuel companies to send you a big wad of cash?”

Lo and behold, CLC got the answer they were looking for. All things being equal, most people love getting something for nothing.

But as cross-partisan polling has consistently shown, when the carbon tax is put into context people like the sounds of it a whole lot less. The Climate Leadership Council knows this—and almost certainly has their own private polling as confirmation—which is why they go to such great lengths to hide the ball with their claims that “companies” will bear the burden of the tax (despite the obvious implication for prices), that the money will be sent “directly” to the American people (despite the need for a new bureaucracy to administer the scheme), and that it’s a “dividend” (despite having no relationship to investment or wealth creation).

Two key factors tend to pull the legs out from the carbon tax’s popularity when it’s put into context.

The first is prioritization. Climate change simply isn’t something most people are losing sleep over. MWR Strategies, our trusted polling partner, has never had more than 4 percent of voters identify the environment as one of their top two issues. And climate change is only a portion of that already miniscule sliver. If you want more neutral verification, look to Gallup, which asked more than 1000 adults in each of six different surveys between January and July of 2018 to identify their most important issue. Based on the reported results, not a single respondent out of more than 6,000 respondents said climate change was their top concern.

The second factor is what we call willingness to pay. As a memo on the carbon tax from MWR Strategies explains, “when people are aware that this is a tax, one that they will pay at the pump, in the electricity bills, and for home heating, their enthusiasm vanishes.”

When asked questions such as “how much are you willing to pay each year to address global warming?” and “how much are you willing to pay to reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels?” voters don’t look nearly as keen on climate change action as the CLC push poll wants us to think. Median responses to these questions have yielded a range from $2 to $50 annually. And over 40 percent of likely voters consistently respond that they are willing to pay exactly $0.

It should be clear by this point, but if the American people had an appetite for a carbon tax, the Climate Leadership Council wouldn’t need to jump through its contrived linguistic hoops to show it.

Filed Under: Blog, Carbon Tax Tagged With: carbon tax, climate change, climate leadership council

Key Vote: H.R. 2740 Appropriations Minibus Amendments

June 12, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

In voting on amendments to H.R. 2740, the American Energy Alliance urges the following votes: in Part 1 of the Rule, support amendments #81, #83, #91 and #94; in Part 2 of the Rule, support amendment #89, and oppose amendments #83 and #108.

Amendments to Division D: State and Foreign Operations:

YES on Amendments #81, 83, and #94: US tax dollars should not fund UN bodies that seek to impose higher energy costs across the globe. These unaccountable international organizations threaten free markets and affordable energy worldwide.

YES on Amendment #91 (Palmer): The Paris Agreement was and remains a bad deal for the United States. Without Congressional approval, the previous administration sought to shackle the US to economically harmful targets while allowing most of the rest of the world to do nothing. The decision to withdraw is correct and should be allowed to proceed.

Amendments to Division E: Energy and Water

YES on Amendment #89 (Mullin): The social cost of carbon calculation is entirely notional and cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds. During the creation process, the social cost of carbon models and calculations were manipulated to reach a desired end goal. The social cost of carbon designed by the previous administration should be discarded.

NO on Amendment #83 (Castor): The previous administration’s last minute decision to extend efficiency requirements to additional lighting was an unlawful overreach. The current administration is correct to reconsider that regulatory decision.

NO on Amendment #90 (Huffman): Like any other proposed project, the environmental assessment for the Pebble Mine should be allowed to continue according to established regulatory procedures.

AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy with the above votes. Should a vote on any of these amendments occur, AEA will include it in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: congress, Key Vote, Paris Climate Agreement

New Survey Results Find Voters (Still) Don’t Favor EV Subsidies

May 29, 2019 by Erin Amsberry Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON – The American Energy Alliance today released the results of a series of surveys that examined the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of nine states (MO, PA, IA, KY, GA, SC, NC, CO, and OH). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5%.

• The findings include: Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (typically three-quarters of respondents) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.

• Voter’s sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most, wealthy and/or from California.

•There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much individuals would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (usually more than two-thirds of respondents) was “nothing”.

•As always, few voters (usually less than 1/5) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.

Read the Topline Survey Results

Thomas Pyle, President of AEA said:

“Voters in key swing states understand that they shouldn’t be required to pay for someone else’s electric vehicle. Senators and Representatives from the nine states where we conducted this survey should know that support for an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit might make Elon Musk and Mary Barra happy, but it will not sit well with their constituents.”

Michael McKenna, who conducted the surveys, said:

“Elected officials who are concerned about voter opinion should probably think twice before expanding favorable tax treatment for electric vehicles. Voters in each state we examined are very skeptical of them.”

For media inquiries, please contact Erin Amsberry
[email protected]
202.621.2955

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: electric vehicles, EVs

New Survey Results Find Voters (Still) Don’t Favor EV Subsidies

May 29, 2019 by AEA Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance released the results of surveys that examine the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of nine states (MO, PA, IA, KY, GA, SC, NC, CO, and OH). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5%.

The findings include:

Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (typically three-quarters of respondents) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.
Voters’ sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most, wealthy and/or from California.
There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much they would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (usually more than two-thirds of respondents) was “nothing.”
As always, few voters (usually less than 1/5) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.

Read the survey results for each state:

Filed Under: Electric Vehicles Tagged With: electric vehicles, EVs