Goodbye Federal $7,500 tax credit - no way it survives Trump/Senate/House

[deonb]

Anyone that wants to understand Trump needs to keep the following in mind:

He's a BUSINESSMAN. This means his mindset towards the economy, energy, defense, etc. will always be "does this make financial sense" or "can we afford this".

Renewables are now able to compete, without subsidies, with traditional energy sources. Wind and Solar are DIRT cheap, even without subsidies because the industries have now grown up, he's not stupid and understands that.

Only if you completely ignore what Trump actually said.

Trump said over and over he's going to bring coal industry jobs back. The ONLY way to do that is to subsidize coal to the extent that makes historical EV subsidies look a Lucky Charms prize.

 

[JRP3]

He said he'd keep ethanol subsidies.

Unfortunately the ethanol subsidies are a terrible waste and should be stopped, so keeping them in place is not a good thing.

 

[deonb]

Unfortunately the ethanol subsidies are a terrible waste and should be stopped, so keeping them in place is not a good thing.

+1000

Currently I have to drive 50 miles to get 5 gallons of ethanol free gas for my power equipment .

 

[AudubonB]

¿Does that mean you have to go 100 miles for 10 gallons?

 

[Turing]

Only if you completely ignore what Trump actually said.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Trump viewed campaigning as stage craft and nothing he said while doing it is binding. His transition team is already walking back the wall as a good "campaign device". Same for Obamacare repeal and i highly doubt they will attempt to prosecute 'crooked hillary'. But it was effective agitprop.

Trump said over and over he's going to bring coal industry jobs back. The ONLY way to do that is to subsidize coal to the extent that makes historical EV subsidies look a Lucky Charms prize.

It makes perfect sense to play up the coal job thing in a campaign but subsidizing coal will not bring many coal jobs back, even with Trump being friendly with coal why would a ultility want to build a coal plant over a nat gas one? Trump's administration may only last four years, with the next administration likely being hostile to coal again, deregulation of the epa will only make nat gas fracking more competitive with coal. And like with other forms of production and manufacturing increasing machinery and automation has made coal production less dependent on labor. A trend that wont reverse even if coal output is increased.

 

[msnow]

It seems pretty obvious to me that Trump viewed campaigning as stage craft and nothing he said while doing it is binding. His transition team is already walking back the wall as a good "campaign device". Same for Obamacare repeal and i highly doubt they will attempt to prosecute 'crooked hillary'. But it was effective agitprop.



It makes perfect sense to play up the coal job thing in a campaign but subsidizing coal will not bring many coal jobs back, even with Trump being friendly with coal why would a ultility want to build a coal plant over a nat gas one? Trump's administration may only last four years, with the next administration likely being hostile to coal again, deregulation of the epa will only make nat gas fracking more competitive with coal. And like with other forms of production and manufacturing increasing machinery and automation has made coal production less dependent on labor. A trend that wont reverse even if coal output is increased.

What you're saying makes sense because we have learned during the campaign that Trump could say one thing today and completely flip flop tomorrow and his base didn't care. He was completely Teflon on his reversals.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It seems pretty obvious to me that Trump viewed campaigning as stage craft and nothing he said while doing it is binding. His transition team is already walking back the wall as a good "campaign device". Same for Obamacare repeal and i highly doubt they will attempt to prosecute 'crooked hillary'. But it was effective agitprop.

It makes perfect sense to play up the coal job thing in a campaign but subsidizing coal will not bring many coal jobs back, even with Trump being friendly with coal why would a ultility want to build a coal plant over a nat gas one? Trump's administration may only last four years, with the next administration likely being hostile to coal again, deregulation of the epa will only make nat gas fracking more competitive with coal. And like with other forms of production and manufacturing increasing machinery and automation has made coal production less dependent on labor. A trend that wont reverse even if coal output is increased.

One easy way to bring coal back is to revert all of Obama's EPA powerplant regulations, which I am 100% sure Trump will do. The reason coal plants were shutting down in a rapid pace recently was that the costs of compliance was too high, but if that is no longer a consideration, coal plants can remain as cheap power.

 

[bkp_duke]

"Bringing coal back" is not as easy as simply saying "make it so". You have to remember that something like 90% of the coal providers have declared bankruptcy or simply closed up shop and abandoned the mines. Restarting those businesses would take far more than adding incentives, it would take LARGE capital investments. Given how cheap renewable energy has become, I'm not sure the investors are there anymore to even make this happen.

The more logical option would be to take those workers and re-train them for jobs in the renewable energy market. If you can operate machinery to dig coal, you can certainly learn how to install wind turbines or solar panels and maintain those systems.

Additionally, Trump has proposed to overhaul infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, ?hyperloop?). These could be great, long-term, well-paying jobs for this work-force as well.

 

[techmaven]

One easy way to bring coal back is to revert all of Obama's EPA powerplant regulations, which I am 100% sure Trump will do. The reason coal plants were shutting down in a rapid pace recently was that the costs of compliance was too high, but if that is no longer a consideration, coal plants can remain as cheap power.

Coal isn't coming back... not in a real sense. Instead, this delays the shutting down of coal. Also, Obama's EPA regulations were driven by legislative requirements. Congress has to first change the legislative requirements in order to completely do away with the regulations. Otherwise, the Trump administration will be sued for not complying with the law.

If you are a utility, would you look to install a new coal plant today? Can you trust that the political climate would allow your expensive plant run for the next 20-30 years? The answer is no. Look at this EIA report:

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

The advanced coal with CCS has a 3% boost in cost of capital for compliance with CO2 regulations. Natural gas is what utilities are putting in, sometimes converting old coal plants.

Sure, some marginal coal plants that haven't yet installed compliant scrubbers or have installed them but are on the edge of viability might be saved with a Trump administration that is EPA hostile. But no way does coal make a comeback in any case simply due to economics. Wind is cheaper. Solar PV is cheaper. Natural gas is cheaper. We'll see about molten-salt solar thermal if they can bring down the costs by increasing capacity factor.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Coal isn't coming back... not in a real sense. Instead, this delays the shutting down of coal. Also, Obama's EPA regulations were driven by legislative requirements. Congress has to first change the legislative requirements in order to completely do away with the regulations. Otherwise, the Trump administration will be sued for not complying with the law.

If you are a utility, would you look to install a new coal plant today? Can you trust that the political climate would allow your expensive plant run for the next 20-30 years? The answer is no. Look at this EIA report:

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

View attachment 202230


The advanced coal with CCS has a 3% boost in cost of capital for compliance with CO2 regulations. Natural gas is what utilities are putting in, sometimes converting old plants.

Sure, some marginal coal plants that haven't yet installed compliant scrubbers or have installed them but are on the edge of viability might be saved with a Trump administration that is EPA hostile. But no way does coal make a comeback in any case simply due to economics. Wind is cheaper. Solar PV is cheaper. Natural gas is cheaper. We'll see about molten-salt solar thermal if they can bring down the costs by increasing capacity factor.

In the long run, yes coal is on its death bed. But just 2-8 years more years of it is too much. Yes, Obama's overall goals were driven by law, but how to interpret that law and the ultimate goal can make a huge difference (see lawsuit over EPA tailoring rule).

For example, if Trump's administration determines CO2 is not a pollutant the EPA needs to regulate (very likely with Myron Ebell), they can reverse a lot of the CO2 based regulations. CCS would be completely unnecessary and you can see coal (with no CCS) return to that chart.

 

[techmaven]

For example, if Trump's administration determines CO2 is not a pollutant the EPA needs to regulate (very likely with Myron Ebell), they can reverse a lot of the CO2 based regulations. CCS would be completely unnecessary and you can see coal (with no CCS) return to that chart.

In that case, I suspect we might be in for a Scopes Trail like scenario... which might actually be a very good thing. Of course, there are still plenty of people that do not disagree on the scientific consensus on evolution, but that level of examination and publicity could actually be a winner for the long run.

 

[Curt Renz]

I think a more pertinent question is whether Tesla survives the election cycle. I'm not feeling optimistic but I hope to be proven wrong.

Trump administration policies generally should be beneficial and not harmful to Tesla.

1) Tesla cars and battery packs are made in American factories with American workers.
2) Reduced fuel economy standards for ICE cars make electric cars more attractive to consumers.
3) Reduced fuel economy standards for ICE cars may eliminate need for competitors to produce electric cars.
4) Elimination of electric car tax credits mainly hurts competitors, since Tesla will soon be over the limit.
5) Improvement of infrastructure implies more driving.
6) Strict constructionist Supreme Court justices may be more likely to interpret the Constitution's interstate commerce clause in Tesla's favor.

BTW, Mr. Trump owns a Tesla Roadster so he is apparently not ignorant or disapproving of the company.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Trump administration policies generally should be beneficial and not harmful to Tesla.

1) Tesla cars and battery packs are made in American factories with American workers.
2) Reduced fuel economy standards for ICE cars make electric cars more attractive to consumers.
3) Reduced fuel economy standards for ICE cars may eliminate need for competitors to produce electric cars.
4) Elimination of electric car tax credits mainly hurts competitors, since Tesla will soon be over the limit.
5) Improvement of infrastructure implies more driving.
6) Strict constructionist Supreme Court justices may be more likely to interpret the Constitution's interstate commerce clause in Tesla's favor.

BTW, Mr. Trump owns a Tesla Roadster so he is apparently not ignorant or disapproving of the company.

The Solar City vote is still coming in the next couple of days, but presuming it passes, that is the biggest part that will be impacted. I expect to see incentives reversed for renewable and more subsidies for conventional power sources. Regulations will mirror this shift. Tesla Energy may also be impacted by this.

#2: The reduced fuel economy standards will mean less need for regulatory credits, which still makes up for a decent chunk of Tesla's income at the moment.

#3: Less competitors is not necessarily a good thing for Tesla. More competitors in the EV market gives legitimacy to it, and a larger market means more growth in general infrastructure and more incentive for business and government to cater to this crowd. Tesla's goal was never to be a big fish in a small pond.

#4: Elon had every intention to use the phase out provisions to get a huge batch of Model 3 owners access to the credit. And with the phase out provision, that means a huge amount of vehicles will get full or partial credits (measured in the order of hundreds of thousands).
When Will The $7,500 US Credit Expire For The Tesla Model 3...And Everyone Else?

#5: Putting aside whether any real general infrastructure improvements will come (this has been promised by many, but there is little improvement in this front), EV infrastructure efforts by Obama will likely be reversed or not implemented. Also, details on how the VW settlement funds will be spent may also change (shift to non-EV areas).

#6: Conservative Justices have traditionally gone against the dormant commerce clause (with the only major exception being the marijuana case), with Scalia even calling it a fraud. So conservative Justices means Tesla's chances just got a lot worse.
Is the Dormant Commerce Clause a “Judicial Fraud”?

 

[McRat]

The critical agenda for Electric Vehicle sales is Electric Vehicle Desire.

It will take a decade or more to force people to buy EV's unless you do it at gunpoint. And that would be a toss up. There are too many people armed in America to allow the government to go full dictatorial.

The way media works, is that it would dissolve from an environmental issue to a personal freedom issue or human rights. And I do not believe Washington DC would win that one.

Not because of armed citizens, but because of armed members of the Armed Forces.

 

[eloder]

The critical agenda for Electric Vehicle sales is Electric Vehicle Desire.

It will take a decade or more to force people to buy EV's unless you do it at gunpoint. And that would be a toss up. There are too many people armed in America to allow the government to go full dictatorial.

The way media works, is that it would dissolve from an environmental issue to a personal freedom issue or human rights. And I do not believe Washington DC would win that one.

Not because of armed citizens, but because of armed members of the Armed Forces.

2/3rds or so of all new cars in Norway are electrified in some manner, with well over double digits being pure BEVs.

You don't need to force people at gunpoint to kick-start the EV revolution in a country. EV desire is already there, even for lower-ranged econo-EVs--some people just need some bait dangled in front to kick-start the process.

 

[bhzmark]

Trump said over and over he's going to bring coal industry jobs back. The ONLY way to do that is to subsidize coal to the extent that makes historical EV subsidies look a Lucky Charms prize.

But you are assuming he actually meant that, rather than just saying it to get their vote

 

[stopcrazypp]

2/3rds or so of all new cars in Norway are electrified in some manner, with well over double digits being pure BEVs.

You don't need to force people at gunpoint to kick-start the EV revolution in a country. EV desire is already there, even for lower-ranged econo-EVs--some people just need some bait dangled in front to kick-start the process.

Yep. Norway's move to EVs was built on the back of huge incentives to buy EVs. They did not use a "stick" to get people to do so, but they used "candy". The subject of this thread (the $7500 tax credit) is one such example of the "candy" that might be in jeopardy.

 

[McRat]

When the Candy is gone, what do you do with the poor?

If all cars are EV, and the subsidies stop, how do you force them to buy cars that cost a year's wages?

The majority will not want to buy cars for the poor/immigrants.

 

[stopcrazypp]

When the Candy is gone, what do you do with the poor?

If all cars are EV, and the subsidies stop, how do you force them to buy cars that cost a year's wages?

The majority will not want to buy cars for the poor/immigrants.

They (we) can buy used cars, as has been done since forever. The candy gets the EVs into the market first as new cars. Not everyone needs (or can afford) a new car.

 

[McRat]

We will see. In the USA we simply send the poor a check and tell them to disappear.

We don't want to give them jobs, we just want them hidden.

EDIT: We even stopped mailing checks and food stamps. We just put money in their ATM card so they don't need to face their neighbors who work.

I was born poor in a minority neighborhood to a single mother with 3 other kids.

I know how to mow a lawn, clean windows, pull weeds, and do some things that a 10 year old should not have to do to keep food on the table.

I hate Government Cheese, Powdered Milk, Peanut Butter you must stir, Pears in a can, Honey, etc.

I am successful today NOT because of President Johnson or Carter, but because of President Reagan. Because I mowed lawns, threw 4 OC Register routes, and worked at McDonald's as a breakfast cook while helping support my family.

I can write a check for any Tesla made today, and it won't bounce. Not because of Washington DC, but because of my mom, my brothers and sisters, and my callouses. Chump change.

My employees are doing well also. No thanks to Washington DC or Sacramento.

EVs must succeed because they are superior to ICE. Making them a Federal Mandate will hurt more that it will help.