White House Seeks $10,000 Electric Car Point-Of-Sale Rebate

FEB 4 2015 BY MARK KANE 72

Chevrolet Bolt EV Concept

Chevrolet Bolt EV Concept

2016 Chevrolet Volt Waiting To Go For A Spin (click to enlarge)

2016 Chevrolet Volt

One of the latest bits of news from the White House is a proposition to increase electric vehicle tax incentives from the current $7,500 to $10,000.

The other idea is to expand the tax credit to other types of vehicles like compressed natural gas and to convert the credit to a point-of-sale rebate.

“Separately, the White House is again proposing boosting electric vehicle tax incentives to $10,000 — up from the current $7,500 — and expand it to other advanced technology vehicles like compressed natural gas. It wants to convert the credit to a point-of-sale rebate. But that proposal has gone nowhere.”

$10,000 is a lot of coin. If there really is a 200-mile EV for $35,000 on the horizon for 2017, then the price of current EVs with less than 100-miles of EPA range will come down and sales will go up anyways, right?

But the point-of-sale rebate (versus tax incentive) is something we’re definitely behind.

The White House has pushed for both the $10,000 amount and the point-of-sale switch in previous years, but both proposals were shot down.  We fully expect this denial to again be the case this year.

Source: The Detroit News

Categories: General

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

72 Comments on "White House Seeks $10,000 Electric Car Point-Of-Sale Rebate"

newest oldest most voted

I would love it

But it’s going nowhere.

Congress is pro Oil and anti EV.
We’ll just be subjected to shrill cries of “Solyyyyyyyyynnnnnnddddrrrrraaaaaaa!”

Yep DOA for this one as with almost all white house proposals.

We need to be thankful that we have a 7500 dollar tax incentive and I wouldn’t be surprised if the new children in congress try to take that away.

Kiddies in Congress has a better ring.

I’d be happy if they fixed the tax credit they have now so that the $7500 could be fully utilized by people who don’t owe that much in one tax year, say another 2-3 years.

The way it’s written, it benefits the wealthier people more than the middle class, who are really the ones who could use the cost savings on an EV, as well as their taxes.

People get what they vote for! Wouldn’t you love to see Congressional portfolios? Might explain why they vote the way they do. $10k would be sweet, but like someone else said, it is DOA with this Congress.

They can still accomplish the same objective AND help balance our budget by increasing the federal gas tax.

Grow a pair, Congress. Do what’s right for the country! 🙂

Yes — an increased gas tax is the better approach.

I’d rather them spend the extra money to install more charging infrastructure.

There was a huge push in 2012 and 2013 to install them. But lately it’s slowed down dramatically. I don’t think a new publicly available EV charging station has opened in my city of 2M in six months or more.

I’m in the same boat as you. For a year or so it seemed like a new station was popping up every 3 weeks. Now it is like every 6 months. Combined with the stations that break and never get fixed, as well as some that have been removed, it is more like a net loss of public stations.

If we’re 2-3 years away from 200 miles range, what’s the point of fast charging station that charge you over $5/charge? I’ve tried one blink charger before and the cost/miles charged ended up being more than gas when it was over $3/gal.

+1

Why should I pay for the privilege of charging at a rate that costs more than gas AND have to WAIT much longer on top of that?

I charge only at home and if my trip is beyond what my BEV can do, I take my ICE. Another option is to buy a Volt.

If you drive a Volt, you are still driving an ICE. That on-board gas burning generator still burns gasoline. Tesla opened up their patents, all manufacturers have to do is make their cars Supercharge compatible and then work with Tesla to use and pay for those Superchargers.

Uh. I love tesla. But we’re talking about a $100k car here.

So it’s not like “all” the other OEMs have to do is work with Tesla and use their patents.

They also have to develop a 200+ mile AER BEV which nobody (even Tesla) has been able to do for under $70k

The Volt is $35k and change.

In 3 years? Yes. today? Not feasible.

Waiting said:

“If you drive a Volt, you are still driving an ICE. That on-board gas burning generator still burns gasoline.”

That seems rather unfair. You’re only burning gas when you run beyond the electric range. Sure, I hope that soon we’ll see PHEVs with appreciably longer range. Something in the neighborhood of 100 miles would be nice.

But let’s not condemn PHEV drivers as though they aren’t committed to substantially reducing their fossil fuel use. That would be a case of “The perfect driving out the good.”

Yeah, us Volt drivers do more electric miles than any other car.

But you have to pay tax, licensing, and insurance on two cars.

+1

More BEV range, not chargers!

You get both with a Tesla.

NPNS! SBF!
Volt#671

Did you factor in the miles driven off of cheap electricity from home? Did you also consider that with a 200-mile BEV, you may not need to have an ICEV in your driveway at all?

I think both range an infrastructure are important. By the end of this decade, I truly hope to see affordable 150-200 mile BEV AND a growing QC infrastructure.

“The proposal has gone nowhere”. I’m assuming that highlighted portion is a quote from the Detroit News. But that is not pointed out.

At first, I thought I was reading the White House proposal, but that last line made it apparent it was not.

Even the current $7500 incentive as a point-of-sale perk would be amazing, as myself and many others end up not being able to take advantage of the entire amount. Not fair, I say – to only give the full incentive to the top earners ( Or folks that don’t have the smart tax man I have and take their full deductions ). I’m not a lease kind of guy – so I can’t take advantage of the baked-in lease option.

I’d rather they close the tax loopholes for oil companies and raise the gas tax while they still can (i.e. while gas prices are low).

In other words, instead of making everything artificially cheaper, let’s pay the true cost of the choices we make. That means that those who choose to burn gas should pay proportionally towards repairing the damage it causes to the environment and to peoples’ health.

(oh for an edit button)

Instead, politicians come up with special taxes on EVs to make up for their immunity from road taxes collected at the gas pump.

I’m actually in favor of a road use tax on all vehicles. But to be fair, it should be collected the same way for all. It should not be tied to the fuel in any way.

Instead, the fuel taxes should be used to pay for external costs associated with that fuel. Gas taxes aren’t high enough today to cover those costs let alone pay for the roads.

Brian – all who know politics know a hike in the gas tax is like an ice cube surviving in hell – it aint gonna happen! Obama is lame-duck, so technically he could propose a tax hike, but he won’t. Because both houses of Congress are Republican. Any Dem or Republican commits political suicide by suggesting a gas tax hike. Even though we know it’s the perfect solution to basically everything. It pains me when folks suggest a gas tax hike because they don’t understand politics. Today, right-thinking people in government seriously only have the tool of regulation. Sadly, they regulate the auto manufacturers to force them into reaching EPA or clean air mandates. A consumer-driven evolution to clean transportation would be preferable, no doubt – but it can’t happen in the lobbyist-special interest-driven political world we voters allow to exist in our modern United States. To me, Campaign Finance Reform is the nation’s number one priority. Over the “war on terror”, over revised healthcare, and even over a balanced budget and elimination of the national deficit. Think about it and all our problems with gridlock and partisanship are fueled by campaign donors from here AND ABROAD who give freely… Read more »

James quote:
“Sadly, they regulate the auto manufacturers to force them into reaching EPA or clean air mandates. ”

You’ve got to be kidding me James. So you think if we let the american consumer decide what MPG their cars should have it would work. Shoot we’d all be driving 10 MPG pick up trucks.

…and you think we can leave it up to the consumer and the utility companies to decide if we should burn coal to make electricity.

Please James. There’s no way that would work. If the new kiddies in congress had their way we’d be converting all our gas plants to coal.

Actually, there is an example of how you can take an alternative path to the regulatory path. That is in Europe. Specifically, Germany and Scandinavia. These countries, back in the 60s and 70s faced the same pollution choked cities that we did. However, they did something different to solve the problem. We came up with pollution control regulations. Those countries taxed the hell out of gas prices and used the money to build public transit, bike paths and other “alternative” transit modes, and making their cities more walkable and bike-able. You can see the result today. The Euro emission requirements are not nearly as stringent as either the EPA requirements are CARB requirements but their cities are as clean, if not cleaner, safer for anyone NOT in a car, and the people that live there are healthier and happier.

I don’t see why we couldn’t follow their example. There is still room for cars, particularly electrics, but every other aspect of our society would drastically improve.

Actually this isn’t quite the case. The Europeans found a loop hole of sorts and diesel wasn’t taxed as it should have been. As such they have a very high percentage of diesel automobiles that for the last two decades have been choking Paris, Munchen, and Rome, and all the rest. We all think the diesel is so great because they do get 10 to 20% better mileage but the downside to them is greater than the upside. Now the Euro’s are trying to back off diesel as we open up to it. Not a good idea.

That’s interesting. I always thought that the diesel explosion in Europe had to do with the better mileage combined with the less stringent emissions requirements. That would seem to make more sense though.

+1

I think the EV ball already has too much momentum to be stopped (thanks mostly to Tesla and Nissan). Its becoming time to start considering phasing out incentives, not increasing them.
I don’t see added incentives speeding up the processes of to affordable 200 mile EVs that will be mass market acceptable. Its just going to take time to build production and brain power to push battery tech further.

Being that GM has sold more Volts than Nissan has sold Leafs over the past 4 years in the US, and the fact the put on more EV miles.. I’m surprised you don’t give them credit.

Also, after 4 years on the market, plug-ins are still less than 1% of new car sales. In order to go after that other 99%, I think we still need incentives. With many new plug-ins arriving in 2016/2017/2018, now is the time to strike while the iron is hot.

If you look only at the US market, that is true. But worldwide, the Leaf outsells the Volt. In fact, it outsells any other EV ever made.

I give GM a lot of credit for designing and building the Volt. They did an outstanding job of building the most compelling EV on the planet to the largest number of people.

Where I withhold credit is for actually pushing to advance the EV market. By their own admission, Tesla is the reason they built the Volt in the first place. By observation, the advertising and dealer support for the Volt has been underwhelming at best, non existent at worse. Volt 2.0 stands to change all that, but they haven’t started building/selling them yet so we don’t really know their commitment for certain.

“If you look only at the US market”
——
Yes, since this is the White House speaking about US policy, I’m looking the the US market. I also don’t think there would be a Nissan Leaf if there wasn’t a Chevy Volt first.

Regarding Tesla, I would say they are *a* reason GM designed the Volt, but not the only reason. Remember the EV1 existed before Tesla, and Lutz was also wanting to leapfrog the Prius technology.

Fair enough. But your original comment was at Sublime for not crediting GM for EV momentum. Let’s stay focused.

I do believe there would be a Leaf without a Volt. I do think that the Leaf was rushed to market in order to beat the Volt (evidenced, IMHO, by the difference between the aftermarket-conversion feel of the 2011/2012 and the purpose-built EV of the 2013+). But the Volt is not the reason for its existance. It was made in response to regulations, not competition. So in that case, maybe CARB/EPA/whatever the EU equivolent is should be given the credit.

Yes, GM had the EV1. They even had the often-forgotten electric Chevy S10. I’m not convinced that GM wouldn’t have walked away from EVs completely, though.

The Prius is an interesting peice of EV history. And I haven’t yet made up my mind whether it did more harm or good in the grand scheme of things. But that’s a whole different discussion.

Nope . . . they should be increased, not phased out. We can eliminate them when gasoline/diesel cars no longer emit anything. Until then, EVs should get incentives.

Let’s go optimistic. If they sold 250,000 plugins next year, and let’s say all of them received the $10k rebate, that is $2.5 billion. The Department of Defense’s budget is $560 billion, and they want to increase it to $585 billion. So we are talking about 0.4% of their budget that will do more towards protecting our country than most of what the DOD does.

+1 kdawg. We also spend $50 billion annually just to keep the oil shipping lanes open. For those who want a fiscally responsible government, that should drive you nuts.

Yes, and by bearing that cost we are actually subsidizing our economic competitors like China–how insane is that?

That $2.5 billion would do more to keep us safe and secure in the long run than any ‘defence’ budget.

Well said, Kdawg!

The amount our government spends on subsidizing EVs is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount it spends using our military to protect our supply line of falsely “cheap” oil… only “cheap” because we don’t include the true costs. Not to mention the price we pay in American soldiers’ blood.

From a rational point of view, we should be spending massively more on supporting switching from gas guzzlers to EVs; spending massively more until gas guzzlers are not only obsolete, but mostly vanished from the roads.

That would be good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for the international reputation of the USA, which would no longer have any reason to support oil-rich regimes which oppress their own people. It would be not merely good, but -great- for for everyone except Big Oil.

Part of the challenge with all things “government” is the lack of oversight and efficiency in it. Giving individual consumers a tax credit is relatively “efficient”. Paying for chargers to be installed is not. Let’s look at the whole EV Project where a lot of us (including me) got “free” chargers. The government – aka “all of us” – paid for the (overpriced) chargers and REALLY overpriced installations. For the installs they paid up to $1000 for each install…so guess how much each install magically cost at a “minimum”…oh yeah, $1000 since the installers knew they were guaranteed that much and any less left “free money” on the table. My own install was literally two feet from my breaker box which had opens slots for more breakers. They came back with a $1600 quote to run a 220 socket and hang the Blink unit. I challenged that with a simple e-mail and they immediately dropped it to $1300. The total work took about 90 minutes tops. Later, my utility company showed up ant my front door to “replace the transformer bodx in my backyard since I had an “electric car”” – wait, let me guess, the government provided utility companies… Read more »

Why not have different levels of tax credit/rebate based upon total EV range?
Drop the $7500 credit to $5000 for <50<100 mile range EVs/EREVs,
$7500 for 100

Why not have different levels of tax credit/rebate based upon total EV range?
Drop the $7500 credit to $5000 for <50<100 mile range EVs/EREVs,
$7500 for 100<x<150
$10K for 150<x200
$12K for 200+ mile

(yeah, if only an edit button…words keep getting cut out of the post)

***mod edit (Jay Cole)***
As JRMW also said, the use of the greater sign was making the UI think it was HTML code – fixed now
***mod edit (Jay Cole)***

Stuart
My guess is that you are using the “less than” or “greater than” signs

If so, the website is confusing what you are writing as broken/failed HTML code

Don’t use greater than or less than signs

Ah, thanks JRMW! I was wondering why I couldn’t post a proper Eastern smiley here; I have to use parentheses in place of greater-than and less-than signs, thus: (^_^)

They’ve asked for it for years. They won’t get it but it is a good negotiating position.

Is that you in there spec? Did you change your name? If I had my way we’d all be required to pesent some ID and go by our real names. No more Cutesy

So this $10k POS rebate is just a pipe dream, right?

White House asks for $10k, house Republicans go “F— no!!”, then the $7.5k tax credit is extended.

That way the Republicans win (“We killed Obama’s efforts to add to the deficit!”) and the White House can go, “We extended the federal EV tax credit another year!”. Both sides win (or at least don’t lose).

I hate politics.

That’s about right Bro.

That’s assuming that Repubs will even agree to extend the $7500 credit. I’m not terribly optimistic over that.

I hate it too. Especially when it tries to dictate science and engineering.

Maybe something good will come out of Nissan’s presence in Tennessee and popularity in Georgia, two red states

@scramjet

I see the kiddies in congress introducing a bill to kill it. Drop it to zero.

“I don’t want to pay for that”

It’s the creedo

…but don’t f*ck with their social security or Medicare.

It’s all laughable

Yep, I’m cynical enough to say that is the most likely scenario.

I’m pretty sure the owners of the Republican Party, The Koch Brothers and their friends are going to try really hard to kill off all forms of alternative energy (and that includes EVs) because its such a threat to their money=power.

Unfortunately you are 100% correct.

The White House might as well ask for a pony, too.

I mean, if we’re just going to ask for things that clearly won’t happen.

Why stop there? I want a unicorn!

You can get that for only $9.99

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e5a7/

With just a sprinkling of pixie dust, it’s mmmm mmmm delicious!

I haven’t done my homework on this, but what about that White Petition thing I’ve heard about. Doesn’t the White House have to take action on something if they get enough people to sign a petition?? Just throwing that out there.

Take action can be as simple as making a public statement that says basically “ain’t gonna happen.” There was a petition to build the Death Star that received over 100,000 signatures (I suspect Admin Staffers had second thoughts about that process when that happened).

Besides, the problem is not White House inaction, it’s Congressional inaction. This is the White House’s idea, it’s getting Congress to go with it that is the problem.

It isn’t even a Congress problem. It is a voter problem. We are one Republican presidential victory away from losing the $7500 dollar tax credit, and voter turnout is in the basement.

Failing to vote, or thinking that a vote for an (R) won’t matter is why this is DOA, and what will lead to anti-EV legislation being signed into law.

One problem is gerrymandering. A particularly outrageous example is heavily progressive Travis County. Travis County has been carved up into five different congressional districts by the Republican legislature, four of which are occupied by conservative Republicans. But the U.S. electoral system has a more fundamental problem, without which gerrymandering would not be possible. The fundamental problem is our system of single member districts. Single member districts award 100% of the representation to as little as a 50.1% majority. The people who support the losing candidate are left with no one to represent their views and values. Is it fair that up to 49.9% of the people in a district have no representation in government? This is probably the biggest single reason a lot of people in the U.S. don’t vote: they live in a district which is almost certain to elect someone they don’t like. So why should they care about voting? Some people say all we need is a “fair” way to draw districts. There is no fair way to draw a single member district. The winner-take-all nature of the single member district always leaves some people, usually a lot of people, without a voice in government. This is… Read more »
I’m not terribly jazzed by this idea though I do admit to a certain lack in understanding on how this would work. In these 5 seat districts, would all 5 members go to Congress? So, for example, if you get a district that went 49% dem and 51% repub, then you’d send 2 dems and 3 repubs to congress? I’m wondering if a simpler solution might be better. Right now, the house is capped at 435 seats which means that districts are redrawn to maintain that number. That has the net effect of allowing the population in each district to continuously increase. That also means you have less visibility with your Rep and its easier to get lost in the crowd. This makes it easier for Reps to care more about special interests than the interests of his/her constituents. The solution would be to remove the 435 cap and cap district size per population at where it was when the 435 cap was implemented, roughly 10,000 people per district. Smaller districts mean it would be easier to get the attention of your Rep and have them actually care more about your interests. Larger districts, even multi-seat districts, mean you have… Read more »

You can also try using redistricting commissions like California did. Repubs were hoping that they can break the Dems solid majorities on the hope that the Dem majorities were based on gerrymandering. The result was that the commission redrew the districts fairly equitably (few crazy shapes here) yet, not only were there no new Repub seats, they actually lost a couple and made some of their districts less safe than they used to be. It pretty much backfired on them. That’s because California’s Dem majorities are based on demographics, not gerrymandering.

Basically, I don’t think gerrymandering has as big an impact as politicians like to portend.

I’d think the sweetener has already been added to this bill: $10,000 credit for the 2015 Chevy Impala Dual fuel Nat Gas would satisfy Boone Pickens, and would also take the sting out of the $10,000 premium chevy is charging for the Natural Gas upgrade (hardened valves to handle the decreased Lubricity of Natural Gas as well as the higher combustion temperature).

The $10,000 EV credit could go along for the ride.

Great idea. Apply it to nat gas vehicles too, and the Republicans dare not oppose anything that benefits the petroleum industry.

It needs to be an instant rebate at point of sale though.

They should also offer rebates on eMotorcycles and eBicycles because both would get drivers out of traditional ICE vehicles especially for urban commutes!

Hey, I like that! eBikes are expensive and could certainly use a rebate.

If a sales rebate ever were approved, it should be only for North American designed and produced vehicles from Ford, GM, and TM. The Nissan Leaf is assembled in Georgia (meaning: put together from parts designed in Japan), so it will not get any money that will go into Japanese pockets.