Bill Overview
Title: Ending Duplicative Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act
Description: This bill prohibits duplicative subsidies (i.e., loans, grants, or tax credits) for manufacturers of new clean electric vehicles.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in the production and distribution of new clean electric vehicles
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill impacts manufacturers of new clean electric vehicles globally.
- It indirectly affects consumers who are purchasing new clean electric vehicles, although they are not the direct target in terms of subsidies.
- The intention is to prevent these manufacturers from receiving multiple types of governmental financial support, which could impact their financial planning and operations.
- This could potentially slow down the production or increase the cost of electric vehicles, affecting global supply.
- Approximately 267 million electric vehicles were estimated to be in use worldwide by 2023, and a significant share of these are produced by manufacturers potentially receiving such subsidies.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets manufacturers, which in turn might roll over costs or adjustments to consumers and employees indirectly involved in the EV production industry.
- Employees involved in EV production might face uncertainty if manufacturers adjust operations due to reduced subsidies, impacting their job security and personal wellbeing.
- Current and prospective consumers of new electric vehicles might experience price changes, indirectly affecting accessibility and satisfaction with their purchase, although they are not the direct beneficiaries of the subsidies.
- The policy impact is tiered based on stakeholders' proximities to the affected subsidies: manufacturers (high direct impact), employees (medium impact), and consumers (low impact).
Simulated Interviews
Automobile Manufacturing Worker (Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that the company might cut jobs or reduce hours if subsidies get cut.
- We've faced downturns in the auto industry before, and it's never easy.
- If the cost of production gets higher, our job security might be at risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Electric Vehicle Salesperson (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If EV prices go up, it might be harder to sell them as fast.
- Most of my income depends on hitting sales targets.
- This could slow down our sales and affect commissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly affected by the subsidies, but the company might cut projects.
- R&D budgets could be strained, which affects product innovation.
- I am optimistic, but there is a bit of concern about future projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Auto Supply Chain Manager (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in subsidies may ripple back to us through procurement cycles.
- It could complicate contract negotiations, given the cost uncertainties.
- There's a historical precedent of needing to adapt quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a double-edged sword for sustainability.
- It may slow down EV adoption if car prices increase.
- On the other hand, it ensures more significant financial accountability among manufacturers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Electric Vehicle Owner (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I got my EV mainly because of the lower running costs and environmental benefits.
- If prices go up, it might change how often people can afford them.
- We need more support for these technologies rather than less.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
EV Industry Analyst (Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reduced subsidies can lead to substantial changes in manufacturing strategies.
- Companies might pivot to cost-cutting measures affecting their workforce.
- This policy could slow the pace of innovation in the electric vehicle sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Government Policy Maker (Washington)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aims to streamline and make subsidies cost-effective.
- It is crucial to balance financial sustainability with environmental goals.
- The longer-term impact could be positive if manufacturers adapt efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Automotive Industry Retiree (Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm detached from the direct impacts but have seen similar shifts affect the industry historically.
- The automotive sector is resilient, but workforce changes are inevitable.
- This could slow down the trend towards electrification if not managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Graduate Student (North Carolina)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy like this can spark debate on the best ways to fund new technologies.
- It is a learning opportunity to study policy impacts on technology adoption.
- I'm curious about how companies and consumers will adapt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $900000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential market hesitancy due to abrupt policy changes.
- Possible need for transitional supports to mitigate initial economic disruptions.
- Importance of maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the global electric vehicle market.