[Qinsp]

But just for the 2 largest EV suppliers in the USA: GM and Tesla.
The imports will not be affected.

Write your President, even if you hate his guts if you feel American companies should not be put at a disadvantage in the EV technology market. Here's what I wrote:

Concerning income tax rebates for EV technology cars:
Later this year, the two leading USA electric car companies, General Motors and Tesla Energy, will exceed the 200,000 car limit on tax rebates.
This is because they are the technology leaders, and hence, sold the most electric cars.
The foreign companies who sell cars in the USA, have made far, far fewer electric vehicles, so they still have plenty of tax rebates to last well into the future.

Effectively, later this year, the American companies are going to be 'punished' for making the best electric cars.
Those companies who did not make a serious effort will be rewarded by keeping their effective consumer prices down due to low production.

Electric propulsion going to be the most common technology for ground transportation in the future. It is critical that the USA continue to lead this technology. This has nothing to do with CO2 or global warming. It is a technology shift that will occur, just like computers replaced adding machines. Railroads, heavy equipment, cruise ships, subways, have been using electric propulsion for many decades, and it is increasing, so it's not only going to affect passenger cars.

To keep the USA in the lead we need at least parity with the tax reduction given to EV customers of foreign brands. If we give the tax reduction only to foreign companies, we will suffer serious consequences over the next generation, perhaps losing our automotive industry in the long run. Ask Mary Barra what she thinks about this issue. Or you could ask Elon Musk about how robots are going to kill us all. Just kidding on that last part.

Keep up the good work. I believe the majority of Americans are behind you, no matter how the media spins things.

Suggestion? Either keep the tax relief for EV buyers for all brands, or keep them equal among all brands. Better yet, reduce tax relief for foreign companies for EV sales.

 

[bjrosen]

GM has an army of lobbyists in Washington, dealing with this is their job. Contacting the President or Congress will have zero effect on this because no one will even notice.

 

[Qinsp]

GM has an army of lobbyists in Washington, dealing with this is their job. Contacting the President or Congress will have zero effect on this because no one will even notice.

Not correct. 1 letter, call, or email has the effect of multiple votes, although it dilutes itself after the city level.

The staff reads the letters, answers the calls, or reads the emails, and records the comments by area of interest. If the letter count is greater for one position, the public official is given the report. It has had effect in many areas. Political Science.

 

[Jim Fallston Md.]

With this President a thousand tweets would probably do the trick.

 

[obermd]

It's not that the tax credit will end. It's that these two companies will join Toyota in reaching the 200,000 EV sale point. The thread title is misleading.

 

[AZ EV Driver]

Toyota PiPs and Nissan Leaf also fall into this group. My feeling is that the tax credit should be configured to assist in the sale of electrified vehicles to benefit lower income customers first. So maybe a direct reduction in the sale price with an phased out limit based on higher total household income. It's the only way regular folks could consider new electrified vehicles. As it is now the price is too high for them and they can't really take advantage of the tax credit due to lower income levels.

VIN # B0985

 

[obermd]

This tax credit was signed into Law by Bush junior. In reality it's a subsidy to the auto manufacturers to allow them to recoup some of the R&D costs involved in electrifying their fleets. But to get it they have to build and sell vehicles the American public wants.

This is actually the second subsidy like this for vehicles. The first one was aimed at the early, non-plug in hybrids. The current subsidy only covers vehicles with plugs.

 

[bjrosen]

Toyota PiPs and Nissan Leaf also fall into this group. My feeling is that the tax credit should be configured to assist in the sale of electrified vehicles to benefit lower income customers first. So maybe a direct reduction in the sale price with an phased out limit based on higher total household income. It's the only way regular folks could consider new electrified vehicles. As it is now the price is too high for them and they can't really take advantage of the tax credit due to lower income levels.

VIN # B0985

The point of the tax credit was to jump start the EV industry and to get it over the initial hurdle of high battery costs, it's succeeded in to doing that, battery costs have dropped a lot and they remain on a steep downward trajectory. The law was written so that the credits wouldn't become permanent but instead would phase out when EV production passed a certain threshold, that was a good idea. However the mechanism is deeply flawed because just as we are reaching the point where EVs are becoming practical the innovators who made it happen, Tesla, GM and Nissan, are going to punished while the laggards will be rewarded. A better way to have written the bill would have been to set the limit based on total industry sales rather than pegging it to each manufacturer individually. There might be a new tax bill this year, although the chances that it will happen are small, and if it happens the subsidy should either be completely eliminated or it should be changed to a single industry cap, say 1 million vehicles. What shouldn't happen is that the subsidy should turn into yet another entitlement. The government shouldn't be paying for people's cars, the market does a good job of providing cars at all price points and it shouldn't be distorted by government subsidies.

 

[AZ EV Driver]

This tax credit was signed into Law by Bush junior. In reality it's a subsidy to the auto manufacturers to allow them to recoup some of the R&D costs involved in electrifying their fleets. But to get it they have to build and sell vehicles the American public wants.

This is actually the second subsidy like this for vehicles. The first one was aimed at the early, non-plug in hybrids. The current subsidy only covers vehicles with plugs.

The manufacturers receive NONE of the tax credit, all of the benefit goes to the purchaser of the vehicle. The only way it allows the manufacturer to recoup some of their R&D cost is through the actual sale of the vehicles. Electrified vehicle sales will only increase if they are available to a larger segment of the market, i.e. lower income customers. Many people may want them, but if they can't afford them it's a no sale and no growth in the market.

VIN # B0985

 

[Barry]

First, I would say sending that to the president is probably not as helpful as sending it to your representative and senators.

To look at the expiration on the brighter side... the fact that lagging companies will still have their credits available gives them a big incentive to get into the market. Especially after the credits expire for GM, Tesla and Nissan. That is when it will finally give them the competitive edge they will need to gain market share. Without that edge, it will be very difficult for newcomers to compete, so they might just stay out of the market much longer. But bringing more competitors to the market will be good for consumer choice and prices.

 

[AZ EV Driver]

The point of the tax credit was to jump start the EV industry and to get it over the initial hurdle of high battery costs, it's succeeded in to doing that, battery costs have dropped a lot and they remain on a steep downward trajectory. The law was written so that the credits wouldn't become permanent but instead would phase out when EV production passed a certain threshold, that was a good idea. However the mechanism is deeply flawed because just as we are reaching the point where EVs are becoming practical the innovators who made it happen, Tesla, GM and Nissan, are going to punished while the laggards will be rewarded.

The manufacturers receive NONE of the tax credit, so the "laggards" receive no more, or less, from the program than the "innovators".

A better way to have written the bill would have been to set the limit based on total industry sales rather than pegging it to each manufacturer individually. There might be a new tax bill this year, although the chances that it will happen are small, and if it happens the subsidy should either be completely eliminated or it should be changed to a single industry cap, say 1 million vehicles.

Agree, however the same industry cap should apply to the fossil fuel industry as well. Which should have happened years ago.

What shouldn't happen is that the subsidy should turn into yet another entitlement. The government shouldn't be paying for people's cars, the market does a good job of providing cars at all price points and it shouldn't be distorted by government subsidies.

The government isn't paying for people's cars, you still have to cough up the full price at the dealer. They are saying buy this type of vehicle and you won't owe them some portion of your taxes. Again, the government (who are us) shouldn't be distorting oil prices and profits by government subsidies either.

VIN # B0985

 

[Qinsp]

First, I would say sending that to the president is probably not as helpful as sending it to your representative and senators.

To look at the expiration on the brighter side... the fact that lagging companies will still have their credits available gives them a big incentive to get into the market. Especially after the credits expire for GM, Tesla and Nissan. That is when it will finally give them the competitive edge they will need to gain market share. Without that edge, it will be very difficult for newcomers to compete, so they might just stay out of the market much longer. But bringing more competitors to the market will be good for consumer choice and prices.

The two biggest automakers in the world do not actually need or want help making electric cars. They are very content with their competition burning cash on EVs.

No, your Congressional representation is more focused on name calling and heel dragging than working. Well, they do need campaign funding, so send them a fat check and they might listen. But probably not.

California's national representation has pretty much abandoned California. If California fell in the ocean, they would not know until the next round of fundraising dinners in LA. But they'd probably just reschedule to Las Vegas and carry on.

The current POTUS is more of a moderate than folk think.

 

[obermd]

The manufacturers receive NONE of the tax credit, all of the benefit goes to the purchaser of the vehicle. The only way it allows the manufacturer to recoup some of their R&D cost is through the actual sale of the vehicles. Electrified vehicle sales will only increase if they are available to a larger segment of the market, i.e. lower income customers. Many people may want them, but if they can't afford them it's a no sale and no growth in the market.

VIN # B0985

Strictly accurate but not realistically accurate - manufacturers receive this credit indirectly by being able to boost their prices by up to $7,500 per vehicle. I will be very surprised if the 2019 Volt wasn't priced 7 to 8 thousand less than the 2016-2018 Volts. This is exactly what Toyota did with the Prius.

 

[blastersix]

I would say that ultimately, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer as they set their selling point. So long as fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, it will be difficult for anyone to sell these types of vehicle at a profit. I can look right now and see Chevy Bolt's in the Midwest discounted over $7,000, before taking into account the tax credit I can take advantage of, but many others cannot. I think this article captures the issue well. Economies of scale will dictate how low manufacturers are willing to price their EVs and plug in hybrids. If you're big and profitable, you can absorb the cost. If not, it's a huge barrier to entry into the market.

https://qz.com/1025713/teslas-tsla-...matter-for-electric-vehicles-in-the-long-run/

 

[Barry]

The manufacturers receive NONE of the tax credit, so the "laggards" receive no more, or less, from the program than the "innovators".

While that is technically true, it is also true that the manufacturer does benefit from the tax credits. Not in the sense that the tax credit is a check made out to them, but in the sense that it increases the unit sales for their product, and also allows them to sell at a higher price than the market would otherwise be willing to bear for that product. Those are very real and important benefits to the manufacturer.

And if one manufacturer has credits while another one does not, that affects the competitive environment in very real ways. For instance, lets say the new Honda Clarity PHEV is similar to the Chevy Volt and they are both priced exactly the same, but only the Clarity has the tax credit. A customer might choose the Clarity over the Volt, and even pay somewhat more for it (demand less of a discount), knowing that the net cost after the tax credit will be much lower. Or Honda can just price the Clarity approximately $7,500 higher than the Volt and still be competitive against the Volt. Those would be very real benefits to Honda.

[edit: sorry, this basically repeats obermd's post above, but we posted about the same time]

 

[JRRF]

If GM and Tesla took real advantage of the rebates -- by using early sales dollars to invest in better and cheaper EV production -- then theoretically they should be able to compete head to head on price even with the tax break for newcomers. But if they just did business as usual and padded their bottom lines, then they will definitely be at a competitive disadvantage to new models that come out.

In a couple of years I see no reason not to be looking around at various new EV or EREV models that will be on the market. GM had their shot, and they will need to make a much better Volt to keep customers.

 

[Qinsp]

When Tesla, GM, and Nissan started, all the components and development was higher cost than it is in 2017 dollars and market.

So like many CEO's said, 2010 was not the 'right time' to worry about EV tech. Toyota's CEO still repeats the mantra.

Now there are more EV engineers, more component suppliers, cheaper batteries, it's way cheaper to start an EV program now than in 2010. So the early birds are going to be eating worms. That money they spent didn't fly out a monkey's butt.

 

[jbakerjonathan]

GM has an army of lobbyists in Washington, dealing with this is their job. Contacting the President or Congress will have zero effect on this because no one will even notice.

I'm going to guess that you use this same logic concerning your vote... and therefore don't.

 

[Raymondjram]

The present tax rebate has two mistakes:

1. It applies to Federal tax payments, so only those whose income is high enough to pay over $7,500 in taxes will get the full rebate. Lesser income that pays lesser taxes will get the matching tax rebate, and never get the excess back.
2. It applies to any EV producer, domestic or imported. Even Toyota and Nissan are benefited indirectly by not reducing their prices and this make more profit which goes to their Japanese banks.

This "rebate" should be at the point of sale without any income information, so any EV buyer can get the ful credit. And it should only be applied to domestic brands (GM, Ford, and Tesla), not to any import, even any that has local assembly plants, such as Nissan. To help pay for this "rabate" a tax should be applied to all imports, EV or gas. That is what Japan, China, and other nations do to U.S. products sold in their territories. It may be "nationalism" but if they do it, why can't we?

 

[bjrosen]

The present tax rebate has two mistakes:

1. It applies to Federal tax payments, so only those whose income is high enough to pay over $7,500 in taxes will get the full rebate. Lesser income that pays lesser taxes will get the matching tax rebate, and never get the excess back.
2. It applies to any EV producer, domestic or imported. Even Toyota and Nissan are benefited indirectly by not reducing their prices and this make more profit which goes to their Japanese banks.

This "rebate" should be at the point of sale without any income information, so any EV buyer can get the ful credit. And it should only be applied to domestic brands (GM, Ford, and Tesla), not to any import, even any that has local assembly plants, such as Nissan. To help pay for this "rabate" a tax should be applied to all imports, EV or gas. That is what Japan, China, and other nations do to U.S. products sold in their territories. It may be "nationalism" but if they do it, why can't we?

There is no such thing as a domestic brand. The Volt's engine is made in Mexico, the batteries and motors are sourced from LG. The Bolt was designed in Korea. All of the Japanese and German manufacturers have plants in the US.

I do agree with you about point of sale rebates, they would certainly me more effective than waiting for a tax refund. However my guess is that they didn't want the federal credit to be to attractive because that would that would have increased the rate at which it would have been consumed.