He was desperate for a win, they had one before until Manchin stopped it good. The old one was much nicer.
You are implying that Schumer wanted this bill, he didn’t , but he wanted a win so bad that he was willing to accept this bill.
Desperation isn’t a good look. Oh well, onto the next rake to step on.
I believe the credit is split between battery minerals and components and the percentage is phased. I think some batteries already qualify as they are sourcing from Korea, a Free Trade country… it’s all the Chinese sourced batteries that are an issue.
As of right now, nothing qualifies since guidance defining how they determine the sourcing requirements is still pending.
2 Likes
Here is another biggy people gloss over in the new legislation.
EV’s sold in US starting 2024 may not contain any battery components that were manufactured or assembled by a foreign entity of concern.
Foreign entity of concern = China (and some other countries)
So in theory a battery pack could be made in US, meet all mineral sourcing and component % minimums. But if one single component in the pack is from China it will not get any EV tax credit.
2 Likes
Nobody is thinking that far ahead if we’re honest (they need a flow chart for 2022, and 2023 is at the Secretary’s mercy). But we’ve been at least contemplating this since before the IRA:
China isn’t a target simply because it’s China, but because most of the minerals used in EV batteries are imported to China and processed with forced labor. It’s one of the few bipartisan issues of this entire Congressional session. CATL announced in August that they were opening a battery plant there, though if CATL is on the UFLPA list it doesn’t matter how many plants they open around the world.
There could be any number of long term consequences. Not all of announced battery plants will actually open, forget on-time, or yield what they are expected to. I expect at least one to get stuck with an injunction or closed before it reaches capacity (save time and just build them on existing superfund sites).
We could very well see the timeline relaxed, it’s all speculation at this point
I didn’t read deep enough but you know how everyone started doing “binding contract agreements” prior to 8/16 to beat some of the new restrictions/requirements, can the same be done prior to 1/1/23 to get around the income, MSRP, and battery requirements?
Like for people who have orders for a 2023 Mach-E but it arrives in January… can they still get the 2022 Fed credit without the income cap?
No. Pre 8/16 only.
2 Likes
I can’t believe there is no request for comments on the transition rule.
That aside, the request for comments highlights something I hadn’t noticed before. Qualification is by “value.” If the regulations were to permit it, every manufacturer could qualify for the minerals and battery minimums by overpaying for trade partner/North American components (e.g., 99% Chinese parts, 1% qualifying part that costs at least two-thirds the price of the rest of the parts).
Since every manufacturer wants trade partner/North American components, it wouldn’t even really be a stretch to say supply and demand justify exorbitant prices for the qualifying components.
1 Like
I see there is request for clarify on the definition of “foreign entity of concern”.
Documentation of countries of concern(I am sure there is a more recent list):
" The most recent Countries of Particular Concern designations were made by the Secretary of State on November 15, 2021:
Burma, People’s Republic of China, Eritrea, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan."
You’re assuming that they care what we have to say about it.
1 Like
don’t know if this was asked yet, but will the new 2023 Mini Cooper SE qualify for the full rebate?
There are 0 vehicles that are definitively known to qualify for any rebate as of yet.
I believe they are assembled in England, so they will not qualify.
1 Like
Mine was from Oxford, so the NA requirements surely cannot be met.
2 Likes
Not if you bought after 8/16 and didn’t have a written binding agreement before then or a large deposit. No EV tax credit for you since the car is assembled in Oxford, UK. Now some folks had to put down a $2K deposit at order time like I did and that is big enough to trigger the 5% deposit example from the IRS.
Mine was delivered back in June before the IRA mess so I will be claiming it on my 2022 taxes.
1 Like
There is nothing about the 5% generalization itself that is necessarily binding. It all comes down to what your state considers a binding purchase agreement. That may require a large deposit, it may not. A large deposit may make no difference, etc.
In New Jersey, for example, a Court ruled that if an agreement did not include a VIN and miles on the car, it was not a binding agreement.
3 Likes
The old BBB bill was a debt printing machine. Without many restrictions they would be giving 400K EV tax credits to new Tesla owners every year. That’s $3B into Lord Elon’s pockets every year.
This new bill narrows the number of Teslas applicable and also severely limits the income eligibility. It also deletes the union bonus and is also very “pro Made in the US”
1 Like
The last one said, must be built by unions, which Tesla was not