Plug-In Hybrids Could Get $10,000 Tax Credit

Last year, legislators passed new rules about plug-in hybrids and their tax credits. Vehicles like the upcoming Chevy Volt would qualify for the maximum credit of $7,500. However, as part of the stimulus bill being considered in Washington, that amount would jump to $10,000. That means if the Volt cost $40,000, the price after rebate would be $30,000, putting it pretty close to the price of a well-equipped Toyota Prius.

The cap for this credit would also be raised from 250,000 vehicles sold to 500,000. Meaning if you bought the 500,001st plug-in hybrid, you would not get a credit.

The other change in the legislation is that larger plug-in electric vehicles meant for commercial uses, like delivery trucks, would get larger credits of $12,500 and $15,000, depending on their size. That should be a good incentive for companies to buy new plug-in vehicles, if they existed. Currently, there are no such plug-in commercial vehicles planned.

Senate Finance Committee Markup Proposes Doubling PHEVs Eligible for Tax Credits to 500,000 Units (Green Car Congress)

Comments

I'm glad I found out in the first two weeks the lack of leadership that President Obama and my fellow Dems brings to the table. They talk a lot about change but when it comes down to it they do not lead by example but instead put a cap on the # of plug-in's available for the rebate. Typical politician talk. On top of that it's already obvious that there's the typical amount of pork in the proposed stimulus bill as in past administrations. Sadly this time around we control our own destination as we don't require the Cons votes, unfortunately we'll prove we offer no more change than any other party.

Gavin,
You realize they're doubling the cap of those cars, meaning MORE cars will be eligible for the rebate right? From 250K to 500K.

There was a cap on the original hybrid car credit as well. Nothing new here except the expansion of the amount of $ and number of cars.

these credits are good but they arent going to do much to help automakers develop the plug ins that will qualify for these rebates. Only a handful of plug ins have been announced so far and none will be high volume cars, especially if they are pricey. There may be more available tax rebate money than people who actually have the ability to cash in. Our reps in DC really think this whole "green car" thing is going to be easy as long as you dangle a few credits out there but thats not going to be the case.

I voted for BHO thinking things in D.C. would be different. It does not look like that's going to be the case as my party has all of the power yet they choose to stick with the status quo by having caps in place. Where's the real change we were promised?

I think the caps are to limit damage to the Treasury. Honestly, unlimited rebates is too much to expect. The thinking here is that you offer these rebates to encourage early adopters to get these cars and help drive down the cost for the manufacturers to the point where they can sell them at competitive prices once the rebate expires.

I'm amused thinking of just how brainless both the Obama administration and the public is about EV tac credits. At $10,000, it would require $5 billion (thta's right, BILLION) dollars to put 500,000 Evs on the road. And what would be the effect, a small matter that the media is avoiding like the plague. Figure it out yourselves - the country owns 264 million cars, and they use about 40% of oil.
Eliminating 500,000 gas burners from the road would result in a drop in demand of 1/12th of one percent, assuming that the fleet doesn't expan any during the 5 years needed to get 500,000 electric on the road. In other words, there will be no noticebale effect Like everything else Obama has spouted - it's all
BS : the wars still goes on in Iraq and now Obama is expanding by double the war in Afghanistan and he's hiring tax cheats to run the IRS, liars and unethical clods to run Justice, the walking conflict of interest to run State. Oh, yeah, this is really change you can believe in. Obama's a turd. Time for impeachment.

He has been in office for like a week, right; or did I fall asleep for a year?

Broq

The more I dig into the stimulus package the more I realize I made a mistake believing that BHO was going to be a game changer. If anything I'm now wondering if he's getting schooled by his (and mine) very own party. There is no way this package is going to create 4m new jobs by end of 2010. I'm beginning to think that he does in fact lack the experience required to run the country.

If our whole fleet of cars were hybrids and plug-in hybrids we could likely kick the imported oil habit completely. We still produce 40 percent of the oil we use from domestic sources. Bring on the incentives, NOW.

hybrit,

everything I have read indicates our electrical grid is not ready for millions of plug in hybrids right now. On top of that there are many problems related to owning a plug in if you live in an urban area or apt complex. Not everyone parks their car in a garage every night. I surely dont. Plug ins are part of the solution and they will work for certain people, but not everyone.

Why do you think the President runs the country.

Obama did not put together the plan. The congress did. Made up of all those experienced congressmen/women who have been putting pork into bills since 1776.

The senate will have the ability to fix the problems.

But remember the first bail out. The senate added pork to try and get house members to vote for it.

The only thing Obama can do is to veto the bill when it gets to his desk and send it back to congress.

Then we'll see if they can get 2/3 majority to override the veto or they will rework it.

This is why we need the line item veto, so a President can take an otherwise good bill and remove items like $200M for re-sodding the mall and $150M to the Smithsonian and $450M to global warming. This bill should be about jobs, it has been turned into a cash cow for the Dem's pet projects, some worthy, some not, but they should not be part of an economic stimulus bill.

ralphie
"The President shall have veto power" There is nothing in there about line items one way or another. He should just do it. Veto the pork parts of the package and we'll see how it shakes out.

" Better to ask for forgiveness than permission"

Ty,

Go back and read what I wrote.

"The only thing Obama can do is to veto the bill when it gets to his desk and send it back to congress."

AND

"This is why we need the line item veto"

I didn't say the President has line item veto power, I said that's why the President NEEDS line item veto power.

Original Sheth,
I've never read such an article. In fact, EVERYTHING I've read says there's adequate generation capacity in the US at present to power millions of plug-in cars. Before anyone brings up environmental concerns about shifting emissions from tailpipes to power plants, research shows that even if all the electricity used to charge a plug-in, full electric car comes from coal plants, per mile air emissions are still 21 percent lower when compared with an internal combustion engine vehicle. And the electricity used to charge those cars would cost the equivalent of $.70 per gallon gasoline.

hybrit,

different experts may be saying different things but I just read something the other day on the Detroit News site about the challenges related to electric cars. That said, the issues I mentioned about urban dwellers are very significant and will discourage many people from purchasing an electric car. The other issue is that other than GM few manufacturers are working on extended range hybrids which means that most of the vehicles being proposed will not work for road trips or extremely long commutes.

Original Sheth,
Of course a Detroit-based news outlet will question electric cars. You point out valid challenges to charging a car in the urban environment. But those challenges are surmountable and pale in comparison to developing a reliable and compact traction battery for plug-in cars. My point is that a hybrid that gets 40 to 50 mpg will do a lot to reduce dependence on foreign oil - a plug-in would do much more and with just those two types of cars in our fleet we could kick imports of foreign oil. The average American drives 40 miles on an average day. On that day a person with a Chevy Volt would burn no gas. We could forget about oil supply disruptions in the middle east, which will happen eventually. The key is providing incentives to make hybrids and Plug-in hybrids and pure electrics ubiquitous. It's a matter of national security and environmental responsibility.

"Of course a Detroit-based news outlet will question electric cars. "

Wrong again. The column was written by someone in England. He also commented on how hybrids have not been successful in Europe because they have so many efficient diesels over there. I get that you are of the mindset that "Detroit" is anti progress and pro destruction of the environment but that doesnt mean any info coming out of a Detroit paper is to be dismissed. I get a lot of info from the Det. News because they have a lot of articles related to the auto industry.

" It's a matter of national security and environmental responsibility."

Maybe so but I urge you to be patient because electric cars are not going to be prevalent for a LONG time. I think you are talking at least 15-20 years before they are completely affordable and mainstream. Also, when you say "foreign" oil I wonder if you are talking about oil from Canada and Mexico. Not all oil that is imported comes from the Middle East. The US doesnt have enough oil for this country to be totally energy independent. Oil imports wont stop anytime soon.

The column was written by someone in England.
-So what, it is still from a Detroit-based news outlet like the guy said. Many times the detroit news has questioned the applicability of hybrids, other news like the LA times or what not has consistently touted the benefits. Read something that doesn't just support your point sometime, it will help you to be more rounded, you are just a block right now.

I get that you are of the mindset that "Detroit" is anti progress and pro destruction of the environment but that doesnt mean any info coming out of a Detroit paper is to be dismissed.
-Shet, Detroit is anti progress, they always have been, they make more money by producing vehicles that require little research. In a way it is in their best interest to keep things the same. Sorry, but that is capitalism. They are not going to invest in something unless they have to.

I think you are talking at least 15-20 years before they are completely affordable and mainstream.
-This is BS. You have no clue about this, you are just speculating. If automakers are forced to develop them, and given research grants and the like it will happen. And yeah it won't happen over night, but you have to start somewhere. The technology will advance and it will get cheaper as more and more use it.

Not all oil that is imported comes from the Middle East.
-Wow for once an accurate statement from you! But the problem with the Middle East is that it can affect the price of oil at such a direct level. And beyond that, it is not just imported oil that needs to be reduced it is all oil.

Belly,

many people have questioned the value of hybrids, including millions of car buyers. This is why hybrid sales were down 40+% in the 4th quarter of 2008. This is why Toyota has postponed plans to build the Prius here. This is why hybrids were less than 3% of vehicle sales last year. The Det news is not "anti hybrid" anymore than the general public. I dont make up these things, I am just reporting reality. Furthermore, I find it interestint that you are condemning a column that you have not read. How can you call the guy "biased" without reading his opinions?

"Sorry, but that is capitalism. They are not going to invest in something unless they have to. "

Companies invest to compete. They try to compete in order to make a profit. Same for all car companies. You say Detroit doesnt invest or compete and yet the new Fusion hybrid is rated at 41/36 and the regular Fusion is rated at a class leading 23/34. Care to explain? While you are at it you can explain why Chrysler, Ford and GM offer 6 speed autos in their midsize cars while Hyundai and Honda do not. You can then explain why the Escape comes standard with a 6 speed auto while the RAV4 and Forrester have 4 speed autos.

" If automakers are forced to develop them, and given research grants and the like it will happen. And yeah it won't happen over night, but you have to start somewhere. The technology will advance and it will get cheaper as more and more use it. "

13M vehicles were sold here last year. None were electric cars. The first consumer oriented electric cars wont go on sale until 2010 and production volumes for those vehicles will be quite low. It will take MANY years for electric cars to be mainstream for numerous reasons. One reason is that there wont be more than a handful of vehicle available for the foreseeable future. If you read what has been written by industry experts and auto execs you will see that the consensus is that we have a long way to go before electrics are mainstream. Cost and battery production capacity are two major issues.

pretty simple THE MOST ILLEGAL INVASION BY U.S.A WAS AFGHAN ONE!
ask real questions about the American Reich Stag
F.F.T.
False
Flag
Terror
do not parrot the FASCISTS in Washington, D.C.

ELECTRIC CARS GOOD BUT GO BEYOND FAITH -BASED PHYCSICS

Original Sheth,
You're wrong about no electric cars being sold in this country in 2008. Ever hear of the Tesla? How about Zenn or Global Electric Motorcars or a host of other companies selling electric cars, here and now. You like to spout off whether or not you have facts. Please don't look to Europe for our automotive future - their disastrous move into Diesel Cars is resulting in 9,000 deaths per year in the British Isles alone from fine particulate emissions released by diesel cars. That's a fact, based on a Scottish University study and backed up by medical professionals in England. The evidence is the damage done to the lungs and heart by these ultra small pieces of soot. You need to educate yourself on electricity generation and the reality of electricity being used for personal transportation. Instead of quoting articles by questionable sources, try learning something from the Electric Power Research Institute or Edison Electric Institute sites, both of which detail the bright future of the electric car.

OS,
You also need to brush up on your knowledge of the oil industry. The United States is the third largest producer of oil in the world, ranking behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's why we're paying under $2.00 per gallon right now. Back to my original point, if every car in the US was either a Hybrid, a plug-in hybrid or a pure electric car, there would be no need to import oil, based on our current domestic supplies and production.

Hybrit,

Actually I dont need to brush up on my oil production facts. The US has about 5% of the known oil in the world which is one reason why we import so much oil. We have more oil than many countries but nearly as much as the top producers in the world.

With a "normal" auto market being somewhere in the neighborhood of 15m-16m units per year it will take a few decades for electric cars to replace gas only cars. Also, most electricity generated in the US comes from coal. If I'm not mistaken the burning of coal pollutes the air. Europe is much more depending on nuclear energy. One reason the proposed federal stimulus package has money for the electrical grid is to upgrade that system to withstand electric cars and other such things. We cannot support tens of millions of plug in cars right now unless they are all charging at night when overall demand is down. Also, the voltage that is delivered to many homes is too weak to charge an electric car in a short amount of time. There are numerous issues that will slow the implementation of the electric car.

I dont really care about Tesla or any other low volume, super expensive electric vehicles for celebrities. They have no bearing on the overall auto market. We need affordable electric vehicles from major automakers with a nationwide presence.

According to NPR's "Science Friday" (back in November), the electrical grid has the capacity to charge millions of plug-in electric cars at night. In fact, they're proposing using the battery packs in electric cars as a peak power source--people would charge the cars at night, then plug them in during the day (at work), and the electric company would buy back the power stored in the car's battery to meet daytime electric demands. Obviously this would require bigger batteries.

But none of this electric-car stuff addresses the fundamental weakness of electric cars: where does the electricity ultimately come from? If, in fact, the grid has the capacity to charge millions of plug-in-electrics at night, the answer is coal (50%), oil/gas (20%), nuclear (20%) and renewables (10%). So if we actually put a million electric cars on the road, what we've really done is put a half-million coal-powered cars out there. With all the sulfur, mercury and carbon pollution associated with burning coal. The electric-car tax break turns out to be just a subsidy for moving pollution from one source to another. The good old political shell game, again...

Dan S:
Comparisons of air emissions show that electric cars emit substantially fewer air emissions per mile (21 percent less) than cars with internal combustion engines - even if all the electricity to charge them comes from coal buring plants. With our coal plants getting cleaner every day, the growth of renewable resources and the resurgence of nuclear, an electric fleet makes tremendous sense environmentally. Not only that, electricity is produced locally and is a steal compared to the cost of diesel or gasoline fuels. It's great that you make the connection about where electricity comes from - most people don't even think about it.

There is still no resurgence of nuclear power. While plants are on the waiting list for approval there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in the U.S. in decades.

Hybrit,

I dont know where you are getting you data about electric cars being 21% cleaner that gas only cars but I suspect that the mileage of the "average" car plays a part in the accuracy of that number. As cars get more efficient and cleaner that figure will change- assuming its even current. Dan is right, much of this is about transferring pollution. Cars are now a political target and no one cares about coal fired electric plants so its easy to tout the wonders of the electric car. Most Americans dont even realize how dependent we are on coal for electricity. Politicians have a habit of purusing contradictory goals. I hope Obama proves me wrong but thus far his energy policies seem to fit the classic mold of contradiction. Its hard to be pro-environemnt and clean air but anti gas tax. its hard to be anti emissions but pro electric cars unless you are also pro nuclear power. So Obama (and many others) want to reduce emissions without changing the price of gas or building nuclear power plants. I'm not sure how that makes much sense.