Senate Finance Committee Approves $12,500 EV Tax Credit Bill

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee advanced the Clean Energy for America Act making a few tweaks from earlier proposals. Changes include raising the federal EV tax rebate ceiling to $12,500 and opening the door for automakers who already exhausted their production quotas.

It’s good news for General Motors, which recently begged the government for just such a handout. But any manufacturer participating in the sale of electric vehicles will find themselves similarly blessed by the updated rules — assuming they make it through the halls of Capitol Hill with the necessary support.

Let’s take a peek behind the curtain to see what the updated proposal entails.

While the $7,500 tax credit persists, the bill now adds special exemptions depending on how the vehicle is manufactured For example, the government will tack on another $2,500 if final assembly takes place inside the United States and another $2,500 if the factory in question happens to be represented by a union. While the latter inclusion seems concerningly political, there doesn’t appear to be any language stipulating whether not it matters if unionized plants have to be located in the country for the vehicle to be eligible.

It’s also probably one of the biggest reasons why the committee advanced the legislation on a tie split evenly (14-14) along party allegiances. But the rules say the bill only gets the kibosh if it loses the vote, so the deadlock still means it can be sent all the way to the Senate. But some of the particulars might make its pathway there incredibly difficult.

Perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible aspect of the proposal involves ending any caps on vehicle production. Early incarnations of the EV tax credit were intended only to get the ball rolling on alternative energy vehicles, so they would gain public acceptance. But the Clean Energy for America Act will continue issuing credits until electric vehicles become over half of a company’s annual sales. Even then, there will be a phase-out period where rebates would be scaled back over two years — similar to how things work under the current rules.

This is an insane amount of money for any government to effectively hand over to automotive manufacturers with no definitive end date. We have no real way of knowing when EVs will supplant the internal combustion engine as the dominant powertrain. These subsidies could last for decades, extending well beyond the point where electrically driven cars reach financial parity with ICEs. They also won’t be linked to the Biden infrastructure plan, which is striving to create $100 billion in additional rebates for electric cars.

Let’s not forget all this money is supposed to be coming from America’s tax base and there’s literally no way to even begin estimating what the total cost will be.

The Clean Energy for America Act basically throws any notion of there being a free auto market out the window. It incentives the building and purchase of EVs to such a degree that there would be little reason to continue pursuing gasoline or diesel development. Even they were suddenly proven to be better for the environment or consumers than plug-ins, the payout for running with EVs would still be far too big to ignore. I believe the correct term for this is a “planned economy,” as it technically shapes/restrains existing consumer demand in favor of greater capital investments for economic development in a manner that suits government goals.

In fact, the only aspect of the proposal that seems to exercise any financial restraint is the MSRP eligibility limit of $80,000. This is designed to prohibit wealthy individuals from taking advantage of the federal tax credits. However, most high-end electrics currently on the market already come in below the cutoff — including the Porsche Taycan and Tesla Model S.

[Image: Nmorguelan/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 154 comments
  • Old_WRX Old_WRX on May 30, 2021

    slavuta, Please don't tell me they bought Joey B's money printing press.

  • NoSocialism NoSocialism on Jun 08, 2021

    Electric cars, especially Tesla vehicles are definitely superior to Gas powered cars. There's a reason why Tesla sales have been DOUBLING every single year for the past 10 years. I can easily see Tesla going from 500K sales last year to over a Million sales this year WITH OR WITHOUT this incentive. As for reaching parity, there's already parity when the Tesla Model 3 costs less to own over 5 years than a Toyota Camry. Why? No need to worry about Gas every day, Oil Changes every 3 months, Brakes every year and so on and so forth. This rebate is unnecessary and it's unlikely that Tesla will be able to more than double annual sales. What they really should do is end subsidies to Oil companies and refineries. End subsidies for Ethanol and other fuel additives.

  • Fred No idea why someone would interested in buying this at the price point. I'm pro-ev but a quick search can pull-up a lot more value at lower costs. I like the Fiat design but I couldn't stomach paying $37k for limited range and a super tight back seat.
  • 28-Cars-Later For the you-gotta-be-rich-to-afford-a-cheap-car crowd, Versa is the winner here IMO. Buy it new and pay the $300ish (?) note, but enjoy at least five years with relative reliability assuming historical average miles. Based on MY19, Manheim expects the "S" to be worth $5,975 in roughly five years with "retail" value being $12,650. Nissan and other second or third tier marques will give more on a new trade so assuming 20 OTD with incentives its a 12K/$2,400 depreciation over 5 years excluding interest and it probably could be kept another year or two before the Nissan in it starts to show. Mirage in this comparison is the new buy used on the cheap and run it till the wheels fall off. I'm loathe to compare it to either the Panther or 240 (since I don't believe it could physically last as long as either) but something in the vein of car you could repair yourself on the cheap which was originally intended for Third World conditions. Based on MY19, the ES hatch is worth $4K even with avg miles of 72,740 and "retail" value at $9,650. I personally see it as lot poison and could see savvy buyers making off with one of these near or below wholesale while Nissan is a staple of the subprime crowd and is much easier to finance. MC beings up an interesting contender in the used Chevy Bolt, whose wholesale is $12,050 for MY19 in LT trim with avg lower miles of 33,017. While this is very intriguing, financing is going to be the story here since Nissan or I imagine Mitsubishi could put buyers into half decent rates despite poor credit where a Bolt is "going to the street" and getting whatever high rate is being offered now. Assuming one can handle their own charging, Bolt does offer a lower maintenance cost and used I believe buyers have a higher chance of a white collar professional's commuter condition than what they will find in a used Nissan or Mitsu runabout. The risk to our theoretical buyer IMO is that the Bolt will straight up fail at some point in the future, either not take a charge or even turn on and for the higher wholesale entry point I say the Mitsu is a better choice since it likely won't completely fail and can very cheaply be replaced. Additional: For your kid/nephew/niece/any "middle class" child, I think Bolt is probably the better proposition here but I'd be out of the trade in 36 mos personally. For those truly on their own with no emergency support system, I'd shy away.
  • Jbltg It's interesting to note that in the Japan domestic market, where cars are built to order and dealers maintain barely any stock, that there are many, many color options. Really good ones, but no one seems to bite. Most of the cars on the road there are the same boring colors that we have. Go figure.My pet peeve is black interiors. Too depressing, and shows every speck of dust and dirt.
  • IBx1 Dealerships flood the market with grayscale cars to commodify them and drive down resale value. Green and yellow cars hold their value best because they cannot easily be replaced, but you can throw a rock and hit fifty shades of gray.
  • SCE to AUX Appliances (household and vehicular) have limited color choices, that's why.But today, if you want a crazy color, just buy a plain one and get it wrapped.
Next