Congress Might Rescind EV Tax Credit

[Curt Renz]

ev tax credit on the chopping board

is this fake news? lol.

Apparently the EV incentive was just cut off, according to Zero Hedge. Congressman Bishop of UT ends it.

Consider contacting your congressional representative and two US senators. I did.

 

[Curt Renz]

Electrek - this morning: Electric vehicle $7,500 tax credit expected to go away with new House tax bill, says congressman

 

[fengshui]

Yep, it's in the bill text as released this morning for vehicles purchased after December 31st:
" (d) REPEAL OF SECTION 30D.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by striking section 30D (and by striking the item relating to such section in the table of sections for such sub- 12 part).
...
EFFECTIVE DATE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. "

https://waysandmeansforms.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_text.pdf (Page 74)

(Section 30D of the IRS code is the EV credit.)

 

[Tiger]

Duplicate thread Could GOP tax reform end the $7500 EV tax credit??

 

[kort677]

therein lies the problems encountered when trying to reign in a very complex and cumbersome tax code. each and every deduction has a constituency that demands that their favored carve out remains untouched. sadly these constituencies are damaging the whole process.

 

[Sharkbait]

Although some may disagree, folks that can afford $100K plus EVs probably don't need the credit but what about low-end Bolt buyers or even those base M3 buyers? So to protect the "poor" or less endowed constituency, could/would the phase-out of credits be across the board or start at say, $50,000. Perhaps the middle view is to protect both the environment and make the technology more affordable to those who can least afford it.

I'm on the fence with this but @kort677 hit the nail on the head. We can no longer afford to support every special interest out there and that applies to all fossil fuel producers, especially big oil. In the words of Lt. Lockhart; "....it's a huge s..t sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite." *

* Full Metal Jacket, 1987

 

[TEG]

How about they stop subsidizing gasoline and funding oil wars and leave this incentive in place? There are other places to cut tax incentives. This is the oil industry and liquid fueled vehicle makers getting their agenda put forward. It is a very political decision not just something we should accept quietly as normal tax cutting.

 

[VT_EE]

As long as they drop all the handouts to big oil, I'm OK with ending the EV credit. Of course, this will never happen with the current administration and their obsession with keeping us hooked on fossil fuels.

 

[cybergates]

if u order a tesla by 12/31 - do u get the credit (or does it have to be built and delivered by 12/31?). what counts as the sale date?

 

[VT_EE]

if u order a tesla by 12/31 - do u get the credit (or does it have to be built and delivered by 12/31?). what counts as the sale date?

I'm pretty sure you have to take delivery of it by the 31st. That's how it worked with my solar panel installation.

 

[gene]

Please sign: Plug In America
Help stop Congress from trying to kill the electric car! Just this morning, Chairman Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R.1. The bill calls for the repeal of the $7,500 federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credit

 

[SageBrush]

As long as they drop all the handouts to big oil, I'm OK with ending the EV credit. Of course, this will never happen with the current administration and their obsession with keeping us hooked on fossil fuels.

I'll amend this to:

I'm fine with ending ALL subsidies, contingent on taxing externalities. The fossil fools really should pay for their wars and pollution.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I'm trying to keep up with the grid rebuilds in the Caribbean and noticed a new $35M gas plant was built out in PR by the Army Corps of Engineers. How is that anything other than a massive LNG subsidy?

It would be just as quick and easy to build out solar+battery or wind+battery but you don't see FEMA paying for that. Now the utility in PR gets to take in inflated charges and the LNG exported get a customer for 15-25 years.

 

[kort677]

I am not the topic cop but this discussion is more suited to another thread, I would narrow the focus to the effects of any tax legislation to the ev tax credits.

 

[LCR1]

I'm trying to keep up with the grid rebuilds in the Caribbean and noticed a new $35M gas plant was built out in PR by the Army Corps of Engineers. How is that anything other than a massive LNG subsidy?

It would be just as quick and easy to build out solar+battery or wind+battery but you don't see FEMA paying for that. Now the utility in PR gets to take in inflated charges and the LNG exported get a customer for 15-25 years.

LNG is proven and provides consistent power. A battery array is not guaranteed power output.

 

[kort677]

LNG is proven and provides consistent power. A battery array is not guaranteed power output.

While I agree that the solar/battery schemes are not ready for prime time using PR as a testing ground may not be a bad thing.
as for LNG, forgetting the fact that it is a fossil fuel, and those are all bad, the transporting that fuel to PR is problematic on many levels.

 

[LCR1]

While I agree that the solar/battery schemes are not ready for prime time using PR as a testing ground may not be a bad thing.
as for LNG, forgetting the fact that it is a fossil fuel, and those are all bad, the transporting that fuel to PR is problematic on many levels.

Do you want to test things on an island where 90% is without power or do you want guaranteed power now. If I had been 2 months without power and another 6 months before most of the grid is usable I'd take guaranteed power now instead of trying to school them on something completely new. Does FEMA have people capable of operating a solar array, does the ACOE? the answer to both of those is no. I have family that works in these organizations and it's not something they are set up to do and a decimated island is not the place to test it out. What's going to happen when it gets screwed up? you really think oil is going to say oh, well it was a devastated area and it will work elsewhere. No, they're going to tout the failure and set renewable even further back. Also, LNG transport isn't complicated, I have family and friends who work in that area as well.

 

[kort677]

Do you want to test things on an island where 90% is without power or do you want guaranteed power now. If I had been 2 months without power and another 6 months before most of the grid is usable I'd take guaranteed power now instead of trying to school them on something completely new. Does FEMA have people capable of operating a solar array, does the ACOE? the answer to both of those is no. I have family that works in these organizations and it's not something they are set up to do and a decimated island is not the place to test it out. What's going to happen when it gets screwed up? you really think oil is going to say oh, well it was a devastated area and it will work elsewhere. No, they're going to tout the failure and set renewable even further back. Also, LNG transport isn't complicated, I have family and friends who work in that area as well.

I think that you my be conflating the issues, regardless of the method of generating the power, which was largely unaffected on PR, the issue is delivering that power. experimenting with donated technologies will get some people powered up a lot quicker than rebuilding the grids. as for LNG, it is a very volatile form of fuel. it is easier to ship once liquefied but that process is not without many risks that other forms of fuels do not share, here's a study funded by the LNG crowd, look at it and decide. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/Quillen.pdf

 

[LCR1]

I think that you my be conflating the issues, regardless of the method of generating the power, which was largely unaffected on PR, the issue is delivering that power. experimenting with donated technologies will get some people powered up a lot quicker than rebuilding the grids. as for LNG, it is a very volatile form of fuel. it is easier to ship once liquefied but that process is not without many risks that other forms of fuels do not share, here's a study funded by the LNG crowd, look at it and decide. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/Quillen.pdf

your link shows that LNG is one of the safest forms of transporting fuel, so you proved the point that it's a very safe form of transport, the energy is a stable producer of power with no ebbs and flows.

 

[LCR1]

I can't even find an article for the gas plant. What I can find is a contract for Whitehouse to install 35 Million in temporary generators which is a far cry from anything permanent. Also you're not building an entire plant for 35Million. What it looks like is they are installing temporary generators at an existing plant, 50Mw worth of generators. You can fit an LM2500 on a train, unload it and fire it right up making 25MW of power or a MS500 system would get you to 50MW.

If you wanted 50MW of solar you're going to need 125 acres of land and 145,000 of the most efficient panels in the world. How long is it going to take to set up 145,000 panels over 125 acres vs installing a turbine generator? How many more acres of batteries will you need. Actually batteries are irrelevant PR uses about 2.5GW of energy right now they are making around 550MW. so 100% of energy created is being used leaving 0 for battery storage. You've got an energy shortage and your solution would use 100% of the energy created during the day leaving 0 at night. A Turbine generator would produce power 24/7. People aren't going to wait months for power from a solar farm when they can have it in a week. It's all a great idea but in reality when you have no power, no one cares where it comes from.