Darryl Siry moves to WIRED, calls for changes to electric vehicle tax credit
Darryl Siry, who once worked for Tesla Motors and currently advises Coda Automotive with their all-electric sedan, has started writing for WIRED's Autopia blog. In his first post out of the gate, Siry leaves technical EV details aside and suggests some policy changes. Siry wants enhancements to the federal government's offer of up to $7,500 tax credits for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles, saying that the tax credits should be turned into instant rebates instead. This won't cost the taxpayer any more money, but will make it easier for "mainstream customer who will rely on financing to buy the vehicle" to afford electric vehicles.
Siry's other suggestion is to let commercial entities claim the $7,500 to buy batteries if they then plan on leasing them to customers. He writes: "Currently, the tax credit only applies to personal income tax. Such a change will provide a pathway for financing companies to more cost effectively lease batteries to customers, as we have seen in the solar industry." Seems like good ideas to foster EV adoption rates without spending any more money than was already allotted.
[Source: Autopia]
Photo by Matti Mattila. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Throwback 2:14PM (10/13/2009)
How about we end all subsidies for all forms of propulsion? Oil, H2, electric. Let the consumers decide which they prefer.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 2:53PM (10/13/2009)
What at what is more beneficial to the economy if not the environment. Billions are spent on the import of oil each year. If we eliminate this it would mean that the money would stay in the economy, this does not include the other costs related to oil, such as health where the costs are probably tenfold.
To just say that EVs should be the same as ICE is missing a big point on the wider issue.
David Wright 2:30PM (10/13/2009)
Throwback - that would unfairly favour the incumbents (the oil companies) who already recieved preferential advantages in getting to where they now are. A bit like lifting the drawbridge to prevent anyone threatening their dominance.
Reply
Throwback 3:35PM (10/13/2009)
So who decides the winners and the losers? The government? That may be fine if your like the current government but administrations change and with them their priorities.
Mark what if we developed our own sources of oil, that would eliminate the importation issue. The fact is some people think the enviroment should be the priority over everything else. I don't share that view. I think relying on imported sources of energy is a national security issue. As such, I would prefer if we soruced most if not all, of our energy needs domestically. Even if that means drilling here.
paulwesterberg 3:50PM (10/13/2009)
@Throwback: the US domestic oil production peaked in 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png
If we could drill and pump all of the proven oil reserves in alaska it would only last us for one year. Drilling all of the gulf might get us another year, after that we would have oil shale which required 10x more effort to get out of the ground and would make gas prices rise 10x which would pretty much bankrupt everyone except the oil companies...
We could never drill fast enough to keep up with demand.
We don't have enough oil in the ground to drill our way to energy independence.
Mark Kiernan 3:50PM (10/13/2009)
@Throwback,
You would need huge investment for "drill baby drill", and this would mean that you could continue for another few decades producing fuels that pollute the air and destroy the health of the public (driving up health costs). This does not include the clean up costs related to oil spills or chemical fires.
The idea that we continue using fossil fuels like oil is economic suicide, even if you don't consider the environment an important one. Oil in cars is extremely inefficient, not to mention the cost of extracting it and transporting it all over the country. Renewables are by no means comparable at this early stage but every year there are technological leaps where wind, solar and geothermal are concerned and I think it is conceivable that we could with both energy efficiency resolve our energy needs.
Consider that if the USA resolved energy efficiency at source they would not need any new energy sources be it coal, oil or renewable.
Reply
Throwback 4:14PM (10/13/2009)
I am all for new sources of power. I just don't believe we should rule out anything at this point. I would love for us to be off oil completely. I personally favor EVs and/or fuel cells if they can be reasonable priced. It seems to me EV proponents are so narrowly focused on EVs with the power coming from wind and solar, they are unwilling to consider anything else. What's wrong with nuclear energy for example? The fact is EVs will not work for most Americans now or in the immediate future. My point is e folks assume the government knows the right tech to bet on. Look at all of the great innovations we have produced, how many where due to government intervention?
Richard 6:23PM (10/13/2009)
Throwback, I"m glad to hear your for anything but, Nuclear Power is a huge problem, first off, the spent fuel has to be put somewhere safe for it to become spent. So far, the only place is to drill deep inside the Yucca mountain. As of now, there is no more room for the spent fuel we already have. Where are we going to put the rest?
As far as EV's are concerned, why would you say they won't work for most Americans? Most Americans travel less than 40 miles per day. An EV can travel anywhere from 50 to 250 miles. You can't travel long distances with EV's, but then again most people don't travel long distances very often.
Drilling for more oil is a non starter. You have to understand that drilling rigs cost a lot of money, and oil companies won't build new rigs if there isn't a return. If there's not enough oil in all the pockets, they won't get their money back by building new rigs. They will wait until a pocket is empty and move the rig over to a new pocket. Ocean rigs cost even more than land rigs. It's an economic reason, and that's why we won't drill more than we've already drilled.
Mark Kiernan 5:02PM (10/13/2009)
Nuclear power is good if it is reused. In Europe nuclear reprocessing recycles the isotope a number of times until it is reduced to a product with a very short half-life. Nuclear fusion would be better than fission but it is only experimental. Phased withdrawal of fossil fuels are the way ahead in my opinion, and it has been estimated by McKenzie Consultanting that it would be feasible to be fully renewable if we have the political will.
Reply
john 6:18PM (10/13/2009)
I agree completely with Darryl Siry, I would prefer an instant rebate to a tax credit any day - even if the rebate was half the amount! The convenience of it, and not needing to wait to get your money back slowly, make a rebate much more attractive.
Reply
Dan Mosqueda 6:30AM (10/14/2009)
This idea would turn into a "Cash for Clunkers"-style fiasco. The government would run out of money to fund this, even if they claim it's the same amount either way, within a short period. On the other hand, if you get a tax credit you'd get the $7500 back and perhaps to sweeten the pot, it could lower your taxable income. I'm not sure if this credit is setup like that, it might just give you back $7500 - that's not as good.
So, $7500 credit and reducing taxable income by $7500 would be terrific. Rolling out the program and shoveling $7500 in cash through an incompetent government agency would result in a programatic melt-down. That much we know is a fact based on the CARS experiment.
Reply
EVFTW 1:50PM (10/14/2009)
There should be NO subsidies on electric vehicles for a number of reasons.
1. The first products to market are aimed at price insensitive buyers who don't need a subsidy for incentive. These purchases by the wealthy are in part paid for by the poor who can't afford the porduct.
2. Subsidies lock in inferior technologies. It's all about the battery in this case, if lithium was the answer it would have higher energy density, be easier to recharge and cost less to manufacture and it doesn't even look like it will make it one day.
When the VHS tape was replaced by the DVD were their any consumer level subsidies? No, it was a better product at a price that made sense. Where was the subsidy on the ipod when it came out? It crushed all other portable music players. Because it was subsidised? No, it was just better.
If gasoline is so bad for the environment, and it is, then TAX it heavily. Why does Europe drive so many diesels? Because gasoline is so expensive and they drive smaller, more efficient cars.
Law makers feel under the gun over environmental change but the decisions they are making are flawed. Economics usually works out. I say tax gasoline and let the consumer decide what to do, it will open the way for new innovation and the BEST solution will win out. The subsidy route is locking us into battery technology that may not ever get much better...
Reply
jake 6:19PM (10/14/2009)
The reason incentives easily work and heavy gas taxes don't in America is because it would be political suicide to try to heavily tax gasoline like they do in the European countries, even if it was for valid reasons like fixing our roads. When you have "green" incentives it makes good PR and there is little public outcry over it. Politicians will choose the easier route.
Johannes 3:19PM (10/14/2009)
There's price incentives for EVs because it's impossible in the US apparently to tax gasoline by any meaningful amount. They would rather waste their wealth in toxic fumes from SUVs.
Reply