LeX2K

Putting in more seats doesn't turn a car into an SUV, you can't be serious. Every agency that does crash and general safety testing says the Model Y is an SUV.

The IRS is full of ****

swajames

The problem is that it turns out that low approach and departure angles and insufficient ground clearance doesn't turn a car into an SUV either. It appears that absent that three row test, the 7 seater also wouldn't qualify. With it, at least it does. It does seem somewhat arbitrary, but the reality is based on specs alone the Y is more car than SUV.

LeX2K

That's not the problem at all, it's irrelevant. This aspect of the IRA is supposed to be about giving people incentives to buy clean vehicles. Current admin has told us repeatedly we are facing the greatest threat in history, reduce carbon output or we are all doomed.

Turns out they are giant, corrupt hypocrites which shouldn't surprise anyone but let's not pretend random red tape is why the rebate rules are structured they way they are.

swajames

It’s absolutely the problem. There are criteria that the 5 seater just doesn’t meet. And at the risk of being accused of being an IRS apologist - again! - the IRS generally doesn’t create rules, they interpret them. The definitions apply equally to all manufacturers, and the criteria that the Model Y doesn’t meet were introduced many years ago and predate the introduction of the Model S, let alone the Y.

Congress can always change the rules and may yet do so. Worth noting that anyone buying a model Y this year can only get the credit next year anyway (because for 2023 it is claimed on the buyer’s 2022 return, the tax credit at point of sale won’t be introduced until after 2024). Maybe the rules might change by next year, but if they don’t it’s not because there’s an anti Tesla agenda. If there were, why would the more expensive 7 seat models still be able to receive a credit?

LeX2K

Easy. IRS dug up some archaic definitions to get the desired result but unfortunately for them the classification rules didn't completely exclude Tesla. If they REALLY were doing this to reduce emissions they would qualify the highest volume EV writ large.

swajames

spwolf

Everything about this is dumb. The fact that Jeep Wrangler with 21 mile range gets same credit as 300 mile ev is idiotic.

What environment are you trying to save by giving any money to essentially gas guzzler.

So no reason to try to justify any of it. Govt are trying to help large corporations and unions, not save the environment.

They are also trying not to help Elon too much by classifying plugins same as EVs, so it is not Tesla getting all of it.

And they will probably fail simply because nobody else has that manufacturing capacity as Tesla, so most of the credits will go to them.

LeX2K

Exactly.

swajames

Tesla can sell and qualify as many Model Y’s as they can build if the MSRP is 55000 or less. Alternatively, Tesla can ensure the two-row Model Y meets the utility conditions noted earlier and they can sell and qualify as many as they can build if the MSRP is under 80k. They can already sell as many 7 seaters as they can build if the MSRP is 80k or under. There’s no anti Tesla agenda here. The same rules apply to every EV manufacturer, not just Tesla.

LeX2K

The same group that authored the IRA told us all GM leads the world in electric vehicles and they transformed the entire industry. Such a group would never, ever try and hurt Tesla they are all about truth and neutrality.

swajames

Well GM has a total of three vehicles on the qualifying list, and the only one marketed as an SUV, the Cadillac Lyriq, is also subject to the 55k MSRP threshold just like the 5 seater Model Y. Same with the Mustang Mach E, it’s treated as a car and it caps out at 55k. All three are getting treated the exact same way. Similar vehicles from Tesla, Ford and GM are qualifying or not based on the same rules. There really isn’t any anti-Tesla agenda here.

Margate330

Ok, from DaveGS4's chart

If we can say that current price per ton of Lithium is approx 520,000 Yuan, this converts to approx $75,366 per ton.

If each battery requires approx 26.5lbs of lithium we get: (26.5/2000) * $75,366 = $998.60 of Lithium per battery.

So...
In 2020: Lithium cost for battery was approx $100
In 2022: same battery, Lithium cost is now $1,000.

I think I see what's going on here.
Lithium shortage or pure greed.

$900 profit for nothing off every battery to whoever controls the Lithium.
Who needs to make cars... Just needs a Lithium mine. lol

PS- I smell a scandal.
I might have to look into why they can't mine enough Lithium aka "shortage" driving a price rally at 10X...
*** What makes it worse is this is raw materials cost, not finished product cost.

Ya'll might as well get me one of those Tin Foil Hats, prob gonna need it cuz nobody will believe me anyway... Haha

LeX2K

This is why Tesla will probably get into mining and cut out the middle man gouging them.

Margate330

Henry Ford did it back in the day.

Mined the iron ore himself and made his own steel.
Also made his own glass.

spwolf

GM sells no Lyriqs right now and plans are very low. Ford plans to eventually sell 50k of Mach Es.

Tesla sells 1.3m BEVs today.

You think they are affected the same?

There is no way adding plugins to full $7500 credit is not anti Tesla, because Tesla is one with >60% share of the market.