EVs have long been touted as the future of the automotive world, offering up an alternative to ICE-powered vehicles that’s more environmentally friendly, not to mention more fun to drive in some instances. However, many remain a bit skeptical about all-electric vehicles, which also have their fair share of shortcomings at the moment – chiefly range, longer charging times, cost, and a general lack of charging infrastructure, though none are insurmountable. Now, a new study from Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC (EIPT) has found that EVs could ultimately have a very positive impact on our lives in a number of ways, too.
The idea behind this particular study is to determine what would happen if all U.S. states adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule (ACC II), which requires increasing sales of new zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) starting in 2026 up to 100 percent ZEV sales in 2035. Currently, 16 states have already followed California’s lead in that regard, adopting Section 177 of the U.S. Clean Air Act, which states that these entities can do so rather than following less stringent federal requirements.
Ultimately, the study found that if all U.S. states adopted these same rules, it would result in a reduction of 1.3 gigatons of carbon emissions by 2050, while also saving the average household around $238 in total costs per year, create 300,000 new jobs, and prevent 5,000 deaths, along with 160,000 asthma attacks and 570,000 health-induced lost workdays.
Though the average cost of a new EV remains higher than its ICE counterpart, EIPT also argues that ownership costs for an all-electric vehicle are actually lower due to current federal tax credits and the fact that operating and maintenance costs are typically around 40-60 percent less than ICE vehicles. In this scenario, the non-profit estimates that EVs could make up 66 percent of the U.S. auto market by 2035, a number that grows to 81 percent in 2050.
We’ll have more insights like this to share soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for ongoing Ford news coverage.
Comments
If China decommisions 1000 coal burning power plants. If USA auto companies dont rely upon foreign lands to mine rare earth elements. If they dont use diesel powered equipment to mine and ship this material long distances. If mining the rare earth material doesnt require slave or child labor. If the USA has adequate power generating capacity. If those ccs charging stations become reliable and increase in numbers. If those elected officials dont add on more and more fees and surcharges to charging stations and to the grid.
…and…IF…we quit electing Marxist politicians to run
our country.
Seriously Dave? I don’t think you really know what you are talking about.
Oh no. Not change!
I’m all in favor of PROGRESS…….
Its CHANGE that I can’t stand !
With the price of energy and new vehicles rising change is all you’ll have left.
It is good to be skeptical of new things. That’s how we survive over time. To me, this has not become political….it is practical…as are the obstacles EVs face in getting widely adopted in the US. People should do what they are comfortable with right now although, at some point, government has to make a big picture decision that does not suit all of us. Among my friends, most of whom are well over 65, there are die hard gas vehicle devotees. My cars include two gas cars and one all electric car. We don’t debate the ultimate value of either…there are lots of pros and cons to consider. But I love the frisky personality and comfort of my Audi Etron and we use it for most of our local driving. We don’t miss the time and expense of getting gas…. but are aware that it doesn’t work for everyone.
I’m confused as to why the “government has to make a big picture decision that does not suit all of us.”
You could have just stopped at “I’m confused.”
YOU MUST BE A PAID INSTIGATOR FOR THE EV WORLD. AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME ALL WE ARE DOING IS ENRICHING CHINA AND PARTICIPATING IN SLAVE LABOR A THING A=THAT ALL LIBS HATE UNLESS ITS GOOD FOR THEM
The majority of all Americans aren’t buying into this sudden EV shift, though. Cost, range and a lack of charging stations of the reasons why most determined that they would avoid these types of vehicles. Ford, like other automakers, has over invested in the EV sector and now it’s starting to have an impact on the quality of their vehicles. Farley’s comment about “taking years” to fix quality issues should be troubling to investors. If Ford wants better results, then they need to get rid of Farley and everyone around him with the same ideas.
Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC (EIPT)
Not too much bias here…..
Companies often name themselves after the products, services, or sectors they serve.
What did you expect, that they call themselves Peanut Butter Fish Stew Extravaganza, LLC?
Thank God you are back. It’s been getting boring in the comment section lately without your witty replies.
In a moment, RWFA will plug into the socket and spit its EV rhetoric and why? Because Ford is paying him for it
I’m thinking the article failed to mention the majority of vehicle consumers don’t want EV’s and one of the reasons is: freedom of choice to purchase what they want and not having the government mandating what consumers will buy-
This would be the only study ever to suggest that complete changeover to EV’s would increase jobs. The vehicles require up to 50% less assembly line workers, and with a 50% reduction in maintenance costs that will also reduce service technicians. I wouldnt place any value in this
Frisky personality? Obviously confused!
See Scotty kilmer for some real common sense. If evs were so great they wouldn’t have to force them on people. New tech is supposed to be better. Not cost more be more inconvenient have no better impact on the environment. Makes no sense. Follow the money.
Spend an extra $20k to save $238. That’s liberal math for you. Lies, darn lies, and EV statistics.
Propaganda! Where is Herr Goebbels? Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
Not all states are gullible enough to pass ACCII, thank goodness.