First any subsidy on fuel-efficient vehicles will not be fully effective until you end subsidies on petroleum fuel. Most consumers will look at petro prices as a key factor in switching to EVs or ditching their V8 vehicles for an efficient V6 or 4 cylinder engine. One example on how to reduce subsidies, being considered in Congress is to shift risk from U.S. taxpayers to private insures to cover all liabilities in production and refining of petroleum.

Second, should we be rewarding the consumer with general subsidies for fuel-efficient gas-powered cars? On one hand, it makes sense becasue say a $450 subsidy for a 20 percent improvement in ICE 1.6 liter engines is wort a lot more in actual savings to the taxpayer eg. environmental savings, military/diplomacy savings, & consumer fuel savings.

BUT incentives for ICE vehicles may uncut some attention that is needed to develop EVs as a good alternative to ICE vehicles. Also, subsides can distort real market prices. How do we really now that Nissan or GM would not pocket say $500 more knowing that the consumer is being subsidized $7,500 so they artificially make the initial MRSP $500 higher than if no subsidy? Also, with subsides, many auto-manufactures may elect to offer little or no incentives on the subsidized product.

Personally I would skip the subsidies on traditional ICE vehicles. It is only my opinion but we need to quickly create a good/ real alternative to diesel/gas vehicles that have dominated the market for over the last 100 hundred years. I would argue that EVs need greater market penetration than hybrids. Is this because of poor policy or because hybrids are not a true alternative to traditional ICE vehicles, my opinion a combo of both…. So I would use a mix of government policy tools to make sure within fifteen years every major auto-marker has at least one sedan, one compact &/or sub, one small SUV/Crossover or station wagon electric vehicle in their line-up with little cross collaboration or leasing on technology and pricing.