Daniellane
Supporting Member
Booooo. Doesn’t seem like there is much accountability. I feel like bills should have to have an explanation of why they did not move forward on the website status at a glance. Also, “ran out of time” also shouldn’t be an acceptable reason. Lol
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I thought this was a joke. Especially because I thought this was literally restricted to NINE residents
Daniellane
Supporting Member
It was line 9I thought this was a joke. Especially because I thought this was literally restricted to NINE residents
Daniellane
Supporting Member
As a result...
I pulled the trigger to get in on tax exemption while it lasts. 3-6wk Delivery
I pulled the trigger to get in on tax exemption while it lasts. 3-6wk Delivery
UZJedi
Member
What happened in 2015? Wasn't there some sort of mid-year intervention to get us onto the track we are now? If so, couldn't that be possible again?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Good call.
No invite for me this week (no one got). That also means I can't get Model 3 miraculously by 25th March - and so I've to spend $500 to renew my Volt tabs
iwannam3
Member
The rumor I heard, maybe here, is that when the S and X were ruled too expensive to get the sales tax exemption Tesla made Washington deliveries a priority and got as many as possible before they were ineligible. Can we dream that Tesla will do it again for the Model 3?
Daniellane
Supporting Member
melindav
☰ 2018
Daniellane
Supporting Member
melindav
☰ 2018
I previously reached out to Jon McNeil (since moved on from Tesla) but his response essentially was "the state will deal with it".
Foxhound199
Member
As I recall, the change wasn't made until the 2016 session, and they just counted retroactively.
Does anyone know how it works for the federal credit of $7500, $3750, or $1875?
I just read you have to actually OWE that much in taxes for them to give you a refund? So if I’ve carefully planned for my tax bill to be as close to $0 as possible at tax time I won’t get any of the federal refund? Or does it mean something else like as long as my tax bill for the year was AT LEAST as much as I’m eligible for in the refund I will get that back as part of my refund (say I paid $10,000 in taxes over the year and that’s how much my tax bill for the year was). If that makes sense.
Thanks in advance.
I just read you have to actually OWE that much in taxes for them to give you a refund? So if I’ve carefully planned for my tax bill to be as close to $0 as possible at tax time I won’t get any of the federal refund? Or does it mean something else like as long as my tax bill for the year was AT LEAST as much as I’m eligible for in the refund I will get that back as part of my refund (say I paid $10,000 in taxes over the year and that’s how much my tax bill for the year was). If that makes sense.
Thanks in advance.
melindav
☰ 2018
it's not your tax return, its your tax liability. Look at your 2017 return's line 47. If it is at least what you expect the credit will be when you take delivery (7500/3750/1875), you will get that amount credited. If it's less than that, you will get up to your tax liability credited.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I don't think we have any options now other than to wait until next year. EV sales in WA are going to go down a great deal, as they always do when a significant incentive is removed - for example, WA PEV sales in July 2015 were only about 10% of June 2015 sales. (June was a high and July was a low so the disparity shrinks as you grow the window around the waiver expiration, but it was still a very significant hit to sales).
That is unfortunate, as EVs are great for WA: far less money spent on fuel, plus the fuel money that is spent stays local - both of which improve the economy; utilities get more efficient use of their equipment which lowers costs; it is easier to integrate intermittent energy sources when demand is more even; there is far less air and water pollution and so less mitigation needed, and far lower carbon emissions - WA cannot possibly meet its carbon reduction goals without switching a significant number of vehicles from petroleum to electricity. This incentive is not a give-away to friends of legislators; it is an investment that we know will more than pay off - which is why I am a strong supporter. But it doesn't sound like there was much discussion of that in the Senate.
As for Tesla's response, yes in June 2015 the locals (with solid corporate support) made a huge effort and delivered a lot of cars just before the deadline (including hiring me as a contractor). I expect they will do what they can this time, but it only affects the Model 3 and Tesla is only building so many of those, so I am not sure how much of a difference they can make.
On Thursday, while the session was still going on, some advocates that had been walking the halls in Olympia were discussing what was going on with the Senate. I did not go down there this year, so I don't have any first-hand knowledge, but this is what I recall from that discussion: Apparently a lot of Republicans were personally for the bill (which passed 86-12 in the House)...but their leaders told them not to vote for it, and they all obeyed, even despite some calls from large party donors asking for support. The Democrats have a majority, but it's a very narrow one and they needed everybody to vote for it. They almost all did...except for Hasegawa (and it sounded like one other person, but I don't recall any details). Hasegawa's objection was apparently along the lines of: the bill doesn't do enough for poor people (not surprising in direct terms, as few poor people buy new cars; and I guess he wasn't counting the economic and pollutant effects). Much time was spent offering him possible amendments, but he did not accept any of them.
The vote would have been extremely close, but it would not have passed. So the bill did not make it to the floor.
That is unfortunate, as EVs are great for WA: far less money spent on fuel, plus the fuel money that is spent stays local - both of which improve the economy; utilities get more efficient use of their equipment which lowers costs; it is easier to integrate intermittent energy sources when demand is more even; there is far less air and water pollution and so less mitigation needed, and far lower carbon emissions - WA cannot possibly meet its carbon reduction goals without switching a significant number of vehicles from petroleum to electricity. This incentive is not a give-away to friends of legislators; it is an investment that we know will more than pay off - which is why I am a strong supporter. But it doesn't sound like there was much discussion of that in the Senate.
As for Tesla's response, yes in June 2015 the locals (with solid corporate support) made a huge effort and delivered a lot of cars just before the deadline (including hiring me as a contractor). I expect they will do what they can this time, but it only affects the Model 3 and Tesla is only building so many of those, so I am not sure how much of a difference they can make.
On Thursday, while the session was still going on, some advocates that had been walking the halls in Olympia were discussing what was going on with the Senate. I did not go down there this year, so I don't have any first-hand knowledge, but this is what I recall from that discussion: Apparently a lot of Republicans were personally for the bill (which passed 86-12 in the House)...but their leaders told them not to vote for it, and they all obeyed, even despite some calls from large party donors asking for support. The Democrats have a majority, but it's a very narrow one and they needed everybody to vote for it. They almost all did...except for Hasegawa (and it sounded like one other person, but I don't recall any details). Hasegawa's objection was apparently along the lines of: the bill doesn't do enough for poor people (not surprising in direct terms, as few poor people buy new cars; and I guess he wasn't counting the economic and pollutant effects). Much time was spent offering him possible amendments, but he did not accept any of them.
The vote would have been extremely close, but it would not have passed. So the bill did not make it to the floor.
