Model S

Tax credit

edited November -1 in Model S
For any who have read the forecast of S and X production- any idea when the production will make it to around 200,000 vehicles which I believe us when the $7500 tax credit starts to go away or is reduced


  • edited November -1
    Years and years. I don't think Tesla has even hit 60K VINS yet.
  • edited November -1
    Early 2017.
  • edited November -1
    It's 200,000 units sold in the US. What does international sales have to do with claiming US credits?

    How many Tesla vehicles are on the road in the US to date?

    Roadster < 1500
    Model S < 30,000 to date.

    Assuming combined US MS and MX sales of 45K per year, I think even the first 50 to 100K of Model 3 would be eligible for the tax credit since it would be phased out a few quarters after hitting 200K.
  • edited November -1
    Sounds about right. I wonder if any program extensions and changes will happen.
  • edited November -1
    Once the lease gets better, game on. Numbers will double.

    What could be a better lease car than a Tesla? Low maintenance, high resale value.

    If I could, I'd buy a fleet and lease them out to everyone!
  • edited November -1
    The thing is... The <b>EPA</b> actually says the <b>IRS</b> counts the number of electric cars a manufacturer <i>'produces'</i> instead of <i>'sold'</i>, even though they link to a chart for quarterly sales <i>(that doesn't include <b>Tesla Motors</b>)</i>, while sneaking in the word <i>'eligible'</i>:

    <i>"<a href=""><b>Federal Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles</b></a></i>


    <i>"The credit begins to phase out for vehicles at the beginning of the second calendar quarter after the manufacturer <b><u>produces</u> 200,000 <u>eligible</u> plug-in electric vehicles (i.e., plug-in hybrids and EVs)</b> as counted from January 1, 2010. IRS will announce when a manufacturer exceeds this production figure and will announce the subsequent phase out schedule (<a href="">Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit Quarterly Sales</a>)."</i>

    <a href=""><img src="; width="445"></a>

    I think that Tesla Motors is presuming there will be a strict definition based on what they produce, rather than what has been sold domestically. If Tesla haven't passed 200,000 units produced by January 2017, something will have to be very, very wrong. In any case, I expect domestic sales to have exceeded 200,000 by about July 2017 anyway, starting the decline in the availability of the Federal Tax Credit. That's why it can't be counted on for use with the Model ≡.

    This is my most pessimistic projection for US Sales of Tesla vehicles through 2017:
    <u> YEAR QTY VEHICLES </u>
    2013 ~18,000 Model S
    2014 ~14,000 Model S
    2015 ~28,000 Model S & Model X
    2016 ~56,000 Model S & Model X
    2017 ~112,000 Model S, Model X, & Model ≡
    ~228,000 TOTAL</pre>
    This presumes that each year production is only 70% of capacity, and that 40% of cars produced are sold domestically. I think the reality will be much better than that.
  • edited November -1
    This same limitation has existed for many years for hybrids. Toyota and other manufacturers were allowed to count only U.S. sales in the 200,000 limit before being phased out. Production location did not and does not matter. Production for the Prius, for example, was much higher worldwide, but only U.S. stats mattered in the credit phase-out. No one would argue today that the Prius isn't viable without the credit, so continuing the credit would be a waste of taxpayer money, unless you are an advocate of government picking winners and losers.

    My sense is that this will not be extended as it will have served its purpose - to get EV's into general circulation and make them competitively viable. Tesla is clearly able to compete, and coming models will cement that. At some point the economics will actually be advantaged in Tesla's favor. No subsidy will be required by the time 200k units are out there.
  • edited November -1
    In a lower price range the tax credit has a greater impact.

    Just because 200k cars were sold does not mean that it has hit the mass market or it is within reach of the average consumer yet. So, I do not believe their objectives have been met.

    I sincerely hope that the incentives can be extended so that the Model 3 can become a mass market car.
  • edited November -1
    <b>Pungoteague_Dave</b> wrote, <i>"No subsidy will be required by the time 200k units are out there."</i>

    I concur. See? You and I agree on stuff! ;-)

    <hr width="60%">

    <b>Captain_Zap</b> wrote, <i>"I sincerely hope that the incentives can be extended so that the Model 3 can become a mass market car."</i>

    Keep in mind that regulations of this sort are set up this way for a couple of reasons:
    <ol><li>So as to not put traditional automobile manufacturers in hardship.
    <li>To satisfy the demands of environmentalist groups.</ol>
    So it is a mix of compromise and bias that brings upon the final result.

    The traditional automobile manufacturers are the number one electric vehicle naysayers.
    <ul><li>They say they can't do it.
    <li>They say the cars would cost too much.
    <li>They say the public doesn't want them.
    <li>They claim to lose money on them.
    <li>Their <i>'independent franchised dealerships'</i> say very much the same and actively protest having to bother with electrics at all.
    <li>They claim that the <b>Nissan Leaf</b> and <b>Ford Focus Electric</b> really are the best they can manage.
    <li>Then they show the sales charts that are relatively flat compared to the entire rest of their product range.
    <li>Then they ask for concessions to qualify at least some hybrids as Zero Emissions Vehicles <i>(and we end up with the <b>BMW</b></i> <b>i3</b><i> <b>REX</b> and <b>Toyota Prius PHEV</b> as a result)</i>.</ul>
    So when regulators <i>(who were previously in the automotive industry)</i> and elected officials <i>(who receive campaign contributions from the automotive industry)</i> are made aware of these... <i>'concerns'</i>... they smooth the path for acceptance by making the minimum requirements very, very low. They also set up expiration limits to satisfy political agendas that <i>'everybody knows'</i> are simply <i>'impossible'</i> to reach. That is, because of all the presumptions, assumptions, understandings, winks, and nods they share regarding electric vehicles in the midst of their bias against them.

    But at least they can then have... <i>~*ahem*~</i>... plausible deniability when the longhaired, unwashed, commie, pinko, leftist, hippie tree-huggers come around blabbing about what should be done about the environment and stuff. They can say, <i>"Hey, look... See? We're really <u>trying</u> here."</i> Then they go into the usual drivel about how not too many people want to buy a car like that just to make a statement and so on, and so on, and so on...

    So ultimately, it was all a setup. Trust that <b>Toyota</b> was very surprised by the success of the <b>Prius</b>, especially since it was just a knee-jerk reaction to the <b>General Motors EV1</b>, which they thought would actually grow into a <i>'real thing'</i>. <b>Nissan</b> probably was surprised by the interest in the <b>Leaf</b> beyond CARBland. Fiat has no intention whatsoever of offering the 500e in any territory where it isn't mandated. The <b>Chevrolet Spark EV</b> is also relegated to distribution among restricted territories only. They all went out of their way to not sell the cars, then complained when they didn't sell, even though that was their plan all along. Any of them that do actually sell are still marginalized as compared to the number one selling vehicles from those marques. That works to further their position that gasoline is <i>'superior'</i> to electric drive -- after all -- the sales prove it.

    Yeah. Right. Sure.
  • edited November -1
    You nailed it RS.
  • edited November -1
    20K for '12+'13
    20K for 2014

    So, there is not yet a US growth curve established and so let's shoot for an 7-year sell of 200,000 and thus that would be at end of 2019. You can estimate 2017 sales of Model-3 all day but there is not yet a Model X yet nor a Model 3. When the pricing of those two are established, the features and the demand, then you can estimate when they will hit the 200,000 USA sales number.

    I have worked for a couple companies who estimated sales multiple "years out". None were correct and one was 5x higher than actual. Another has gone bankrupt.
  • edited November -1
    @Brian H

    With prospects of republicans taking control of the senate, chances of extension of tax credit for alternate energy will be slim to zero IMHO. The oil lobby will prevail!!
  • edited November -1 Last paragraph regarding phase out. "... 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States." I wish the EPA and DOE would just refer people to the IRS Website instead of trying to interpret. Emphasis here on sold for use in the United States before the tax credit phase out begins.
  • edited November -1
    @raddoc, as hard as it may be to believe, the current and prior alternative energy credits were established under a Republican administration and Congress. Republicans invented environmentalism.
  • edited November -1
    Just trying to keep it real. Tesla will continue to succeed wildly in selling "compelling products that people want to buy" regardless of oil companies' short term prospects. And on the longer term and wider question, it is a far, far reach to demonize fossil fuels, which are substantially responsible for enabling the rise of industrial society, on which you and I depend utterly.

    Demonstrably, countries which have used it to get wealthy have chosen to use some of that wealth to minimize (true) pollution and have pristine environments compared to those not so successful and/or those which have prioritized ideology over advancement.

    If you want to see a ravaged landscape, populate it with poor people.
  • edited November -1
    If you want to see a ravaged landscape, populate it. Period.
  • edited November -1
    Re: the tax credit and the Model 3, I don't think it will make any significant difference whatsoever to sales figures. Looking at the way the much more costly Model S is "flying off the shelves", the 1/3 priced vehicle will have people lined up around the block even more.
  • edited November -1
    Italy & France etc. are ravaged?
  • edited November -1
    <b>Brian H</b> wrote, <i>"Demonstrably, countries which have used it to get wealthy have chosen to use <u>some of that wealth</u> to minimize (<u>true</u>) pollution and have pristine environments compared to those <u>not so successful</u> and/or those which have <u>prioritized ideology over advancement</u>."</i>

    Uh... Wait... <i><u>What</u>?!?</i>

    Used... <i>'it'</i> Oil? To get wealthy...

    Minimize <i>'<u>true</u>'</i> pollution...? Dahellizat?

    Have pristine environments -- compared to <i>'the poor'</i>, I presume? Or <i>'hippie tree huggers'</i> perhaps?

    Waitasec... Are you saying that only rich people deserve a clean environment -- because they specifically <i><u>PAY</u></i> for it? Or are you saying that only those who can pay for it, care about having a clean environment, or can achieve one? Or are you saying that a clean environment, without modern convenience, is not worth living in?

    That would appear to be a rather seriously oligarchical position of feudal elitism in practice, if it were to exist in our modern reality.

    Wow. Just... Wow.
  • edited November -1
    @ Red Sage. I believe Nissan is the only company that has wholeheartedly introduced an EV. I don't see Nissan playing games like the rest. The LEAF will continue and Infiniti will have a full EV in a few years.
  • edited November -1
    Deliberate misinterpretation? 1. Get rich 2. Make the place nice.
    Who can you think of have done 2. without (some substantial relative success at) 1. ?

    If survival is at issue, the environment is the first thing exploited without mercy.
  • edited November -1
    <b>avanti5010</b> wrote, <i>"I believe Nissan is the only company that has wholeheartedly introduced an EV."</i>

    <pre> <u> VEHICLE 2013 2014 YTD </u>
    CUBE 5,461 3,203
    LEAF 22,610 21,822
    JUKE 38,157 32,253
    VERSA 117,352 110,272
    SENTRA 129,143 141,216
    ALTIMA 320,723 256,935 </pre>
    Sure. They are really dedicated. The LEAF even outsells the CUBE!

    My point? If NISSAN were <i>'wholeheartedly'</i> supporting EV adoption, they would use more of that massive production capacity to deliver their offering in the arena.

    This is the part where people talk about how few batteries are available. But at 24 kWh, there isn't much to the LEAF. If all the 18,000+ Model S sold in 2013 for US Customers were the 60 kWh version, that would be twice as many kWh moved in comparison. If a company as small as Tesla Motors can move twice as much battery capacity as Nissan on vehicles that cost so much more, then maybe the big company isn't really trying.

    OK, it could be worse...
    <pre> <u> VEHICLE 2013 2014 YTD </u>
    VOLT 23,094 14,540</pre>
Sign In or Register to comment.