Newest language on the EV incentive

R1Simon

Active Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
80
Location
California
Vehicles
2011 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
Not to mention the fact that not all Rivian buyers will be rich. I'm not (I do ok). This will be my first "premium" vehicle. I would not purchase something more expensive, nor would I purchase an ICE vehicle at anywhere close to this price (within 20-30K of it). Rather than move to a nicer house or purchase other luxuries, we're opting for an electric vehicle that meets our needs. Of course, without the incentive we might delay our purchase. What we won't do is spend money on an ICE vehicle (contribute to the economy) or purchase an electric vehicle that won't meet our needs (we'll opt for an EV to replace our Prius eventually, but not for years - we want to replace our fuel hungry ICE SUV). I don't know that we need a 200K cap, but we need to promote the sale of those vehicles that replace fuel hungry counterparts.
This is my exact situation as well (minus the existing SUV).
Advertisement

 

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
425
Reaction score
651
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
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.
No, it's not even in the same city as fraudulent, let alone near the goal line. Indeed, it's arguably exactly the type of behavior Congress would hope to see: Companies selling cheaper EVs, so adoption is increased.
 

Gerolsteiner

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
11
Location
Chicago
Vehicles
2011 Prius
Occupation
Energy Analyst
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.
Shoot, I guess I've just been oblivious to the increase in volcanic activity in the last century that sent CO2 concentrations up like a hockey stick. Probably all the volcanic fumes I've been inhaling!

Besides, "volcanoes!" and "natural!" arguments for climate denialism are so passé. Even the WSJ editorial page has moved on from "well it's real but we're not causing it" (from an original "it's not happening!") to "well, we're causing it but we shouldn't do anything about it, renewables [somehow] don't reduce emissions and [something something Al Gore]." Even denier extraordinaire Holman Jenkins is suggesting [in bad faith] a carbon tax. A carbon tax!

Co2-levels-800k.jpg
 

SJ R1S

New Member
First Name
Manuel
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
10
Location
San Jose, CA
First Name
Manuel
Vehicles
Ford Flex/Subaru Outback
FWIW, Rivian's response to the proposal is below (per a Bloomberg Tax article):

Rivian, the electric-truck maker backed by Amazon.com Inc., said the expansion of the tax credit is a “step in the right direction” but that the proposal “risks confusing” potential buyers.

“Rivian supports a straightforward expansion without artificial limits to encourage EV adoption to as many households as possible,” the Irvine, California-based startup, whose electric pickup truck isn’t yet available for sale, said in a statement on Sunday.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/produc...003?bwid=0000017b-dbbe-d34b-a5fb-ffff98d00003

It's a pretty generic response, but I'm sure Rivian is doing what they can to influence the outcome.
 

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
No, it's not even in the same city as fraudulent, let alone near the goal line. Indeed, it's arguably exactly the type of behavior Congress would hope to see: Companies selling cheaper EVs, so adoption is increased.
I completely disagree, there is a huge difference in

1) Selling cheaper EVs as I referenced with the shorter range models coming soon, which is what would be a legitimate transaction.

2) Opposed to manipulating the price of the base product and over-inflating some options to make the vehicle appear cheaper when you cannot purchase the cheaper model without those inflated options.

IMO, number 1 is legitimate, number 2 is fraudulent or so close to the line as it is impossible to differentiate.
 

Autolycus

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
425
Reaction score
651
Location
ATL
Vehicles
ICE only :(
I completely disagree, there is a huge difference in

1) Selling cheaper EVs as I referenced with the shorter range models coming soon, which is what would be a legitimate transaction.

2) Opposed to manipulating the price of the base product and over-inflating some options to make the vehicle appear cheaper when you cannot purchase the cheaper model without those inflated options.

IMO, number 1 is legitimate, number 2 is fraudulent or so close to the line as it is impossible to differentiate.
"Fraudulent" means criminal. It is not even remotely criminal for a company to change product pricing based on external factors unless those factors are otherwise criminal -- unlawful collusion, etc.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
2,514
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
The proposed bill is way too complex and confusing to both the consumer and manufacturer.
Does the Model 3 qualify as US made? With US components? Is it by model/trim or by the specific vehicle you buy? With the LFP MIC SR+ on sale in the US, how is that addressed?
If VW makes some ID.4s in the US, some with US made batteries some of the time, how is the rebate calculated? How can the consumer tell if/how much of an incentive the vehicle they are looking at qualifies for?

While the POS rebate would be nice, it likely won't be effective - and there is no practical way to combine that with an income cap. Dealers flat out won't go to the trouble of participating - even without having to do a bunch of income verification - and will just tell the consumer to file themselves. There is little to nothing in for them (in theory they can sell more EVs, but they don't see it that way). Oregon's POS rebate only has a small fraction of dealers participating (Tesla does not as one example).

The refueling infrastructure portion is just as much of a mess. Instead of making money available to accelerate projects, it will only add to the expense. Requiring companies to track and document prevailing wages for all mechanics and laborers (including those employed by subcontractors) at each install and prove that their workers are at or above that level, plus a formula for minimum apprentice to journeyworker ratios that increases over time?

I like the intent of incentives for used EVs, but the implementation and tracking of that is going to be a nightmare and could easily cost many, many times the amount actually distributed to consumers.

Hoping that at least some common sense prevails, but chances are whatever passes will have some serious issues (as does the current incentive program)
 

dleewla

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
87
Reaction score
94
Location
WA
First Name
David
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander, Honda Accord
Occupation
Technical Program Manager
This is more political BS and lobbyist influence. They are clearly targeting Tesla, Rivian and basically any new player that is not an OEM. I know the R1T starts at $67K so technically you can get the $7500 but thats the base model and if you change colors and wheel size you can kiss that incentive goodbye. They are trying to force the new guys to lower prices and/or unionize. Its all to give the OEMs an advantage as they are behind in EVs.
 

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
I've written to my congressperson.
same definitely encourage people to do that. The price cap is just stupid. If you don't want wealthy people getting a tax break, then have the yearly income limit that's already in there.
 
Last edited:

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 thought it was 7,500 for US assembly + 500 for US battery? So 8k on an 80k vehicle is 10%; I've yet to meet an accountant who scoffs at that %. I priced out the 22 Bronco 4D (w 6 cyl engine, I don't believe a 1.5L 3 cyl can get me up Floyd Hill) and it's like 55k. So a stock Rivian at R1S at 70K minus incentives ( 7,500 fed + 500 US battery + 2,500 in CO incentives) is less than 5K. This will pay for itself in gas savings in about 5 years. If you add in the charger and installation (more CO incentives) and it's about 5.5 years. I'm not going to get the Bronco, but for those of you scoffing at this incentive this will make a difference for people making over 70k but under 150k.

I've been keeping my 05 Liberty CRD on biodiesel for most of the past 15 years because 1. I get the science (unlike some people here, WTAF) and 2. I need the clearance for big snow (it's lifted). I"m not going to buy a retrofitted Volvo or some shit because I have no confidence they have thought through how the batteries react in -10 degree weather (and have what, like 190 miles range? so maybe down to 145 in cold, which definitely is not a trip to the mountains and back).

I've been saving up for this. So that 10% does matter. And since I put down 1000 already *and they since changed the configurator to make a 2k adjustment on the off-road package* they could easily give me some shitty steel wheels and tires for 1000 off. (BTW, is anyone else surprised Rivian has not discussed winches?) That would do it, and would be perfectly not fraudulent. For the 8k I saved, I could buy new tires and wheels and skidplates and towhooks for maybe 4k.

But that is wasteful, and part of what makes this thought exercise infuriating. The other part that is infuriating is that Rich People Still Game the Tax Code; this futile little cap won't change that.

I get that Rivian is making quality products that will stand on their own if given the chance. This proposal 1. puts the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla, who benefitted from the program and 2. puts Rivian at a competitive disadvantage relative to the Big3 who are Unionized (which I support) and haven't priced 1k over the line. Frankly, the 69k (vs 70k or 75k for pickups) seems to target them specifically.

It's just optics and performative BS and I've had enough of that the last 5 years.


BTW, I couldn't get past the Bloomberg paywall (he's not a billionaire for nothing)
 

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
533
Reaction score
699
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
As Elon said, this was written by the UAW/Ford, the same people who killed the plant that Tesla now uses.
Note that the Nummi plant (That Tesla now owns) was a GM Toyota Joint venture. Ford had nothing to do with it.
 

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
Note that the Nummi plant (That Tesla now owns) was a GM Toyota Joint venture. Ford had nothing to do with it.
My bad, you are correct. Got my wires crossed from the comment about UAW/Ford writing the language, and how Freemont was the failed Toyota/GM plant project that was supposed to teach GM how to make cares the Toyota way, and then toyota jumped off to states that would let them build factories without unions.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
2,514
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
I thought it was 7,500 for US assembly + 500 for US battery? So 8k on an 80k vehicle is 10%; I've yet to meet an accountant who scoffs at that %. I priced out the 22 Bronco 4D (w 6 cyl engine, I don't believe a 1.5L 3 cyl can get me up Floyd Hill) and it's like 55k. So a stock Rivian at R1S at 70K minus incentives ( 7,500 fed + 500 US battery + 2,500 in CO incentives) is less than 5K. This will pay for itself in gas savings in about 5 years. If you add in the charger and installation (more CO incentives) and it's about 5.5 years. I'm not going to get the Bronco, but for those of you scoffing at this incentive this will make a difference for people making over 70k but under 150k.

I've been keeping my 05 Liberty CRD on biodiesel for most of the past 15 years because 1. I get the science (unlike some people here, WTAF) and 2. I need the clearance for big snow (it's lifted). I"m not going to buy a retrofitted Volvo or some shit because I have no confidence they have thought through how the batteries react in -10 degree weather (and have what, like 190 miles range? so maybe down to 145 in cold, which definitely is not a trip to the mountains and back).

I've been saving up for this. So that 10% does matter. And since I put down 1000 already *and they since changed the configurator to make a 2k adjustment on the off-road package* they could easily give me some shitty steel wheels and tires for 1000 off. (BTW, is anyone else surprised Rivian has not discussed winches?) That would do it, and would be perfectly not fraudulent. For the 8k I saved, I could buy new tires and wheels and skidplates and towhooks for maybe 4k.

But that is wasteful, and part of what makes this thought exercise infuriating. The other part that is infuriating is that Rich People Still Game the Tax Code; this futile little cap won't change that.

I get that Rivian is making quality products that will stand on their own if given the chance. This proposal 1. puts the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to Tesla, who benefitted from the program and 2. puts Rivian at a competitive disadvantage relative to the Big3 who are Unionized (which I support) and haven't priced 1k over the line. Frankly, the 69k (vs 70k or 75k for pickups) seems to target them specifically.

It's just optics and performative BS and I've had enough of that the last 5 years.


BTW, I couldn't get past the Bloomberg paywall (he's not a billionaire for nothing)
It's actually $4,000 Base + $3,500 for Battery Capacity (>40 kWh). Does not qualify for the $4,500 for Domestic Assembly (non Union shop), nor for the $500 Domestic Content (requires US made battery cells).

MSRP is not sufficiently defined to judge what would or would not be included.

This is good example of how confusing this legislation is to the consumer.
Most would assume that a Rivian or Tesla made in the US, by US workers, would qualify for "Domestic Assembly"
 

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
Most would assume that a Rivian or Tesla made in the US, by US workers, would qualify for "Domestic Assembly"
Even worse 'domestic assembly' is not the same so all the parts can be made outside the us, shipped assembled and dropped together by low skilled union labor and ta-da they get the handout yet bypass all the real benefits of 'manufactured' in the US.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
2,514
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
Even worse 'domestic assembly' is not the same so all the parts can be made outside the us, shipped assembled and dropped together by low skilled union labor and ta-da they get the handout yet bypass all the real benefits of 'manufactured' in the US.
It appears that setting up a seperate building (or tent) and employing union workers to bolt on the wheels (or steering wheel, or brake pedal, etc.) would qualify a vehicle for the $4,500.

1631653906216.png


1631653851741.png
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top