Near 40% loss in value on 2016 P90D--

[Pollux]

This is not really on topic (though I try a little in the 3rd paragraph below), but since it came up:

The US federal tax credit was ORIGINALLY intended to simply level the playing field. [...] Sources: JOLT and conversation with a Plug In America volunteer that met with the DOE at the time.

I'm trying to find direct sources for the rationale that the credit was originally meant to "level the playing field". I had not heard of this rationale before and find it to be absolutely fascinating. I want to believe it. But -- no offense intended, @ChadS! -- I was hoping to find a source other than a volunteer who talked to you or the JOLT book. Admittedly, I have neither ordered nor read the JOLT book -- does the book provide a solid source for this rationale (i.e., not the book itself, but some contemporaneous record)?

Learning experience for me: tracked the original legislation down via govtrack.us.

Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (2008 - H.R. 6049)

Unfortunately, there's no report of any of the discussion that went into the bill. Just, "here are the terms of your tax credit".

Anyway... truth to tell, I'm probably going to be using you, @ChadS, as my source for this claim, and going to be making this claim for the rationale going forward. But if you can point me to anything from the 2008 era that documents the rationale, I'd gladly take it.

Thank you SO MUCH for providing this analysis!!!

Thanks,
Alan

P.S. It's not like I'm going to press with this or anything. I just find myself involved in discussions from time to time, especially with some of the eco folks, and looking for ways to combat the "tax credit for the rich" point of view. Ideally, I'd like to be able to say, "analysis from the Congressional Budget Office in 2008, found at <URL>, provided the rationale for leveling the playing field".

 

[bak_phy]

"tax credit for the rich"

If your goal is to lower the national fleet MPG then you would think that you'd want that credit to go replace the biggest possible gas-guzzler which are typically bought by the rich.
It seems that more and more government is being framed only in terms of wealth redistribution at the expense of achieving any other sort of goal.

 

[ChadS]

I read the book six years ago, and it was the first mention I had heard (at the time) of the GAO trying to quantify petroleum subsidies. I don't think it had a link to the GAO's report, though, and I didn't find it after a brief search so I just mentally filed it away. Maybe I should try looking harder, but nobody's ever asked for it before. As their work was in response to a request from the DOE, the results may have been emailed to them rather than published.

Then a couple of years ago on a phone call, there was discussion on this topic that included somebody that had been involved in the talks with the DOE. He confirmed what was in Jolt and added a bunch of color, including the NPV calculation.

Come to think of it, long ago I attended a presentation by James Billmaier (the author of JOLT!) and I if I recall correctly he briefly mentioned this in his talk, including confirming what was and wasn't in the GAO's calculations. I will contact him and see if he happens to have any links.

[Edit: he had sent me his slide deck after his presentation in 2011. I found the slide where he discussed this topic, but no details there - it just says that subsidies + Hormuz patrols = $2.55/gallon. In a later email where somebody else mentioned subsidies, he said:

"For JOLT! we used only the hard costs of defense spending and direct oil and gas taxpayer subsidies that were validated by the non-partisan Government Accounting Organization (GAO). These hidden taxpayer subsidies amount to over $2.00 per gallon of gas.

Each average ICE car (24 MPG and driven 150K miles over its life) is subsidized with taxpayer dollars to the tune of ~$12,000."

So at least I am remembering correctly, but still no link to the GAO report.

He pointed out, by the way, that if you include all the soft costs (health effects, pollution mitigation, etc) the "real cost" of gas may be more like $15/gal. But of course those figures are always disputed so he didn't use them.]

 

[kort677]

We leased our P90DL for a purchase price of around $115k. It stickered at almost $145k. I would expect the extremely optioned car to drop in value really quickly (% wise) as it has already been replaced three times (refresh, 100kwh, and AP2.0). The base models not so much because it represents the entry level of the car. The high optioned cars represent cutting edge.

if you lease a car you are not really concerned about deprecation, that is already built into the equation.

 

[kort677]

the biggest possible gas-guzzler which are typically bought by the rich.

actually the big gas guzzlers are your pickup trucks, not too many of those evil rich types are buying those

 

[ba2002]

if you lease a car you are not really concerned about deprecation, that is already built into the equation.

I know what you are saying, but I leased a car because of depreciation as in my case I knew I was not going to want to keep a car as fast as Tesla is iterating.

 

[glh280]

if you lease a car you are not really concerned about deprecation, that is already built into the equation.

Exactly, but that is why we leased on this one. I didn't want to worry about how much it would loose by updated models. I knew exactly what I was into the car for.

 

[bak_phy]

actually the big gas guzzlers are your pickup trucks, not too many of those evil rich types are buying those

True enough, but until there's an EV pick up it's pretty irrelevant.