EV Incentives Are Unfair and Needs To Be Changed!!

Anyone remember late Summer, 2006? I do and the reason why? It was a time where a decent price on a new Toyota Prius was not possible and why? It was because Toyota had exceeded the units sold that qualified for the full government tax incentive during the quarter which meant that sales after September 30, 2006 only qualified for 50% of the government incentive.

This gave other hybrid manufacturers an unfair price advantage and what did they do to deserve this advantage?? NOTHING!!

Toyota was the trailblazer. Toyota was the company that spent their money to take the big risk, and so on... blah blah. Actually,
Toyota took a very measured risk which explains why the Prius had a nationwide shortage lasting over 3 years.... but not the point.

What is the point is that this travesty is being repeated right now, except its now Nissan being screwed and they did take a big risk. a monumentally BIG RISK and soon other manufacturers will have that same price advantage if we don't do something soon.

I think the incentives should be time based. This levels the playing field for all manufacturers but more importantly, it rewards the company who is willing to be the trailblazer, the one who is willing to take the big risk early.

Change the federal incentive from the first 200,000 units to say, EVERY qualifying plug in sold up till Dec 31, 2018.



http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2014/12/trailblazing.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agree. Time based and getting lower over time. Perhaps dropping $100 per month starting in 2018.

DanCar said:

Agree. Time based and getting lower over time. Perhaps dropping $100 per month starting in 2018.

Click to expand...

that might create a budget much larger than anyone is willing to fund. have had several great suggestions come in including one that only provides incentives for the first million or 2 million units nationwide for all manufacturers. This encourages people to get into the game earlier.

who knows? this could create a situation where I might actually have to do some shopping on my next EV purchase

While I agree that incentives can be improved both through a gradual phasing out as well as perhaps pooling across all manufacturers, I don't know as I'd call them "unfair". Rules were set and as long as they are the same for all....

I expect that 'they industry' would argue that a common count across all manufacturers would not allow them to budget over multiple years (first xxxx models) and thus would make it harder to plan budgets on the new model.

The problem with any tax benefit/incentive/payout intended to encourage a behavior or support new technologies is that the industry/group tend to get used to the money and take it for granted rather easily. The best thing I can see for any incentive (solar, *EV, whatever) is to have it phase out over time so that both manufacturer and consumer can gradually take over the full cost. This may mean the price to consumer increases gradually over time, but as tech matures it should be worth it - and it encourages the manufacturer to push their cost structure down at the same time.

DaveinOlyWA said:

that might create a budget much larger than anyone is willing to fund. ...

Click to expand...

Don't know about budget, but I think it is fair to tax the polluters more, like dirty coal plants.

I didn't take many business/finance/tax/accounting courses in school, but hasn't this kind of thing been studied?! Seems to me it's a fairly straight-forward problem (perhaps a "minimax" problem), where to get outcome A you do it this way, B that, etc. Of course, it gets really complicated and unknowable once you introduce politicians into the mix :? , but theoretically it seems like there should be a fair way to structure the program to meet whatever end you are shooting for.

How about just duplicating the current program for BEVs with 40kWh capacity and higher batteries? Nissan and Tesla would benefit twice, and any latecomers who tried to leapfrog would only benefit once. I dunno. In any case, we and "they" have more than two years to figure it out, so we can probably wait to see who the next president is, what congress looks like, what the price of gas is, etc. before really diving into it. (i.e., not that urgent, imho)

It it's unfair and the reason why is the technology floor along with customer acceptance is a moving target.

We all know the original battery pack in the LEAF was much more expensive now so the car had to sell with a much smaller margin of profit. Also, the consumer is wary of new technology so adoption is slow increasing the cost per unit.

Fast forward X years and we get a new player in the EV game who takes advantage of technology advances and can sell the car at a higher price because they are getting the full $7500 while Nissan is getting nothing. So Nissan is screwed while other manufacturers reap profits.
So if you think its fair u need to tell me how its fair.

This allows companies who do not want to take the risk but still allows them to benefit on a government hand out that is there ONLY to reduce the risk of the early innovators. After the battery tech matures, there will not be a need to provide incentives because manufacturers will have figured out how to make it cheaper and technology would have figured out how to make it better.

this is why I thought it was unfair.

obtw; post edited to account for the "variance" incurred from google voice recognition

It it's unfair and the rain why is the technology floor along with customer acceptance is a moving target.

Click to expand...

Eh? A little proofreading (title included) would be welcome.

I agree with the OP, and I've been saying it for some time. It is not fair to allow companies like Nissan, Tesla, and GM to essentially to take the risks and pave the way and use up all of their credits. Only for companies like Chrysler to be able to come along in a few years after battery prices are lower and charging infrastructure established and be able to take the same credits.

LeftieBiker said:

It it's unfair and the rain why is the technology floor along with customer acceptance is a moving target.

Click to expand...

Eh? A little proofreading (title included) would be welcome.

Click to expand...

that would actually be "proof speaking" and the post has been edited

adric22 said:

I agree with the OP, and I've been saying it for some time. It is not fair to allow companies like Nissan, Tesla, and GM to essentially to take the risks and pave the way and use up all of their credits. Only for companies like Chrysler to be able to come along in a few years after battery prices are lower and charging infrastructure established and be able to take the same credits.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see your concern. I would think that a simple end date for all (whether used or not) would fix this.

Slow1 said:

Ah, I see your concern. I would think that a simple end date for all (whether used or not) would fix this.

Click to expand...

All incentives should end when the first manufacturer sells ZEV number 200k. Use it or lose it.

pchilds said:

Slow1 said:

Ah, I see your concern. I would think that a simple end date for all (whether used or not) would fix this.

Click to expand...

All incentives should end when the first manufacturer sells ZEV number 200k. Use it or lose it.

Click to expand...

now we are talking!! but the next step is to let our concerns be known. educate your legislators. get them on board. I am all for incentives to help launch technology but not if it provides an unfair advantage to laggards

an observation. Incentives cost money. This means it has to be funded. It's hard to support a incentive program without knowing how much it is going to cost. Kind of like writing a blank check. Not saying I disagree with you... just saying that's probably what congress was thinking when they passed the bill in the form it is in now.

Funding should come from the fossil fuel industry, preferably from an 'excess carbon' tax levied above a certain emission level on extraction and transportation of fossil fuels.

that would actually be "proof speaking" and the post has been edited

Click to expand...

Are you using a voice to text program? I'd be interested to know which one, as I need one myself. Otherwise, checking something you have typed before sending it is proofreading.

Will the incoming congress be interested in funding any incentives at all?

While I understood the sentiment that early entrants should be rewarded, I would still like to see every manufacture get an incentive no matter how long it takes to convince them to enter the market.

The more vehicles on the market competing for our dollars the better the cars will get. I don't want to see a monopoly where a few manufactures can rest on their laurels and not improve their products.

Just a thought: I figure the market will pay what it will pay for a means of transportation. The purpose of the incentives is to allow the manufacturer to charge above market value for the product in order for them to recover the costs incurred to develop the new technology the incentives are attempting to promote. Could the same thing be accomplished by taking that money to develop the technology and place it into the public domain for all manufacturers to use? It could possibly be even more efficient because there would be no duplication of efforts.

Highly unlikely...

DNAinaGoodWay said:

Will the incoming congress be interested in funding any incentives at all?

Click to expand...

LeftieBiker said:

Funding should come from the fossil fuel industry, preferably from an 'excess carbon' tax levied above a certain emission level on extraction and transportation of fossil fuels.

that would actually be "proof speaking" and the post has been edited

Click to expand...

Are you using a voice to text program? I'd be interested to know which one, as I need one myself. Otherwise, checking something you have typed before sending it is proofreading.

Click to expand...

just using the one that comes with my phone from Google. thinking maybe I need to shop around to see if there is something better out there