Clock Ticks Down For Tesla/GM – New Bill Filed To Extend Tax Credit


A new bill is introduced to the House Ways and Means committee that extends the tax credit.

Automakers have been pushing for an extension of the EV tax credit for months. So far not much has come of the efforts. But it seems that at least a few members of the legislative branch have been listening.  Last month, Representatives Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) co-sponsored a bill that would significantly increase the number of buyers that could receive the full federal EV tax credit.

House Bill H.R.6274 would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax credits related to electric cars, and for other purposes.” The bill would make a number of changes that would be welcome by anyone hoping to purchase an EV in the next few years.

According to, H.R.6274 would remove the 200,000 EV credit trigger. Instead, an unlimited number of EV tax credits would be available for the next 10 years. The legislation would also reportedly allow buyers to receive the credit immediately rather than with their tax rebate come tax filing season.

Tesla and General Motors would be the first automakers to lose the EV rebate under the current law

Welch believes that if his bill becomes law it will have a huge positive impact on jobs. At the unveiling of his legislation in Burlington, Vermont, the congressman stated: “We are in a race for the winner of the technology for electric vehicles and this credit is going to help spur that.” A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Jeff Merkley (D-OR).

Certainly, there is a lot to like in the bill, although its future is uncertain in the current political climate. There is some bi-partisan support for an extension of the rebate. But if an extension is going to pass, it will probably be scaled back.

Source: PlugInSites

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

89 Comments on "Clock Ticks Down For Tesla/GM – New Bill Filed To Extend Tax Credit"

newest oldest most voted

No legislation extending the tax credit will be signed by the current administration. That’s just a sad, sad fact. Perhaps if the Democrats take over the House and Senate, there’s a slight chance next year. Otherwise, the credit is DEAD for Tesla, GM, and eventually Nissan soon.

I disagree with you on this Bro. Remember, it was a Republican President who signed the original bill into law. Trump has shown a willingness to compromise (perhaps more than many would like on some issues). But the sponsors of this bill need to be more realistic. A 10 year extension will not happen, they should go for 3 to 5 years and then it sunsets for everyone regardless of vehicles sold. Also converting it to a point of sales may be a bridge too far. The less they change, they more likely they are to get something pushed through.

Unfortunately, the skeptic in me thinks the sponsors of this bill don’t actually want it to pass. Based on what they are asking for, it seems they almost want it to fail. That way they can use it as election fodder and say “see, we tried to make these changes but those Waskally Wepublicans are just to mean and wouldn’t work with us.” Both sides play these games all the time unfortunately.

A Republican president that the current president loathes. You think Cheeto wants to do anything to extend something that a Bush signed into law, and has been heavily associated with Obama? Riiiiiight.

Trump makes policy at the Auction Block. Bribe him sufficiently, especially his family members, and you get What Ever You Want. LOL. Drain the Swamp, into his bank account.

Maybe if we were to buy some commercial time on Fox news, we could get the message out….

Yeah, that’s a stretch to think Trump would do anything intentional to help Telsa, since he’s in the pocket of big oil, though his proposed tariff on imported cars would help Tesla as it is the most American made car.

Well, Trump initially had Musk on his CEO Council of American Manufacturers or whatever nonsensical name he had for that thing that dissolved into oblivion. Look, I didn’t vote for Trump (Gary Johnson, if you must know) but he likes to get things done and likes his name associated with accomplishments. Yes I do believe he would work with the Dems on this if the request were reasonable and he could get something out of it. But again, I don’t think the Dems really want to pass an extension of the tax credit, I think they are just playing political games in an election year. And as I said before, both sides do this far too often, this is not a Dem thing. Just look at the tax cuts passed last year by the Rs. They intentionally built in a ten year sunset provision so they could use that to get votes when the tax cuts are about to expire. Yes they quoted some nonsensical Senate rules as the official reason, but anyone paying attention knows why the cuts have a sunset. ALL politicians, regardless of party, ultimately want the same thing and that is to stay in power.

It’s strange how quiet Elon has been about the expiring fed tax credit. He is vocal on just about everything else, but when it comes to the tax credit it’s crickets.

I would think it was a lost cause. In addition Tesla takes a lot a heat due to the tax credit from critics claiming the government subsidizes Tesla..
GM has no compunction though in asking for an extension of the credit, also they have been very vocal critics of Trump regarding tariffs, saying it will cause job losses. I agree with them on that.

People have a lot of resentment toward Elon,Tesla ,and Tesla vehicle owners.

You mean jealousy.

It’s not strange at all. Why would Elon want to draw attention to the fact that many U.S. buyers will be paying $3750 more for a Tesla car than they had planned, due to the Federal tax credit dropping to half, starting Oct 1?

Besides, it’s up to the IRS to announce the date when the credit will be reduced, according to their rules. It’s not Tesla’s decision, so it shouldn’t be Tesla that makes the announcement.

@ PP

“Besides, it’s up to the IRS to announce the date when the credit will be reduced, according to their rules.”

About when would that be?

To add a ‘working man’s’ appeal to the bill, they could have a provision stating the sale price of the car prior to sales/use taxes must be under $50,000. A more expensive vehicle than this would get a somewhat reduced credit – rather like our NY State incentive is structured… In my State, the only car getting a $2000 incentive is the BOLT ev, since cars with larger batteries are deemed too expensive and to avoid giving a tax benefit to the ‘RICH’, the credit for a model “X” for instance is only a few hundred bucks.

Rebates should include all EV’s and should now exclude PHEV’s.
This bull$h1t argument about funding the rich is plain stupid.
A person earning $92k is paying a $h1tl0ad more taxes than a person making $75k.

If the rebate is derived from taxes, then the $92k earner is funding more of it than the $75k earner. Chances are, the $92k earner is funding the $75k earner.

So quit with the “Funding the rich” FUD$h1t.

Elon has said many times the fed rebate isn’t good for the auto industry.
On the other han, GM has lobbied to a certain degree to extend it, and why not? GM has flown to Washington on their corporate jets to beg and grovel the government for bailouts and BK so they’re used to it.

A trade war might end up wiping out most of Tesla’s exports. Not sure how that would help Tesla. Also tariffs on steel and aluminum are not helping Tesla’s production cost. To the extend a trade war causes an economic collapse, that would not help demand for Tesla’s pricey products either.

It’s true that not everything Trump is doing benefits Tesla. I chose a specific example. Also in your rebuttal it depends on how much steel/aluminum Tesla imports, though Trump’s actions could ultimately harm them, it’s more likely be a mixture, certainly the price of oil shooting up is a benefit to Tesla, and Trump has been part of the reason oil is rising. His embargo of Iranian oil.
Under Trump gas has risen a dollar a gallon.

Price of oil could go to $5/gal that would not sell an extra Tesla,who wants to wait in line?

At less than 50% US content, the Model 3 certainly isn’t the most American car. Not even close:

Much better than other EVs though like the Bolt which is only 26% US/Canadian content but 54% Korean content.

The VOLT is quite high, however.

It will Tesla international sells and China plant is dead

Yes,but Tesla imports so much from China to put together its cars I believe there are tariffs already on those increasing Tesla’s costs and everyone will put tariffs on Teslas to get back at us so it is lose lose for Tesla.What we need is free trade, make a deal, but make em bleed first,Trump is a poor negotiator.

“, it was a Republican President who signed the original bill into law.”

It was a Republican house and senate that passed the law in 2006 to apply to 2007….but it was only for one year and there were no vehicles that qualified that year. Being only good for one year and with no qualifying vehicles their patrons in the FF industry gave them permission to pass it. Patted themselves on the back at how clever they were. It worked so well they had a redux in 2007 passing it for one more year to apply to 2008.
In 2008 Tesla delivered a little over 100 qualifying vehicles and the Republicans were debating whether to pull the plug for 2009 or to extend one for year.

That’s when they had a problem. with under the threat of the world economy collapsing as a result of their legislation they were desperate. One bone the Dumbocrats had thrown in was the extension of the tax incentive. The repugnants were too desperate to say no.

Really dumbocrats, at least we are not trying to destroy postwar world and it’s institutions to cuddle with dictator nations. There goes freedom and liberty

Why would you go out of your way to make an otherwise reasonable comment appear to be written by a hyper-partisan troll by using the term “dumbocrat”?

There’s somebody who’s dumb here, all right! 🙄

@ Gasbag

“One bone the Dumbocrats had thrown in was the extension of the tax incentive. The repugnants were too desperate to say no.”

And that’s when they came up with the maximum of 200,000 Plug-In cars per car manufacturer?

Considering the original House tax cut bill REMOVED the EV Credit, its pretty safe to say this Administration doesn’t want it…

I live in one of the most Republican states. (Texas) I also live in a big oil producing state. I also just got my $2000 check from the state for purchasing a phev. If they are all so evil, how do you explain that? I still bet the government will extend the credits.

I hope you’re correct because we all must CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP FOLKS THANKS CO2.EARTH

I guess you missed the news that the GOP tried to cut out the credit altogether in the last budget bill. The only reason it didn’t happen was because Democrats negotiated that away.

Perhaps compromise:

At end of 200K converts to @$3,750 instant credit at point of sale for next 5 years.

I’m generally not an advocate for government influencing consumer behavior vis-à-vis tax credits or other forms of government subsidies but in this case I’m in full support of it.

EV adoption greatly promotes American Energy Security (a very important National Security issue) and cleaner air… that’s something every single American should be able to get behind!

Perhaps INSIDEEVs can put together an online petition or info how to write-in our local representatives?

Won’t happen compromise is a dirty word in Washington these days


Example why EV adoption is an American National Security issue:

“Why Are Gas Prices Up? These Frenemies Get Some Of The Blame… Russia and Saudi Arabia have been longtime adversaries over geopolitics and military operations in the Middle East. Now, they’ve formed a surprising bond that is reshaping global oil markets.“ source:

Transportation energy costs greatly influences America’s economy… does America want Russia & Saudi Arabia having a great influence on America’s economy?

Americans should google city: Dubai.
You Built That.
You made that great again.

Trump just asked the Saudi’s to increase production because our oil prices are too high (in his opinion). It’s like nailing jello to a wall. Of course we should try to use our own oil at a price that works well consumers and producers in the US and we are ballpark that pricing in my opinion, yet now Trump goes and asks a foreign country to increase output to lower prices on a resource the US produces… baffling.

Oil funds Arab Terrorists thru profits going to Arab Princes, and Arab princes fund terrorists.
( 911 FBI Investigation of who funded the terrorists. )

Raise the gas tax, switch to a national policy for EV’s and Stop Terrorism.
Exxon would be expert at off-shore wind power.
Exxon will make money, some way some how.

oh boy!
FBI investigation, same as CIA investigation pretending Iraq had massive destruction weapons.
First reason terrorists exist is that the G7 are stealing their resources so we can live well.
no oil gold or diamonds = no war.

Sorry this has nothing to do with the actual discussion, but I can stand it when peoples get their brain wash from the news.

Controlling the information is everything,USA government learned that from the Vietnam war

From the 911 terrorists fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates , Egypt, and Lebanon.

Now please explain to me how the G7 was stealing their resources. It’s really the Saudi’s that are making a good living off our oil addiction.

…and don’t worry about “controlling the information”. In the internet age only countries that severely limit internet access have a chance at controlling information. It took me only 2 seconds to find the Wikipedia entry that debunks your point.

No point in trying to confuse this tinfoil-hatter with actual facts; clearly he prefers “alternative facts”.

Sorry oil nations do fund terrorist

“FBI investigation, same as CIA investigation pretending Iraq had massive destruction weapons.”

So… your argument is that various nations’ intelligence agencies (including the CIA) were fooled by the Iraqi pretense of developing nuclear weapons, and therefore the FBI must have been completely incompetent in investigating the origins of the 9/11 attack.

Logic and reasoning are not your strong suits, are they?

“online petition or info how to write-in our local representatives?” Didn’t work for saving net neutrality…

It’s going to die in a he committee. One GOP owns congress and have the votes to kill. Two it’s election season so GOP is not going to liberals agenda close to election and Trump will veto and senate will kill it

Ten years seems like too long. Viable EVs already exist in nearly every segment – incentivize manufacturers to start making and selling more of them sooner.

It isn’t as long as it seems, that is about 2 car generations.

I’d say once Ford and Chrysler hit this cap, then they’ll consider it as then no American manufacture will be getting the full credit anymore, giving US consumers more favor towards foreign cars.

That’s more of a reason to kill the entire program. That would a least level the playing field.

Chrysler isn’t really an american company anymore. Sure they make cars here, but so does Honda. The profit/loss goes overseas, and many of the high-paying jobs are overseas.

I’d like to see them create a common pool that all manufacturers draw from. Say 1,000,000 cars. That may incentivize companies to stop dragging their feet and get a slice of the pie before it’s gone.

Extending the program benefits Ford and Chrysler.
Because both, look at what they’ve accomplished. Nothing.
Ford cancelled the sickly CMAX.
They’ve got NOTHING to show for this program, they are NON-Competitive in EV’s.

But, Ford has a new CEO, so…

10 years is much too long, and it’s a sure way for this bill to be dead on arrival. Ideally they would extend the credit for 5 years, starting a phase out in year 3, i.e $7.5K for years 1-3, then $5k in year 4, $2.5K in year 5 then nothing. If that can’t happen then just kill the credit altogether, I’d much rather see no credit for anybody then have them incentivise people to buy a Toyota instead of a Chevy.

I’m hoping that they aimed high for negotiation, but end up with maybe a 7 year timeline with $7500 for the next year(?), $3500 for 2 years after that, and $1500 for 4 years after that. For all car companies. Something that isn’t too much whiplash for automakers, but also doesn’t punish those who have made great strides at the start and reward the laggards.

And in my opinion keep it as a non-refundable tax credit. As someone said above, the less that is changed, the more likely it is to pass.

Kill the program or at least its current dysfunctional setup. At this point its just a reward for car makers that largely sat on their hands so far and now have plenty of credits left for a long round of unfair competition with the early adopters that did all the heavy lifting.

Unfair? What about those who wasted their credits, using them for conquest sales rather than attracting their own base?

Remember, purpose of the tax-credit was to reduce each automaker’s traditional production by getting loyal buyers to switch.

Not using the subsidy for that purpose is good reason to prevent more from being wasted. Missing that opportunity was their choice. They had their chance, but squandered it.

The purpose of the credit was to help accelerate EV adoption. Many companies, like Toyota, dragged their feet and still don’t offer a BEV. They should not be rewarded now that the pioneers have done the heavy lifting.

The credit should either be reworked so that everyone continues to benefit, or ended completely.

The purpose of the tax-credit was to promote plug-in acceptance. No part of it explicitly said EV.

Have you seen a lot of non-electric vehicles that plug-in?

“Heavy Lifting” is cherry-picking.

No large-scale rollout can succeed without significant investment in the work required to appeal to ordinary consumers… the unseen efforts… like what Toyota did to make hybrids such RAV4 and Camry a very easy transition to plug-in.

Rewarding those who went after low-hanging fruit is helpful for next-stage market penetration.

Work on HEVs was useful in the 90s/00s. Though their big-engine/small-battery designs meant they were not well suited for easy transition to PHEV. The issues Toyota has had with all-electric acceleration & range on the PiP and PP demonstrate that.

In any case, HEVs have been old news for the last 8 years. Anyone who hasn’t developed/released a BEV by now is dragging their feet.

RAV4 and CAMRY hybrids are quite popular, not all at the “old news” narrative you attempt to portray.

COROLLA is an extremely popular vehicle worldwide and will be making its debut as a plug-in hybrid next year.

CH-R will be making its debut as an EV next year as well.

That all represents wide-scale efforts to steer their own loyal customers toward electrification… putting them ahead of many other automakers.

Gasoline-powered vehicles are quite popular too. But, this is a Plug-In EV site. Most of us here want to see affordable/usable BEVs become widely available and be adopted by consumers.

I can’t imagine anyone believing that Toyota is ahead when it comes to deploying BEVs (which, again, is the goal).

That spin is great confirmation. Thanks.

Not sure what I spun or confirmed. But, happy to oblige!

“…what Toyota did to make hybrids such RAV4…”

You mean, what Toyota did with hiring Tesla to put a BEV powertrain into an existing gasmobile, rather than develop the tech themselves?

None of your posts on this subject reflect facts or reality.

P.S. — Toyota stopped making the RAV4 EV in 2014.

“Remember, purpose of the tax-credit was to reduce each automaker’s traditional production by getting loyal buyers to switch.”

Dude, can I have some of what you’re smokin’?

The purpose of the tax credit was to make it more attractive for auto makers to make and sell EVs, despite the initial higher cost of manufacturing.

In other words, it was intended as a “pump priming” measure to kick-start mass production of EVs, and nothing more.

Pick X number of total vehicles for sunset or a sunset date. Month by month companies could see where things were headed and make their decisions from there. Don’t put anything in a single company’s lap. If GM wants to ramp up they can, if Ford does, they can, we know Tesla will because they have told us the game plan for the past 11 years and the future 9.

Don’t make it a game (but politics loves games, it can always be someone else’s fault so much easier then!).

Also going to 1/2 credit after 200k for that company is silly. That still over incentivises those late to the game. An option would be to put everyone at 1/2 the credit for a longer term to phase it out slowly over time too. But to make it company based is pure silly (Unless we are trying to bail out the slow ones which is again a political game)

Not another nickel for a company like Tesla,or any other company either, all those campaigning for an extension are Tesla stockholders.

Here’s my idea (let’s ignore the reality no new EV tax credit legislation will be passed under Trump for the time being): – 500k new allocation of credits (total, not manufacturer specific. Maybe bump to 1 million) – 10k credit granted at POS, 100% refundable credit (so even a retiree with 0 income could qualify) – Vehicles must have all-electric range of at least 50 miles to be eligible. <50 = nothing. – Vehicles over MSRP $60k not eligible for credits – Some restriction so corporations like Google couldn't claim like 300k credits all by itself With these conditions in place, I think the program would be much better. It would open up the credit to a lot more people (especially low income families). Being able to claim in at POS rather than waiting a year to file your taxes is also a plus. The 50 mile clause would force manufacturers to abandon the crappy PHEVs and beef up their offerings to at least the Volt's range. The MSRP cap would address the complaint that the tax credit is subsidizing the rich. Now people buying their i8's and $140k Ludicrous Teslas can't claim a credit that is chump change to… Read more »

Why not a simple solution: The next 2 Mio BEV cars produced and sold in the US will get the 7’500 tax credit. The credit will stop at the end of the year in which this number is reached. Optionally (and when it makes sense), an additional X cars sold under USD 30’000 would get a Z tax credit thereafter. IMO such a tax credit should only apply to BEVs, not PHEVs

It’s interesting how the quiet subsidies for Big Oil are open ended..

What subsidies?

Trillions of U.S. tax dollars spent using our military in the Mideast, fighting wars to protect our oil-rich Arab allies, and to protect our supply lines of oil from that region. Not to mention the highest price of all: The lives and blood of American service men and women.

All that to subsidize falsely “cheap” gasoline and diesel.

If the Big Oil companies had to pay for their own security for their overseas supply lines, then the price of gasoline and diesel at the pump would be so high that most people driving cars would have switched to plug-in EVs decades ago, and heavy trucks would be powered by much cleaner natural gas!

Are you pretending that you don’t know?

You’re not really “THAT” dumb are you?

The subsidy has had its day. Right now it just serves to manipulate prices. Let it go.

Unlimited for 10 years is almost a guarantee to be rejected. It’s not like the economy is suffering. What they should’ve done is cap the combined total from all carmakers to something like 1 million. Then GM and Tesla will benefit the most, and even DUMP will be able to see that easily.

Not sure what happened to my initial comment, but here’s my proposal for a revamped credit system (ignoring the current political realities):
– a finite 500k credits, non-manufacturer specific.
– $10k 100% refundable credit, redeemable at point of sale (anyone can claim the full credit)
– only vehicles with a minimum all-electric range of 50 miles or more are eligible. <50 miles = $0 credit (encourage automakers to ditch the crappy low mileage PHEVs like the Prius Prime)
– plugins with MSRP $60k or less eligible (put a kibosh on the "credit is subsidizing the rich!" complaints)
– some protection that would make it so 1 company couldn't claim a mass # of credits by themselves

The manufacturers (GM/Tesla/Nissan) that have already made significant EV commitments would have the upper hand, as they'd be in position to crank out EVs quicker than the laggards like Ford/MB/Honda/Toyota, etc.

What about having to meet a minimum efficiency level?

Subsidizing vehicles that guzzle electricity certainly isn’t a step in the right direction. Cramming more battery into a vehicle to meet an arbitrary distance doesn’t promote efficiency. In fact, it wastes a variety of resources.

We want smart incentives, not what seems good.

Makes sense. Especially like excluding low-range models and overpriced models.

It’s too bad no one in the government really cares. Maybe GM will flex it’s muscles on this when they hit 200,000.

One serial Tesla basher supporting another basher’s proposal cutting out subsidies for higher priced EVs… in other words, the only ones which can actually make a profit. Which is to say, it would affect Tesla’s cars and almost nothing else.

Troll rating: 2

Come now, I bash other manufacturers too! Toyota is really my favorite since they’ve gone from being an HEV visionary to being a stunning failure at BEVs. Nissan too, since the leaf continues use to lack a TMS. Though, I cut Nissan some slack because, like Tesla and GM, they’ve been seriously trying for the last 8 years.

Anyway GM is the only company who cares about EVs and who a republican congress/president might pay attention to. So, they’re our only hope on the tax credit front.

Elon has said the Model 3 is the key to the company’s future. The S and X are almost irrelevant assuming the 3’s sales and profit margins take off as expected. So Tesla would barely be affected by a $60k cap.
You think someone buying a $150k P100D won’t buy if they aren’t eligible for $10k? Lol get real lame brain.

The only worthwhile changes would be to make the credit refundable and create unlimited annual credits that decline in value each year. Otherwise, leave it alone.

It seemed to me that Cash For Clunkers offered much more benefit to foreign car makers than to the US economy.
How about a MAGA incentive – $7500 for BEVs with at least 80% US source components? I prefer seeing the Leaf built in TN getting incentives rather than the Bolt-EV with the hard stuff built in Korea.

But then Tesla wouldn’t qualify with less than 50% US components.

“According to, H.R.6274 would remove the 200,000 EV credit trigger. Instead, an unlimited number of EV tax credits would be available for the next 10 years.”

Delete the 10 years. Aim for a shorter period of time.

Attach a fixed date. Like: “31 December 2022”. Or any other more reasonable date.

No confusion, and no difficult discussions required.

Isn’t this a good thing? I hate seeing all those companies who sat on the fence building concept cars and issuing empty press releases benefiting from the tax incentive after Tesla, Nissan and GM took all the risks and built the marketplace and the charging infrastructures. They shouldn’t be rewarded for the pioneering work of others. They did nothing and now they can sell EVs with a $7,500 price advantage? Screw ’em. Either have a level playing field with no tax incentive for anyone, or tax incentives for everyone.

What is the period of time that will be required for this bill either to die or to pass?

How long do these procedures take in general?

6 months, or maybe even a year?