Legislation to raise sales cap for federal tax credit

Then the credit should just be killed.

It has already done its job of improving battery technology and decreasing costs by supporting the manufacturer demand for batteries from the front runner companies, and the support in other major markets means plug ins won't die if they fail in the US. We should not be rewarding companies that opted to delay their entry into the plug in market at the expense of those that didn't, which is what the current cap system does.

The world is not GM.

Toyota sure hasn't changed what they sell. They got more hybrid options now, but that isn't because of the federal incentive for plug ins. With gas prices rising, they should sell more.

With many auto makers shifting ICE development funds to EV, and the second largest releasing BEVs built on a dedicated BEV platform soon, the market has spoken.

 

The "2nd largest" has a long way of fixing their public image, they'll invest in unicorns if needed (while quietly continue expanding their crossover/SUV lineup)

 

That's great for stage 1, but offers no suggestion or justification for stage 2.

GM never rolled out their plug-in hybrid technology to anything beyond Volt. Their approach died, no successor. Missed opportunity is what the next round of tax-credits should address; otherwise, there's more waste appealing to niche interest.

Remember, the goal is to find a way to reach beyond just early-adopters.

 

i don't mind first come first serve, tesla will gobble them up before toyota wakes up in the morning.

 

Not every company is going to pick a stage 1 technology that leads directly to a stage 2....they may need to backup and try again.
How is stage 1 working out for the Murai? Not so good I think. Should we declare FCEV a failure and stop providing incentives?
I think they will fail. The fuel is too expensive. The infrastructure to refuel is too expensive. But more power to those that want to keep trying.

Mike

 

You do realize that Crossover/SUV is the easier platform to electrify and that Toyota has already demonstrated a cost-effective means of achieving that...

 

I'm all in favor of free markets. But sometimes the markets do need to get nudged for the common good.
Otherwise we end up with situations where the lowest cost way to produce power (coal with no scrubbers) will win out most of the time.

In the long term, EVs will last longer than ICE cars, have lower maintenance and cost less to refuel.
Mathematically, taxing everyone to give as EV rebates will actually save everyone money. But it takes a while to get to the benefits. Besides the cleaner air and reduced foreign oil imports.

Mike

 

Please read posts carefully. That's not what stage referred to. Try again:

STAGE 1 is the first allocation of tax-credits, that initial 200,000 for each automaker.

STAGE 2 would be the next level, which would require meeting new criteria to be eligible for.

In other words, if you waste opportunity with the first, you'll have to find another means of qualifying for the second.

 

Yes, that's why we have some many electric crossovers and SUVs to choose from. Oh, wait...

 

We will have some from legacy automakers within their stage 1 allocation.

 

Basic economics must include a timeline. You cannot just disregard that part of the equation. Ironically, that "Losing Ground" article is a great example of feeding the narrative of shortsightedness. People read something like that and take the contents at face value, without bothering to consider the larger picture and the time involved.

For those who do bother to research, they'll discover Toyota is taking the time to do it right. The are striving to offer hybrids across their entire fleet. Despite the slipping popularity and small profit-margins of sedans, we get a Avalon, Camry, and Corolla hybrids. At the same time, they upgraded both Prius and Prius PHV, while also rolling out a RAV4 mid-cycle update to introduce it as a hybrid. Then just 2 years later, we get a full generational upgrade to both RAV4 and Camry hybrids. Next year, there will be a generational upgrade to Highlander too. Don't forget about the variety of Lexus hybrids either.

Think about how cost-effective it will be for Toyota to augment their RAV4 & C-HR hybrids to also offer a plug. Like Prius, it's basically just a matter of adding that one-way clutch, since the hybrid system in place already has everything else it needs. This is the stage Toyota is setting as they wait for battery prices to reach an affordable point. They are carefully using their tax-credits, while learning from other automakers along the way about what not to do.

So what if there's a slip backward on that journey? Toyota still remains well in front of the old Big-3 automakers, with lots of potential to come from already being well into their effort to phaseout non-electrified vehicles across the fleet.

 

iow, 'we don't want to be the leading edge LOSERS! let others do that, and we'll jump in for the profit later on.

toyota really have their script down, and every country's toyota ceo is in lock step, or they'll wind up like carlos ghosn

 

Did you read the article? A 5 year timeline. How long do you want?

Says the runner in last place, gasping for air.

Yes, very careful. Holding on to them carefully like putting your cash under a mattress. The point of the rebates was to spur battery and BEV investment and research immediately, not in the next decade.

Yes, a slip backwards. Toyota is the only company on the entire list that went backwards (see graph in link). Out of 13 companies Toyota was the only one who had their fleet mpg go down over 5 years. Their raw mpg score was 9th of 13 after over a decade of the glow of Prius sales. 10th if you also include Tesla. Several companies gained ~3 mpg (more than 10%), while Toyota lost 1%. The average gain was 7% (not weighted)!

Note: VW numbers are probably suspect.

Toyota loses ground on fuel economy as federal agencies seek rollback of vehicle standards | ACEEE

Mike

 

From the link:

A nonsensical argument. Making EVs and cleaning up the grid are two separable problems. If you link them like this you are dooming yourself to solving them sequentially. Once an ICE car is sold (hybrid or not) you are forcing it to using oil for the next ~20 years of its lifetime unless you prematurely crush it, which would be wasteful.

Also nonsensical coming from a Toyota guy in NZ where 80% of the grid is renewable already. He should be telling Toyota that his request is for EVs today, since his country is grid ready for them now.

Mike

 

And yet the last 10 years of incentives gave us what, model X and...and...what?

 

Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai are all pursuing affordable choices with variety prior to reaching tax-credit phaseout. Assigning an arbitrary deadline serves what purpose? Again, forcing doing it fast rather than doing it right doesn't make sense for legacy automakers. That's more economics 101. Think about how long it takes for other changes that actually altered the status quo. That history informs us a lot about setting realistic expectations.

 

Lot's of people are sucked into the idea that BEV is "the future" but that's very American: we are characteristically enamored with the idea that new technology (sometimes snake oil) is the way to go, but sometimes we get off on a wild goose chase

 

Just few years ago hydrogen was the future. And flying cars before that.

 

uh, hyperbole does not make an argument