America's EV subsidies are FUBAR

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

edatoakrun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
5,222
Location
Shasta County, North California
Another paper showing just how badly America has implemented "clean" energy incentives.

Someone explain to me why American taxpayers should be paying wealthy buyers of resource-inefficient BEVs (like a Tesla S or X) in those areas that produces electricity largely through coal generation (much of the region ~between the Rocky mountains and Appalachia) $7,500?
60% of $18B in US clean energy tax credits 2006-2012 went to top 20% by income; 90% in the plug-in program

30 August 2015

A working paper by a team at the Energy Institute at Haas, University of California, Berkeley, has found that 60% of the $18 billion in US federal income clean energy tax credits issued between 2006 and 2012—e.g., for weatherizing homes, installing solar panels, and buying hybrid and electric vehicles—went to the top income quintile in the US (above $200,000 per year). The bottom three quintiles (up to $75,000 per year) received about 10%.

The most extreme case, Severin Borenstein and Lucas Davis found through their examination of tax return data from the IRS, is the program aimed at electric vehicles—the top income quintile received about 90% of all these credits. As a result of the work, Borenstein and Davis conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs...

...It can often be easier politically to introduce subsidies than taxes, but the two are not equivalent. Probably the single biggest limitation of technology-based subsidies is that they don’t achieve the efficient level of usage, but economists have pointed out other limitations as well. For example, Holland et al. (2015) shows that the external benefits from electric cars vary widely (and can even be negative) depending on how electricity is generated...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150830-haas.html

Paper available here:

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/papers/WP262.pdf
 
A new technology is always expensive, so subsidies designed to promote expansion of that technology will be used by people, who can justify a high cost of that technology (even after incentives, cars like Tesla Model S are not cheap).

There are many other things, government pays for, which are much less useful.
 
The incentives are to stimulate development and adoption of EVs and improve the future arc of technology; not to buy a localized result.
 
Nubo said:
The incentives are to stimulate development and adoption of EVs and improve the future arc of technology; not to buy a localized result.
Yes, exactly. Besides, coal generation is on the way out. And I wouldn't call a Tesla S "resource-inefficient" nor would I agree that all Tesla owners are wealthy. Yes, ~90 MPGe is lower than smaller EVs, but what other EV can comfortably carry an entire family on a trip? Sure beats 20 mpg in a minivan.
 
I'm on my way to bed, but I suspect that if you look into "The Energy Institute" you will most likely find it to be a "Conservative" (misnomer when it comes to the environment) group, either a think tank funded by Right-Wing extremists or an "Astroturf" group funded by same. If not, it's Libertarian, and possibly also funded by... well, you get the idea.
 
Have any of you four actually read the study?

The abstract concludes:

....By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude
that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds
than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.
http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/papers/WP262.pdf

If you actually want to reduce GHG emissions, taxing GHG emissions would be a far more effective method, incurring far less redistributive effects (by transferring even more of national income to the wealthy) than are tax credits.

And the most interesting conclusion from this study, IMO, is that the non-refundable plug-in vehicle tax credit is the least effective of all the federal programs.

If any of you actually disagree with the study's methods or conclusions, please state your objections.

Arguing with what either this study or (or, what I) did not say is not really very useful, IMO...
 
edatoakrun said:
...If any of you actually disagree with the study's methods or conclusions, please state your objections.

Arguing with what either this study or (or, what I) did not say is not really very useful, IMO...

I question their premise. As I said, a main purpose of the incentives for EVs is to stimulate development of technology by stimulating demand ("improve the future arc"). Thus, an argument about this year's result in terms of GGH reduction per dollar "spent" does not consider the future effect of accelerating EV technology and adoption curve NOW. Also, the class-warfare argument is misplaced. Of course wealthier people will be the first to implement newer technologies, as they're expensive even with the incentives. Furthermore, I disagree with a tax credit being characterized as "income redistribution", as do many other people. That is why a tax credit and incentives are more politically feasible than NEW TAXES and disincentives. Policies can't help at all if they can't be passed.
 
I agree that a non refundable tax credit is a very poor approach. The best way would be to institute a carbon tax. Just raising the gas tax by a significant amount — say $1/gallon at least — would also help. But those methods are politically impossible. So instead we have direct subsidies of solar panels and EVs by means of tax credits. A rebate or refundable tax credit would be better but it is easier to sell a non refundable tax credit because it means "just keeping some of the tax dollars one would otherwise pay", in effect lowering taxes. And "lowering taxes" is the goal of the anti-tax crowd.

The non refundable EV tax credits are a kludgy way to promote cleaner technology. But what other methods are possible in today's political environment? At least the tax credits phase out after a fairly small number of vehicles, compared to the scale of the entire car market.

If you can get a better method for supporting cleaner technology adopted, have at it.
 
The Obama administration wanted to change it to a rebate given at time of purchase, which would have made it much easier for lower income people to access, but couldn't get any traction in Congress. Big surprise.
 
Yes, it's kind of unreasonable to criticize a government program for not doing something that is politically impossible. looking at the group's site, they seem a bit less "conservative" than I guessed this morning. However, their analysis is easily taken out of context. Speaking of context, this is significant for the folks here at this forum. From the study summary:

"Our data come from individual income tax returns, so they miss tax credits received for electric vehicles and solar panels that are leased. Leasing has grown more common in both markets, though especially in the solar market with the well-documented move toward third-party ownership. "

They go on to dismiss this omission as unlikely to be significant, based on trends from past studies. This ignores the huge recent jump in leasing of EVs by people (like me) who can only afford to drive them because of the up-front credit.
 
The tax incentives may in long run reduce pollution, but that is not the main goal. The goal was to create for a short period of time an inflated demand for selected new technologies that would give manufacturers a shove down the cost curve. If your goal is to boost selected technologies, you do not put in a carbon tax that has all kinds of unknown downstream impacts. You do not care what group buys the cars because your point of the spear is with the manufacturers, not the consumers. Consumers are just the delivery channel. You only allow it on initial purchase because the manufacturer only makes the vehicle one time. You do have it for a short time because you do not want manufacturers or consumers expecting the boost for decades.

Given those constraints, the incentives operate exactly as designed. The complaints arise, as seems common now, when people interpret a program as fixing their goal, a goal not identified by original designers.
 
...Someone explain to me why American taxpayers should be paying wealthy buyers of resource-inefficient BEVs (like a Tesla S or X) in those areas that produces electricity largely through coal generation (much of the region ~between the Rocky mountains and Appalachia) $7,500?
Still waiting for an answer to that question from my OP.

Analysis below explains why we do, in greater depth than have previous replies.

Rich People Benefit More From Tax Credits (Duh)

September 2nd, 2015 by Zachary Shahan

I’ve always found it a little fucked up that US federal incentives for solar energy and electric cars are tax credits. I’m sure there are some arguments for this, but a simple cash rebate (like California offers) would be much more useful for the majority of people...

A working paper by a team at the Energy Institute at Haas, University of California, Berkeley, has found that 60% of the $18 billion in US federal income clean energy tax credits issued between 2006 and 2012—e.g., for weatherizing homes, installing solar panels, and buying hybrid and electric vehicles—went to the top income quintile in the US (above $200,000 per year),” Green Car Congress writes. “The bottom three quintiles (up to $75,000 per year) received about 10%.”Seriously, what is so hard about providing the middle class and poor with better incentives to go green? In actuality, these would be the populations that would most benefit from fuel savings, electricity savings, and cleaner cars. Alas, Congress is not made of the middle class, let alone the poor. For the rich, by the rich, of the rich.

Given that this is a transportation site, I should emphasize the transportation-related findings, and they are actually the worst. “The most extreme case, Severin Borenstein and Lucas Davis found through their examination of tax return data from the IRS, is the program aimed at electric vehicles—the top income quintile received about 90% of all these credits. As a result of the work, Borenstein and Davis conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.”...

The PEDVC is much more concentrated than the other categories of credits. The bottom 80% of filers receive a little more than 10% of all credits, and the bottom 90% of filers receive only about 40% of all credits....

The authors of the report, Borenstein and Davis, argued in favor of a more equitable carbon tax.

It would seem difficult, therefore, to prefer tax credits over a carbon tax on distributional grounds. There may well be political considerations that continue to favor tax credits, but this approach comes at real cost, both in terms of efficiency and equity.

Well, yes, a carbon tax has been out of the question thanks to too many illogical and hostile Republican congresspeople opposing action to save human civilization. On top of that, they aren’t going to concern themselves much about a more equitable approach, since they typically aren’t fond of fighting for the less advantaged anyway. So, for the moment, the best we have are tax credits...
http://gas2.org/2015/09/02/rich-people-benefit-more-from-tax-credits-duh/
 
What about the fact that people in the top 5% income bracket are paying >50% of the Federal taxes? That's anyone making >$120,000, roughly. I have a real problem with people who are paying NOTHING into the tax system getting a Federal check in the mail. Sorry, but if you haven't paid anything in, how are you supposed to take anything out? :?
As others have already said, how do you expect to get things moving, if we need to move away from a petroleum economy? Only higher income people can afford the new toys, but everyone will benefit from the R&D and price reductions that will follow.
Flame on...
 
Surprising conversation on this forum. Sounds like typical anti EV FUD.

This is typical right wing propaganda clearly supported by the oil lobby. Follow the money trail. The amount of money spent for a few EVs to get a tax credit is negligible in comparison to the subsidies built into the entire oil infrastructure of this country and its foreign policy. Want to talk about wasted money going to the rich, talk about the tax cuts that the right wing insists on passing to benefit not just the rich, but the uber rich. The estate tax alone is intended to really benefit a handful of billionaire families.

Obviously the purpose of the tax credit is to make a new technology palatable enough to give the technology a chance to get started that it otherwise would not have. The startup costs are prohibitive and even fewer people would get EVs if the full costs were on consumers. Once the industry gets on its feet, costs should come down and incentives will go away.

Meanwhile, the oil industry is well established and in no need of the crazy tax incentives provided to them.
 
-what about middle income people that got full impact of tax credits in lower lease payment? Studies that cite tax return data are by definition inadequate.
- the tax credits are there to subsidize manufacturer action in a targeted technology. They do not exist to help people or reduce pollution. Those impacts may occur, but are not the end goal. Asking why credits are structured inefficiently is like asking why a 45 year old divorced man buys a Tiffany necklace for his 22 year old model girlfriend when a knock off looks almost as nice. The action is aligned to the end goal.
 
Back
Top