By on October 1, 2014

Harry Reid

For the past three years, President Barack Obama has called upon Congress to raise tax incentives for electric vehicles from $7,500 to $10,000, with those calls going unanswered.

This year, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate is taking the charge.

The Detroit News reports Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid of Nevada pushed Congress to boost the incentives — and, therefore, EV sales — proclaiming the government needed to do more to encourage sales:

In order to truly promote innovation, we must as a Congress create opportunities for consumers to invest in advanced technologies, and we haven’t done that yet. We need more tax incentives for that. In 2008, we encouraged America to invest in the growth of the electric car industry with tax credits for qualified electric vehicles.

The extra $2,500 would provide dealers an opportunity to claim credits so long as they disclosed that info to their customers, which would then give said customers a chance to claim the credits at the point of sale, instead of filing a claim with their taxes the following year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

99 Comments on “Sen. Reid Calls Upon Congress To Raise EV Tax Incentives...”


  • avatar
    mcs

    I just bought a Leaf, and between what Nissan put on the hood and the government, the current incentives are just fine – at least for me.

    Instead, if they want to encourage wider adoption, they need to focus on incentives for businesses to install L3 chargers. Prices on L3 chargers have dropped and an incentive could help small restaurants in L3 deserts like central NH bring in extra business and benefit more people than just EV owners like me.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    Why don’t they just give the damn cars away… it’s only taxpayer money anyway. It grows on trees.

    Is it 2017 yet? (not that I expect any improvements)

  • avatar
    shaker

    Simply applying the existing tax credit to immediately reduce the MSRP (thus reducing state taxes and the amount financed) would have pushed me into a Volt, but that didn’t happen.

    Somehow, I think the Model III (and its Reno Gigafactory battery supplier) are the target of this benefit, but it will mean American jobs in a high-tech venture that can only grow bigger over time – I’m all for it.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Where’s the budget, Senator? How can you increase this program when you don’t even have a budget?

    What’s up with this bunch? Do they eat dessert before dinner?

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Called by his crowd “tax expenditures”. Supposed to be offset by tax increases somewhere else.

      btw, his policies are pushing the cost of electricity in the NE up by 50% over last winter (coal plants shutting, natural gas prices consequently going through the roof). Germany has pursued similar non-market based energy policies and they are de-industrializing.

      Because of Germany’s uneconomic energy policies, companies like BASF are moving plants out of Germany . IG Union, that means you.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        I hate when people call tax cuts or tax credits* “expenditures”. That tells me people subconsciously view all money as the gov’t’s, and whatever we get to keep is due to their good will. In reality, letting me KEEP money I’ve EARNED and having me send LESS of my money to the gov’t is not a gov’t expenditure, it’s a reduction of receipts. I get that it’s a picky, semantic point, but it’s philosophically important. Of course the required offset is that spending be tied to receipts to make the equation work, but since neither party can figure that one out…

        *on people who have a net tax payment, not people who have a net tax benefit

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Except that in this case it really isn’t a tax expenditure as the term is generally used. Typically it refers to an arrangement where the government will forego tax receipts on, say, a parcel of land that you develop that was generating little revenue anyway (think of the Tesla battery factory). As an inducement, the gov agrees to continue receiving nothing for a while longer. So they’re “spending” tax money that they never had, but it’s not as if cash was actually being handed to someone.

          In this case, if a dealer is selling you a car for $40,000, ten thousand is coming from Uncle Harry and the balance from you. Real money is leaving the Treasury and going onto the dealer’s hand.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Don’t you know that “you didn’t build that”, thus you should consider yourself lucky if the government lets you keep any of the income earned from what you didn’t build.

  • avatar
    redav

    This doesn’t happen to be related to NV just winning the Gigafactory, does it? (/sarcasm)

    I am not philosophically opposed to tax incentives for EVs, but I don’t see a need for them to go up. Rather, if the govt insists on getting involved, I would prefer they do something to get more manufacturers to sell their EVs nationwide, and that means doing something to bring manufacturing costs down. I’d like to see the govt help bring newer technology to market faster and directly stimulate innovation rather than dangling a carrot for consumers and hoping it trickles down to developing new tech.

    I just spent a week in Norway, and they have EVs everywhere. I was told the tax incentives on them are around 25% which makes them cheaper than regular cars. (I don’t think my friend was even factoring in fuel price, which would tilt the advantage even more in favor of EVs.) I don’t want that much govt intervention, but certainly it does work at some point.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Unlike the US, Norway has a virtually unlimited supply of hydropower. So, subsidizing EVs makes more sense, even though EVs perform very poorly in cold climates.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Norway offers other financial benefits and driving privileges to EV owners, such as access to mass transit lanes, exemptions from tolls and free parking.

      The net result of this is that affluent commuters who used to take the train to work are now driving, instead.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      In Norway, tax “incentives” on ICEs are also on the order of negative a few hundred percent, especially for ICE cars in the power range of the Tesla S. A Tesla and A8 4.0 is roughly the same price in the US. In Norway, the Tesla is half the price, or perhaps even one third.

      Hydropower or not, the motivation is the same there as here; the political Elite lives in and around the capital, Oslo. And can afford to buy new cars. Now they get to buy a nicer car, so they don’t have to feel like such pariahs compared to their colleagues abroad, while still being able to sock it to the mere peons who are stuck simply working for a living; and really ought to be content that their nice overlords provide them with bus service a few times a day anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        stuki,
        Norway has far less income disparity than in the US.

        Your fantasies would read better if they were grounded in reality.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          But that income disparity works both ways. The poor makes more than here. The political class makes less. And have driven themselves into a corner with high taxes on cars.

          Which was cool back when big powerful cars were for “Fat Germans” showing off. But nowadays, Top Gear and increased travel to the rest of Europe, has left the poor sods with a bit of an inferiority complex wrt the size of their engines. Hence, Tesla to the rescue……

          Distances traveled, combined with cold winters, render battery cars much less generally useful in the Norwegian periphery than in the core around Oslo. Therefore, taxing ICE cars to pay for battery cars, is a net transfer of wealth from the periphery to the center, where the connected live.

          That’s reality. What’s fantasy is believing someone with elbows sharp enough to backstab his (her in Norway…) way up some political hierarchy, somehow has anyone’s interest but her own in mind, simply because she says so on National TV….

  • avatar
    Toad

    Tesla announces that their new EV battery factory will be built in Harry Reid’s Nevada, complete with over $1 billion in government incentives and subsidies…but that’s not enough. Nevada’s senior senator now demands the consumer incentives to buy these electric cars be increased from $7500 to $10,000 per unit.

    Elon Musk has to be laughing himself to sleep. He bought a Senator, and got a factory and purchase subsidies for free. That is the new model: instead of trying to build something that consumers want and comply with government regulations, just get into bed WITH he government and they will pay for your factory and subsidize the purchase of your product. The Chinese figured it out 15 years ago, the Russians 10 years ago, and now our plutocrats have figured it out too.

  • avatar
    Toad

    Not only is the government (federal, state, local) subsidizing Tesla’s new EV battery “Gigafactory” in Nevada to the tune of over $1 billion, now Nevada’s senior senator wants to up government consumer purchase subsidies by 33%.

    Elon Musk is a genius; he looked at how China has evolved and figured out that if you spend a little to buy off/”support” the right government officials, you can get you factory paid for and product purchases subsidized by those same officials.

    A hundred years ago Henry Ford designed a product, consumers liked it, and he proceeded to build huge factories worldwide at tremendous cost to deliver a product that sold more and more while costing less and less. That was time consuming and very expensive.

    Then new model is “support” the right government officials, get them to have taxpayers pay you to build your factory, then get them to disadvantage your competition via purchase subsidies. Throw in some convenient regulatory burdens that hurt your competitors, and the fact that those competitors pay all sorts of taxes while you don’t, and it is an impressive formula.

    Corrupt, but impressive.

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    Such an excellent idea. We all know that electricity grows on trees and doesn’t pollute or threaten the environment, unlike hydro power, oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear. Why do we even have those silly electric power plants anymore? And we can always get electricity from alternative energy on dark still nights – that’s a bonus.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      Well, it is a lot easier to clean up, say, 500 powerplants nationwide than 100M cars, or whatever we have. And demand for more power should (I know, I’m dreaming) drive investment in new, cleaner plants. Bottom line is, money spent investing in cleaner American power plants to power cars designed and built in America (Tesla, Volt) is money we’re not sending to the terrorists. Can’t say it isn’t a good long term strategy, even if we haven’t figured out the tactics 100% yet.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        At this point, how much cleaner are the best power plants than the best ICE cars? How about taking a fleet average measure of cleanliness for cars in service and for our fleet of power plants and compare actual cleanliness? If you are patient, most cars disappear after 15 years but power plants last 4X longer. So in some ways its easier to clean up a fleet of cars thru attrition than to do the same for power plants.

        • 0 avatar
          S2k Chris

          It’s always easier to clean up a smaller number of tailpipes rather than a huge one.

          To me though, the real win is the domestic vs. foreign energy argument. The pollution is a side benefit.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          chukrs,
          We are reaching the limits on our ability to clean up ICE vehicles, esp. RE: greenhouse gases. As a country, the US needs to decide whether we want to do things the easy way or the hard way.

          We can either use tax incentives to increase the use of green sources of energy like solar and wind, or we can continue to bankrupt ourselves through wars in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing. Then, we can spend the money to re-build our economy around the new reality of an environment that is significantly hotter and coasts constantly under siege.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            Vogo – not the answer to the implied question which was – what will pollute more – electricity from power plants in clean electric cars or ICE cars as their own power plant? The argument that we are reaching the limits of what we can do with ICE could have been, and probably was, made decades ago right up til present day.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The only way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to burn less carbon (i.e. motor fuel.)

            We have made great progress in reducing smog emissions, because those can be reduced via technology (catalytic converters, etc.)

            But haven’t accomplished much when it comes to GHG as that would require us to use a lot less gasoline. Don’t confuse this problem with the NOx problem; they cannot be fixed using the same approaches.

          • 0 avatar

            I’m all for solar and wind, but

            1. EVs aren’t ready for prime time, and it’s not clear they will ever be ready (witness Honda and Toyota shifting their focus to fuel cells).

            2. Cars represent a mere 15% of greenhouse emissions in the US. Even meat eating causes more greenhouse emissions that cars.

            3. we could gain a lot simply through more efficient cars.

            ERGO: money spent on incentives for EVs may be distracting from less expensive ways of mitigating greenhouse emissions, and thus may be wasted, and even counterproductive.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            “The only way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to burn less carbon (i.e. motor fuel.)”

            Not quite. Technically, sequestration is an option, if the technology works & if there is someplace to put it. Along a similar line is the use of carbon-absorbing organisms, e.g., algae or trees. Algae has already been demonstrated to produce high yields of fuel chemicals (both oils and ethanol feed stock) and trees can be converted to charcoal and plowed into the soil (which then facilitates faster growth of the subsequent generation of crops).

            Can these be done on a large enough scale to fully balance carbon-burning power plants? Doubtful, but if the goal is simply reduction, then absolutely it would.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It is possible to reduce smog emissions by bolting technology onto a car. In fact, that’s pretty much how it’s done: catalytic converters and other equipment have greatly reduced the components that contribute to smog.

            That approach is not possible with greenhouse gases. There is no technology device that can be added to a vehicle that can remove carbon from the exhaust or whatever because the engine itself is dependent upon carbon for its operation.

            For the car to release less carbon, it has to use less fuel. There is no other option.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            :facepalm:

            GHG come from far more sources than cars. I was specifically referring to power plants.

            And besides that, no, your physics is completely wrong. While there is no *practical* technology that would work strapped to a moving car, it is completely wrong to say there is no technology.

            Furthermore, you assume a control volume of just the car, which given the philosophy of carbon credits, is a false assumption. A basic understanding of the concept implies net GHG matters, thus stationary scrubbers/sequestration serves the exact same function a mobile scrubbers/sequestration.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I was discussing automotive emissions and how to reduce those. This is a car website, you know.

            Once again — the only way to get a car to produce less carbon is to improve the fuel economy. There is no magic box that can be attached to it that will accomplish this.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          “At this point, how much cleaner are the best power plants than the best ICE cars?”

          “Cleaner” isn’t really the big problem anymore, at least for new plants or cars. “More efficient” is the problem. And a good fossil-fuel powerplant (a modern natural gas plant) is about twice as efficient as even the best car engine. A bit of that is lost in transmission, but only a bit. And the efficiency gains are obviously even greater when you are working with an energy source like hydro or solar.

    • 0 avatar
      Crabspirits

      Replace “nuclear” with “American wasteful clunker reactors”.

      Some countries now DO have sorta-clean nuclear power falling out of their butts.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        There are clean designs that are passive safe, too. In our regulatory environment, good luck getting them built, or even permitted.

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          Thorium reactors. Can’t melt down and the waste product is relatively innocuous.

          Some say the US could have gone thorium in the 1960/70’s but needed to make bombs, something thorium doesn’t easily lend itself to.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            US nuclear weapons material is produced/processed separately from commercial power generation. None of the US commercial power reactors can (or have ever been capable of) reliable, efficient bomb-making material production. Ergo, this is not a reason that US commercial nuclear power didn’t “go thorium” in the past.

            This is in contrast, say, to what the Soviets were doing, they did design and build power reactors to have the ability to harvest bomb-making material rather easily. This is one of the factors that multiplied the area impacted by (and the final severity of) the Chernobyl accident.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Most of our nuclear reactors are old and sad. We just keep extending the life of our old ones. It took until 2012 for a reactor to be approved for construction after the Three Mile Island incident (1979). Hell, after TMI, we decided not to build more than half of the power plants that were already approved.

        Most other countries seem to be drawing down and decommissioning their reactors. France seems to be the only country that has nuclear power “falling out of their butts.” China and India generate more power from renewables than nuclear.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          The French are odd with nuclear power, I believe their original interest in it was to maintain what is now the third largest declared nuclear arsenal on the planet with 290 warheads (behind the US and the Soviets but ahead of China). Let that sink in for a moment, France has more warheads than China and the UK and is only possibly bested by the Israelis.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I guess having many of the major ground battles of two world wars fought on your soil will make you stock up on deterrent. Plus, countries think having nuclear weapons makes you a world power.

            Or maybe they just like blowing up massive swaths of desert in Algeria.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Those countries are correct in their thinking. If you think about it, France still has its fingers in many pies for it being an otherwise minor country in the grand scheme of things.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        And don’t forget the US’ ban on recycling/reprocessing spent nuclear material. Waste could be dramatically reduced (to the point of not needing Yucca mountain) if we were permitted to do that.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    Nah, the EV tax credits are generous enough as is.

  • avatar
    dwford

    This is just something shiny to dangle in front of environmentally conscious voters to try and get them to vote in November. It goes nowhere whether he remains Majority Leader or not.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    ICE vehicles burn clean. North America is awash in oil and gas. People don’t want battery powered vehicles. This is just graft, as usual. More money transferred from one pocket to another, courtesy of the Mandarins.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      thelaine,
      If we are awash in oil and gas, then why are 40% of US imports oil? Yes, fracking increases supply, but not to the extent that the US is self sufficient.

      We continue to be dependent on foreign oil, and therefore continue to commit to wars in the Middle East to guarantee that supply. How many soldiers need to die before people get that?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        He believes that we are “awash” in oil because right-wing blogs tell him so. Not a whole lot of thinking or fact collection going on with that guy.

        But I don’t know where you’re getting this 40% figure from, either. Looking at the latest trade figures, about 11% of the dollar value of US imports YTD (January-July) consisted of crude oil; during that same period of 2013, it was 12%. I doubt that there was a time in recent history when it was equal to 40%.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          “He” is blinded by his arrogance and leftist ideology. Gas and oil are abundant and cheap compared to the alternatives.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Repeating an erroneous statement doesn’t make it true. Really wanting to believe it doesn’t help, either

            (I realize that Goebbels would have disagreed with my statement, but like you, he also wasn’t the most reliable source of information.)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            I will leave the fascism to you. It is your strongest ideological influence and fits perfectly with your personality.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @thelaine,
            I do normally respect your response.

            But Castro Pch is marginally correct.

            The US doesn’t have the resources you do claim as other do also.

            I don’t believe you are blinded by arrogance, though.

            The cost to extract those resources are quite high.

            But in your defence, Pch does tend to skew data to fit into his UAW script.

            His interpretation and trending of data is inaccurate.

            Beware.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Thank you BAFO. We will just disagree. Proven reserves just continue to grow. The cost of extraction just continues to fall.

            None of it exists in a vacuum. Hydrocarbons are not cheap to extract or burn cleanly, but they are cheap and plentiful compared to other sources of energy.

            Nuclear is the next best thing, but the same people who don’t want to burn hydrocarbons also don’t want nuclear.

            Except for niche sources which are the best alternatives in specific applications, gas, oil, coal and nuclear are by far the cheapest and most abundant sources of energy and there is no shortage. When they begin to dwindle, they will be priced out of contention.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            BAFO,

            I should have said the cost of the new forms of extraction, such as fracking and horizontal drilling, continue to fall.

            Coincidence:

            Energy Journal: Saudi Price Cuts
            By Nikhil Lohade

            SAUDI CUTS PRICES

            Ample global oil supplies have weighed on prices in recent months. They slumped to more-than-one-year lows Wednesday on news that Saudi Arabia lowered the official selling prices for its crude.

            The kingdom was expected to cut output in the coming months to keep prices buoyant. After all, a higher oil price is essential for Saudi Arabia to fund its massive annual budget and maintain its investment plans.

            Some investors have bet that members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, especially Saudi Arabia, will cut production to keep prices above $100 a barrel. But the Saudi oil-price cuts seem to suggest a drastic reduction in output may not happen, at least not in the near term.

            John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital in New York, reckons the price cut indicates that Saudi Arabia is more focused on maintaining market share in a lower-price environment than on keeping prices high. But Antoine Halff, head of oil industry and markets at the International Energy Agency, says a further drop in oil prices might lead to reductions in production not just from OPEC, but also from non-OPEC countries for economic reasons.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          PCH,
          I stand corrected – if we look solely at oil imports, they are around 11% now.

          The stats are a little fuzzy, because refined products, i.e., chemicals made from petroleum are tougher to count. They are essentially oil imports, but refined by other countries which have industrialized off US demand.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Are you looking at a net number? We export refined products. It’s why the ships coming in the Houston ship channel aren’t leaving empty.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            As you noted, we’re still dependent on oil imports. There is no data to suggest that the import dependency is going to end.

            The increase in domestic production still doesn’t place the country anywhere close to its 1973 peak, and there is no reason to believe that it will ever recover to that extent. Less dependency does not equal independence.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Even if North America was “awash” the world as a whole is not, certainly not at current population levels and desired standards of living.

  • avatar
    Toad

    I posted twice that this smelled of government corruption, and both posts never showed up on the site. First time that has happened.

    Odd.

  • avatar
    TW5

    Filth wants to raise the EV tax credit now that Tesla Gigafactory is coming to Nevada.

    I’m not opposed to tax credits for efficient transportation, but I’d prefer point-of-sale rebates, and the benefits should have a broader focus. EV buyers are not the only people who are helping the US economy and US ecology.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      “EV buyers are not the only people who are helping the US economy and US ecology.”

      I know, they should also give tax credits for buying solar panels or CFLs or more efficient HVAC or water heaters or donating to green charities, or…. Oh wait.

  • avatar
    xtoyota

    I can barely afford a new car…… now my tax dollar is spent propping up someone else so they can buy an overpriced EV…………
    Is this a great Country or what….. NAH

    Reid is an A$$

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      No. You’re thinking of taxes like you’re going out to dinner with someone and the bill is $10, and he pays $3 so you need to cover the extra $2 plus your own $5. That’s not how taxes work. If someone else pays less, that doesn’t drive your bill up. There’s no specific tax bill the government must hit (and if there was it would be far in excess of what they actually collect, given that we have a defecit). Someone else lowering their tax bill does not raise yours, or mean you are covering them. That’s class warefare BS.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Guy jumps out of a 10 story building. Passing the 5th floor he thinks “So far, so good.” Sooner or later you face a hard reality from deficit spending, too. In your example, it’s more like the restaurant owner takes an IOU for those extra $2 – he still expects to be paid.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          chukrs,
          Your analogy would be apt if the deficit weren’t falling every year, which it has been. If the economy weren’t growing, as it is. If unemployment wasn’t falling, as it has been. If the stock market weren’t at all time highs.

          All this concern about deficit spending was somehow absent when Reagan rebuilt the US economy around consumer and deficit spending.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            Vogo – get back to me when the debt starts falling too. The bond holders want their $2…..

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            During the 80s, 90s, and 00s, the rate of deficit was less than the rate of GDP growth. The deficit was stable and we were borrowing towards equilibrium, which happened in Bush’s second term.

            Now, deficits are unstable. The rate of borrowing is still higher than the rate of economic growth.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “The deficit is falling” is a bit of a loaded statement. The inference is that the total amount we spend beyond what is being collected is being reduced. That is not what is happening. We are overspending by a lesser amount, but as of around last month, our government has outspent revenues by roughly $500 billion this year, ytd. That is certainly better than outspending revenues by over $1t as we had done in 2012, but let’s not kid ourselves.

            The issue of debt is a much more sobering picture.

            Here’s a view of national debt beginning in 2010 going to August 2014.

            http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2010&endMonth=08&endDay=01&endYear=2014

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            chukrs,
            The debt hasn’t fallen since Clinton was in office.

            You seem to be confused about who actually is empowered by unsecured debt – it’s the borrower, not the lender.

      • 0 avatar
        xtoyota

        maybe if that tax money was not given to someone else the Government would not need as much money from the average guy—-lowering tax for all of us
        Government these days only screws up things and wastes our money

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    EV sales are increasing already; incentives – especially increased incentives – are no longer needed.

    If mfrs want to move more EVs, they’ll find ways to cut the costs. Oh wait, Tesla is already working on that.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Tesla knows where its at.
      All these other manufacturers are focused on making something to satisfy a sheet of paper to get credits from commiefornia, Tesla is making something people aspire to own, that’s the correct way to pursue this technology.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Well – I’m biased – but I think Nissan has a really solid car in the Leaf also; mine has been excellent. But many Leaf drivers aspire to the Model 3 for the promise of more range and cooler looks (me included). But TTAC is that nobody even knows what it will look like or precisely what its specs will be.

        And, Nissan is likely going to offer more range as an option soon, and their prices have fallen quite a bit since the Leaf was first introduced.

        But as you say, most other mfrs are merely playing around with compliance cars, and Reid’s proclamations won’t change that.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Well… Right now it’s just a statement, or as some seem to think, just hot air. Is this statement worth frothing at the mouth anger? No. Is it worth discussing? Yes. Me, I think the “incentives” will die off when the industry takes of and gas cars evaporate off the landscape. Which I also think is inevitable.
    I also think tax money would be better spent investing in infrastructure, like charging stations and sustainable power stations.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    Sad. Some politician is always giving taxpayer dollars away. Let the folks who want an EV buy it with their money, not mine.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Getting rich on taxpayer subsidies is Elon’s real genius

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    If EVs were more compelling as cars, I’d consider one for commuting to work where charging is free. The Leaf is an ugly appliance; the Model S is too expensive; many others are simply modified versions of jelly bean cars that have no soul and no cache.

    Give me an electric Boxster with 75 miles of range for $40K and I’d jump on it.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Comments disappearing. WTF?

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Ugh some of these comments want me want to bang my head on my desk. These are miniscule tax incentives for cleaner cars built by us companies, us workers, and in the us, powered by us energy and is what we should be offering tax incentives for. If you all want to bitch about taxes and deficits, go bitch about the trillion dollar f35 program, navy shipbuilding, congress forcing the dod to carry on legacy programs that cost billions, aid to Israel, fighting “isis”, the trillions blown on the war on terror, the bank bailouts, quantitative easing, tax breaks on long term cap gains which mostly benifit capitalists (hint: that ain’t you), and the money spent on illegal immigrants. These cars are the stepping stone to get us off foreign oil, which has shaped our foriegn policy for the worse for the last 65 years and cost us trillions in externalities and lives. Most of you are so brainwashed that politics is an us vs them sport that you completely oppose any idea no matter how good it is from one side and support terrible ideas and regimes in your own side, Limbaugh bobblehead parrots need to visit the wizard and wish for a brain.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Ugh some of these comments want me want to bang my head on my desk. These are miniscule tax incentives for cleaner cars built by us companies, us workers, and in the us, powered by us energy and is what we should be offering tax incentives for. If half of you all want to b about taxes and deficits, go b about the trillion dollar f35 program, navy shipbuilding, congress forcing the dod to carry on legacy programs that cost billions, aid to Israel, fighting “isis”, the trillions blown on the war on terror, the bank bailouts, quantitative easing, tax breaks on long term cap gains which mostly benifit capitalists (hint: that ain’t you), and the money spent on illegal immigrants. These cars are the stepping stone to get us off foreign oil, which has shaped our foriegn policy for the worse for the last 65 years and cost us our reputation, trillions in externalities, and hundreds of thousands of lives. Most of you are so brainwashed that politics is an us vs them sport that you completely oppose any idea no matter how good it is from one side and support terrible ideas and régimes on your own side.

  • avatar
    fozone

    I’d rather the government *give away* a Leaf to every taxpayer that wanted one, rather than have any more misguided military adventures in the middle east. I suspect it would be cheaper.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      The US gets virtually none of its oil from the middle east, and would get even less if the Obama administration would open up federal lands to fracking and oil exploration. We are in the middle east because the rest of the world spends all their money on the welfare state rather than defense, leaving us alone to fight the bad guys that fly planes into buildings and chop off the heads of journalists and aid workers. As for free Leafs – don’t give Harry and Obama any ideas – they know how well free Obamaphones worked in 2012 and they are mighty worried about the coming 2014 elections.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        The US homeland gets next to no oil from the middle east. Most of the US military’s oil supply comes straight from Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE, and Kuwait. There is a strong press for those lines to remain open. Then again on top of that the OPEC countries control the oil prices in a cartel setup that means the US has to abide by it or run the risk of losing valuable barrels. On top of that no amount of fracking or oil exploration on federal lands will off-set our needs. Even the most generous estimates in the Alaskan refuge were minute to the amount needed. Even now we’re finding fracking is causing earthquakes and poisoning our water.

        As for who spends money on Defense, the US has had a vested interest in having the largest military for a century and far less of it has been ethical ‘fighting the bad guys’ but really protecting private business interest abroad. Fighting ‘terrorism’ is a complicated issue, our affairs in the middle east has created tension and driven a group that would normally lash out at their oppressive government to lash out at us because we help their oppressive governments. We kept Saudi Arabia upright and stable and they’ve been the main funder of terrorism in 9/11 and prior. The whole debacle in Syria is largely because we propped up Assad and then we wanted to let him fall Russia propped him up.

        I’m an interventionist, so don’t get me wrong I like having a big military but we really need to get better at figuring out who we need to knock down and who we need to prop up because we’ve had a very right-wing capitalist approach to ‘stability’ that creates these long term issues.

      • 0 avatar
        fozone

        Oil is a global commodity — it doesn’t matter where it actually comes from, the price is determined by the overall supply vs. demand.

        Until the US kicks its oil addiction, hydraulic fracturing in North Dakota or drilling in Alaska would only help marginally. We will still be tied up in the middle east forever. Dealing with Russian intransigence — forever. Competing with China for the marginal barrel — forever.

        We should focus on building an infrastructure that is self-sufficient and can switch to alternatives when priced appropriately. That’s what tax incentives are for — to kick-start the industries that everyone should want to have in place in the US in order to prevent future shocks.

        Too logical, right?

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Logical, but based on sketchy assumptions.

          1. Incentives to kick start industries sound great if only you can be sure of the outcome and honesty of the players. Generally, good ideas can get private funding anyway, so incentives should only be used when there is a really, really big consensus. Given the need for highway improvement, I would go with the original Obama plan and raise taxes on gasoline in order to make alternatives more attractive.

          2. The other assumption is that we are not sitting on many, many more barrels in areas where even exploration is forbidden. Ask some geologists who know where to look, and you will get a really rosy picture of how much oil we could get pretty quickly with government approval. The reality is your great grand kids will have plenty.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            LC – Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house.

            1.) You assume that ‘great ideas can get private funding’ and if we know anything about the auto industry is that if a great idea challenges their supremacy they’ll simply buy you out or drive you into the ground using their limited monopoly. The fact that electric vehicles have been so slow to arrive has more to do with an industry griping and dragging their feet due to a lack of infrastructure than any firm logical reason. A few years back when the last round of CAFE came out the entire industry BUT Hyundai complained loudly how impossible it was. Hyundai/Kia said it was completely possible, once a major player cracks they all will. So under the assumption you put forward it would require one to agree to build EVs at a major scale and at this point none of the big players have agreed to. It isn’t because it is a good/bad idea but it is a risk-aversion issue combined with their cartel control of the industry.

            2.) I’m just going to call hogwash. Almost every optimistic oil prediction points out the most oil is far away from US shores and in generally political unstable areas. There has yet to be a geologist who has looked at the current data and suggests the US is one massive oil field that you seem to insist exists.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

            You need to be better informed. Maybe read something that isn’t produced by a bunch of campus radical naval gazers. The 3 trillion barrels in Colorado is just one major find of the past 7 years. There’s plenty of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, off our coasts, and in ANWAR too. The economic implications are unacceptable to the ruling class, so people are being brainwashed to refuse their own prosperity and, ultimately, survival.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Sorry CJ, you’re kidding yourself if you think that 3 trillion barrels matter. The price of solar and wind power is going down day by day and by the time that reserve would be profitable it would be easier to introduce solar panels per unit. Never mind the extreme ecological cost.

            But again you oil fiends are like heroin addicts, chasing the oily dragon hoping to get your next fix to deny reality.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Did you miss the part where three trillion barrels of oil is roughly three times the amount of oil that has been consumed by man thus far? That doesn’t matter because you are completely detached from reality. It’s funny how deluded academics in the BS arts can become when they interact with and seek approval from other academics of BS. Just look at the George Washington University law professor doing TV appearances about his lawsuit with the FCC to take down the Redskins. If he had the intelligence of a fruit-fly, he wouldn’t let his name and face be attached to his actions. You don’t see the atheists putting their faces on their acts of hate.

            The price of solar is going down because the cost is being hidden from the user for now. All we’re doing is eroding our long term existence to distract and divide the population as we replace real energy with the illusion of energy.

            Three trillion barrels of oil don’t matter. Thanks. You’ve given me a new cocktail party conversation topic with which to mock participants in your deranged circle jerk.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      As someone else commented, please don’t give the government any more ideas on how to spend other people’s money.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      fozone, we’ve got OW! (Obama’s War!) to contend with now — a war to keep ISIL from taking over the oil fields of the Levant and eventually the entire Middle East.

      Given the advances that ISIS/ISIL has made to date, they should have complete control over those oil fields in less than two years, starting with the oil fields of Iraq, and working outward from there.

      But we don’t hear any of the Uber-Left Liberal Greenweenie Democrats complaining about OW! the way they p!ssed and moaned about Shrub’s war.

      But that is nothing to worry about because Big Oil has forecast that by 2020 America will be the planet’s biggest producer of oil, with oil and oil products being America’s top exports.

      Good deal!

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        So, HDC can we officially take you off the list of ‘fence sitters’ because you keep denying how you’re not a conservative but this response is abundantly clear you’re not anything but a conservative blowhard with a skewed sense of reality.

        By the way sending bombers to deal with ISIL is far different than a war in Iraq that didn’t need to be fought since it effectively destabilized the region, I mean more or less this fight with ISIL is merely an extension of Bush II’s destabilization of the region and if you bother to read left-wing media outlets you’ll hear the same anti-war views being espoused as before. But the closest you come is having Rush Limbaugh tell you I’m sure.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Is Harry Reid standing in front of Karl Marx? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dukeisduke: “I have seen numerous articles discussing how Elon is at odds with the Biden administration, only...
  • 3SpeedAutomatic: If you read the details of SAAB history, it was not able to amortize the growing development cost...
  • dukeisduke: There’s something to hate for everyone in the Bankrupt America Act.
  • ToolGuy: Stalin: “Wanna hear a joke?” Hitler: “Sure.” Stalin: “Moscow.” Hitler:...
  • mcs: I still favor subsidies for battery research over direct checks for vehicles. Improve the products and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber