New Climate bill makes EV tax credits "nearly impossible"

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
idiots


The climate bill could short-circuit EV tax credits, making qualifying for them nearly impossible


Rapid and widespread adoption of electric vehicles will be essential for the United States to meet its climate goals. And the new bill, which includes a host of other health and tax-related provisions, aims to encourage people to trade their gasoline-fueled cars for electrics by offering a tax credit of up to $7,500 for new electric vehicles and up to $4,000 for used electric vehicles through 2032.

But there’s a catch, and it could end up making it difficult for most EVs to qualify for the new incentive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
So for the first time at least SOME of the EV credits make sense to me, but only some and those will likely get changed this week in the House.
. Domestically sourced mineral and vehicle production. This is critical, why do we want to rely so much on China? When will we learn. Bring production home. Please.
. Folks earning more than $300,000 are ineligible. That is a great thing but should be lower [$200,000?] Only 2% of people earn more than $300,000. If you want to encourage mass adoption, lower the ineligible threshold and increase the rebate.
. $80,000 for trucks and $55,000 for cars? Way too high. Lower them each by $10,000. This will force manufacturers to get more efficient in production.

Finally why not have this phase in and allow the manufacturers to get their manufacturing and sourcing in line. Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoulderFish

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
So for the first time at least SOME of the EV credits make sense to me, but only some and those will likely get changed this week in the House.
. Domestically sourced mineral and vehicle production. This is critical, why do we want to rely so much on China? When will we learn. Bring production home. Please.
. Folks earning more than $300,000 are ineligible. That is a great thing but should be lower [$200,000?] Only 2% of people earn more than $300,000. If you want to encourage mass adoption, lower the ineligible threshold and increase the rebate.
. $80,000 for trucks and $55,000 for cars? Way too high. Lower them each by $10,000. This will force manufacturers to get more efficient in production.

Finally why not have this phase in and allow the manufacturers to get their manufacturing and sourcing in line. Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.
I believe the $300k is joint, $200k single. you need to have that kind of income to afford an EV. Most are well over $50k if you can find one. And, many are above MSRP. Secondly, the issues with China (Pelosi visit) stand to make this even worse.

I also understand that there is a smaller incentive for used cars but under $25k cars. Jeebus, where are you going to find an EV for less than $25k?

Lastly, GM simply increased the price of the Bolt by the incentive. When the incentive went away, they dropped the price by $6,500. So the incentive really went to GM, not the consumer.
 

psualt

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2014
3,123
3,297
1
So for the first time at least SOME of the EV credits make sense to me, but only some and those will likely get changed this week in the House.
. Domestically sourced mineral and vehicle production. This is critical, why do we want to rely so much on China? When will we learn. Bring production home. Please.
. Folks earning more than $300,000 are ineligible. That is a great thing but should be lower [$200,000?] Only 2% of people earn more than $300,000. If you want to encourage mass adoption, lower the ineligible threshold and increase the rebate.
. $80,000 for trucks and $55,000 for cars? Way too high. Lower them each by $10,000. This will force manufacturers to get more efficient in production.

Finally why not have this phase in and allow the manufacturers to get their manufacturing and sourcing in line. Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.
All are very good points.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,045
37,444
1
Folks earning more than $300,000 are ineligible. That is a great thing but should be lower [$200,000?] Only 2% of people earn more than $300,000. If you want to encourage mass adoption
We normally agree on things but not this.

First of all the whole climate thing is a disaster. What sense does it make to spend $trillions in hopes of reducing CO2 by 0.1 degrees?

Second, EVs should stand on their own merits. Manufacturers will build them and customers will buy them if they're a good value.

Third, it's just as important for high income people to lower emissions than it is for lower income people to lower emissions.

P.S. I think EVs have a place and I would definitely consider buying one. I'm not an EV hater.
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,254
3,353
1

We have a long way to go to develop an EV supply chain.​

Starting in 2023:​

The bill excludes incentives for any new vehicle which contains battery materials or components extracted, processed, manufactured or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern” – a category which includes China.​


According to Benchmark Intelligence, a market research firm that tracks the battery industry, China currently controls 81% of global cathode manufacturing capacity, 91% of global anode capacity, and 79% of global lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity. By comparison, the United States has 0.16% of cathode manufacturing capacity, 0.27% of anode manufacturing capacity, and 5.5% of lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Spin Meister

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,048
6,332
1
We normally agree on things but not this.

First of all the whole climate thing is a disaster. What sense does it make to spend $trillions in hopes of reducing CO2 by 0.1 degrees?

Second, EVs should stand on their own merits. Manufacturers will build them and customers will buy them if they're a good value.

Third, it's just as important for high income people to lower emissions than it is for lower income people to lower emissions.

P.S. I think EVs have a place and I would definitely consider buying one. I'm not an EV hater.
5 years from now the issue will be “High earners are not buying EV”
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1

We have a long way to go to develop an EV supply chain.​

Starting in 2023:​

The bill excludes incentives for any new vehicle which contains battery materials or components extracted, processed, manufactured or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern” – a category which includes China.​


According to Benchmark Intelligence, a market research firm that tracks the battery industry, China currently controls 81% of global cathode manufacturing capacity, 91% of global anode capacity, and 79% of global lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity. By comparison, the United States has 0.16% of cathode manufacturing capacity, 0.27% of anode manufacturing capacity, and 5.5% of lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity.
..and with Pelosi's Taiwan visit, this may get worse in the near future
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
We normally agree on things but not this.

First of all the whole climate thing is a disaster. What sense does it make to spend $trillions in hopes of reducing CO2 by 0.1 degrees?

Second, EVs should stand on their own merits. Manufacturers will build them and customers will buy them if they're a good value.

Third, it's just as important for high income people to lower emissions than it is for lower income people to lower emissions.

P.S. I think EVs have a place and I would definitely consider buying one. I'm not an EV hater.
We aren't as far apart as you think.

Climate thing a disaster.- agreed

EV's should stand on their own merits - agreed and in most cases they are. As i said Ford is sold out for 3 years on it's truck and 1 year on it's Mustang. tesla they say is sold out.

If emissions are important it is just as important for high income to lower them as low income. - Well that part is true but where we disagree is the incentive portion. Why should someone earning $80,000 per year help pay the EV credit for someone earning $300,000 per year. It doesn't make sense for me. By your argument we should all share in the tax incentive for Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to buy a Tesla. If you say that doesn't make sense it just becomes a question of where you draw the line.

Remember I think EV's should stand on their own but if you want mass adoption eliminate the incentive on the high income and increase the incentive for the low income. that idea is certainly progressive and not "equal" but we do it with social security tax, medicare premiums, the regular tax code, why shouldn't we do it with $80,000 trucks.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
We aren't as far apart as you think.

Climate thing a disaster.- agreed

EV's should stand on their own merits - agreed and in most cases they are. As i said Ford is sold out for 3 years on it's truck and 1 year on it's Mustang. tesla they say is sold out.

If emissions are important it is just as important for high income to lower them as low income. - Well that part is true but where we disagree is the incentive portion. Why should someone earning $80,000 per year help pay the EV credit for someone earning $300,000 per year. It doesn't make sense for me. By your argument we should all share in the tax incentive for Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to buy a Tesla. If you say that doesn't make sense it just becomes a question of where you draw the line.

Remember I think EV's should stand on their own but if you want mass adoption eliminate the incentive on the high income and increase the incentive for the low income. that idea is certainly progressive and not "equal" but we do it with social security tax, medicare premiums, the regular tax code, why shouldn't we do it with $80,000 trucks.
Agreed but my big issues are twofold.

First, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that EV's, and solar, are actually worse for the overall environment than fossil fuel-based vehicles.

Second, I think most people agree that there is climate change in the way of Global Warming. But...
  1. we don't know if it is man-made. There is evidence to suggest it may be but that is certainly not definitive.
  2. If it is man-made, given the lack of alignment with nations like China, Russia, Brazil, etc., is man capable of reversing it? Probably not, really.
  3. Can there be a consensus on the cost of #2 above? Can that be compared to the cost of simply living with Global Warming?
  4. The cost of converting to EVs, and the damage done to earth in terms of batteries and electricity, why hasn't hydrogen been better more? The output of hydrogen is water (which we can certainly use more of).
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,267
27,934
1
An altered state

We have a long way to go to develop an EV supply chain.​

Starting in 2023:​

The bill excludes incentives for any new vehicle which contains battery materials or components extracted, processed, manufactured or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern” – a category which includes China.​


According to Benchmark Intelligence, a market research firm that tracks the battery industry, China currently controls 81% of global cathode manufacturing capacity, 91% of global anode capacity, and 79% of global lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity. By comparison, the United States has 0.16% of cathode manufacturing capacity, 0.27% of anode manufacturing capacity, and 5.5% of lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity.
Great post. Shows what idiots DC swamp creatures are. They passed this so they could pat each other on the back, get great press coverage, and most importantly justify more donations from stupid green people that don’t understand math and economics.

Doesn’t matter at all that it won’t help at all. Hell, they probably love the idea that no EVs will qualify so tax revenue won’t take a hit. Bet they laugh to each other over their cocktails on their yachts.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
Agreed but my big issues are twofold.

First, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that EV's, and solar, are actually worse for the overall environment than fossil fuel-based vehicles.

Second, I think most people agree that there is climate change in the way of Global Warming. But...
  1. we don't know if it is man-made. There is evidence to suggest it may be but that is certainly not definitive.
  2. If it is man-made, given the lack of alignment with nations like China, Russia, Brazil, etc., is man capable of reversing it? Probably not, really.
  3. Can there be a consensus on the cost of #2 above? Can that be compared to the cost of simply living with Global Warming?
  4. The cost of converting to EVs, and the damage done to earth in terms of batteries and electricity, why hasn't hydrogen been better more? The output of hydrogen is water (which we can certainly use more of).
Well I agree with almost all of your points but the EV cat is out of the bag. All manufacturers are putting most of their eggs in the EV basket. Hell, most of Europe is making ICE vehicles illegal after 2035.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
Well I agree with almost all of your points but the EV cat is out of the bag. All manufacturers are putting most of their eggs in the EV basket. Hell, most of Europe is making ICE vehicles illegal after 2035.
I feel like EVs will fade once the propaganda gives way to reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: palmettolion

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
We'll just disagree. IMO that time has long passed. I think the major manufacturers were hoping that would happen and they gave the lane to Tesla for a long time all by themselves. When Tesla didn't collapse and the European market started mandating EV's the times changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,462
613
1
I love plans. What are they going to do when they can’t get batteries and the govt quits paying for their cars?

Sooner or later you are going to run out of other peoples money
It’s more than just plans, it’s the law. The EPA has mandated a fleet wide 55mpg average by 2026. Even if repiglicans stop the EPA, states are stepping up. In California 35% of autos have to be zero emission by 2026. Eleven other states are mandating EVs.
The US can make batteries if we choose to. Subsidies for that purpose are part of the bill just passed.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
It’s more than just plans, it’s the law. The EPA has mandated a fleet wide 55mpg average by 2026. Even if repiglicans stop the EPA, states are stepping up. In California 35% of autos have to be zero emission by 2026. Eleven other states are mandating EVs.
The US can make batteries if we choose to. Subsidies for that purpose are part of the bill just passed.
Well then No wonder they are committed to electric. Just another government SNAFU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,462
613
1
Well then No wonder they are committed to electric. Just another government SNAFU.
The real SNAFU is global warming, with its runaway rising sea levels, temperatures, killer weather, and wildfires. The US can’t solve it alone, but must set the example since we contributed more to it than any other nation.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
The real SNAFU is global warming, with its runaway rising sea levels, temperatures, killer weather, and wildfires. The US can’t solve it alone, but must set the example since we contributed more to it than any other nation.
LOL. Good luck with that. The Chinese are going to kill is with that nonsense before the oceans rise six inches
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,462
613
1
LOL. Good luck with that. The Chinese are going to kill is with that nonsense before the oceans rise six inches
You don’t know what you’re talking about. What do the Chinese have to do with the auto industry? We can make our own batteries. And don’t change the subject like I know you’re going to try to, you bullshitter.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
You don’t know what you’re talking about. What do the Chinese have to do with the auto industry? We can make our own batteries. And don’t change the subject like I know you’re going to try to, you bullshitter.
hmmm? Who owns all the chemicals in the batteries oh wizard behind the curtain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
You don’t know what you’re talking about. What do the Chinese have to do with the auto industry? We can make our own batteries. And don’t change the subject like I know you’re going to try to, you bullshitter.
My goodness you know nothing about EVs

China and the rest of the world don’t give a shit about climate change. USA and Germany ain’t gonna Cut it and solar ain’t cutting it either
 
  • Like
Reactions: DandyDonII

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,462
613
1
My goodness you know nothing about EVs

China and the rest of the world don’t give a shit about climate change. USA and Germany ain’t gonna Cut it and solar ain’t cutting it either
You’re just completely ignorant and uneducatable, assclown. I already showed your ignorance about US laws.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
You’re just completely ignorant and uneducatable, assclown. I already showed your ignorance about US laws.
Did you read the article? Do you know that batteries are built with certain raw materials and you can’t just get those to spread next to the homeless in SFO and be built by illegal aliens
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,048
6,332
1
Agreed but my big issues are twofold.

First, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that EV's, and solar, are actually worse for the overall environment than fossil fuel-based vehicles.

Second, I think most people agree that there is climate change in the way of Global Warming. But...
  1. we don't know if it is man-made. There is evidence to suggest it may be but that is certainly not definitive.
  2. If it is man-made, given the lack of alignment with nations like China, Russia, Brazil, etc., is man capable of reversing it? Probably not, really.
  3. Can there be a consensus on the cost of #2 above? Can that be compared to the cost of simply living with Global Warming?
  4. The cost of converting to EVs, and the damage done to earth in terms of batteries and electricity, why hasn't hydrogen been better more? The output of hydrogen is water (which we can certainly use more of).
just remember, our climate czar john kerry has told us that we could get our emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate change.
On the incentive issue....if the objective is to get more people in EVs shouldn't we make it easier and economical for everyone to buy an EV? For the family making $300,001 a year-no incentive: make $299,999 - $7500 incentive. I'm sure that makes sense to someone, but determining what car to buy is emotionally and economically driven. Right now, for me at least, without incentives, EVs make no sense economically.
And, remember, no matter how many EVs we put on the road, it makes zero difference in climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,027
23,735
1
I believe the $300k is joint, $200k single. you need to have that kind of income to afford an EV. Most are well over $50k if you can find one. And, many are above MSRP. Secondly, the issues with China (Pelosi visit) stand to make this even worse.

I also understand that there is a smaller incentive for used cars but under $25k cars. Jeebus, where are you going to find an EV for less than $25k?

Lastly, GM simply increased the price of the Bolt by the incentive. When the incentive went away, they dropped the price by $6,500. So the incentive really went to GM, not the consumer.
The government should also put caps on prices.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
The government should also put caps on prices.
are you serious?

so you think the govt should not only subsidize EVs and legislate the fleet MPG average but also control the prices? What you are stating is that the govt (the 'state') control everything about the US car market and the manufacturers have very little say.

The problem, today, is that the govt has legislated that manufacturers have to meet minimum MPG standards and is subsidizing EVs at a time when the manufacturers can't get chips. Ford is killing it with the Mustang but can't get the chips. So is Jeep with the Wrangler 4xe. VW is too. Cadillac released a car and sold out production in two years in two days. Same with the EV F150 and Chevy Silverado.

The Chevy Bolt was $42k until the $7500 subsidy went away and GM dropped the car to $35k. Who was making the money? GM, not the consumer.

There is no need to subsidize EVs. The problem is chips. No chips means the demand is far outstripping supply. A one or two year old Jeep Wrangler is currently selling for more than the MSRP at the time. People are buying EVs simply to get the $7500 credit and reselling them!
 

crazyivan77

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2007
13,066
15,181
1
You’re just completely ignorant and uneducatable, assclown. I already showed your ignorance about US laws.


FZuWez-XkAIFg76
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,631
5,464
1
So for the first time at least SOME of the EV credits make sense to me, but only some and those will likely get changed this week in the House.
. Domestically sourced mineral and vehicle production. This is critical, why do we want to rely so much on China? When will we learn. Bring production home. Please.
. Folks earning more than $300,000 are ineligible. That is a great thing but should be lower [$200,000?] Only 2% of people earn more than $300,000. If you want to encourage mass adoption, lower the ineligible threshold and increase the rebate.
. $80,000 for trucks and $55,000 for cars? Way too high. Lower them each by $10,000. This will force manufacturers to get more efficient in production.

Finally why not have this phase in and allow the manufacturers to get their manufacturing and sourcing in line. Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.


Ford manufactures the Mustang Mach E in Mexico so that car is not eligible anyway.

This rebate program runs for ten years, plenty of time for manufactures to start making EV's in the US with US sourced materials.

Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.

It will allow companies to charge higher prices for the few EV's they produce and that will lead to faster investment in new capacity. It's all about increasing the rate of the transition.

Tesla is ramping up production in two new massive factories.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,722
8,627
1
Ford manufactures the Mustang Mach E in Mexico so that car is not eligible anyway.

This rebate program runs for ten years, plenty of time for manufactures to start making EV's in the US with US sourced materials.

Last time I looked Tesla is sold out, Ford is sold out etc etc. Until manufacturing meets demand we do not need incentives. Providing $$ incentives to a product where the demand already exceeds the supply is the definition of inflationary policy.

It will allow companies to charge higher prices for the few EV's they produce and that will lead to faster investment in new capacity. It's all about increasing the rate of the transition.

Tesla is ramping up production in two new massive factories.
"Mach E made in Mexico so not eligible". I thought the eligibility was on North American made?

"It will allow companies to charge higher prices". Thank you for making my point. That my friend is inflation.
I am curious if your goal is to increase investment why not accelerated depreciation or 100% write off for EV investment?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,631
5,464
1
"Mach E made in Mexico so not eligible". I thought the eligibility was on North American made?

"It will allow companies to charge higher prices". Thank you for making my point. That my friend is inflation.
I am curious if your goal is to increase investment why not accelerated depreciation or 100% write off for EV investment?

"Mach E made in Mexico so not eligible". I thought the eligibility was on North American made?

I think you are correct.

Found this on how the new rebates will work with the top 5 selling electric cars in the US.

“There are 72 EV models currently available for purchase in the United States including battery, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles, says John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that counts General Motors, Toyota, and Ford as members in a statement. “Seventy percent of those EVs would immediately become ineligible when the bill passes and none would qualify for the full credit when additional sourcing requirements go into effect. Zero.”​
These are the main requirements that will change and make the EV tax credits more restrictive:​
  • Final assembly needs to take place in North America
  • MSRP needs to be below $55,000 for cars, and below $80,000 for trucks and SUVs
  • Battery material sourcing must be sourced from U.S. or free-trade partners, with phase-in starting in 2024
The final component of battery sourcing, coming in less than two years time, means no EVs will qualify for the credit, according to Bozzella. Note that these are just requirements on the automaker end; the bill adds income requirements on the consumer that will make many high-earning Americans and joint filers ineligible for the tax breaks.​

Tesla Model 3 and Model Y
Both U.S.-made Model 3 sedans and Model Y SUVs, the top selling EVs in America, would qualify for the tax credit following passage, a boost for the brand because Tesla is currently phased out of the tax credit. (Note: Tesla does not break out sales between Model 3 and Model Y, but registration data is used as a proxy.)​
However, only the lowest trim Model 3 Rear Wheel Drive qualifies (MSRP $46,990). As for the Model Y, both trims qualify (Long Range - $65,990; Performance - $69,990) assuming the government classifies the Model Y as an SUV.​

Ford Mustang Mach-E

Coming in second in sales last quarter for EVs and PHEVs was the Ford Mustang Mach-E, with 10,941 units sold. With a starting MSRP of $43,895, the base Mach-E could qualify as a car or SUV, and because the Mach-E is assembled in Mexico, it actually would qualify for the tax credit.​

Jeep Wrangler 4xE

The first plug-in hybrid on the list, the Wrangler 4xE, sold 10,861 units last quarter. With it most likely to be categorized as an SUV, and with a starting MSRP of $54,595, it would qualify for the tax break because the Wrangler is made at Jeep’s plant in Toledo, Ohio.​

Hyundai IONIQ 5 and Kia EV6

The first non-US brand on the list, the all-electric Hyundai IONIQ 5, which sold 7,448 units in the second quarter, and its sister brand Kia’s EV6 EV sold 7,287 cars. Though the Korean automaker does build cars in the U.S. at a plant in Alabama, the IONIQ 5 and Kia EV 6 are built in South Korea so they would not qualify for the tax credit. This is a blow for Hyundai as the IONIQ 5 and EV6 has been praised by reviewers, and start at a very competitive $39,950 and $33,900 respectively, though the relatively cheap MSRPs may still make both viable options for many Americans despite loss of the credit.​

Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV

GM’s lone entry on the list, the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, sold 6,945 units last quarter. With a starting price of $25,600, it is the cheapest pure electric vehicle on the market, and with final assembly taking place at GM’s Orion plant in Michigan, the Bolt will continue to qualify for the federal tax credit.​

Audi e-tron, Lucid, Polestar 2​

Note that popular, sought-after models like the Audi e-tron (country of assembly), Lucid Air (price), Polestar 2 sedan (country of assembly), and Porsche Taycan (price & country of assembly) that currently qualify for the federal tax credit, will not if the bill is signed into law.​


"It will allow companies to charge higher prices". Thank you for making my point. That my friend is inflation.
I am curious if your goal is to increase investment why not accelerated depreciation or 100% write off for EV investment?

Great idea.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,267
27,934
1
An altered state
"Mach E made in Mexico so not eligible". I thought the eligibility was on North American made?

I think you are correct.

Found this on how the new rebates will work with the top 5 selling electric cars in the US.

“There are 72 EV models currently available for purchase in the United States including battery, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles, says John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that counts General Motors, Toyota, and Ford as members in a statement. “Seventy percent of those EVs would immediately become ineligible when the bill passes and none would qualify for the full credit when additional sourcing requirements go into effect. Zero.”​
These are the main requirements that will change and make the EV tax credits more restrictive:​
  • Final assembly needs to take place in North America
  • MSRP needs to be below $55,000 for cars, and below $80,000 for trucks and SUVs
  • Battery material sourcing must be sourced from U.S. or free-trade partners, with phase-in starting in 2024
The final component of battery sourcing, coming in less than two years time, means no EVs will qualify for the credit, according to Bozzella. Note that these are just requirements on the automaker end; the bill adds income requirements on the consumer that will make many high-earning Americans and joint filers ineligible for the tax breaks.​

Tesla Model 3 and Model Y
Both U.S.-made Model 3 sedans and Model Y SUVs, the top selling EVs in America, would qualify for the tax credit following passage, a boost for the brand because Tesla is currently phased out of the tax credit. (Note: Tesla does not break out sales between Model 3 and Model Y, but registration data is used as a proxy.)​
However, only the lowest trim Model 3 Rear Wheel Drive qualifies (MSRP $46,990). As for the Model Y, both trims qualify (Long Range - $65,990; Performance - $69,990) assuming the government classifies the Model Y as an SUV.​

Ford Mustang Mach-E

Coming in second in sales last quarter for EVs and PHEVs was the Ford Mustang Mach-E, with 10,941 units sold. With a starting MSRP of $43,895, the base Mach-E could qualify as a car or SUV, and because the Mach-E is assembled in Mexico, it actually would qualify for the tax credit.​

Jeep Wrangler 4xE

The first plug-in hybrid on the list, the Wrangler 4xE, sold 10,861 units last quarter. With it most likely to be categorized as an SUV, and with a starting MSRP of $54,595, it would qualify for the tax break because the Wrangler is made at Jeep’s plant in Toledo, Ohio.​

Hyundai IONIQ 5 and Kia EV6

The first non-US brand on the list, the all-electric Hyundai IONIQ 5, which sold 7,448 units in the second quarter, and its sister brand Kia’s EV6 EV sold 7,287 cars. Though the Korean automaker does build cars in the U.S. at a plant in Alabama, the IONIQ 5 and Kia EV 6 are built in South Korea so they would not qualify for the tax credit. This is a blow for Hyundai as the IONIQ 5 and EV6 has been praised by reviewers, and start at a very competitive $39,950 and $33,900 respectively, though the relatively cheap MSRPs may still make both viable options for many Americans despite loss of the credit.​

Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV

GM’s lone entry on the list, the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, sold 6,945 units last quarter. With a starting price of $25,600, it is the cheapest pure electric vehicle on the market, and with final assembly taking place at GM’s Orion plant in Michigan, the Bolt will continue to qualify for the federal tax credit.​

Audi e-tron, Lucid, Polestar 2​

Note that popular, sought-after models like the Audi e-tron (country of assembly), Lucid Air (price), Polestar 2 sedan (country of assembly), and Porsche Taycan (price & country of assembly) that currently qualify for the federal tax credit, will not if the bill is signed into law.​


"It will allow companies to charge higher prices". Thank you for making my point. That my friend is inflation.
I am curious if your goal is to increase investment why not accelerated depreciation or 100% write off for EV investment?

Great idea.
Final assembly? Lulzzz. That means putting on the doors, trunk, hood, and tires....booom! Or some other minor stuff.

And the battery sourcing will be waved by edict of the Emperor.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,631
5,464
1
Final assembly? Lulzzz. That means putting on the doors, trunk, hood, and tires....booom! Or some other minor stuff.

And the battery sourcing will be waved by edict of the Emperor.
Hmm well as it stands we are giving a tax incentive for Audi e-trons, Polestar 2 sedans, and Porsche Taycans, Ioniq 5's, Kia EV6's that have zero final assembly done in the US.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,631
5,464
1
Final assembly? Lulzzz. That means putting on the doors, trunk, hood, and tires....booom! Or some other minor stuff.

And the battery sourcing will be waved by edict of the Emperor.

Hyundai needs 8,500 workers to put install doors and hoods? I don't think so.

Anyway looks like Hyundai is moving the opening of their new plant in the US up by one year due to the new tax incentives.

Hyundai was caught short by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. It had been doing everything right when it comes to bringing compelling electric cars to America and had already embarked on the construction of a new factory near Savannah, Georgia, where it expects to build the Hyundai Ioniq 7 and the Kia EV9 — both 7-passenger electric vehicles that are precisely what Americans crave the most. The factory would employ 8,500 workers, bringing good jobs to Georgia and America.​
Then the roof fell in. The IRA only applies to vehicles built in the US, and that Georgia factory was not scheduled to be up and running until 2025. Two weeks ago, Hyundai and Kia vehicles imported from South Korea were eligible for the federal EV tax credit of up to $7,500. After the IRA was signed into law, they are eligible for nothing. The South Korean government is considering bringing the matter to the World Trade Council, but according to Reuters, Hyundai will now speed up construction of its new Georgia factory.​
Instead of breaking ground sometime next year, it plans to do so this year. Instead of rolling cars off the assembly line in 2025, it now plans to do so in late 2024.​

Also seeing some movement on battery and mineral production.

Bloomberg (paywall) is reporting today that Volkswagen and Mercedes are about to conclude a deal to source nickel, cobalt, and lithium from Canada. How big a deal is that? According to a report by Jalopnik, Germany chancellor Olaf Scholz has made the journey to Canada to sign off on the deal with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau on August 22. Scholz is quoted as saying Canada “has similar rich natural resources as Russia — with the difference that it is a reliable democracy.”​
In June, Johan DeNysschen, the COO of Volkswagen of America, told Bloomberg his company is considering the construction of a battery manufacturing facility in North America. That would satisfy the requirement in the Inflation Reduction Act that batteries are manufactured in the US or other countries that are approved trading partners. According to the current North American free trade agreement, American trade officials consider anything made in Canada or Mexico to be domestically produced.​
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,068
57,707
1
Hyundai needs 8,500 workers to put install doors and hoods? I don't think so.

Anyway looks like Hyundai is moving the opening of their new plant in the US up by one year due to the new tax incentives.

Hyundai was caught short by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. It had been doing everything right when it comes to bringing compelling electric cars to America and had already embarked on the construction of a new factory near Savannah, Georgia, where it expects to build the Hyundai Ioniq 7 and the Kia EV9 — both 7-passenger electric vehicles that are precisely what Americans crave the most. The factory would employ 8,500 workers, bringing good jobs to Georgia and America.​
Then the roof fell in. The IRA only applies to vehicles built in the US, and that Georgia factory was not scheduled to be up and running until 2025. Two weeks ago, Hyundai and Kia vehicles imported from South Korea were eligible for the federal EV tax credit of up to $7,500. After the IRA was signed into law, they are eligible for nothing. The South Korean government is considering bringing the matter to the World Trade Council, but according to Reuters, Hyundai will now speed up construction of its new Georgia factory.​
Instead of breaking ground sometime next year, it plans to do so this year. Instead of rolling cars off the assembly line in 2025, it now plans to do so in late 2024.​

Also seeing some movement on battery and mineral production.

Bloomberg (paywall) is reporting today that Volkswagen and Mercedes are about to conclude a deal to source nickel, cobalt, and lithium from Canada. How big a deal is that? According to a report by Jalopnik, Germany chancellor Olaf Scholz has made the journey to Canada to sign off on the deal with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau on August 22. Scholz is quoted as saying Canada “has similar rich natural resources as Russia — with the difference that it is a reliable democracy.”​
In June, Johan DeNysschen, the COO of Volkswagen of America, told Bloomberg his company is considering the construction of a battery manufacturing facility in North America. That would satisfy the requirement in the Inflation Reduction Act that batteries are manufactured in the US or other countries that are approved trading partners. According to the current North American free trade agreement, American trade officials consider anything made in Canada or Mexico to be domestically produced.​
Good informaiton but the Kia EV6 and Hyundai Iconiq are NOT 7 passenger cars. (at least the initial release is not). They are akin to the Mustang Mach E and VW ID.4 as five passenger SUVs
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,631
5,464
1
Good informaiton but the Kia EV6 and Hyundai Iconiq are NOT 7 passenger cars. (at least the initial release is not). They are akin to the Mustang Mach E and VW ID.4 as five passenger SUVs

Maybe 7 very small passengers?