It's started

peakbagger said:

I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.

Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see how vested & powerful the EV "lobby" is... this might be one of those illuminating moments.
Alas, it might be sacrificed since the GOP's starting with so many cuts (including state & local income tax deduction, a big one for the higher-taxing states). Elon Musk reportedly told Trump he's "in favor" of cutting the EV tax credit so long as oil interests' subsidies are similarly eliminated. I know the latter won't happen anytime soon.
edit: the Elon Musk part I can't find actual references, not sure where I heard it now.

Or make a rush for 2017 purchases. I am thinking of getting a 2017 Bolt now. The more I look at it, the more I like it.

Compliance cars be damned.

Still a lot of Republican Reps in high tax blue states. I think they will balk at voting for a bill that directly hurts their voters. Would be poetic justice though. But I totally expect this tax bill to take renewables out to the fiscal woodshed. It is only delaying the inevitable - by 4 or 8 years?

peakbagger said:

I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.

Click to expand...

Certainly would have given me pause... the feds had a 7500 credit and the state 2500 on my chevy volt. Made ~$30k car into a ~$20k car


Yet with ev costs lowering.. perhaps support is not needed

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/...ar-future?mc_cid=0a54d4db2f&mc_eid=43ddca35db


By 2025 or even sooner, it’s possible that electric drivetrains will have no cost disadvantage compared with internal combustion engines, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an energy research group.

georgepds said:

Certainly would have given me pause... the feds had a 7500 credit and the state 2500 on my chevy volt. Made ~$30k car into a ~$20k car

Click to expand...

As one of the many in the highest federal tax bracket, you are welcome. Now, who’s going to chip in for my recent pickup truck purchase?

The car I’m shopping now sports an extra $4700 gas guzzler tax, and I’m not even against the concept. Pay to play, coerce the masses in the general direction you want them to move. All good stuff, but the amount seems a little little over the top, when I’m already paying higher sales tax, income tax, and more taxes at the pump, while also chipping in on the purchase of your car.

Ashful said:

As one of the many in the highest federal tax bracket, you are welcome. Now, who’s going to chip in for my recent pickup truck purchase?

The car I’m shopping now sports an extra $4700 gas guzzler tax, and I’m not even against the concept. Pay to play, coerce the masses in the general direction you want them to move. All good stuff, but the amount seems a little little over the top, when I’m already paying higher sales tax, income tax, and more taxes at the pump, while also chipping in on the purchase of your car.

Click to expand...

What can I say... thank you


Hope , at least, you breathe a little better.... when electric its power ed by the panels on the roof, which you helped pay for by the federal credit

Thank you again, now take a deep breath of all that clean air..

It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place. The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out. I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.

Ashful said:

It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place. The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out. I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.

Click to expand...

My guess it will be congestion based....first a hefty fee to bring ICEs into large cities, then a ban....while still being aok in the burbs and beyond.

woodgeek said:

My guess it will be congestion based....first a hefty fee to bring ICEs into large cities, then a ban....while still being aok in the burbs and beyond.

Click to expand...

Something like that is already going on in Paris

Get your sticker here

"A sticker called 'Crit'Air' is mandatory for all vehicles if they want to enter a French 'emergency low emission zone' (ZPA) (in cases of high pollution events) or a French 'low emission zone' (ZRC)"

http://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/france/paris

"Instead, the city's authorities have introduced a low-emission zone, banning lorries on weekdays.

Nine new routes are about to be barred to traffic on Sundays and public holidays, bringing to 22 the number of permanent and temporary road closures."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36169815

A little bit off-topic but oil related.

Any body else following the political events in Saudi Arabia? And the looming stand-off between Saudi Arabia and Israel vs Iran, Qatar and Syria? All I am saying is things are getting hot there. A regional war would send oil prices soaring. And the new crown prince in Saudi Arabia looks like a halfwit who could easily stumble into a big conflict.

Already stumbled into a minor one in Yemen

Though he doesn't look like a halfwit to me, more like the apotheosis of ruthless ambition

In the back of my mind I keep thinking of the movie Syriana....

Oil sits at around $57. I know I am going to sound paranoid, but I think the goal of any conflict would be to disrupt Iranian oil flow to market so global prices can keep going higher. Saudis win, shale producers win, and Iran loses.

It kind of is a Catch 22 for oil producers who want higher prices for their product but higher gasoline prices make EVs more attractive to consumers.

vinny11950 said:

It kind of is a Catch 22 for oil producers who want higher prices for their product but higher gasoline prices make EVs more attractive to consumers.

Click to expand...

Classic problem, as old as man. Higher prices can be demanded when there is no competition, or competing technology. What’s more interesting and less predictable is how emotion built up, over frustration with prior behavior (high prices) will carry momentum, such that the market is lost even after correcting said prior behavior.

Once folks make up their mind that the old way is too expensive, it’s hard to bring them back.

Ashful said:

It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place. The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out. I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.

Click to expand...

I also hope the transition is allowed to occur more or less on its own. Noise would be a particularly poor reason to regulate ICE's. If noise is a criteria, the regulation should be based on a noise level, not a technology. Even then, it shouldn't make much difference. Generally above somewhere around 30 MPH, road and aerodynamic noise are more significant than engine noise, so the electric cars don't have much advantage.

In fact, the NHTSA has been looking at EV safety around pedestrians and created a standard last year requiring minimum sound levels as an cue to alert pedestrians to their presence. The required sound levels increase with vehicle speed to increase the audible distance, and the pitch changes to help provide a sense of acceleration or deceleration. They found that they don't even need to regulate the noise level above 20 MPH, because EV's all naturally reach the 66 dBa required at that speed.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/senate-gop-tax-bill-preserves-wind-ptc-ev-tax-credits/510556/

"The Senate bill, released by leadership of the Finance Committee, would preserve the current $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles as well as a 2.3¢/kWh production tax credit for wind energy slated to sunset in 2020. The House bill would reduce the PTC to 1.5¢/kWh and eliminate the EV tax credit

georgepds said:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/senate-gop-tax-bill-preserves-wind-ptc-ev-tax-credits/510556/

"The Senate bill, released by leadership of the Finance Committee, would preserve the current $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles as well as a 2.3¢/kWh production tax credit for wind energy slated to sunset in 2020. The House bill would reduce the PTC to 1.5¢/kWh and eliminate the EV tax credit

Click to expand...

I read that too. This tax bill is going to be a mess. Reconciling the House and Senate versions, limited amount of hearings, if any, and small margins to pass this through is going to be tough, which should give Democrats leverage on these issues. As your linked article points to Senator Thune is on board for wind and so is Chuck Grassley, another powerful Republican Senator.

Not entirely electric, but it's in the mix


https://www.ajot.com/news/northeast...ansportat?mc_cid=dec9f548b5&mc_eid=43ddca35db

BOSTON AND BONN - Leading environmental, health, scientific and business organizations today applauded the announcement by seven states and Washington, D.C. of plans to develop a regional policy to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector.


http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017...nitiative?mc_cid=dec9f548b5&mc_eid=43ddca35db


"Following a statewide climate change and transportation listening tour, we are proud to join with other Northeastern states in a region-wide conversation about how we can further combat climate change and build the transportation system of tomorrow," Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton said in a statement.

With the joint statement, the TCI included a link to a 2015 Georgetown Climate Center report that concluded that "clean transportation policies" could cut greenhouse gas emissions between 29 to 40 percent in the TCI region by 2030 and deliver $72.5 billion in savings over 15 years for businesses and consumers, along with tens of thousands of new jobs and improvements in public health.

Other than VT and DE, those states are already in CARB....and driving the EV transition.

Update: I am doing an 'extended test drive' of a 2017 Bolt EV, to replace my geriatric 2013 LEAF.

Looks like if I overpressure the tires a little, I will get ~275 miles on back roads, and 225 miles on the HW at 70 mph. More than the entry level Model S. And twice the horses as the old LEAF. 0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

And it can be had nicely equipped for about $30k after rebate, less than a new Camry with a V6.

Its definitely started.

Geriatric 2013!

That's what I noticed too.. the last car I kept to 230k, the one before that to 275k

Anything less than a decade old still has that new car smell to me

OK....perhaps not the best word choice.

We've been driving the 2013 LEAF since 2014. Its got 31k miles on it, doing 10k/year as my wife's commuter and WE errand car. KBB says it is worth $6.7k at trade-in.

It needs an interior detailing and has a few exterior scratches, but otherwise is 'good as new'. Battery degradation is not obvious...probably between 5-10% or so. Above freezing temp range is still 85 miles, versus 90-95 when new. Still works for our use case 4 seasons without range anxiety.

It geriatric in the sense of being old tech....like your 3 yo smart phone that works fine, but is just OLD.

Another possible use case is family trips to NYC, which we do 10X a year, only 200 miles round trip. In 3.5 years, we have only taken the LEAF to NYC 4-5 times. This requires 3 20-30 minute DCFC stops. Either we did it for fun, or b/c part of the family wanted to leave/return on a different day (usual family schedule thing). But the 3 stops is enough of a hassle that we don't use the car for that routinely.

In the end, the low-range EV was an awesome, fun, functional second car as a commuter. But it is a compromise. When my wife needs more range in her day (b/c of a rare doctor visit in the opposite direction from her work, etc), we swap cars so she has the ICE. This might occur 3-4x a year? So the LEAF is a 98% of weekdays driver.

The LEAF was an 'experiment' and a successful one and the car was CHEEP in TCO sense for the comfort/fun/new factor.

We are returning it b/c the lease is up. We got a discounted lease extension to reach the 2018 LEAF, but the Bolt is a much more compelling vehicle, at about a 20% higher price point.

I expect the Bolt will be 'like a real car' in terms of being a 100% weekday driver AND get us a nice ride to NYC. Bolt range at 70 mph should be ~220 miles in warm weather (no stops), and 160 miles in freezing weather (so one 20 minute DCFC stop...no problem). If we hit light traffic (a common occurrence) the range will be higher.

begreen said:

GM says they will be putting self-driving Bolts on the road in major cities in quarters, not years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ving-cars-in-u-s-cities-in-2019-idUSKBN1DU2H0

Click to expand...

From the look of it, it will be LIDAR based. I assume the production version will be less dorky.

Of course, GM bought a self-driving car startup and an LIDAR startup recently:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/cruise-acquires-strobe-to-help-dramatically-reduce-lidar-costs/

They already delivered a low-cost long range BEV before Tesla, despite Tesla's initial decision to use 'low cost, off the shelf cylindrical cells'. We will see if GM gets to autonomy first, despite Tesla's decision that 'LIDAR is expensive and is not required for full autonomy'.

Having some machine vision expertise myself, I would go with LIDAR myself, especially as costs have been falling off a cliff lately. But don't tell all the Tesla customers who are expected autonomy as a free over the air upgrade sometime soon.