Perhaps this incentive question will become moot if/when a big battery breakthrough lowers manufacturing cost enough.
Ultimately, yes.
The problem with BEV adoption is cost. When something costs more, you look for (or manufacture) reasons NOT to buy it to justify saving money. When something costs less, you rationalize reasons not to buy it as being irrelevant.
Nobody wants to admit they won't buy a BEV because they can't afford it. So they claim to worry about range anxiety, or worry about cold weather performance, or worry about battery degradation. Which, from all the research I've done, are pretty much nothingburgers. But when you don't have the money, they become excellent excuses for why BEVs "suck".
The moment the costs flip, all of a sudden you don't worry about range anxiety. After all, that only comes into play on long road trips, so you prioritize never having to go to the gas station because you fill up at home. You don't worry about cold weather battery performance, because, hey, there are only so many truly FRIGID days a year, and how often do you need ALL your range? And you don't worry about battery degradation, because you have 8 year / 80,000 mile battery warranty, and you only charge to 80% because you know about it, and the rare people crying about battery replacement costs aren't that much worse than the people who have their engine or transmission blow up and have to pay for a replacement. It's just bad luck and surely it won't happen to me!
I don't mean to quote a certain individual given his current transgressions, but... "It's all about the Benjamins, baby!"
