Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Will Be First Automaker To Lose the Federal Tax Credit For Electric Cars (theverge.com)
Tesla has confirmed to Jalopnik that its 200,000th vehicle has been delivered this month, meaning the full $7,500 federal tax credit for electric cars will slowly be phased out. Tesla is the first automaker to reach this mark. "GM is close, too, while Nissan, Ford, and others still have a ways to go," notes The Verge. From the report: Tesla customers who take delivery of their cars -- regardless of whether it's a Model S, X, or 3 -- between now and December 31st, 2018, will still be eligible for the full $7,500 credit from the IRS. Customers who take delivery of their cars between January 1st and June 30th, 2019, will only be eligible for a $3,750 credit. And customers who take delivery of their cars between July 1st and December 31st, 2019, will be offered just $1,875. After that, the incentive is dead.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Or not..
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
The way the thing is set up at the moment, as soon as a automaker hits 200,000 cars the subsidy decay clock begins for that automaker. Other manufacturers can amble up to the line and then take their swill from the trough at their leisure knowing their slice is reserved.
A better way would have been to have a larger shared trough of subsidy $ that is gobbled up and gone when it's gone. That would have accelerated EV manufacture as it would encourage more rapid adoption and penalise the slackards.
There's just no such thing as a cheaper way to power cars... just a different way of doing things.
Actually, it's much cheaper to power an electric car.
if there was a better way to move fuel, everybody would be going for it.
And everybody would move to electric cars if the cars themselves cost the same amount of money.
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
My used 2015 Nissan leaf was significantly cheaper to buy than an equivalent ICE car and is significantly cheaper to run.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
the electric vehicle tax credits began prior to obama's administration. it was tacked onto the bank bailout bill that was passed a month before the 2008 election.
Model 3 weights are about the same as their performance equivalents in the same size class from BMW (3 Series). It takes about ten minutes each time time to dig up all the references, so I'm not going to be bothered to do it again for the tenth time, but if you want to do it yourself: Model 3 SR roughly matches up with a BMW 330i, Model 3 LR roughly matches up with a 340i. Don't forget to add in roughly half a tank of gas to the BMWs. Beyond these, Dual Motor adds a lot of performance for just a small extra weight penalty (Model 3 SR dual motor might even end up faster than the 340i), and Performance adds even more.
But I know you guys prefer to mismatch size classes when you do your comparisons, so by all means ;)
Model 3 LR also goes further in city driving on a full charge than the 340i goes on a full tank, by the way ;) And the former starts out every day charged; the latter averages half a tank available on any given day. The 340i only beats the LR on range in combined and highway driving.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Programme was established under Bush. Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
but the wealthy buy both parties off. The only solution is candidates who pledge to take no corporate PAC money. Right now these are the Democrat equivalent. If anyone knows any Republican equivalents let me know. I haven't found any but that doesn't mean they're not out there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
EV sales aren't being driven by the market though. They're being driven by California's ZEV mandate, which requires a certain percentage of each automaker's sales be EVs (or they buy credits from an automaker who exceeds their quota). If they fail, they're banned from selling cars in California. And since about a dozen states automatically adopt California's guidelines, they'd end up banned from selling cars from about a third of the U.S. by population. Nobody wants to be cut off from a third of the U.S. market, so they're all working to push out EVs, and offer incentives and sales to make sure they sell enough of them to meet their quota.
Once you understand that, you realize that giving each automaker a reserved slice of the subsidy is the only way to make it fair.
Amazing how quickly people forget history. This tax credit was established under Bush.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
The incentives running out is exactly how the law was implemented under the Obama administration.
Ken
Here in Ontario , the newly elected Progressive Conservative government cancelled any tax incentives for electric cars, starting September. But that is only when you buy the car through a dealer. If you buy the car directly (like all Teslas are), the incentives are cancelled immediately, leaving those who ordered Teslas on the hook for C$14,000 more.
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project, with hefty penalties expected, and cancelled the carbon trading system, which provided C$100 million for schools. No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
If you are serious about infrastructure taxes then you should tax based on damage done by weight. Big rigs with heavy loads do 10000x the damage as a your run of the mill two ton car. Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
85% of the power delivered to my house is zero-carbon-emission, with 58% of it being categorized as "renewable" (wind, solar, and small hydro). 27% is from large hydro. 15% is "unspecified", likely purchased on the open market to cover spikes in demand.
The local power company will be offering 100% carbon-free power later this year for an extra cent-per-kilowatt hour. I intend to switch to that, as well as adding a grid-tied solar system to the roof of my house (at the very least, it'd lower my bill and make using air conditioning much less expensive).
So, while there's likely still some carbon emission due to constructing the various generating stations, and in the 15% of "unspecified" sources of power, the electricity I use to power my Chevy Bolt is dramatically cleaner than burning gasoline, and any emissions take place relatively far from where I live, drive, and work. More effective emissions controls can be installed on a stationary power plant far more easily than on size-and-weight-constrained mobile vehicles. Charging at night, during off-peak times, can be considerably cheaper and help balance power consumption, thus increasing the efficiency of the whole system.
Electric vehicles have a dramatic advantage over gas-powered vehicles, in that the sources of electric power can be incrementally changed and improved over time without needing to change anything on the consumer's end. For example, coal power plants could be gradually shut down and replaced with natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Thus, the energy used to power people's home, work, and vehicles would become incrementally cleaner. That's not really feasible with gas or diesel vehicles, since any replacement fuel would need to be compatible with existing engines, widely available, etc. So far, that's not really happened.
The current US credit was codified into law in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. It was never "replaced"; it was insignificantly modified by ARRA and ACES, but generally kept in its original form.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Perhaps you fail to understand that calling someone a paedophile can get people killed. Indeed there are so many morons around that even a paediatrician can be driven out of her house.
Musk may be a far-sighted genius but he also looks like a deeply unpleasant character with plenty of flaws of his own.
Ah, yes, this old argument. Easily refuted.
So what "assigns" a car maker the subsidy, and what mechanism "uses one up" ?
Could Eon create a second, third, and fourth Electric car company, lease some Tesla production facilities and license some Tesla IP to the additional companies, and get the subsidy for 200,000 more vehicles manufactured by each additional company?
By how much would a new car manufacturer's product, supply lines, and distribution be required to differ in order to say they are Different car companies for purpose of counting subsidies?
Your own quoted text shows the language is completely replaced. Yes, the size of the credit was multiplied by the number of manufacturers, else it would have run out a fair bit ago. What other credits you can take it with and its interaction with depreciation was changed. The eligibility threshold was pushed up one 1KW-hr of capacity. The credit was limited to existing tax obligation (not refundable). It was allowed for lease and its interaction with business taxes was substantially changed. Etc, etc, etc.
It's a common misconception and it varies by state but gas taxes only pay for a portion of the costs of roads and bridges. The EV owners don't get to use them for free because they are largely paid for through other taxes.
Also consider that the cost of damages done by air pollution in the US was 131 billion in 2011 and that transportation is the major source of air pollution in the US. Fortunately, as the degree of air pollution has decreased, so have the associated costs. It was 175 billion in 2002.
We're all paying for that and fortunately, EVs are helping to reduce that cost.
You're welcome.
> Regen braking is shit for stopping a vehicle. It can slow a car down gently but it can't be used for emergency braking or to come to a complete stop.
Emergency braking is only done in emergencies. If you find yourself emergency braking on a regular basis, you need to reconsider how you drive.
Suppose you're going 45 mph, and you want to come to a complete stop in a normal manner. Suppose to do regen braking from 45 to 15 and then switch to 100% normal braking. You'll still recover almost 90% of the energy.
Obama had quite thick skin actually. He put up with 8 straight years of shit pretty gracefully.
Now Trump gets the same treatment. It has only just begun.
As a non-American I can objectively say he is by far the whiniest president ever.