Posted on 11/30/2018 5:12:09 AM PST by gattaca
Dean Clancy By Dean Clancy NOVEMBER 30, 2018 Is there anything so permanent as a temporary government program? To test that question, consider the Tesla Tax Credit, the federal subsidy program for cars that dont use gasoline. Created in 2005 as a way to jumpstart a market for pure-electric plug-ins, the Tesla credit allows taxpayers to take up to $7,500 off their taxes for purchasing one.
This regressive subsidy primarily benefits Americans earning more than $100,000 a year. Happily, its fading away, as the market for battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) matures. But the green car industry, led by Tesla Motors eccentric CEO Elon Musk, is lobbying Congress to make the gravy train permanent and more generous.
Battery-powered cars, with zero tailpipe emissions, are beloved of environmentalists as a way to help save the planet. But while sales have grown over the past decade, theyre still a niche product, more status symbol than planet-saver. Theyre basically a shiny toy for rich liberals.
Musk thinks you and I need to help pay to put one of these shiny toys on as many suburban driveways as possible. So he and his competitors have joined forces to extend and expand the subsidy, preferably during the current lame-duck session of Congress. If they succeed, expect this temporary government program to have eternal life, and have it abundantly.
Dear Lawmakers: Hit the brakes!
The existing subsidy will increase the federal deficit by an estimated $7.5 billion over the next five years. It is thankfully expected to fade away by the mid-2020s, thanks to a key limitation: once each BEV manufacturer has sold its 200,000th vehicle, the amount of the tax credit, for people who buy from that particular maker, steps down to zero over a period of two years.
Obviously, this creates a market distortion, as smaller and less competitive companies continue to enjoy the maximum discount. In 2018, industry leaders Tesla and GM both sold their 200,000th BEV. Nissan could do so next year. Guess which three companies are leading the charge to eliminate the cap or stretch out the phase-down? Yep!
Its debatable whether the green car industry ever really needed a government subsidy to get going, but it clearly does not need one to keep going. In 2015 more than 1.2 million BEVs were delivered, worldwide, up from basically zero in 2007. (There were almost 80 million cars of all types sold last year.)
Consumers fancy BEVs because they offer a quieter ride, simpler maintenance, and better mileage (on an apples-to-apples basis) than gas-powered cars. They also liberate drivers from the gas pump, and thus from gasoline taxes that fund highway upkeep.
But theyre pricey. The Tesla Model S costs $70,000 and up. The more affordable Nissan Leaf starts at $30,000, but can only go 150 miles on a charge, compared to the 300- to 400-mile range of conventional cars.
What about the environmental benefits? Theyre exaggerated. Zero emissions doesnt mean zero. Over their lifespan, BEVs produce a lot of pollution and carbon emissions. It just happens at the smokestack instead of the tailpipe. In fact, building a BEV actually produces more pollution and greenhouse gases than does a conventional car, thanks to its big, heavy lithium-ion batteries. A BEV only starts to beat a comparable gas guzzler after about six to 18 months of driving.
To be sure, clean energy is a good thing. All sane people favor responsible stewardship of the earth. Many consider it a religious duty. But a clean car is only as clean as the grid it plugs into. And in places like the Midwest, which tend to rely on older, coal-fired plants, the environmental benefits of BEVs are, well, modest.
Honest liberals know this. A 2015 pro-BEV study by the left-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists admits that, in order to make BEVs a meaningful contribution to the groups ambitious goal of reducing carbon emissions in 2030 to one-third below the 2005 level, the national electric grid will have to switch by mid-century to 80 percent reliance on renewable sources (primarily wind, solar, and hydroelectric). Thats utopian.
Solar today contributes a mere 1.3 percent of the national electricity supply, and wind just 6.3 percent. Neither technology is cost-effective, compared to traditional sources. Coal supplies 30 percent of the nations electricity (and its share is shrinking). Natural gas, much cleaner than coal, supplies 32 percent (its growing). Nuclear, although stagnant, supplies 20 percent. Hydro power: 7 percent.
So our best hope for a cleaner energy future lies, not with vast solar and wind farms, but with boring old hydro, nuclear, and natural gas. Now, if higher-income folks want to keep shelling out for a pricey status symbol, by all means, let them. On their own dime.
The Tesla Tax Credit is unnecessary, ineffective, and junks up the tax code. Congress should let it die or better yet, kill it. As Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming has proposed, we should replace this regressive subsidy with a highway user fee on BEVs, to compensate for the gasoline taxes theyre avoiding. Instead of subsidizing Tesla owners forever, lets tax them.
My cellphone’s performance stinks in cold weather, but I’m sure the genius pothead has figured out how to make lith batteries good to go in the Winter.
If an enviroweenie wants an electric car, let them have at it. With no subsidies. They should pay their own way.
He's got that right, but misses a basic environmental point. Luxury cars are worse for the environment than simple cars. The cost of materials is higher and that is a proxy for energy use. More energy used to produce the same functionality.
There is a cost to all of the added strain on the electric grid. No one has taken that into account apparently.
Nissan Leaf goes 150 miles on a charge, followed by 6-8 hours of recharging. A conventional car goes 300-400 miles on a tank of gas, followed by three minutes to refill
What tax credit?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17563908/tesla-federal-tax-credit-ending-date
OK, OK there is a tax credit but it’s gone within the year as they have reached the 200,000 vehicle threshold.
I live in a Montana town of 35,000 and there are at least 12 Teslas here, S, X and a few new 3’s. They get around fine.
My club neighbors finally parked their old prious for a gas burning compact. No one wants the Prious so they don’t know what to do with it.
“Lib” neighbors.Apparently Lib gets auto corrected to ‘club.’
But really, why is the solution to any problem always "IMPOSE MORE TAXES"???
They should be clubbed...
Why give them a tax break? They already are skipping out on road taxes.
But really, why is the solution to any problem always 'IMPOSE MORE TAXES'??? "
Because they don't pay fuel taxes to the same extent as dino-powered cars, and those fuel taxes are a major source of funding for highway maintenance. And they cause more road wear than conventional autos because their "fuel tank" weighs nigh on to a thousand pounds regardless whether it's full or empty. Storage battery-powered electric cars are inordinately heavy beasts.
So not charging storage battery-only and hybrid electrical vehicles a graduated road use tax amounts to (once again) subsidizing their use over dino-powered autos.
Fair enough, thanks!
Líes
Solar power is highly competitive
Theres 22800 MW installed here in CA
Ive i stalled about 10-12 MW
YOU HAVE ONLY 2. Choices
Pay utility forever or install panels
My club neighbors finally parked their old prious for a gas burning compact. No one wants the Prious so they dont know what to do with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does it come with Bernie and COEXIST bumper stickers installed at the factory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.