Did the "big bill" just end EV Tax Credits for Slates? [WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[sodamo]

Correct me if wrong, but I don’t recall going from incandescent to LED. I believe there was a step in between, CFL. I just installed some new LED fixtures and they sure aren’t was what available when incandescents were banned.
There was also a secondary benefit to incandescents, but likely not appreciated in some climates.

 

[SLATEchad]

If your talking about the mass mor-ev rebate that is almost certainly going away as well. Too much talk in the state house about eliminating it if the fed does away with there's. I would imagine other states would follow suit even if they don't agree with it.

No, I live in Colorado. Fairly blue state and leader in adapting EV’s. I doubt it’ll go away anytime soon.

 

[SLATEchad]

Any industry that exists solely based upon government support... IE: Ethanol... is not a viable, sustainable industry. We all knew that government tax credits for EVs was going to go away one day. If this is the final nail in the coffin for you regarding SLATE... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I agree to an extent. We did have a phase before the IRA where many EV’s on the market were not incentivized anymore because there were more than 200k units sold - in fact we bought our Tesla Model Y during that time and were jealous when the tax credit came back a few months later. The EV industry is not going to die with the loss of incentives and I hope Slate can adapt and make this happen without them. Hopefully it’ll force a price adjustment and refocus on making more affordable EV’s in general. It does still bug me the hypocrisy of those that are angry about the EV tax incentive and yet are cheering for this bill that will increase government incentives and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars. What would happen if that crutch was pulled out from under that industry? I think they’d survive as well, but the fuel prices may drive a lot more people to consider EV’s. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

Correct me if wrong, but I don’t recall going from incandescent to LED. I believe there was a step in between, CFL. I just installed some new LED fixtures and they sure aren’t was what available when incandescents were banned.
There was also a secondary benefit to incandescents, but likely not appreciated in some climates.

lol oh yah the ones that if you broke you had to call hazmat right

 

[Benjamin Nead]

lol oh yah the ones that if you broke you had to call hazmat right

Yes. Mercury inside the bulb. Note that long tube florescents have had the same issues since the 1950s or thereabouts.

 

[SimplyElement]

From what I understand the bill can be killed in the House of Representatives. If that happens, they will start all over again.

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

From what I understand the bill can be killed in the House of Representatives. If that happens, they will start all over again.

true

 

[SCUDDOG]

I though we were talking about a cheap EV truck for a moment. Guess not.

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

I though we were talking about a cheap EV truck for a moment. Guess not.

lol side tracks lead to interesting conversations but I think the talk about the incentive so much on the slate is mostly du to nor knowing its market price since they say with incentives it’s under 20k but how much under 1k 2k 10k and same thing on the opposite if they are removed is it 1k over 2k 10k 20k so people want it to be under 20 because that’s a more appealing proposal while saying with incentives rather then the other I’ve seen everyone say it’s 25,000 or 27,500 or 28,000 but no real concrete statement by slate them selfs

 

[sodamo]

I though we were talking about a cheap EV truck for a moment. Guess not.

Oh we are. Just for some it’s important someone else is helping pay for it.

 

[Benjamin Nead]

I though we were talking about a cheap EV truck for a moment. Guess not.

The topic of this particular thread refers to federal legislation that's attempting to make these cheap electric trucks more expensive.

 

[sodamo]

The topic of this particular thread refers to federal legislation that attempting to make these cheap electric trucks more expensive.

not being political, but I disagree. price of the truck should be price of the truck, just like any item. Here we are discussing who is paying for it. Manufacturers should be setting fair market value, not base on arbitrary incentives.
i could have bought one of the current EV trucks last year and maybe gotten the incentive, but I did’t. Not interested in the offerings. Slate at the suggested $$ appeals to me. Yes, I know those $$ aren’t exact yet. Of course neither is the truck and should Slate follow the lead of current manufacturer I will lose interest, incentive or not.

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

not being political, but I disagree. price of the truck should be price of the truck, just like any item. Here we are discussing who is paying for it. Manufacturers should be setting fair market value, not base on arbitrary incentives.
i could have bought one of the current EV trucks last year and maybe gotten the incentive, but I did’t. Not interested in the offerings. Slate at the suggested $$ appeals to me. Yes, I know those $$ aren’t exact yet. Of course neither is the truck and should Slate follow the lead of current manufacturer I will lose interest, incentive or not.

yah that is true they do say they are not like other car makers in there business model

 

[Benjamin Nead]

Correct me if wrong, but I don’t recall going from incandescent to LED. I believe there was a step in between, CFL. I just installed some new LED fixtures and they sure aren’t was what available when incandescents were banned.
There was also a secondary benefit to incandescents, but likely not appreciated in some climates.

There was even an interim technology, called cold cathode florescent (CCFL.) These had similar efficiency to LED but were cheaper, maybe around $20 each when LEDs were still fetching $30 or $40. Because they put off less heat, they could make the bulb out of clear plastic instead of glass (less chance of shattering when dropped.) You didn't typically see these in hardware stores, but in online lighting specialty stores.

I still have a few of them. The lower Kelvin temperature ones had a rather unusual pinkish-purple glow to them that I'm sure some found unnerving. Cheaply made LED bulbs of the day were also known to have a greenish glow to them. We now have dirt cheap LED bulbs that glow the "correct" or "natural" color and last for many years.

 

[Benjamin Nead]

not being political, but I disagree. price of the truck should be price of the truck, just like any item. Here we are discussing who is paying for it. Manufacturers should be setting fair market value, not base on arbitrary incentives.
i could have bought one of the current EV trucks last year and maybe gotten the incentive, but I did’t. Not interested in the offerings. Slate at the suggested $$ appeals to me. Yes, I know those $$ aren’t exact yet. Of course neither is the truck and should Slate follow the lead of current manufacturer I will lose interest, incentive or not.

All that would be fine and well if fossil fuels themselves weren't so heavily subsidized . . . and that this legislation also didn't go after the domestic manufacturing of solar, batteries and the like with such a vengeance. It's all very stupid and short-sighted at this point.

I don't have an ideological purity test so refined that I would say we should never have subsidies in place to advance new technologies. A careful review of history will indicate we've done it with just about everything at one point or another, typically to the betterment of our lives and the establishment or reinvention of home-based manufacturing.

Government isn't a business. It's a service. Subsidies are there to jump start new business ideas in the private sector and then are designed to fade or "get out of the way" eventually. The original 2007 to 2022 EV tax credit capped 200,000 units per manufacturer. What it ended up doing, unfortunately, was to penalize manufacturers who were early to the market with their EVs and sold a lot, because they were better cars than what the other guy was making. So, yes, subsidies can hurt business if they were designed poorly from the start or can't be revised along the way.

Biden era EV subsidies (Build Back Better through the Inflation Reduction Act) set a timeline for these subsides to fade out for all manufacturers by 2030. That was a better plan than the old one. At first, there were also provision for union manufacturing. Elon, of course, hated that, because Tesla is famously non-union. So those got dropped. There were always provisions for more domestic manufacturing over importing. I don't think that was a bad thing, since it encouraged new investment and new hiring on these shores. That's what ended up getting passed in late 2022. I think it was something good for both the industry and the consumer, while keeping us competitive with the rest of the world. With some tweeking here and there over the upcoming years, it should have simply been allowed to run its course and expired on time in 2030.

So, yes, I'll ask again . . . after more than a century of doing so, why are we still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry? Where's your outrage there? If a gasoline car was still cheaper to buy (compared to an EV) but the fuel was not just twice as expensive but, instead, 4 TIMES AS EXPENSIVE as comparable units of electricity, what do you think would happen to the gasoline vehicle market at that point?