US Federal $7,500 Electric Vehicle Credit Expiry Date By Automaker

10 months ago by Jay Cole 81

How long do you have to buy a new plug-in electric vehicle in the US and still receive the full $7,500 federal credit? We have an answer for you!

How long do you have to buy a new plug-in electric vehicle in the US and still receive the full $7,500 federal credit? We have an answer for you!

Possibly the most requested information we are asked about electric vehicles, almost on a daily basis, is:

“When will the US $7,500 federal electric vehicle credit expire for XXX Manufacturer”

Yeah, we know why you want to know...it's all Tesla Model 3, all the time.

Yeah, we know why you want to know…it’s all Tesla Model 3, all the time.

And to be fair, when we say ‘XXX Manufacturer’, 9 times out of 10 you can fill in the blank with Tesla Motors, as some ~400,000 people have plunked down $1,000 on a deposit for the Model 3, which is expected to arrive in the 3rd quarter of 2017.

To satisfy that thirst for knowledge, we periodically put out the current and projected sales status of the 6 major automakers that are in jeopardy of triggering the phaseout of the $7,500 fed credit over the next 4 years.

One can find the updated chart and data set below, but first here is a quick rundown of how the program works; for those who aren’t aware, or perhaps just need a refresher.

How the US electric vehicle Federal incentive program works:

Each independent automaker’s eligible plug-in vehicles receive a federal credit (up to $7,500) federal credit – until the 200,000th plug-in is registered inside the US, when a countdown for phaseout of the credit begins.

At the time of the 200,000th sales, and so as not to disrupt/confuse those buying the EVs, that full $7,500 credit continues through the end of the current quarter and to the completion of the next quarter.  After this period ends the “phase-out” begins, meaning the credit is reduced to $3,750 for the next 6 months, then to $1,875 for the next 6 months before expiring completely.

During any part of the phase-out process (between sale #200,000 and the calendar expiry date), the OEM is free to BUILD AND SELL AS MANY EVS as they can/want, receiving the applicable incentive amount.

An example of the system on a graph:

How The $7,500 Phaseout Of The Federal Credit Works

How The $7,500 Phase-Out Of The Federal Credit Works

That is the basics behind the progam.

Now to figure out when they will expire, the first (and easiest thing) to calculate is how many plug-ins have been sold to date cumulatively.

GM brings its 5th plug-in to market this Spring - the Cadillac CT6 Plug-in Hybrid

GM brings its 5th plug-in to market this Spring – the Cadillac CT6 Plug-in Hybrid

As an example, in the case of General Motors today: Chevy Volt, Chevy Spark EV, Cadillac ELR, and now the Chevy Bolt EV.  For Ford it would be the Fusion Energi, C-Max Energi and Focus Electric.

From there, we take the future expectations for sales, and chart out when the $7,500 phase-out will begin (as explained above).

We should note that the projecting part for the most part is not terribly difficult as one only as to estimate the quarter in which ‘sale number 200,000’ is made…meaning one can actually miss the actual sales number by upwards of 20,000 units, and still have the $7,500 phase-out being triggered in the same quarter.  So, our expected +/- margin of error is ~1 quarter.

With all that in mind, here is the expected phase-out chart for all the major OEMs in the United States:

Current Expectations For $7,500 Federal Credit Phase-Out For Major US EV Makers (*aprox). Grey shaded areas are expected cumulative future sales in 000s. Colored blocks indicate stage of the Federal credit a particular OEM is at (click to enlarge)

Current Expectations For $7,500 Federal Credit Phase-Out For Major US EV Makers (*aprox). Grey shaded areas are expected cumulative future sales in 000s. Colored blocks indicate stage of the Federal credit a particular OEM is at (click to enlarge)

As all automakers are well aware of this credit, the lower volume OEMs are more sensitive to the effects of the program (such as Tesla), and therefore it is our expectation that they will make sure that EV #200,000 is moved at the very beginning of a new quarter, thus ensuring the maximum number of unlimited selling days (~6 months) for its “in demand” plug-in products.

The $7,500 federal credit will likely be reduced starting on October 1st, 2018

Tesla Motors’ $7,500 federal credit is a on target to be reduced (to $3,750) starting on October 1st, 2018

For Tesla specifically, we estimate they will hit #200,000 in early Q2 of 2018, which will give the automaker from April 1st to September 31st, 2018 to make as many Model S, X and 3s as they can.  So, if you are holding a reservation ticket for a Tesla Model 3 and reside in the US, this is likely your sweet spot/deadline for netting the whole $7,500 credit.

Editor’s Note:  The wild card for Tesla is of course when volume production gets underway for the Model 3.  Tesla CEO Elon Musk has stated a desire to produce 100,000 (or more) in 2017, from a ‘best case’ launch in July 2017 (that even the CEO puts as *asterisk beside).

Given the time that has passed since those hopeful projections, knowing where the company is today, and its past track record on launches – we tend to think that nowhere near 100,000 Model 3s will see the light of day in 2017…so we are lightly penciling in about ~15,000 deliveries in 2017 in the US for the inexpensive future Tesla.

We should take a moment to note that Tesla says it will start delivering premium versions of Model 3 on the US west coast starting in ~Q3 of 2017, before spreading out further east across the US, and then doubling back to deliver the full lineup, including the entry level Model 3s (promised to retail from ~$35,000), thereafter.

We expect strong Prius Prime sales to being Toyota's "sunset" of the federal credit to around

Strong Prius Prime sales to trigger Toyota’s sunset of the company’s $7,500 credit in Q1 of 2020* (that is, if the program was allowed to continue…which we think not)

A note on the program itself:  The entire program is designed and controlled at the whim of the US government.  With a new administration coming into office on January 20th, the program could be reviewed and adjust sometime in the second half of 2017.

While it was our believe that the previous administration’s intention (and subsequent Democrat administration – if elected) to increase the credit to ~$10,000, and make it had ‘hard’ sunset date for all automakers (inclusive) at a point well into the future, it is hard to predict President-Elect Trump’s plan for the credit, or if he has one at the moment.

What we do know for sure, is that there is almost no way the new administration would allow Tesla and General Motors to lose the $7,500 federal credit while the other (and sometimes foreign) automakers reaped the benefit of being slower to produce electric vehicles.  The possibility of a re-configuring/sunset of the entire program at the point in time Tesla and/or General Motors reach the 200,000 cap seems highly probable.

So if you’re looking towards a future-planned EV buy, one has to keep a close eye on what GM and Tesla are up to, because they likely control the fate of the whole.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

81 responses to "US Federal $7,500 Electric Vehicle Credit Expiry Date By Automaker"

  1. ClarksonCote says:

    Is there any chance that the new administration could completely repeal the credit?

    If they did this, could it cause people who already purchased a vehicle in 2017 to NOT get a tax credit?

    Maybe this isn’t even possible, or at least highly unlikely. To me that uncertainty is the only potential detractor to 2017 EV sales.

    1. WadeTyhon says:

      The administration on its own certainly could not. It would require both houses of congress, but I do not expect this from the Republican lawmakers. Especially for 2017. I do not believe house or senate Republicans have ever retroactively raised federal taxes or removed tax breaks for a current year.

      If they do remove the credit it would be for 2018. But even then I doubt it will happen before GM and Tesla hit 200,000.

      1. Rob Stark says:

        And Mary Barra and Elon Musk are on Trump’s board of CEO advisers.

        I very much doubt the credit gets eliminated before GM and Tesla exhaust their credit limit.

      2. ArkansasVolt says:

        This was signed into law by the Bush administration. It was not an executive order, and I do not think the Trump administration would not remove it as one of their top priorities.

        1. ArkansasVolt says:

          too many not’s… I do not think that they would remove it as a top priority.

          1. Nix says:

            I agree, this isn’t something they would make a big deal out of repealing, and it isn’t a public priority. I don’t think anybody is claiming that.

            The fear is that it will be inserted into some bill as a last minute amendment, and get snuck through as a one-liner in a bigger budget bill or other must-pass bill. It would be a simple one line amendment that would simply say “Repeal XXXX” and list the line of legislation that enacts the tax incentive.

            Do you think Trump would veto the repeal of Obamacare because some congressman snuck in a repeal of this tax credit in the same legislation? That’s how these things are done.

            You should check out what unrelated amendments Ohio stuffed into their anti-bestiality law. SB331 also includes banning cities from setting their own minimum wage or requiring sick time, among a whole list of other laws.

            The vast majority of changes to the law are made this way. Not through writing a stand along piece of legislation entitled “End the $7,500 EV Tax Incentive” that gets debated on its own merits and given a clean up/down vote. We will never see an congress-member propose a law like that.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Where’s the line item veto when you need it?

        2. twonius says:

          I’m not sure, it may fall under the axe to cover some other tax cuts they’d like to do (corporate or personal)

      3. Nix says:

        Wade, your comments reflect the common wisdom, and may end up being what actually happens.

        But it doesn’t answer his question about what is “possible”.

        It certainly is possible in a very legal sense that the last day of the federal tax credit will have been Dec 2016. Congress + President can pass Tax Year 2017 tax legislation all the way up until Dec. 31st 2017 that is retroactive for the entire tax year. They did that with the EV motorcycle 10% tax credit.

        Yes, increasing taxes/cutting credits retroactively is rare, but it also does happen. In fact, the IRS even has a specific appeal process for exactly when that happens, for individual tax payers to ask for the IRS to apply the old rule for their tax return on the basis that they made financial decisions based upon the law as it was in effect when the decision was made, and the law was a significant factor in the decision.

        They can also pass legislation that goes into effect at any point in the year that applies for the rest of the year. For tax policy, the key dates that changes most commonly happen mid-year are July, and October.

        July is by tradition a month for new legislation to take affect, and October is the start of a new US gov’t Fiscal Year (FY2018 starts in Oct 2017).

        Let’s not pretend that it isn’t possible, and that there aren’t any lobbyists lobbying to get rid of this tax incentive behind closed doors. The animus towards this incentive and EV’s in general has become widespread in recent years outside our little bubble here at insideev’s. And Trump’s oil insider picks for his cabinet certainly aren’t known for their love of EV’s.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          Oh you are correct it is 100% possible.

          Although he asked if the administration specifically could do it. I was saying that no it could not on it’s own. It would require congressional action.

          He also mentioned “Maybe this isn’t even possible, or at least highly unlikely.”

          I lean toward the highly unlikely side. But you are correct, it is not impossible. 🙂

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            Thanks for all the discussion here everyone.

            I tend to agree that the most likely scenario is that the credit is sunset for all manufacturers after GM/Tesla cross the finish line to 200,000 vehicles.

            It is the most sensible option, and a repeal seems unlikely given everything stated above.

            Musk and Barra being on Trump’s CEO advisory group seem to only confirm this option even further.

      4. WadeTyhon says:

        @Rob Stark and @ArkansasVolt

        Two more good points.

        The high gas prices in 2008 are what led to John McCain and Obama arguing about which of them would give *more* incentives to push EV development. Not just for green reasons, but also for energy independence, boosting american manufacturers and reducing pain at the pump.

        Gas prices are already on their way up this year. Since November they have jumped about .25/gallon in my area. We may be on our way to over 3.00 a gallon again this year. This will further dampen any attempt to prematurely kill the tax credit.

  2. SJC says:

    Tesla says the first group of Model 3 will be over $40,000 because they will have more options. By the time the tax credits are 50% they may start selling the $35,000 models but their margins will be lower.

  3. Anon says:

    Don’t expect an expansion of this, under the new administration.

  4. bro1999 says:

    So if GM sells ~25k Volts and ~30k Bolts this year, that’ll take it to around 180k credits used up.

    Which means the credit for GM will likely hit the phaseout point Q2 2018.

    If the Bolt sells like crazy and closer to 40 or 50k deliveries are made, there is an outside shot the phaseout point could be hit Q4 2017.

    1. cmina says:

      I see no reason for GM not to act like Tesla in this situation, to extend the tax credit as much as possible. It actually makes sense now not to go crazy with production of the Bolt in it’s first year.

      1. Jsmay311 says:

        The difference is GM has a dealer network that stocks cars on their lots for an undetermined amount of time between the production and sale of a vehicle, unlike Tesla.

        And the Bolt doesn’t have hundreds of thousands of pre-orders, unlike the Model 3.

        It’s apples and oranges.

        1. ClarksonCote says:

          Well you also can’t compare pre-orders of two vehicles when one vehicle never even accepted pre-orders.

          So I do agree, apples and oranges indeed. 😉

      2. Vexar says:

        Not that they can, given they are severely constrained by their LG battery contract to 30k units per year. Until GM announces a newer, larger battery contract, I am not inclined to believe much about the near possibility of an electric SUV, sports, car, full-sized sedan from them. Chrysler may pull ahead of GM.

        1. bro1999 says:

          False.

          A GM exec, when asked “What would happen if 50,000 people wanted to buy a Bolt in 2017?”, they responded there would be no problem as far as battery supply. And that statement doesn’t even cap production at 50k units this year…merely that if 50k were ordered, 50k or more could be built.

          Also, the LG statement about expecting 30k Bolts sold does not mean they can not supply more than 30k batteries if demand is there. 30k is the low bar for this year.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            It’s sad and disheartening to see so much misinformation (Bolt’s 30K limit) repeatedly re-posted on an EV enthusiast website. I expect that on a website like Autoblog or Jalopnik, but not here.

            Here’s a link to the GM manager saying they’d have no problem meeting demand for 50,000 Bolts. I hope Vexar and Pu-Pu read it.

            http://www.hybridcars.com/not-a-compliance-car-gm-says-2017-chevy-bolt-production-capacity-exceeds-50000-per-year/

            And Pu-pu, next time you ask someone “Citation, please?”, check back and see if someone bothered to respond and provide you one (or don’t pretend you didn’t see it). Otherwise, you’re wasting people’s time here, and just trolling for the Tesla Cult. 🙁

            Pu-Pu asking “Citation, please?”, and then not bothering to check back:
            http://insideevs.com/chevrolet-bolt-captures-coveted-north-american-car-year-award/#comment-1127264

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              I was actually hoping someone could come up with a more recent or more pertinent citation.

              What you’ve cited there, Sven, is just the same ol’ same ol’ quote, upon which of overly optimistic people have pinned their hopes of significantly more than 30,000 Bolts produced in the first year of production.

              I think we’ve parsed that quote enough times, Sven. I’m sticking to the original citations from both a GM supplier and a spokesman for LG Electronics, that GM has ordered ~30,000, or a bit more, parts for the first production year.

              That quote you cite was an off-the-cuff estimate in response to, apparently, a reporter’s question, rather than any prepared statement. The estimate could very easily have referred to what GM’s own production rate could be on its assembly line. If so, then that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the limitation of battery supply from LG Chem, or the limitation of EV powertrain supply from LG Electronics.

              No matter how many times you insist otherwise, Sven, you’re just citing your rather optimistic interpretation of someone’s off-the-cuff guess, and not any actual fact.

              How about we wait and see what actually happens, hmmm? Continuing to argue the point in the absence of solid facts is pointless.

              1. JeremyK says:

                I work in the auto industry and can tell you first hand that contracts are NOT written for a specific number, i.e. 30K. 30K might be a target or nominal value but contracts are written to include upper and lower limits which create a range for which the contractual piece price is based. This is how it works for all OEMs to my knowledge.

                So, just as an example, if 30K is the nominal volume, the max volume that LG is contractually obligated to supply might be as high as 40K or 50K, etc. On the low end, if sales fall below 20K GM might have to pay LG a higher piece cost to make up for the lack of sales.

                I’m not involved in the battery side of the business, but if we’ve got managment throwing around the 50K number, it’s a pretty good bet that LG is already contractually obligated to supply volumes in that neighborhood. If it’s in the contract, then LG has to verify that they can produce this volume by performing run at rate tests of the manufacturing line and providing guidance on production schedules necessary to meet that volume.

                I’ve seen these volumes change over the life of a program. Contracts are continuously being opened up and renegotiated. For all we know, GM changed their guidance on volumes when they saw the number of pre-orders that Tesla received for the Model 3. They could have made that adjustment 10 months ago, meaning that LG is already working toward producing higher output for 2018.

                1. Nathanael says:

                  We know, unfortunately, that the Bolt really is limited to 90,000 cars per year, at least for 2017 and probably 2018.

                  That’s the capacity of the factory it’s produced at. (GM would have to stop manufacturing Sonics.)

                  Tooling up a second factory would take a lot of time.

              2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

                This GM exec confirmed that can GM has the ability to meet demand for 50,000 Bolt orders. Calling it an off-the-cuff guess that can’t possibly be met by GM reveals that you are nothing but a Tesla FUDster, Tesla shill, Pro-Tesla troll, and Tesla Cult Member.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            bro1999 said:

            “A GM exec, when asked ‘What would happen if 50,000 people wanted to buy a Bolt in 2017?’, they responded there would be no problem as far as battery supply.”

            That is false. In fact, Sven has given a link to the actual quote in his comment. If you bother to look, you’ll see that the GM spokesman very definitely did not address the problem of battery supply as constraint to production.

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              Links to stories stating that 50,000 is achievable with current contracts has been shared, citing people directly involved with the Bolt EV over at GM.

              Where’s your data to suggest that 30,000 is a hard limit with LG?

              Referencing that contracts are made in advance is not sufficient evidence in any way to arrive at a hard limit of 30,000 battery packs.

  5. shane says:

    Admittedly a difficult question – but what is the best guess for the program go-forward? New admin will want to advance US production (a key campaign issue). Would keeping the existing credit (vs $10K), and starting wind-down for everyone on Jan 1, 2019 be a reasonable guess?

    1. pjwood1 says:

      “prospective”, “non-impairment” are words thrown around whenever these Trump prognostications are made. As said by others, it is unlikely a current policy gets erased, and you can expect that to be especially true since the EV tax-credit sunsets. What politician wants that black eye?

      The fact that the US Congress is made up of people from juicy renewable states is one of the biggest things going for automotive/electric policy. Otherwise, the hyper-partisan theories people are worried about would perhaps be more real. RE-Trump, we’re more likely to see a repeat of Bush’s tax preference for commercial trucks, than targeting. Pruitt (EPA) will do what he can with CAFE, but that will be after a Final Determination comes (possibly this week).

      1. shane says:

        Thanks. The article said, and I concur, that the existing program (with it’s sunset) will get politically difficult once Tesla and GM can’t get credits and other manufacturers are (not yet up to 200K units). The post posits that there will be pressure to restructure the program to 1) not punish the first movers, and 2) Not appear to be favoring non-US companies. I was trying to guess what that restructuring to address those concerns might look like.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          The problem is that, unless something very surprising happens (such as Trump resigning rather than agreeing to sell off his business interests), things over the next 2-4 years will not be “politics as usual”, so it’s very hard to make predictions.

          Looking at the Trump “oil-igarchy” cabinet, I’m sure the Trumpsters would like to end the tax subsidy. But it’s Congress which controls the purse strings, not the Presidential administration. How much influence the Trumpsters will actually have in Congress is very much an open question right now.

          As has been pointed out, it was Congress under the Bush administration which actually created the tax refund for EVs. So this isn’t necessarily a liberal-vs-conservative issue. For congresscritters, I think it’s much more of a “does this benefit my State” issue, or “how much pressure am I getting from lobbyists on this” issue.

          As other comments already posted here have pointed out, there are definitely some forces pushing both ways on this. As I recall, before Trump won the election, Jay Cole expected Congress to extend the tax credit once it started running out. Given recent events, that may prove to be overly optimistic.

          My personal guess, and I’m not at all sure enough to label it a prediction, is that Congress will do nothing about it, and allow the tax credits to simply run out. But let me emphasize that’s just a guess; as Nix has pointed out, it would be easy to insert a “rider” into any bill, especially a funding bill, to kill off the tax refund prematurely.

          There may well be significant pushback against any calls for an extension/renewal of the Federal tax credit, because there are a lot of people in Congress now saying that more things should be left up to the individual States, rather than having the Federal government in control. And since there are States with their own EV tax credits, on the surface that appears to be a reasonable argument. The problem there, of course, is that nobody pays nearly as much in State income tax as Federal, so the cap on that is effectively much lower. But sadly, logic has very little to do with how laws are made and passed.

          1. CVVH says:

            President Twitler may have a hard time getting a tax cut for the wealthy axed. I mean republican’s love tax cuts. Especially for the wealthy.

            And no matter how you slice it, the $7500 rebate is something that really only people with that much tax burden can take advantage of, and that can afford a new car.

  6. TM says:

    Nice Chart/Table. Please keep this updated quarterly.
    Thanks Jay!

  7. Larry Chretien says:

    prius prime = $4500, not $7500

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Hey Larry,

      Yes, you’re are right to state the Prius Prime’s credit is $4,500, but it still eats up the volume of the credit regardless the amount.

      …so ‘future’ Toyota’s that may (in theory) have have longer ranges (batteries at 16 kWh or larger) will lose the ability to claim the full credit in the future because of the Prime today.

      That was really the point of the Prime picture/caption…apologies if that was a bit obtuse, (=

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        Jay, let’s say that Toyota hits their limit. Does that mean the Prime’s credit changes from $4500 to $3750? Or does it decrease to $2250?

        1. Jay Cole says:

          It decreases in step, the eligibility factor of the original credit is reduced by the 50% or 25%. So the Prime will get $2,250 in the first 6 months of the wind-down (50% of $4,500), then $1,125 in the last six months (25% of $4,500).

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            Okay good, that makes sense.

  8. Drucifer says:

    Y’all matched my guess on GM and Tesla. Well done.

  9. AlphaEdge says:

    Should be raised to $10,000, and only for cars manufactured in the US. If manufactured outside the US, no credit. That’s investing in America, and hope the Republicans pass that, with Trump signing off.

    1. CVVH says:

      Oddly, I could get behind that.

  10. Jsmay311 says:

    The best way to get attention on this might be a tweet:

    “@realDonaldTrump
    Stupid Democrat/Obama law is putting AMERICAN car companies at disadvantage vs FOREIGN! Please help fix! #MAGA”

    😛

    1. Loboc says:

      If that were true. The tax break was initiated under the Bush administration.

      1. Nix says:

        I don’t think “True” “Trump” and “Tweet” can be used in the same sentence anyways. At least not without the /sarc tag.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “If that were true. The tax break was initiated under the Bush administration.”

        All joking aside, what difference does that make? Trump proves every time he makes a public speech that he finds facts to be utterly irrelevant.

        It’s not political bias, but merely recognizing reality, to observe that more than 50% of public statements by Trump have been shown by fact-checkers to be not merely partially untrue, but mostly or completely untrue.

        Moving beyond objective fact to my opinion: That behavior doesn’t apply merely to his campaign rhetoric. As has been shown recently, his habit of making and repeating Big Lies has not at all abated, nor is it likely it ever will.

  11. DJ says:

    Hmmm, my Volt lease is ending Q4 2018. May have to buy a new car a tad bit early. Well that is assuming Nissan still sucks and doesn’t have a decent TMS!

    Then again that new 5 series does look nice, although it needs some more range!

  12. Yogurt says:

    Say what!! Tesla is going to deleiver model 3 cars to west coast compliance states first!!!???
    It must be a vaporware compliance car!!
    ?

    1. Robert Middleswarth says:

      lol

    2. Electrons barely have any weight, so even B’low Vapor(ware)!
      /sarcastic

    3. Rennie Allen says:

      Burn!

  13. leafowner says:

    You rock Jay!

    Glad to see your optimism with Ford, Toyota and BMW (haha) and Chrysler, VW, and Hyundai not even making the list!!! (do not deserve to be on it…)

    What about FF??? They have 64k reservations (hahahahaha)

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “What about FF??? They have 64k reservations”

      BWA HA HA HA HA!!
      😆 😆 😆

      Thanks, you made my day!

  14. ct200h says:

    Whats interesting and not talked about much is the some of the credits are not even used. Figure each time a mfr leases a car its 100% used. But I bet many in the USA purchase a car that qualifies and never file for the credit for one reason or another.

    1. Nix says:

      The sunsets are not based upon how many people actually file for the tax incentive. It is based only on the number of units sold/leased in the US. Even if all 200K people who bought some brand of EV all didn’t take the tax credit, the tax credit would sunset anyways.

  15. Mister G says:

    Hey Trump don’t touch my tax credits to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

    1. Nix says:

      That wouldn’t be a good argument to use, as the vocal opponents of EV’s would say that this IS a tax cut for the rich.

      They intentionally ignore that the tax incentives are currently mostly being passed onto 2nd buyers in the secondary market, who have incomes much lower than the median new car buyer.

      1. Mister G says:

        As a leaf driver and taxable income of $48k I’m not rich lol. I’m referring to Americans with taxable income of $1 million plus who will get tax cuts under Trump.

        1. Nix says:

          Even though you are 100% correct, you are a statistical outlier.

        2. SparkEV says:

          When people talk about taxing the rich, they generally don’t mean the rich, but upper middle working class. A family of two doctors could be making $1M/yr, and ~$400K/yr is when highest tax rate of 39% starts.

          But the rich make their money from investments. They don’t go out there and work like the doctors or we do. They sit at home or in their yachts and manipulate money in stocks, bonds, real estate, what have you. Capital gains income tax is only 20% about half the rate of hard working doctors.

          This is why you shouldn’t cheer when Dumbocrats lie to you and say they raised the tax on the rich when all they’ve done is raised the tax on the hard working people, not the real rich. Despite lying to your face that they are for “working class”, Dumbocrats are owned by the rich as much as Republitards are.

          1. Nathanael says:

            Absolute bulls***. When people talk about taxing the rich, we really do mean taxing the rich. The billionaires. The million-dollar-a-year crowd.

            I can’t speak to what the idiotic Presidents, Congressmen and Senators may actually *do* — Reagan, for instance, raised taxes on the upper middle class while cutting them on the genuinely rich.

            But when those of us in the Bernie-supporter crowd talk about taxing the rich, we *REALLY MEAN THE RICH*. The obscenely rich.

          2. Nathanael says:

            And yes, if a politician claims that they’ve raised taxes on the rich…

            (1) Check to see if they raised the top capital gains rate. (That’s the main tax on the rich.)
            (2) Check to see if they raised the top estate tax rate. (That’s the second-biggest tax on the rich.)
            (3) Check to see if they raised rates on incomes over $1 million / year. (That’s the third biggest tax on the rich.)

            If they did not do these things they did not tax the rich.

          3. Nathanael says:

            Let me be very clear:

            When your average Bernie supporter talks about taxing the rich, *he means the genuinely rich*, the billionaires.

            Not the upper middle class.

            Reagan cut taxes for the ultra-rich while raising them for the upper middle class.

            G W Bush massively cut taxes for the ultra-rich while raising them for the upper middle class.

            Obama made the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich permanent.

            Real Democrats (a category which does not include Obama) fought against all three of these.

            1. Blue Collar says:

              +1

  16. Tom Moloughney says:

    Nice post, Jay. Lets remember to bring this one back when we are approaching the first tax credit phase out, to see how good the predictions were.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Thanks Tom,

      I welcome the hindsight re-evaluation, (=

  17. Nicholas says:

    Didn’t many people not get the full $7500 based on income?

    It would be nice to offer the remainder to others,CA removed excess incentive to wealthy customers and transferred it to low income or otherwise unable customers.

    1. Nix says:

      EV’s have high lease rates, and your income isn’t a factor when you lease. The car is eligible for the full tax incentive when leased.

      Less wealthy EV buyers have been benefiting from the EV incentive too, just indirectly. The $7500 incentive is reflected in the price of most used EV’s, greatly lowering the price of used EV’s. This effectively passes on the incentive to the 2nd owner, whether they have enough income to qualify for the incentive or not.

      There is an inherent problem with limiting tax credits for brand new cars that have a median price of $30K+, to only low income people who typically buy used cars with a median price of $17K. The tax incentive simply isn’t big enough for a low income family to afford to purchase the car even at the lower price. And there is no incentive to help them with the higher yearly registration fees and higher monthly insurance rates.

      There is a reason why large numbers of people in the US simply never buy any brand new car, regardless of whether it is ICE or BEV. They can’t afford to buy or operate them, regardless of drivetrain. EV’s lower operating costs aren’t going to solve that.

      Just like how many people only buy used ICE cars, many will only be able to afford used BEV’s too. The tax credits actually help them more when they are passed through in the price of a used car, along with depreciation. Between the pass-through of the tax credit, the depreciation, and lower insurance/licensing costs, lower income buyers can actually afford to buy EV’s.

      1. Denis says:

        Good summary. 3 y.o. Leafs at 7k-10k price range would not be possible without 7.5K tax incentive.

  18. KPK says:

    Just wishful thinking, but has anyone heard any talk of them adjusting the credit to become a rebate instead? As it stands, it would be pretty difficult for us to benefit from the full credit with how things are currently.

    1. Nix says:

      Obama proposed making it a point of sale price reduction on the amount you pay at the dealership. It shows little to no chance of becoming law.

      Your best option at this point is to either lease or buy used. Many car companies pass on most or all of the tax incentive back to you as a lower monthly lease. Many used EV prices are based on how much you could buy a brand new car for after rebate, so used lease return EV’s essentially passes along the $7500 dollar federal tax incentive to you also in the form of low off-lease EV prices.

  19. Jonathan B says:

    This tells me two things. (1) Thank God I stood in line for my Model 3 and got high up on that list! However, that was the main reason I wanted to be one of the first people to get one. (2) Buy VW stock NOW! Yeah, I know what you’re saying… VW? Seriously? But if you look at their financials, they haven’t taken as big of a hit as we thought they would from the Diesel crisis, and they are doubling down on EVs right now. They will have multiple models in the US market by 2019 and will be peaking while other’s credits are expiring. If you have the choice of a $40K Tesla with no credit and a $40K VW with a $7500 discount… easy decision.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      With six VW executives indicted in the U.S. just yesterday, and at least one arrested, I wouldn’t think this would be the best time to invest in Volkswagen stock! I’m not an investor, but common sense says you should wait until the impact of that on the stock price appears to have bottomed out.

    2. Nathanael says:

      Remember you want to buy stock when it’s cheap. The fact that they didn’t take as big of a stock price hit as you expected should be a warning sign to you that it might fall further (as the arrests continue).

  20. Mister G says:

    I guess you trust VW. BUT don’t be mad if VW disappoints you.

  21. Jeff Anderson says:

    I think we are loosing sight of the reason the tax credits were created. It was created to help develop the markets for electric vehicles. I think if a manufacture has sold 200,000 vehicles I would label the program as a succes. The truth be told is that that many may EV buyers will not be able to take full advanage of the tax credit. Since the tax credit can be applied to you tax liability.

  22. Anthony Malovrh says:

    Prius Prime is not a $7500 federal tax credit – only $4500

  23. Jeff Noble says:

    How about an update?

    1. Jay Cole says:

      We generally do it every 6-9 months…so you are probably right another should be due. Although, looking at the chart, not sure we would change much if it went out today.

      I think the only reason we don’t have another one planned ye is the Tesla Model 3, as it is the wild card – the other OEMs…not so much. Little change in the short term there.

      Lots and lots of talk/speculation on Model 3 – specifically, what deliveries will be, but we will know for sure in ~5 weeks time how realistic they will be.

      If Tesla only chunks out a few hundred in July and no public customers are getting close ETAs on future deliveries, it will be very easy to extrapolate the fed expiry quarter.

      Likewise if they push out a couple thousand, and there is a mass of customers getting told ETAs in August and September – then same answer.

      …basically, its a fool’s errand atm to peg Model 3 deliveries with zero real guidance/data points to consider. But it ‘should’ be super-obvious by the end of next month on what the Model 3 delivery reality will be for the 3.

      Further to that, in ~6 weeks there will be a Tesla earnings call (~1st week of August), and all the cards will be on the table in regards to how the roll-out went, and the company’s guidance for Q3/FY 2017.