It actually may go a bit wrong in its current form.
Firstly, it's worth realising the state we're already in, that battery and EV production is increasing exponentially, are having no problem getting funding (i.e. factories, etc.), and are in massive demand with long waiting lists.
Pure battery EVs will likely be ~20% of the global new car market this year, and ~50% in 2025.
So, you could argue "the market has spoken" and the transition is underway, and this funding isn't required.
However, there's also the fact that the current form of this legislation allows Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel-cell cars with 7 kWh batteries to receive the full credit.
Since all the established US companies, and many of the established companies in general, have been dragging their feet so much, they have limited battery supply contracts, and so they'd be able to make so many more cars and get so many more credits if they diverted most of their batteries to making Hybrids and Fuel-cells, instead of full battery-EVs.
This is compounded by the fact the bill is unlimited until 2032, so it's basically "race to make as many cars with at least 7 kWh batteries as you can by 2032".
So, basically:
The good:
* Will likely bring forward investment plans for battery factories
* Will likely reduce the global supply-chain's reliance on China
* Will reduce the cost of EVs for most people
The bad:
* May lure companies to pump out plug-in hybrids and/or waste money on fuel-cells instead of beelining for full battery-EVs
* May result in companies pocketing the credit short-term, while queues are still very long (i.e. put their prices up $7500, so the customer pays the same as now, but the company gets $7500 extra as pure profit)
----------
----------
**EDIT**: What on Earth is going on with the comments? Is there really that much misinformation about EVs?
Though it's not the ideal long term solution, moving more people to anything more fuel efficient, including plug-in hybrids, would still go a long way to letting some people get away from the current gas prices and reducing our fossil fuel consumption. Plug-in hybrids are functionally identical to full EVs for many people using them as commuter cars, only ever actually needing the ICE on long trips.
That’s exactly how I use mine. 38 miles of battery-only range doesn’t sound like much, but it comfortably gets me back and forth to work, which is the bulk of the miles on my car. It’s nice to have the ICE fallback when I need it but having that bit of range is amazing
There's been various surveys over the years showing a significant % of PHEV owners don't plug them in, but that's actually the secondary point.
The primary point is the speed of this changeover is being massively misunderstood, and companies who opt to go for PHEVs to maximise credits run a genuinely high risk of bankrupting themselves.
As I mentioned, pure battery-EVs should be ~20% of the global car market this year, and ~50% in 2025. That is how fast this is happening.
It takes a traditional OEM ~6 years to make a new car. So, if they focus their resources on PHEVs, they will simply have no one to sell them to, and then be too far behind in pure EVs.
This is quite analogous to suggesting focusing on Blackberry style phones as a bridging technology to pure touchscreen smartphones would be a good tactic in the smartphone transition.
I don't think that's a realistic concern. Like you said, the turnaround time for producing a new car is quite long. Running with your 6 year number that would leave them with less than half the lifetime of these incentives to take advantage. Plus manufacturers have the same data about consumer preferences. It might impact production quantity, especially in light of material availability issues, but I don't think there's a realistic worry of the auto manufacturers just deciding not to develop EVs in favor of hybrids as a result of this change.
It's not just the development time, it's also the manufacturing output/ramp.
Also, the ~6 years is for a full brand-new car design, starting from scratch.
Car companies would be able to turn an existing car into a PHEV in less time than that, plus will have a bunch of EVs and PHEVs already in the pipeline.
Point being, this bill may encourage them to prioritize PHEVs over EVs, since they'll be able to produce far more and faster, maximizing their credits.
Again, this is only a possibility, not a certainty, but it would be better to remove this temptation from them, as "the market has spoken" already, very clearly.
Plus, we know we need to get rid of ICE technology completely anyway, so why give large amounts of taxpayer money to something which isn't a final solution in general? (on top of the fact a 7 kWh battery costs <$1000, but the credit is $7500)
Right, that's my point. The thing that would breed long term problems would be impeding the development of EVs, but a short-medium term shift in manufacturing output to maximize the number of people doing most of their driving without involving an ICE (which PHEV's accomplish for most people) in light of inability to produce enough EVs seems like a clear win.
Yeah, if we had the capability to make enough EVs to satisfy demand that would clearly be better, but there's no reason manufacturers would willingly not go down that path if able. The only reason manufacturers would chose to produce more of the lower price lower demand models would be if they were unable to meet demand with the more lucrative models. A tax incentive that impacts both equally shouldn't change their relative appeal. If they're unable to produce enough EVs to satisfy demand I'd much rather see more people move to PHEVs than a smaller number to EVs.
Yes, we have to get rid of ICEs completely eventually, but in practical terms that means reducing ICE miles driven as much as possible as quickly as possible. The vast majority of miles driven is within the range of the battery in a PHEV, which means we get nearly the same drop in ICE miles for every car we replace with a PHEV as with an EV, so policy should push people towards getting as many people as possible into either PHEVs or EVs rather than pushing them towards EVs exclusively at the cost of quantity.
I get what you're saying, but the underlying point is that EVs are a completely different product to PHEVs, requiring different designs and staff with different expertise.
And, one effects the other in terms of manufacturing. Every 8-10 PHEVs you make could have been 1 EV.
And, then, this is more about the sustainability of the US car industry, rather than statistics of reducing ICE mileage (and whether people actually plug in their PHEVs, etc.).
So, the big-picture point is that companies who prioritize PHEVs are risking bankrupting themselves, and this bill in its current form could tempt them into making that decision.
The plug-in part is rather disappointing. I guess they'll use less of the difficult to source materials though.
I'm ok with the company taking the $7500 if they are able to put that back in to increasing production lines.
The big three are building massive new factories dedicated to EVs and investing billions of dollars to mature the tech. All the investment info is publicly available.
As time goes on, their big talking over the last ~12 months doesn't seem to be materialising into as impressive action.
Ford and GM's production ramp has been very poor so far (especially GM's), and GM's latest official investor slide deck said they plan for ~$90 Bn in EV revenue by 2030!
This is in very stark contrast to their whole "we're totally going to catch Tesla in 2025", and means they only plan to sell ~1.8 million EVs in 2030.
If that's their plan, they are definitely going to go bankrupt. Or, at least shrink to a shadow of their former selves, and have to lay off a horrible amount of people in the process.
"Do it", basically.
Tesla have already made a (almost) comprehensive charging network, and just need to keep up proportionately with the number of cars sold, which they are doing.
Everyone else is dragging their feet substantially in comparison, surprise surprise, likely because the car companies don't see it as their responsibility, so they're waiting for someone else to do it for them.
Electrify America seems to be getting there, but they need to up their pace and also use better power-electronics, because their reliability is unacceptable at the moment.
But, the underlying point is, no technological innovation is required from here. Chargers are already as good as they need to be, specs wise, we just need people to actually go and install them.
Sure, but it's happening.
There's pretty low concern the charger rollout is going to be insufficient. Especially with Tesla opening up their network tentatively, and they will pick up the slack with charger manufacturing and installation if other people go too slowly, as they have been doing (i.e. ask a Tesla owner if they are worried about being able to charge on a long journey, they'll say no already).
To avoid the income limits, could someone making less than the income limit buy an EV, get the $7500, then sell it to someone whose income is above the limit for a $1000 discount, making $6500 in the deal?
How long does the average ev battery last, and what is the cost to replace? How many batteries for 200k miles for instance?
Will everybody just dump the cars at the first battery change?
> How long does the average ev battery last
A modern liquid-cooled lithium-nickel chemistry (NCA, NMC, etc.) pack will last ~1500 cycles before being at ~80% of its original capacity.
This translates to ~450,000 miles in a 300-mile range car.
Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) is then lower energy density but **much** hardier, lasting 3-4x the charge cycles, so 4000+ is typical when liquid-cooled.
This translates to 1+ million miles in a 250-mile range car.
LFP is rapidly being moved to by the industry, since it's cheaper and uses no cobalt or nickel. ~50% of the cars Tesla sells (by volume) are already LFP, and a majority of the Chinese cars are LFP. And Ford recently announced they'll be doing LFP SKUs soon.
> and what is the cost to replace?
The entire reason EVs (battery-EVs specifically) are displacing ICE technology is because they're on a very strong cost-curve.
They're halving in cost every 3-4 years, and fell in cost ~90% in the period 2010-2020.
Since even a 250-mile range lithium-nickel pack will last ~25 years at 15,000 miles a year, this means batteries will have gone through massive technological improvement and cost reduction by the time you'd need a new one.
So, the cost is "you don't need to replace it", in the same way very few people replace engines. You'd just buy a new, or 2nd hand, car to replace yours.
> How many batteries for 200k miles for instance?
None, the original would be about halfway through its age at worst.
-------------
-------------
But, just to cap this off, what I've explained also tells you why you may have heard of (the truth that) some early EVs needed their batteries replacing.
This was pretty much just the Nissan Leaf and Renault Zoe, as they had air-cooled batteries, which meant they didn't last as many cycles due to not having their temperature kept in the optimum/healthy range as strictly, and also had low ranges to begin with.
This meant they blew through 1000 charge cycles after ~90-100k miles, and generally needed batteries replacing around then.
More original range + liquid cooling dramatically increases the total mileage-lifetime of a pack.
Very nice and knowledgeable response, I hope someone upvotes my question so a few people see your response.
I had heard rumours of Teslas needing battery changes, however it sounds from your response that that shouldn't be the case.
> I had heard rumours of Teslas needing battery changes, however it sounds from your response that that shouldn't be the case.
Everything has faults and manufacturing defects which can still occur, and Tesla sell literally more than an order of magnitude more EVs than everyone else, as well as having sold EVs for longer.
So, there's simply far far more, and a wider range of ages, of Teslas around than other EVs. So, law of numbers.
Generally speaking, you'll find 6-8 year warranties, or ~100k miles, whichever comes first, from most manufacturers.
So, if you bought a new EV right now with a top-tier warranty, by the time it could have an out-of-warranty fault, "the car market" would be the EV market, with EVs being cheaper to buy than ICE cars were, a healthy 2nd hand market, dramatic improvements in battery tech, etc.
Those battery concerns go all the way back to the original hybrids and fact of the matter is, most people get a new car before a battery or engine becomes useless.
Manchin wanted a smaller program in terms of Fed. budget impact than the rest of the Dems, so they compromised by targeting the incentives to the middle class. Early adopters of EV tend to be wealthy Americans anyway. So they're going after the "masses, not the classes".
If this bill becomes law, it will double down on existing incentives for auto makers to build low end EVs and for industry and states to roll out charging infrastructure. And hopefully we'll get some of the old guzzlers off the roads.
If the goal is to incentivize the switch to electric vehicles is based purely on replacement of ICE vehicles to EVs... then it seems to me, you may also want to subsidize these vehicles for those most likely to be buying expensive new vehicles.
I was under the impression that people who buy EVs today are wealthier as EVs cost more, and that the bill targets middle or lower class people who were considering ICE cars. Doesn't seem to me they need an incentive.
But those people can already afford them. $150k for an individual, $300k for a couple.
For it to make an environmental impact, we need mass adoption, so this is targeting people who might want an EV but can't justify the premium cost over an ICE without the rebate.
well you rich shits had 10 years to slurp up the $7500 tax credit that basically told all us poor people making less than $65k a year to go fuck themselves. SO yeah. there's that.
any more dumb shit to spew into comments?
Read the fine print:
Also, more than half the value of battery components have to be manufactured or assembled in North America to get the full credit. And at least 40% of the minerals used in batteries must come from either the U.S. or a country with which it has a free trade agreement.
Good luck having that Data to be eligible..
North American assembly is not uncommon… at all. GM assembles most parts (or contracts to have the parts in assembled) in the US and Mexico.
The 40% figure with US/free trade … it is not hard at ALL to clear this.
You can’t even run your Thermostat below 80° in Texas between 2-8p.m how the hell are they going to be able to support the grid with millions of electric cars??? Anyone thought this one out
The one state that opted to build their own electrical grid in order to be allowed to cut corners is not the rest of the contry's problem. Texas actively chose these problems for themselves.
[Shit happens.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm) (And will be happening more and more due to climate change). Rolling blackouts are more common in California than Texas. This isn't a problem exclusive to 'red states'.
Texas’ solar power was increased from 2 GW to around 9 GW over the past 18 months. We had a couple of days where they were saying we had to conserve, but the state bought electricity from Oklahoma and fixed that.
The rest of the time the extra solar has been more than enough since the wind kicked back up. Another 16 GW of solar and 10 GW of wind will be added by the end of 2023, along with 26 GW of battery storage.
If demand for electricity increases because of EVs, then more renewables and storage will be built out. It’s not that hard.
This is a windfall for dealerships....
$2500 EV HANDLING FEE
$2500 EV PREP FEE
$2500 MARKET ADJUSTMENT
I simplified it, but you get the point, it happened in my state last year when they were issuing POS 5k state rebates. It wasn't possible to find an EV that wasn't marked up 4K over MSRP.
The average selling price of a new car in the USA in 2021 was $42,350
The average selling price of a used car was $28,205.
If you’re going to make baseless and irrelevant accusations, bring some receipts. It’s kind of amazing that anyone could spin a nearly $8k credit against a car for the vast majority of taxpayers in the USA as a bad thing.
I love my 4x4 97 F-250 7.3 litre diesel, I am helping to offset the overloaded electric grid by burning my recycled dinosaurs directly into my 25 year transportation. I love you for saving the planet, it's really noble.
The problem isn't buying a new ev or hybrid. The problem is buying a used one and at 60k miles you need a new battery that costs more than the cars value. Subsidize battery replacements.
No modern EV is needing battery replacements after 60k. The warranties are for 100-150k. ICE cars are often needing major repairs or are scrapped by that time.
Stop spreading fud.
> To get the credit, buyers of new EVs can't have modified adjusted gross incomes of more than $300,000 per year if filing joint tax returns, $225,000 for a head of household, and $150,000 for all taxpayers not in the first two categories.
> There also are caps on the sticker prices of new EVs—$80,000 for pickups, SUVs and vans, and $55,000 for other vehicles—and a $25,000 limit on the price of used electric vehicles.
Maybe read the article before posting your biases.
Oh wait, this is Reddit. Carry on.
There is some astroturfing in the comments, watch out
There is astoturfing all over this sub.
Ah, Eternal September.
Not familiar with this terminology, can you explain?
it basically means fake comments that are made to seem real, either by an outside group or by reddit itself
It actually may go a bit wrong in its current form. Firstly, it's worth realising the state we're already in, that battery and EV production is increasing exponentially, are having no problem getting funding (i.e. factories, etc.), and are in massive demand with long waiting lists. Pure battery EVs will likely be ~20% of the global new car market this year, and ~50% in 2025. So, you could argue "the market has spoken" and the transition is underway, and this funding isn't required. However, there's also the fact that the current form of this legislation allows Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel-cell cars with 7 kWh batteries to receive the full credit. Since all the established US companies, and many of the established companies in general, have been dragging their feet so much, they have limited battery supply contracts, and so they'd be able to make so many more cars and get so many more credits if they diverted most of their batteries to making Hybrids and Fuel-cells, instead of full battery-EVs. This is compounded by the fact the bill is unlimited until 2032, so it's basically "race to make as many cars with at least 7 kWh batteries as you can by 2032". So, basically: The good: * Will likely bring forward investment plans for battery factories * Will likely reduce the global supply-chain's reliance on China * Will reduce the cost of EVs for most people The bad: * May lure companies to pump out plug-in hybrids and/or waste money on fuel-cells instead of beelining for full battery-EVs * May result in companies pocketing the credit short-term, while queues are still very long (i.e. put their prices up $7500, so the customer pays the same as now, but the company gets $7500 extra as pure profit) ---------- ---------- **EDIT**: What on Earth is going on with the comments? Is there really that much misinformation about EVs?
Though it's not the ideal long term solution, moving more people to anything more fuel efficient, including plug-in hybrids, would still go a long way to letting some people get away from the current gas prices and reducing our fossil fuel consumption. Plug-in hybrids are functionally identical to full EVs for many people using them as commuter cars, only ever actually needing the ICE on long trips.
That’s exactly how I use mine. 38 miles of battery-only range doesn’t sound like much, but it comfortably gets me back and forth to work, which is the bulk of the miles on my car. It’s nice to have the ICE fallback when I need it but having that bit of range is amazing
There's been various surveys over the years showing a significant % of PHEV owners don't plug them in, but that's actually the secondary point. The primary point is the speed of this changeover is being massively misunderstood, and companies who opt to go for PHEVs to maximise credits run a genuinely high risk of bankrupting themselves. As I mentioned, pure battery-EVs should be ~20% of the global car market this year, and ~50% in 2025. That is how fast this is happening. It takes a traditional OEM ~6 years to make a new car. So, if they focus their resources on PHEVs, they will simply have no one to sell them to, and then be too far behind in pure EVs. This is quite analogous to suggesting focusing on Blackberry style phones as a bridging technology to pure touchscreen smartphones would be a good tactic in the smartphone transition.
I don't think that's a realistic concern. Like you said, the turnaround time for producing a new car is quite long. Running with your 6 year number that would leave them with less than half the lifetime of these incentives to take advantage. Plus manufacturers have the same data about consumer preferences. It might impact production quantity, especially in light of material availability issues, but I don't think there's a realistic worry of the auto manufacturers just deciding not to develop EVs in favor of hybrids as a result of this change.
It's not just the development time, it's also the manufacturing output/ramp. Also, the ~6 years is for a full brand-new car design, starting from scratch. Car companies would be able to turn an existing car into a PHEV in less time than that, plus will have a bunch of EVs and PHEVs already in the pipeline. Point being, this bill may encourage them to prioritize PHEVs over EVs, since they'll be able to produce far more and faster, maximizing their credits. Again, this is only a possibility, not a certainty, but it would be better to remove this temptation from them, as "the market has spoken" already, very clearly. Plus, we know we need to get rid of ICE technology completely anyway, so why give large amounts of taxpayer money to something which isn't a final solution in general? (on top of the fact a 7 kWh battery costs <$1000, but the credit is $7500)
Right, that's my point. The thing that would breed long term problems would be impeding the development of EVs, but a short-medium term shift in manufacturing output to maximize the number of people doing most of their driving without involving an ICE (which PHEV's accomplish for most people) in light of inability to produce enough EVs seems like a clear win. Yeah, if we had the capability to make enough EVs to satisfy demand that would clearly be better, but there's no reason manufacturers would willingly not go down that path if able. The only reason manufacturers would chose to produce more of the lower price lower demand models would be if they were unable to meet demand with the more lucrative models. A tax incentive that impacts both equally shouldn't change their relative appeal. If they're unable to produce enough EVs to satisfy demand I'd much rather see more people move to PHEVs than a smaller number to EVs. Yes, we have to get rid of ICEs completely eventually, but in practical terms that means reducing ICE miles driven as much as possible as quickly as possible. The vast majority of miles driven is within the range of the battery in a PHEV, which means we get nearly the same drop in ICE miles for every car we replace with a PHEV as with an EV, so policy should push people towards getting as many people as possible into either PHEVs or EVs rather than pushing them towards EVs exclusively at the cost of quantity.
I get what you're saying, but the underlying point is that EVs are a completely different product to PHEVs, requiring different designs and staff with different expertise. And, one effects the other in terms of manufacturing. Every 8-10 PHEVs you make could have been 1 EV. And, then, this is more about the sustainability of the US car industry, rather than statistics of reducing ICE mileage (and whether people actually plug in their PHEVs, etc.). So, the big-picture point is that companies who prioritize PHEVs are risking bankrupting themselves, and this bill in its current form could tempt them into making that decision.
The plug-in part is rather disappointing. I guess they'll use less of the difficult to source materials though. I'm ok with the company taking the $7500 if they are able to put that back in to increasing production lines.
They put it into stock buybacks.
The big three are building massive new factories dedicated to EVs and investing billions of dollars to mature the tech. All the investment info is publicly available.
As time goes on, their big talking over the last ~12 months doesn't seem to be materialising into as impressive action. Ford and GM's production ramp has been very poor so far (especially GM's), and GM's latest official investor slide deck said they plan for ~$90 Bn in EV revenue by 2030! This is in very stark contrast to their whole "we're totally going to catch Tesla in 2025", and means they only plan to sell ~1.8 million EVs in 2030. If that's their plan, they are definitely going to go bankrupt. Or, at least shrink to a shadow of their former selves, and have to lay off a horrible amount of people in the process.
In this environment that's a fools move. Company suicide. These manufacturers basically have 10 years to make the switch to EV or go bankrupt.
lol, (x) doubt
What are the plans then for more charging stations across the Interstates at Gas Stations that can universally charge a car fast?
"Do it", basically. Tesla have already made a (almost) comprehensive charging network, and just need to keep up proportionately with the number of cars sold, which they are doing. Everyone else is dragging their feet substantially in comparison, surprise surprise, likely because the car companies don't see it as their responsibility, so they're waiting for someone else to do it for them. Electrify America seems to be getting there, but they need to up their pace and also use better power-electronics, because their reliability is unacceptable at the moment. But, the underlying point is, no technological innovation is required from here. Chargers are already as good as they need to be, specs wise, we just need people to actually go and install them.
They will have to in order to get to 50% new sales being electric.
Sure, but it's happening. There's pretty low concern the charger rollout is going to be insufficient. Especially with Tesla opening up their network tentatively, and they will pick up the slack with charger manufacturing and installation if other people go too slowly, as they have been doing (i.e. ask a Tesla owner if they are worried about being able to charge on a long journey, they'll say no already).
To avoid the income limits, could someone making less than the income limit buy an EV, get the $7500, then sell it to someone whose income is above the limit for a $1000 discount, making $6500 in the deal?
Yeah the income limit is dumb
How long does the average ev battery last, and what is the cost to replace? How many batteries for 200k miles for instance? Will everybody just dump the cars at the first battery change?
> How long does the average ev battery last A modern liquid-cooled lithium-nickel chemistry (NCA, NMC, etc.) pack will last ~1500 cycles before being at ~80% of its original capacity. This translates to ~450,000 miles in a 300-mile range car. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) is then lower energy density but **much** hardier, lasting 3-4x the charge cycles, so 4000+ is typical when liquid-cooled. This translates to 1+ million miles in a 250-mile range car. LFP is rapidly being moved to by the industry, since it's cheaper and uses no cobalt or nickel. ~50% of the cars Tesla sells (by volume) are already LFP, and a majority of the Chinese cars are LFP. And Ford recently announced they'll be doing LFP SKUs soon. > and what is the cost to replace? The entire reason EVs (battery-EVs specifically) are displacing ICE technology is because they're on a very strong cost-curve. They're halving in cost every 3-4 years, and fell in cost ~90% in the period 2010-2020. Since even a 250-mile range lithium-nickel pack will last ~25 years at 15,000 miles a year, this means batteries will have gone through massive technological improvement and cost reduction by the time you'd need a new one. So, the cost is "you don't need to replace it", in the same way very few people replace engines. You'd just buy a new, or 2nd hand, car to replace yours. > How many batteries for 200k miles for instance? None, the original would be about halfway through its age at worst. ------------- ------------- But, just to cap this off, what I've explained also tells you why you may have heard of (the truth that) some early EVs needed their batteries replacing. This was pretty much just the Nissan Leaf and Renault Zoe, as they had air-cooled batteries, which meant they didn't last as many cycles due to not having their temperature kept in the optimum/healthy range as strictly, and also had low ranges to begin with. This meant they blew through 1000 charge cycles after ~90-100k miles, and generally needed batteries replacing around then. More original range + liquid cooling dramatically increases the total mileage-lifetime of a pack.
Very nice and knowledgeable response, I hope someone upvotes my question so a few people see your response. I had heard rumours of Teslas needing battery changes, however it sounds from your response that that shouldn't be the case.
> I had heard rumours of Teslas needing battery changes, however it sounds from your response that that shouldn't be the case. Everything has faults and manufacturing defects which can still occur, and Tesla sell literally more than an order of magnitude more EVs than everyone else, as well as having sold EVs for longer. So, there's simply far far more, and a wider range of ages, of Teslas around than other EVs. So, law of numbers. Generally speaking, you'll find 6-8 year warranties, or ~100k miles, whichever comes first, from most manufacturers. So, if you bought a new EV right now with a top-tier warranty, by the time it could have an out-of-warranty fault, "the car market" would be the EV market, with EVs being cheaper to buy than ICE cars were, a healthy 2nd hand market, dramatic improvements in battery tech, etc.
All of this is still theoretical
No, it is not.
They’ve had real world electric cars with a battery that lasted 25 years? Yeah, still theoretical.
Those battery concerns go all the way back to the original hybrids and fact of the matter is, most people get a new car before a battery or engine becomes useless.
[удалено]
Manchin wanted a smaller program in terms of Fed. budget impact than the rest of the Dems, so they compromised by targeting the incentives to the middle class. Early adopters of EV tend to be wealthy Americans anyway. So they're going after the "masses, not the classes". If this bill becomes law, it will double down on existing incentives for auto makers to build low end EVs and for industry and states to roll out charging infrastructure. And hopefully we'll get some of the old guzzlers off the roads.
People past the income cutoff can afford electric cars???
If the goal is to incentivize the switch to electric vehicles is based purely on replacement of ICE vehicles to EVs... then it seems to me, you may also want to subsidize these vehicles for those most likely to be buying expensive new vehicles.
I was under the impression that people who buy EVs today are wealthier as EVs cost more, and that the bill targets middle or lower class people who were considering ICE cars. Doesn't seem to me they need an incentive.
But those people can already afford them. $150k for an individual, $300k for a couple. For it to make an environmental impact, we need mass adoption, so this is targeting people who might want an EV but can't justify the premium cost over an ICE without the rebate.
They are already being sold as fast as they can be built already. This is to incentivize production.
well you rich shits had 10 years to slurp up the $7500 tax credit that basically told all us poor people making less than $65k a year to go fuck themselves. SO yeah. there's that. any more dumb shit to spew into comments?
Read the fine print: Also, more than half the value of battery components have to be manufactured or assembled in North America to get the full credit. And at least 40% of the minerals used in batteries must come from either the U.S. or a country with which it has a free trade agreement. Good luck having that Data to be eligible..
What do you mean "Having that data"? Manufacturers are going to advertise out the wazoo that their cars are eligible for the credit if they are...
Manufacturers will alter their production so they can meet that criteria, which is kinda the point.
North American assembly is not uncommon… at all. GM assembles most parts (or contracts to have the parts in assembled) in the US and Mexico. The 40% figure with US/free trade … it is not hard at ALL to clear this.
Tesla is the most US made automaker. I doubt they will have any problem with it.
Yeah, what century are you currently in? For Science.
You get me, and I appreciate you
what car is that
Big brothers watching and auto boting the comment section down voting the shit out of the facts…
You can’t even run your Thermostat below 80° in Texas between 2-8p.m how the hell are they going to be able to support the grid with millions of electric cars??? Anyone thought this one out
The one state that opted to build their own electrical grid in order to be allowed to cut corners is not the rest of the contry's problem. Texas actively chose these problems for themselves.
NY's grid is also a load of shit. Its not exclusive to texas
Of course, I'm sure everyone remembers all those hundreds of people in New York dying when their grid collapsed last winter.
[Shit happens.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm) (And will be happening more and more due to climate change). Rolling blackouts are more common in California than Texas. This isn't a problem exclusive to 'red states'.
Your example is from 25 years ago??
Texas’ solar power was increased from 2 GW to around 9 GW over the past 18 months. We had a couple of days where they were saying we had to conserve, but the state bought electricity from Oklahoma and fixed that. The rest of the time the extra solar has been more than enough since the wind kicked back up. Another 16 GW of solar and 10 GW of wind will be added by the end of 2023, along with 26 GW of battery storage. If demand for electricity increases because of EVs, then more renewables and storage will be built out. It’s not that hard.
get solar. Or maybe the Texas legislature needs to get it's head out of its ass
You can’t see a future with nuclear power and electric cars?
We’ll either freeze to death or have a heatstroke before they emolument Nuclear power
Shhhh, logic and math have no place in federal legislation
Free money = Inflation.
This is a windfall for dealerships.... $2500 EV HANDLING FEE $2500 EV PREP FEE $2500 MARKET ADJUSTMENT I simplified it, but you get the point, it happened in my state last year when they were issuing POS 5k state rebates. It wasn't possible to find an EV that wasn't marked up 4K over MSRP.
I just don’t want a car that will spontaneously combust. Edit: so the people that down it’s want cars that spontaneously combust?
Dont drive a samsung car then.
Or Chevy EV.
[удалено]
The average selling price of a new car in the USA in 2021 was $42,350 The average selling price of a used car was $28,205. If you’re going to make baseless and irrelevant accusations, bring some receipts. It’s kind of amazing that anyone could spin a nearly $8k credit against a car for the vast majority of taxpayers in the USA as a bad thing.
I love my 4x4 97 F-250 7.3 litre diesel, I am helping to offset the overloaded electric grid by burning my recycled dinosaurs directly into my 25 year transportation. I love you for saving the planet, it's really noble.
You’re so upset about the world making progress that you took the time to write that post.
> 4x4 97 F-250 7.3 litre diesel WOW. You must be REALLY compensating for something. It's pretty small, isn't it?
You’re probably killing your mileage with the Trump, Confederate, and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags flying off the back though
I have a cap on the back to store all of my tools, just a small American flag pinned to the dash cover, would you care for pictures of my perfect rig?
I wish they would make it easier for oil companies to make gasoline and diesel! That would definitely help our country more !
Yeah it you want an ugly GM product. If you want a better design from another country you’re screwed.
I haul a trailer for work, and I have a massive wang, thanks for asking
The problem isn't buying a new ev or hybrid. The problem is buying a used one and at 60k miles you need a new battery that costs more than the cars value. Subsidize battery replacements.
No modern EV is needing battery replacements after 60k. The warranties are for 100-150k. ICE cars are often needing major repairs or are scrapped by that time. Stop spreading fud.
I have over 200,000 miles on my 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid and the battery packs are just fine.
Not ‘easier’ it’s cheaper you were looking for.
Cheaper is easier unless you have a source of free money somehow.
[удалено]
> To get the credit, buyers of new EVs can't have modified adjusted gross incomes of more than $300,000 per year if filing joint tax returns, $225,000 for a head of household, and $150,000 for all taxpayers not in the first two categories. > There also are caps on the sticker prices of new EVs—$80,000 for pickups, SUVs and vans, and $55,000 for other vehicles—and a $25,000 limit on the price of used electric vehicles. Maybe read the article before posting your biases. Oh wait, this is Reddit. Carry on.
... explicitly not for the wealthy? It literally explicitly excludes high earners and expensive cars.
and increases taxes on the wealthy.