Newest language on the EV incentive

R_1_T

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lars
Joined
Aug 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
83
Location
Nowhere
First Name
Lars
Vehicles
2&4-wheeled
“The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.

“There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.

“Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2

“Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based upon supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).

https://www.academia.edu/40573989/D...sibly_the_root_cause_of_changes_to_our_oceans
Advertisement

 

Zeroemit

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2021
Messages
29
Reaction score
27
Location
NYC
Vehicles
XC90 Hybrid
“The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.

“There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.

“Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2

“Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based upon supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).

https://www.academia.edu/40573989/D...sibly_the_root_cause_of_changes_to_our_oceans
Junk science - James E Kamis, author of your citation is a petroleum geologist (surprised..?) none of his hypothesis on Plate Climatology has been supported by peer review process of science in any scientific journals. In fact he contributed only 3 research papers in science in his life that was deemed of scientific value - published in AAPG (American Association Of Petroleum Geologists) journal. None of them had to do with climate science, but of petroleum based geology. https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/JE-Kamis-23263418

He has been caught making statements that have have been judged by his peers to be inaccurate before - https://sciencefeedback.co/claimrev...g-climate-change-dispatch-james-edward-kamis/

He also states from his website promoting this junk - He is also proud to state that he is an actively practicing Christian who believes science and spirituality are completely compatible. We all know what happened when certain scientist tries to mix religion into their science, ie Kitzmiller v Dover. That "scientist" was made a court fool.

Most if not all prominent scientific organizations, throughout the world, have stated the overwhelming consensus of the data has supported AGW. The few dissenting org. happens to be... AAPG (American Association Of Petroleum Geologists)

In 2007 AAPG, were not supportive of the AGW -

AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:
Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.

Then in 2010 AAPG (which James E. Kamis is a member of) admits Climate science is not in the purview of their expertise -

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science ... AAPG does not have credibility in that field ... and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.
 
Last edited:

IPTV65

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
83
Location
Bothell Wa
Vehicles
Jeep JLU Sahara, Chevy Volt, C7 Corvette GS
MSRP based incentives leave all kinds of room for gaming the system.

Under this scenario, an SUV with an MSRP of $69K that a dealer applies a "market adjustment" of $20K to bringing the actual sale price to $89K would qualify.

Oregon's incentive qualification depends on "Base MSRP" and has a $50K limit (this would allow for the installation of accessories). The Tesla Model Y qualifies, yet the cheapest you can buy/order is $53,990 (destination and handling are not included in the MSRP definition). Huh? Seems since Tesla has run the RWD Standard Range thru EPA, gotten it a Monroney Label and adds on the bigger battery, 2nd motor, etc to the "Base" model.

In Canada, Tesla sells - at least on paper - a software crippled Standard Range Model 3 with 151 kM (94 miles) of range to get under a $45K cap and qualify for Trans Canada's iZEV rebate of $5K. Offering this option (it can be "unlocked" later since it is software limited), allows the non crippled SR and even the SR+ to qualify as well.

Washington States EV incentive is tied to actual purchase price, and that is the metric that makes the most sense.
Washington State has nothing for us. The vehicle has to be under $45K to get the $1300 sales tax exemption. Washington State is not favorable when it comes to EV incentives. Best you get is no tax on the purchase and install of a home charger. Funny as our governor "tries to be all green"! :)
 

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
425
Reaction score
651
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
Washington State has nothing for us. The vehicle has to be under $45K to get the $1300 sales tax exemption. Washington State is not favorable when it comes to EV incentives. Best you get is no tax on the purchase and install of a home charger. Funny as our governor "tries to be all green"! :)
Georgia used to have a very good EV tax credit. Now we have no credit and an EV tag fee that is supposed to offset the fuel tax, but that's so high it requires driving way more than average miles to break even.
 

Bobthebuilder352

Active Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
44
Reaction score
33
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Kubota
Occupation
Farmer
MSRP wise Rivian can shift quite a few things to dealer installed options to skirt the cap. That said, there seems to be *real* inflation on the supplier side so I’m sure they are already feeling a lot of pressure to push up price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad

SeaGeo

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brice
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
2,169
Location
Seattle
First Name
Brice
Vehicles
Xc60 T8
Occupation
Engineer
Georgia used to have a very good EV tax credit. Now we have no credit and an EV tag fee that is supposed to offset the fuel tax, but that's so high it requires driving way more than average miles to break even.
That's likely due to the higher road wear EVs generally have on roadways due to weight compared to similar vehicles. Any they're probably trying to play catch up since the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since the 90s and doesn't cover much anymore. easier to do that with a new tax that doesn't effect everyone right now than by changing the State gas tax.

And probably because it's Georgia.
 

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
425
Reaction score
651
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
That's likely due to the higher road wear EVs generally have on roadways due to weight compared to similar vehicles. Any they're probably trying to play catch up since the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since the 90s and doesn't cover much anymore. easier to do that with a new tax that doesn't effect everyone right now than by changing the State gas tax.

And probably because it's Georgia.
The EV tax generates about $5MM/year right now, compared to almost $2B from the motor fuel tax. $2B is still only about half of GDOT's revenue from all sources. Obviously the feds are chipping in quite a lot, but GDOT's budget is also supplemented from GA general revenue and budget appropriations.

The EV tax was pushed by lobbyists who are anti-EV. The state gasoline tax is 28.7c/gallon right now. The EV tax is about $214, which is close to the highest in the US. That's equivalent to purchasing 745.6 gallons of gasoline. Even driving a big heavy super-duty pickup that gets 15-16mpg, that's about 12,000 miles of driving every year.

I believe Georgia at one time had the 2nd highest EV adoption rate in the US, behind only California. Until 2016, our state EV incentive was $5,000. As you can imagine, EV adoption in Georgia is now lagging well behind a number of other states, including a bunch with no incentives toward EVs but also which have no punitive EV fees.
 

Psmitty2

Member
First Name
Pete
Joined
Sep 13, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
11
Location
Colorado
First Name
Pete
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander hybrid, Jeep diesel Liberty
Occupation
Attorney
This cutoff at 69k is infuriating to me. It strikes me as a writ of attainder cousin (that's common law for "you cant write a law that targets one person). This challenge might fly because *most* ICE SUVs cost more than the pickups they share platform/design with. Yet here, pickups have a higher subsidy window - clearly to the direct benefit of luxury F150 Lightning, which as of now does not have an electric Expedition sibling.

WTF?! I hope Rivian beam counters figure a way out of this...
 

kommonplace

Active Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
97
Location
Bardstown, KY, USA
Website
www.kevinjwangler.com
First Name
Kevin
Vehicles
2014 Ford Flex, 2009 Nissan cube
Occupation
Director of Information Technology
This cutoff at 69k is infuriating to me. It strikes me as a writ of attainder cousin (that's common law for "you cant write a law that targets one person). This challenge might fly because *most* ICE SUVs cost more than the pickups they share platform/design with. Yet here, pickups have a higher subsidy window - clearly to the direct benefit of luxury F150 Lightning, which as of now does not have an electric Expedition sibling.

WTF?! I hope Rivian beam counters figure a way out of this...
Psmitty2 v. United States

I'd watch that on C-SPAN.
 

Trekkie

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tom
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
77
Reaction score
100
Location
Wake Forest, NC
First Name
Tom
Vehicles
Tesla Model X, Fiat 500E
Occupation
IT Nerd
As Elon said, this was written by the UAW/Ford, the same people who killed the plant that Tesla now uses.

I'm a huge fan of union labor, and want it to be successful it is what gave us such a strong middle class.

However letting them craft the bill to benefit them at the expense of the significantly 'all american' brands like Rivian and even Tesla where >80% of the vehicle and batteries are made in country.

The Mach E and Lightning are made in Mexico. There are not american workers benefitting from this, just the company doing the selling getting an EV credit handout to incent people who are price conscious to go to them.

I'll be honest, while yeah the tax break is nice I'm buying my fourth / fifth EV because gas is bad for the future of this planet, no matter what people who hate change say. Spewing crap into the air non stop if you're unwilling to sit in your living room with that stuff pumped in you shouldn't be pumping it into the air outside.

Only thing I can suggest is you rail against the lawmakers. Just back to playing the same games they always pay, whomever gives them the most cash wins.
 

Psmitty2

Member
First Name
Pete
Joined
Sep 13, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
11
Location
Colorado
First Name
Pete
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander hybrid, Jeep diesel Liberty
Occupation
Attorney
I get all that.

I just hope if this passes -as is- that Rivian changes their pricing schedule. So I've written in to them but I guess we just have to wait and see if anything passes, and what Rivian does about it.
 

SANZC02

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bob
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Messages
716
Reaction score
1,485
Location
California
First Name
Bob
Vehicles
Tesla Model S, Jeep Grand Cherokee; (LE - R1S)
Occupation
IT
I would be surprised if Rivian plays with their pricing regardless of how this bill progresses. That is borderline fraudulent and they do not strike me as a company that would go down that path. They do have a small battery pack version of the R1T and R1S that would most likely qualify for the tax incentives as written.

I for 1 would love to have the extra 7500 in my pocket, that being said, if I am spending 80K on an SUV, I am ordering what I want and not making adjustments based on what if anything this bill ends up providing.

If the 7500 tax credit made a difference to me on getting this vehicle or not, then regardless of where this bill ends up I would be waiting for the cheaper versions to be released, it clearly would not be an expense I could justify.
 

Diddy123

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
101
Reaction score
333
Location
Montana
Vehicles
Acura MDX
If it stays as written, the off-road package would end up potentially adding a total of $9,500 to the price of the R1T LE.

I like the tow-hooks and extra protection, but that makes it a really easy choice.
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top