Say, Can Colorado Sell Enough Electric Cars To Hit It’s Goal?


Post over.

Oh, OK

Can Colorado sell enough EVs to hit its climate change goals?

The challenges of convincing automakers to build more electric vehicles and Colorado consumers to buy them comes down to a story of Ford’s traditional show horses, the Mustang and the Bronco.

The 2021 electric version of Ford’s classic Mustang sports car got rave reviews. Enthusiastic Western Slope consumers ordered 13 of them from Glenwood Springs auto dealer Jeff Carlson.

About the same time, Ford announced it would revive its beloved four-wheel-drive Bronco after a 25-year hiatus. An electric or hybrid version might come eventually, but the first rejuvenated Broncos would run on gas.

Glenwood Springs customers ordered 160 of them.

Carlson says he is a fan of recent EV models from multiple manufacturers, and the goal of replacing gas-powered cars. Nevertheless, he says, “I can’t control customer demand.”

That’s the reality facing Gov. Jared Polis, his ambitions to combat climate change, and a legislature pondering its role in goosing EV sales. To meet emissions reduction goals codified in state law, the transportation segment of Polis’ plan calls for nearly 1 million EVs on Colorado roads in less than nine years.

The Mustang EV starts at just under $43,000. A 2021 Bronco starts at $28,500. Which sounds more enticing? Which sounds more affordable?

Colorado can’t just set a goal and hope, whether it’s EVs in question or other climate change fixes, said Kelly Nordini, executive director of Conservation Colorado. That’s why her group and allies are pushing to get more of the greenhouse-gas reduction goals written into law, with hard deadlines.

Well, that sounds more like they want to force people to buy them, despite being unaffordable and impractical for the majority of people. Once again

Beyond that, who’s paying for the EVs? They aren’t cheap, you know. The least expensive out there, excluding the tiny ones like those you rent in places like Bermuda (which makes sense there), is the Mini Cooper SE, with a range of 110 miles and a base price of $30,750. For that kind of money you could get a Honda Accord EXL or the Toyota Camry equivalent, higher end standard sedans, or the same trim levels for the CRV or RAV4. Their hybrid versions aren’t that much more expensive. And will go a lot longer, have a much lower cost of ownership, and much higher residual values.

EVs are toys for rich folks. Who often have a big fossil fueled vehicle for longer trips. Not sure about you, but, I rarely see Teslas when I drive down 40 to Wilmington or going west towards Greensboro or Charlotte. Nor the few times I hit 95 heading north.

Coloradans bought about 220,000 vehicles in 2020. Fewer than 7,500 of those were fully electric, according to new figures from the Colorado Auto Dealers Association.

So, even in Dem voting Colorado they’re having trouble selling them

Skeptics, including dealers, seem to be ignoring the revolution among carmakers, many of whom are pledging to go fully electric in the next few years, Will Toor, director of the state energy office, said.

“I don’t think that they are looking at what’s actually happening in the automobile industry,” Toor said.

Now, dealers are looking at what people actually buy. Honda stopped making the Fit for US sales because they weren’t selling many. Same with other manufacturers and their sub-compacts. This isn’t Field Of Dreams: if you build it they still won’t buy it.

Anyhow, this piece keeps going on and on and on, and even mentions inequality, which, in this case, is true. These are for rich folks, who get tax breaks.

Carlson has chargers available at his Western Slope dealerships, and agrees that building out the network is crucial if EVs are going to take over the market. He says, though, that he’s just not as certain as government and environmental leaders that car shoppers are ready to make big changes, fast.

“The consumer is a wily, wily critter,” Carlson said. “And the government thinks that they can tell the wily critter what to do.”

Yes, they do. And they will force you. To end up buying a scooter because you can’t afford an EV and don’t want to spend 2 hours on buses when your normal commute is 15 minutes.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Say, Can Colorado Sell Enough Electric Cars To Hit It’s Goal?”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host quoted:

    The challenges of convincing automakers to build more electric vehicles and Colorado consumers to buy them comes down to a story of Ford’s traditional show horses, the Mustang and the Bronco.

    It’s very simple: if consumer demand for electric vehicles increases, the manufacturers will build more of them. But the left do not believe that there will ever be that much demand for them, and that’s why they want to force manufacturers to build only electric vehicles after 2030 or 2035. They figure that, once the electric vehicles are the only new cars available, well that’s what people will have to buy.

  2. Professor hale says:

    This isn’t that hard. The state and local governments can simply replace their fleets of cars and trucks, including police and fire vehicles, as part of their normal replacement plan. No excuses about “these don’t meet our legitimate needs for bigger, more powerful vehicles”. Then they can feel good about saving the planet.

    • Dana says:

      At least some municipalities are doing that, and that’s fine with me. I just don’t want the government trying to force individuals to do that.

  3. Hairy says:

    The least expensive new car to own and opetate over 5 years is the Tesla mod 3
    After 5 years the savings difference will increase,they have by far the lowest operating cost
    And are much more fun to drive
    Even the base model goes from 0-60 in less than 6 seconds
    And each year battery performance increases
    Another reason why ExxonMobil stock price has gone down 50% in 5 years and Tesla stock “skyrocketed” youbknow “the free market”

    • Dana says:

      The hirsute one keeps repeating his mantra:

      The least expensive new car to own and opetate 9sic) over 5 years is the Tesla mod 3
      After 5 years the savings difference will increase,they have by far the lowest operating cost

      Except, of course, that the initial cost is far higher, and that means more of that five year cost has to be financed; buyers who cannot simply pay cash will have to pay more in interest over that five years. But Cousin It doesn’t seem to understand that part.

      Nevertheless, this article wasn’t about which vehicle costs more or less to own and operate over what period of time; it was about whether the American consumers’ choices are to buy plug in electric vehicles. Apparently the hirsute one believes that, if the Tesla Mod 3 is cheaper to own and operate, then everyone should choose that vehicle, and, therefore, since everyone should choose that vehicle, the government ought to use its power to force everyone to choose that vehicle!

      The left support freedom of choice on exactly one thing.

  4. Kye says:

    According to Consumer Reports the Toyota Hybrid.
    Saying a Tesla 3 is “much more fun to drive” is an opinion, not a fact. But it is a fact a Corvette is more fun to drive. Even a base Corvette goes from 0-60 in less than 6 seconds and you can actually feel the car and hear its roar rather than experience a high speed golf cart.

    I’m sure over time batteries will improve, technology does that. But I am concerned about the destruction of the earth due to battery requirements.

    I want to know why you seem to hate Exxon. They pay good dividends and are great for older investors portfolios. What seems to be your problem? Perhaps if Exxon received $2.44 billion in government subsidies which include 82 federal grants and 27 state and local grants they would be more appealing to you.

    Tesla entire business model to date has been built on gov. subsidies. From the $1.2 billion to build a battery plant in Reno to the $7,500 EV purchaser credits. Without them Tesla would never have been profitable. So basically the gov. has paid our tax dollars to keep Tesla running. I guess that “lower operating cost” is really due to other people paying for some people to drive Tesla’s. That’s communism, not free market.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Ford borrowed $5.937 billion under the ATVM Loan Program. Ford still hasn’t paid it back.
      $33,489,841,570 ($33.49 billion) in total.

      Nissan borrowed $1.448 billion under the ATVM Loan Program and still hasn’t paid it back.
      $1,955,199,450 ($1.96 billion) in total.

      GM and Chrysler both went into bankruptcy and had to be rescued under a separate program.
      GM’s total subsidy value is $50,346,920,000 ($50.35 billion).
      Fiat-Chrysler’s total subsidy value is $17,599,200,000 ($17.6 billion).

      Tesla paid back (with interest) the original $0.4 billion loan. Tesla has received over $2 billion in federal, state and local subsidies, including inducements for locating facilities.

      In addition, every billion to be spent on global warming remediation and medical expenses associated with fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.

      Direct subsidies to select fossil fuel corporations:

      Exxon Mobil: total subsidy value is $1,015,682,466 ($1.02 billion);
      Exxon’s federal loans/bailout assistance total: $3,853,988,000 ($3.85 billion).

      Chevron: total subsidy value is $117,023,474 ($117 million);
      Chevron’s federal loans/bailout assistance: $2,074,752,000 ($2.07 billion)

      Shell: total subsidy value is $1,795,683,725 ($1.8 billion);
      Total $2,686,000 ($2.69 million).

      Roads are a subsidy for all vehicle corporations.

      But suddenly Tesla is COMMUNISM!!!

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Rimjob not telling the whole story again.
        Imagine that.


        Bwaha! Lolgf

      • Kye says:

        Roads are not subsidies, they’re infrastructure and benefit all people and businesses. It’s hard to have an intelligent conversation with a person who lies by manipulating the meaning of words to suit his argument.

        “But suddenly Tesla is COMMUNISM!!!”

        there is nothing “sudden” about it. I was and am against ALL subsidies for those businesses because unlike you I am not a communist. I was/am okay with loans to the same. I imagine as a fascist/communist you were/are for them. The only loans you ever hated were the ones I got.

        “In addition, every billion to be spent on global warming remediation and medical expenses associated with fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.”

        No, they are subsidies to the billionaires making money on the Climate Scam. Get your beneficiaries correct.

        Now, My home has been approved from the gov. for refugee relocation and I can accept as many as ten refugees, two for each bedroom. My thanks to the illegal Junta and their mismanagement of a once perfectly stable border just to get more illegal votes. I’d also like to thank the Red commentator personally for paying his taxes to support the senile fool on the WH.

        Still you hide from the questions:
        Why do you hate White people?
        Why do you hate Christians?
        Why do you hate America?
        We know why you hate me: because I used your own laws against you and that burns the shit out of you.


      • Jl says:

        Good one-“Global warming remediation and medical expenses”. First, there’s no proof “global warming remediation” is needed, whatever that is. Second, the clowns from wherever you got that information forgot to add in the almost incomprehensible benefits that fossil fuels give us into the equation-though I’m sure it was just an oversight….Third, loans aren’t a subsidy, because they have to paid back. Fourth-“roads a subsidy”. Most roads are paid for by using tax dollars, so basically no subsidy. And the last thing your clowns forget to factor in was taxes, which is a negative subsidy. Another oversight, I’m sure. Federal gas tax of 18 cents a gallon and a states-wide gas tax of about 24 cents on average bring in about 60-90 billion dollars that go right back into government coffers-and aviation and diesel taxes aren’t included in the above figures. I’m sure quite a few gallons of aviation fuel are used every year..Gee, I’m still amazed they forgot the taxes part…

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      And your point?

      Here’s the Turow coal mine.

      Regardless of the source, energy industries have an environmental cost, right? Besides adding CO2 to the atmosphere causing the climate emergency, coal mining, oil drilling and transport and fracking for natural gas have their own impacts. Nuclear power has its own drawbacks – expense of power plants, liability associated with accidents, nuclear waste. The same with renewables and the transition to electrically powered vehicles and homes. We have to balance the benefits against all the risks.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Oh now Rimjob is labeling it a “climate emergency”!!!

        OMG! We’re all gonna die! Wahhh!!!


        Bwaha! Lolgf

  5. MrToad says:

    I don’t think the goal is “selling electric cars” as much as removing existing internal combustion engine cars. Replacement isn’t the goal. Removal of “bad cars” is the goal.

    Colorado democrats wouldn’t care if the state took all of the cars from wrong thinking republican voters. They’d only start to care when the state started taking the cars of loyal democrat voters.

Pirate's Cove