Chevron Exec is Secretly Pushing Anti-Electric Car Effort in Arizona (azcentral.com) 130
A California lobbyist for Chevron is urging retirees of the oil company in Arizona to oppose electric-car policies, saying the vehicles are too expensive for most people and should not be promoted. From a report: A handful of people who either retired from Chevron or from Unocal, which Chevron acquired in 2005, have used the form letter to urge Arizona Corporation Commissioners not to require electric companies here to build electric-car charging stations. Form letters are commonly used to lobby commissioners, but the secretive nature of this campaign has drawn criticism, including from a retiree who alerted commissioners to the lobbyist's effort.
The letters discourage electric-car infrastructure. "Let the electric vehicle industry finance the construction of the infrastructure from which it will benefit, rather than burdening most Arizona ratepayers with the costs of supporting the electric vehicle market," wrote Sel Larsen, the president of the Arizona retirees group. The letter-writing campaign is a response to a March document from the Corporation Commission asking electric companies in Arizona to propose how they will roll out electric-vehicle infrastructure and incorporate electric vehicles into their business.
The letters discourage electric-car infrastructure. "Let the electric vehicle industry finance the construction of the infrastructure from which it will benefit, rather than burdening most Arizona ratepayers with the costs of supporting the electric vehicle market," wrote Sel Larsen, the president of the Arizona retirees group. The letter-writing campaign is a response to a March document from the Corporation Commission asking electric companies in Arizona to propose how they will roll out electric-vehicle infrastructure and incorporate electric vehicles into their business.
China makes electrics for $4k (Score:2)
So, ask yourself, why are we paying so much?
Yup, it's so Chevron execs have bigger pensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Tesla sell their electrics for $60k when China makes electrics for $4k? What does that have to do with Chevron execs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: China makes electrics for $4k (Score:2)
Re:China makes electrics for $4k (Score:4, Informative)
Projections are that they will be on sale for around $10k in Canada, specifically in BC, and that's in Canadian dollars (does the math ... carry the 33 percent reduction ...) or ... $6700.
Yeah, you can afford that.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you just have to work in BC under a NAFTA/CAFTA FTA visa, which allows any American to work in Canada for 2 years (it's a one page form). While there, buy one and use it for work. Then drive it home as your personal car. They do a basic inspection, but it's really cheap. I learned about since my family is military.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious? This argument is like countering "Stalin killed 10 million Russians" with "yes but he didn't kill 100 million Russians. Got you there!"
Re: (Score:3)
Are those $4k numbers real? In China, LSEVs (Low-Speed Electric Vehicles) [insideevs.com] are available for under $2k, but it's debatable whether those are really cars or not. The Great Wall Motor's 2019 Ora R1 at $8680 [geek.com] is billed by some as the world's cheapest electric car, but that price is heavily subsidized, with some rumors pegging the non-subsidized cost at around $28k. In the US, the cheapest electric car offerings are around $30k, and that's for a range of 100 to 150 miles.
Single digit thousand USD electric cars
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the cheapest electric car offerings are around $30k, and that's for a range of 100 to 150 miles.
If you are counting the credits, then there are multiple good options around $30k that do 230-250 miles.
I am waiting a year to pull the trigger on a Hyundai Kona EV or Kia Niro EV to make sure they don't have any significant issues with their batteries (like early Nissan Leaf models have had).
Re: (Score:2)
What are these issues?
* I was considering to buy a Leaf...
Re:China makes electrics for $4k (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: China makes electrics for $4k (Score:1)
Yup. "You need subsidies to sell these things"
Totally oblivious to the $16 billion per year subsidies to the O&G producers and the $14.5 billion per year subsidies to the fossil-fuel consumers.
For the record I work at a large manufacturer of O&G equipment and drive a Volt.
Re: China makes electrics for $4k (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This is just semantics. Economists include targeted tax breaks under the defition of subsidy, see wikipedia article "subsidy".
Sure, you can have a contrary, personal, definition however that doesn't entitle you to claim the words means that for anyone else, let alone everyone else. Words have shared meanings in specific contexts, and economists - people who count here - have decided tax breaks fall under that definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right - everybody else has to pay normal tax rates, but you get an exemption that gives you *exactly* as big of an unfair advantage over the competition as would getting an equivalent subsidy and paying normal taxes, but it's completely different...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, your utility companies are foreign? Tesla is foreign?
Re: (Score:2)
The competition is not just foreign. It is in other industries. For example, if you subsidize gasoline cars, then you're not just biasing the market to local cars vs foreign cars, your biasing the market from other forms of transportation to local cars. This creates market inefficiencies (markets are efficient when prices reflect costs. Subsidies distort this), and the cost is actually born by everyone, but the benefits are reaped by only a few, so it's also unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way: When a company gets a tax break, it means someone else has to cover their share. Sometimes, it's a competitor. So, let's say a company moves into Rustown, Ohio, and gets a 5 year abatement on their taxes. Well, they're still using services like the companies that don't get the abatement, but they get them for free.
That's a payment. A transfer of wealth. The United States subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of $26-28 billion per year. If you count the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same argument: why focus on all the whales Japanese research ships harpoon when you should focus on all the whales Japanese research ships don't harpoon? They should be given equal weight.
Except the difference in this example is that ... unlike the example of whales that didn't get killed by Japanese whalers, you don't actually have any examples of non-renewable industries which didn't get subsidies, do you?
Re:China makes electrics for $4k (Score:5, Interesting)
We have subsidized them to reduce the perception of a huge cost disadvantage so that companies will actually build electric cars, in the hopes that by doing so, the cost of production will come down over time, as R&D costs get spread across larger and larger numbers of vehicles. The fact that only the middle class and wealthy can afford them is precisely why those subsidies are needed. And remember that those EVs will be resold as used cars in a few years, at which point the market for $10k EVs will exist, and they will easily last 10+ years, even if they're already that old at the time.
For the average consumer, an electric car is entirely practical. Most consumers do not routinely (or ever) drive more than 300 miles in a day, and most consumers have the ability to charge their cars at home. In fact, even with only high-end L1 charging (110V at 20A), I could get through a typical week without any supercharging, and I'm probably in the top quartile by miles driven.
I have recently read that most people calling electric cars impractical are actually shills for one of the major automobile manufacturers. Which one do you work for?
Re: (Score:3)
I have recently read that most people calling electric cars impractical are actually shills for one of the major automobile manufacturers.
That's not fair. Some people are genuinely ignorant, stupid, or a combination thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
We have subsidized them to reduce the perception of a huge cost disadvantage so that companies will actually build electric cars, in the hopes that by doing so, the cost of production will come down over time
Um, it's not a "perception", it's a reality.
Now, "we need to subsidize them so that they will get produced en masse in hopes that the price will come down" is an actual argument.
But it's silly to call the price differential a "perception" as though it's just some delusion we silly commoners have, and need to be enlightened out of. There actually is a large price differential.
Re: (Score:2)
We have subsidized them to reduce the perception of a huge cost disadvantage so that companies will actually build electric cars, in the hopes that by doing so, the cost of production will come down over time
Um, it's not a "perception", it's a reality.
Maybe, maybe not. A Camry starts at $25k, and a Model 3 starts at $35k. That's ostensibly a $10,000 up-front cost difference, BUT at 12 cents per kWH (the national average), at an average of 4.1 miles per kWh, you spend ~2.93 cents per mile on electricity. By contrast:
Re: (Score:2)
We have subsidized them to reduce the perception of a huge cost disadvantage so that companies will actually build electric cars, in the hopes that by doing so, the cost of production will come down over time
Um, it's not a "perception", it's a reality.
Now, "we need to subsidize them so that they will get produced en masse in hopes that the price will come down" is an actual argument.
But it's silly to call the price differential a "perception" as though it's just some delusion we silly commoners have, and need to be enlightened out of. There actually is a large price differential.
But it is a perception. When comparing the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) electric vehicles (EVs) have a significant advantage over traditional fuel vehicles, however; their up-front cost (purchase price) is typically higher -thus the perception is that they are more expensive to own.
The TCO on an EV is typically lower than that of an equivalent traditional fuel vehicle due to lower maintenance costs (brakes, oil changes, etc) as well as lower fuel costs (electricity vs gas/diesel).
There is the fear that th
Re: (Score:2)
True. But that ICE car requires brake replacement an order of magnitude more often than an EV does, which adds up to about a $10,000 difference over the life of the battery. And on average, you'll go through many thousands of dollars worth of automatic transmission repairs by the time the battery fails, too.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't get the need to hide his contempt.
Really, you must not be thinking about it very hard then. Everybody knows the oil executives hate electric cars, having them stand up and rant about it isn't going to sway any opinions. A covert PR program might though, which in turn lowers the cost of buying legislative votes since lawmakers won't face nearly the backlash..
Re: (Score:1)
That does explain Trump after all those golf cart rides he took in office while lying pathologically, good point. He's softer than Melania's wooden-spoon-scraped ovaries. #Unfair, Baron raised as a girl by Putin?
What, treasonous lying nazi faggots worry? [cnn.com]
Leave it alone (Score:2)
>"saying the vehicles are too expensive for most people and should not be promoted."
Free market and supply and demand will do the job, thanks. The government doesn't need to push or pay for electric car infrastructure or try to restrict it either. The market will decide- and it is deciding. It is why for electric cars, the prices keep dropping, demand and sales keep increasing, and more models are coming out.
The advantages of electric cars are many (reliability, simplicity, packaging, charge-at-home,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a good argument EXCEPT FOR THE PART where oil/gas extraction got hundreds of Billions if not several trillions in tax breaks, subsidies, sweetheart deals, etc. Other than that sure, the invisible hand is doing all the lifting here.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is a good argument EXCEPT FOR THE PART where oil/gas extraction got hundreds of Billions if not several trillions in tax breaks, subsidies, sweetheart deals, etc"
Actually, the electric car industry has also, through government rebates, incentives, tax breaks, etc. Whether it is to the same levels, I don't know, but probably not. I am (and have been) in favor of dropping any such nonsense for oil related stuff, too. So the question is- do we move forward and let things evolve on their own? Or d
Re: Leave it alone (Score:1)
China was not for sale in the 1950s. You may have never been told this, but a powerful Communist Party took over China in 1949, and for many years afterwards almost no westerners were allowed into the country.
Re: (Score:1)
"China was not for sale in the 1950s" I get that. It was kind of a side-point I was making.
(Let me just give credit where due : You're a fucking genius, for a Drumpftard. I mean that in a nice way, legitimately, most Drumpftards are so clueless they would never have noticed something like that. Nice work.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"Just the fact that you'd even rhetorically TRY to compare the two levels of taxpayer funding between 100+ years of oil production and 20~ years of EV possibility on any level, while oil/auto industries actively try to quash it also?"
My response would be: Do two wrongs make a right? I will give you that the scale is very different, but I still don't think that makes a valid argument that we should react by subsidizing "whatever is next."
>"Pretending the cost of EV / alternative energy sources is so
Re: (Score:2)
>"How was it wrong to invest on some level in either? Oil was ahead of its time until we discovered the problems."
There is your answer, right there. The idea is that some government "elites" in some agency or crony politicians can figure out what should or should not be subsidized, and how, and for how long, and what it does *IS* the problem. They can't.
>"Yet you don't want to equally fund moving to that cheaper/better future, you want to stay here."
Second part-not true. I very much support moving
Re: (Score:2)
Can't or Won't ? i think while oil fills the pockets of politicians then the answer is won't. I agree that subsidies should only be given to the new tech and oil/gas/nuclear subsidy/tax breaks should have stopped decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you didn't really mention the number I'll add it. The IMF found that in 2015 the oil and gas industry received ~$650B in subsidies from the government. The Pentagon's budget that year was $500B. The US govt could have took in enough money to fund the entire US military and have cool 150B left over in pocket change.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Since you didn't really mention the number I'll add it. The IMF found that in 2015 the oil and gas industry received ~$650B in subsidies from the government."
That is not for a single year. You are probably quoting the 2017 study from MISI in which that number is $666B in total (in 2015 dollar value) from 1950-2016 (66 years). So no, you could fund the military for about 36 days per year with that.
In 2016, there were way, way more allocations of "energy related tax preferences" for Renewables (59%) th
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the IMF report [imf.org] and it's bunk. It's a "we think there was this much cost, and since it wasn't charged that's a subsidy!" type fantasy.
Here's the real data [eia.gov] and you can see that the "subsidy" for natural gas and petroleum was around $-1 billion - yeah, and negative subsidy (meaning - tax increase). Coal was just over $1 billion, so I guess we can say fossil fuels were somewhere around $100-$200 million. Wind, solar, biomass combined for around $6 billion. Somewhere around 30-60 times that of fossi
Half the story (Score:3, Informative)
What's the big deal there? Look at the groups supporting the construction of charging stations at public expense, e.g.:
Solar Industries Association
National Energy Marketers Association
Direct Selling Association
Energy Storage Association
Renewable Energy Systems Americas
The Vote Solar Initiative
The Alliance For Solar Choice
So someone is opposing this proposal to add more subsidies. Boo Hoo.
Re: (Score:3)
The person opposing subsidies that will benefit everyone (less pollution, improved environment) is taking subsidies that harm everyone.
The moral thing would be to pivot and start installing EV infrastructure himself. Probably a sensible business move too, given that his gas stations will probably be going out of business in the next 20 odd years.
Chevron are just CARTOONISHLY villainous (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, does Chevron get their public relations directions from Dick Dastardly during sneering mustache-twirling sessions?
Buying up the rights to produce EV batteries and refusing to allow them to be made, placing media stories that firemen and other emergency responders would not rescue you if you were trapped in a hybrid vehicle "for fear of electrocution", and now this...
They're so clumsily incompetent at this ridiculous skulduggery it makes you almost feel bad for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in the mid future.
Is that half of infinite time, or is it something like 50 trillion years, or what?
Either way sounds like about the right time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
You will probably need to wait about 5 years before you can buy a used one for $1500. I'm not sure you'll like it much, but it won't be any longer than that. You can find used EVs for about $4k today.
Re: (Score:2)
The icing on the cake that I enjoyed in this particular story was that the lead shill used to work in their Global Lubes division. I shit you not.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/se... [linkedin.com]
I know it's useless to argue here (Score:1)
But he shouldn't complain about other people getting government subsidies.. Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he should! How else do you expect him to maintain his publicly-funded unfair advantage?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like the US government ever went to war to secure oil supplies, after all. Whereas we all remember the Great Lithium War of 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure rare earth metals provide some of the justification, but the tensions with China go a lot wider than resource conflicts, and the resource conflicts aren't driven solely (and not even primarily) by the demands of the US renewables industry (or EVs). And the rare earths trade dispute has been nowhere near as costly as Iraq I or II, or propping up the Saudis etc: not in treasure and not in blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the issues with China are pretty much resource-based. China's trying to accumulate more and more (mainly in Africa and SE Asia), and is bullying other nations to get what they want. Those others come and whine to the US and - once again - we go to save their asses with our own blood.
And you do realize, don't you, that the US really never got much oil from the Middle East? What we "protected" there was oil supplies for our allies in Asia and Europe. We've almost always gotten 85% or more of our oil
Re: (Score:2)
I am really bored of hearing from authoritatively wrong right wingers. We have enough of them in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a problem with cars being marketed in America though - as other's have pointed out there are several EVs being sold around the world for less than $10k.
Right now it seems that in America EVs are marketed exclusively as "high tech", with all sorts of computerized bells, whistles, and computerized driving aids. All of which completely ignores the fact that EVs predate the internal combustion engine, whose oil-based range far exceeded that possible with the lead-acid battery technology of the day. Mak
Oil companies have been successful (Score:1)
Actually, they have a point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could encourage the development of solar canopies in car parks, as happens in Caribbean islands. That would make it more pleasant to walk to the car, as well as making use of all that Arizonan sunshine.
Clueless caffeinated bacon (Score:2)
It has everything to do with chevron, EVs, and nuclear power (which provides more than 50% of Az's power).
Re: (Score:2)
Chevron e-charinging stations powered by diesel? (Score:2)
Chevron / EV battery patent (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Chevron has openly opposed EVs because they are approaching their obsolescence in an incredibly stupid way. While other majors are making investments in biofuels, natural gas, actively promoting EV chargers, getting into solar and wind, Chevron seems to only invest in marketing and lobbying.
There's many ways to approach the downturn of your industry, I think the American majors are going to be on the wrong side of history for this one.
Two can play at that game (Score:3)
Here's an 83 year old who's happy with her Model 3 (Score:3)
Found in: https://cleantechnica.com/2019... [cleantechnica.com]