Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Discussion : All discussion regarding Model 3 and Tax credit in model 3 subforum

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
tesla showing M3 RWD in monroney sticker as "battery assembled in fremont,CA" no mention of china parts any where in the monroney sticker. we have to see if tesla modifies the monroney sticker. until that point we should assume m3 rwd qualifies the $3750. as per federal law, monroney sticker is gold copy record
They don't ever list the China portion on the Monroney. What you will notice is that the RWD one shows 25% fewer US/Canadian parts and no increase in Mexican. And really there are no LFP factories anywhere but China.

You should assume no vehicle qualifies until they confirm that it does.
 
Maybe I missed something in this thread, after all I am a n00b :)

The person asked if 2022 purchases would not qualify, which the respondent confirmed it would not. Then the person asked if they owed the fed $7,500, which was a "yes".

....I must be missing something...
 
I read all 6 pages of this thread and I'm more confused than before.

But basically, no one knows if the 3 will qualify for the credit, right, partial or full?

Sounds like NO CAR in Jan 2023 (all EVs, not just Tesla) will qualify for the full $7,500.
 
I really want to know for sure… Order is on hold right now
It seems unlikely that Tesla or anyone else can satisfy the critical minerals requirements in 2023, so that leaves only $3,750 to discuss.

Tesla should be able to qualify for that lesser amount for any car that has a domestically-produced battery and that has an MSRP below the relevant cap.

The M3LR is too expensive to hit the $55k cap today. What are the odds that they unbundle some features and leave them for after-purchase upgrades? Or reintroduce a M3 RWD LR? Only Tesla knows, and they have every incentive to keep mum until all the current M3LRs are delivered this year.

I seem to have another month or two to keep scouring the news for any info that might cause me to cancel my 2022 order. My order was $2k less than their last price, so if they were to unbundle features that I’d buy later the price advantage after incentives would only be $1,750. If real prices stay the same - who knows? And would they restart ordering Jan 1 or keep the limited supply of domestic batteries for more profitable M3 Performance or MY sales?

Wish I knew.
 
IMO, the bill as written is pretty dumb.

No one making $150K individual/$300K household should be getting a credit to buy an EV. The income limit should be halved.

Vehicles should have a single price ceiling, somewhere around $75K. Not $55K for sedans (many of which are AWD anyway) and $80K for SUV/Trucks.

And seriously, who can really prove where the Lithium, Nickel, etc in any specific vehicle is coming from? With the supply chain disruption, any forward-thinking company is going to have multiple sources for the stuff. One car might get a bunch of North American minerals and the next one on the assembly line might get stuff mined overseas. So what criteria gets used? Percentage of "domestic" versus "imported" minerals from the previous year? By weight or volume?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR F
IMO, the bill as written is pretty dumb.

No one making $150K individual/$300K household should be getting a credit to buy an EV. The income limit should be halved.

Vehicles should have a single price ceiling, somewhere around $75K. Not $55K for sedans (many of which are AWD anyway) and $80K for SUV/Trucks.

And seriously, who can really prove where the Lithium, Nickel, etc in any specific vehicle is coming from? With the supply chain disruption, any forward-thinking company is going to have multiple sources for the stuff. One car might get a bunch of North American minerals and the next one on the assembly line might get stuff mined overseas. So what criteria gets used? Percentage of "domestic" versus "imported" minerals from the previous year? By weight or volume?
I actually read it. Folks can certainly disagree about the wisdom of the policies, but there’s actually a shocking amount of detailed specifications in there.

It reads like professional hill committee staff consulted long and hard with mining and material processing industry staff. To me, it reads like a sincere effort to build domestic mining and materials processing industries - and to a lesser extent support EVs. Which is exactly what Senator Manchin and others wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aellinsar and MR F
I actually read it. Folks can certainly disagree about the wisdom of the policies, but there’s actually a shocking amount of detailed specifications in there.

It reads like professional hill committee staff consulted long and hard with mining and material processing industry staff. To me, it reads like a sincere effort to build domestic mining and materials processing industries - and to a lesser extent support EVs. Which is exactly what Senator Manchin and others wanted.
I agree. I think this is one of the most significant spending bills out of DC in 50 years IF is is not weakened in future legislation.

The three things I thing they should have changed was:
1. Resend the caps under the old EV credit upon signing.
2. Had the new credits take effect Jan 1, 2024 when the POS rebate is implemented.
3. Allowed the consumer to spread the credit over multiple tax years.