Senator Manchin Aims To Close Battery Loophole Around $7,500 EV Tax Credit (engadget.com) 71
Senator Joe Manchin, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced a new bill that squashes a small loophole around the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) $7,500 EV tax credit. Engadget reports: The new credits are restricted to cars with final assembly in the US, as well as those with a certain amount of North American battery content (an amount that increases every year). But, the U.S. Treasury has delayed its final rules on battery guidance until March, which means EVs with foreign batteries can still receive the full $7,500 in credits until then. Manchin's legislation, dubbed the American Vehicle Security Act (AVSA), would push the battery requirement back to January 1st.
"It is unacceptable that the U.S. Treasury has failed to issue updated guidance for the 30D electric vehicle tax credits and continues to make the full $7,500 credits available without meeting all of the clear requirements included in the Inflation Reduction Act," Manchin wrote a statement. "The Treasury Department failed to meet the statutory deadline of December 31, 2022, to release guidance for the 30D credit and have created an opportunity to circumvent stringent supply chain requirements included in the IRA. The IRA is first-and-foremost an energy security bill, and the EV tax credits were designed to grow domestic manufacturing and reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains for the critical minerals needed to produce EV batteries." Autoblog notes that the AVSA doesn't patch the other IRA loophole, which also allows for the full credit for leased cars built outside of the U.S.
"It is unacceptable that the U.S. Treasury has failed to issue updated guidance for the 30D electric vehicle tax credits and continues to make the full $7,500 credits available without meeting all of the clear requirements included in the Inflation Reduction Act," Manchin wrote a statement. "The Treasury Department failed to meet the statutory deadline of December 31, 2022, to release guidance for the 30D credit and have created an opportunity to circumvent stringent supply chain requirements included in the IRA. The IRA is first-and-foremost an energy security bill, and the EV tax credits were designed to grow domestic manufacturing and reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains for the critical minerals needed to produce EV batteries." Autoblog notes that the AVSA doesn't patch the other IRA loophole, which also allows for the full credit for leased cars built outside of the U.S.
Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:2, Funny)
Don't they have better things to do?
What about LBGTQ people? They need to harass them more.
What about librarians. They need to be controlled... or better still, just fire them all.
Guns! How can we get more guns out there on the streets? Vast untapped market there.
Communists! (Oh wait, we like Putin now.)
Re: (Score:1)
Putin isn't a communist. Communism has not been the governmental system of Russia now for over 30 years. You might want to watch the news occasionally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's communist adjacent :-) Mostly he's a kleptocrat. Hwoever he has expressed open admiration for the USSR as well as Stalin.
So many people are eager to repeat old failures (Score:1)
It's weird to me how after the Russians and Chinese gave up on it due to it nearly bankrupting and starving both countries, resulting in millions of deaths not even counting the political purges, so many people are eager to try it out. If I were more conspiratorial, I'd think that they were pushing it on the USA and Europe to ruin us, given that they know how badly it turns out.
Re: Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Putin isn't a communist. Communism has not been the governmental system of Russia now for over 30 years. You might want to watch the news occasionally.
Communism hasn't been the government of Russia for over 70... Even in Stalin's day it was barely communist. Putin is just the new boss, pretty similar to the old bosses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Might what check which party the Senator belongs too - hint starts with a D
Re:Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:5, Informative)
Joe Manchin's primary function is to do whatever his corporate masters instruct him to. https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Manchin-Schoomer amendment was anti-globalist and highly politically incorrect though.
If he or his family is indirectly getting richer from this, it would probably have to be Elon bankrolling it.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Manchin's primary function is to do whatever his corporate masters instruct him to. https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
That's not what the article says, in fact the story in the article is a bit worse than that.
Joe Manchin has a family company that sells scrap coal, and he seems to use his legislative power to protect the business of that company.
In general, I like the idea that Manchin seems to actually represent the average voter in his state more than most other representatives in the US, but the degree to which he seems to have been serving his personal financial interests seem pretty bad.
Re: Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:3)
Re:Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democratic Party is such a big tent, so open and forgiving, that we'll even let Republicans join. Assuming they can raise campaign funs.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans are so inclusive these days they even elected a drag queen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's allowed by their standards, as long as he's closeted and lies about it. But even Rudy Giuliani likes to dress up as a very ugly woman for a laugh. Probably the only endearing thing about either of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop spending money you don't have!
Re:Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We have legitimate debt, we need to pay it. Spending the money and then trying to pass a law to prevent paying the debt is amazingly unconservative. If they want to stop the spending problem then focus on the budget. Otherwise it's plain theft. What this new breed of neo-neo-conservatives want is to break the government, and they also believe that the ends justify the means, so some theft is forgiven as long as the government collapses.
Re: (Score:3)
Spending the money and then trying to pass a law to prevent paying the debt is amazingly unconservative.
I think defaulting is an amazingly stupid idea, but the above places effect before cause--you do not pass a law to prevent paying the debt. The law already exists--instead, you have to pass a law to allow the US to borrow more money to pay debts it is currently incurring. The purpose of the debt ceiling is to make the congress more fiscally responsible by placing a limit on its credit card. The actual effect is minimal and grows smaller every time the argument is made that "the debt ceiling should just a
Re: (Score:2)
"you have to pass a law to allow the US to borrow more money to pay debts it is currently incurring. "
The Constitution *prohibits* defaulting on debt; the appropriations *obligate* the Executive branch to spend specified amounts for specified purposes. There is no functional way to use a debt ceiling on top of that.
To limit spending, you have to pass a new appropriation that limits spending anyway. If you do that you don't need debt ceiling shenanigans. If you don't do that you haven't limited spending.
You
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, "the effect is minimal, and grows smaller every time the argument is made that it should be raised when money is appropriated." I agree that you solve the problem by solving the problem (and I note that while the constitution prohibits defaulting on the debt, it does not prohibit inflating the debt out of existence, which would be actually be worse, but would be the only solution when people stop willingly lending the US government money).
With that said, I think you're missing the point that the
Re: (Score:2)
"missing the point that the people who came up with the idea of a debt ceiling were trying to make: Congress should be afraid of increasing the debt ceiling, because there should be public outrage at the idea of unchecked federal spending."
That's no point at all, since the debt ceiling does nothing at all about spending. Fear of the debt ceiling is solely about the stupid chaos it creates for its own sake, since it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for controlling spending.
No matter what you
Re: (Score:2)
No, the point of the debt ceiling is to prevent the *treasury* from spending too much. It was meant for things like war funding (WWI and WWII) where the treasury could, in theory, have unlimited spend because of the way the law was written.
It was definitely not meant for money that had already been approved and at a fixed amount by Congress already.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol. if you think it is a good idea to leave the debt ceiling in place just try this experiment:
Stop paying any of your bills and see how long it is before someone comes looking for you.
Defaulting on the money that the US has agreed to spend is VERY similar. If the debt ceiling isn't raised then there will be a lot more things not paid for than just the CDC. None of the Social Security checks will be issued. Soldiers won't get paid. Stock prices will probably fall (historically based on previous debt ceilin
Re: (Score:1)
While you are right that not paying interest on your debt is a bad idea, you draw a flaky conclusion. There are other ways to afford paying debt and interest than borrowing even more money. Generally, living within your means is something every person of this planet should strive to do. As well as countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all that is establishment gaslighting.
When a business or a person is actually nearly broke they are not dead broke and neither will the US Government be, it will still have huge sums so f receivables coming in the door. Default does not mean we pay none of our bills it will mean we decide which ones to pay. There are ways do that. On a personal level faced with a monthly shortfall and no savings you might for example elect to pay the electric bill, and stiff the cable company.
Same thing here. Trump
Re: (Score:2)
Defaults always matters. One is borrowing, the other is announcing that you're not going to pay it back. When the time comes to borrow (as always happens; see WWI and WWII as examples), you will be SOL.
Nope that is exactly my point. Default won't matter because we won't be the only ones. Those who don't default will have sky high debts, they are seeking to do deficit spending on top of and will be seen as JUST AS LIKELY to default in the future. People will lend and take risk because they want yield and Uncle Sam will still be the safest game open to most of them.
Your argument is simply out of date. It comes from an era when economic expansion of western democracies outpaced debt growth. That isn't ha
Re: (Score:2)
No way! More anti abortion bills (because they were so popular last time around) and Hunter Biden’s laptop are top priority.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about the stupidity of the current Republican congress--they will, indeed, waste their time scoring own goals with initiatives that have no chance of passing, are wildly unpopular (and, in the case of abortion, something that they have said for decades should be the province of the states and not the federal government), or, most likely, both.
With that said, the ignoring of "Hunter Biden's laptop" by a group that was screaming "emoluments!" before Darth Cheeto was even inaugurated because h
Re: (Score:1)
What better way to trigger the libs than to burn it all to the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What better way to trigger the libs than to burn it all to the ground.
Checking the news and current events, it seems Republicans and "Conservatives" are way more easily/often triggered -- by just about everything that doesn't conform to their own beliefs and desires or by not being able to impose those on others, or not being able to deny others their own.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Society is changing and it scares me.
Just what did you “have for generations” that you currently do not have?
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is anecdotal, but in my experiences with my MAGA brother in law and a few ex-friends, the inability to use bigoted and racist nicknames for certain 'uppity' folks and same-sex people in polite conversation really gnaws at them.
Re: (Score:2)
it seems Republicans and "Conservatives" are way more easily/often triggered -- by just about everything that doesn't conform to their own beliefs and desires or by not being able to impose those on others, or not being able to deny others their own.
Let's test if that is being triggered by opposing beliefs is solely a conservative/republican thing...
Abortion is the murder of a baby and the baby should be protected. I'll even concede to carrying on that protection after the baby is out of the woman's womb.
Re: (Score:2)
If you concede that last point to all human life, then we have a deal (universal healthcare).
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion is the murder of a baby and the baby should be protected.
All abortions? That's a minority viewpoint, by a wide margin.
What about abortions to save the life of the mother? Should we let the mother die, then charge the infant with murder / manslaughter -- or the other way around? What about miscarriages (aka spontaneous abortions), which happen a LOT, are they murders too, or just suicides?
I'll even concede to carrying on that protection after the baby is out of the woman's womb.
Funny how many Republicans / Conservatives are anti-abortion *and* pro-death penalty. And arguments about innocence vs guilt are besides the point. Also, it seems Republi
Re: Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:3)
You do know Manchin has a D next to his name, right?
Re: Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:4, Insightful)
DINO
Re: (Score:3)
And Schwarzenegger has an R next to his name. You'd never guess, though, if you just went by his public statements and how he actually, you know, governed; versus looking up what party with which he is, technically, affiliated...
Re: (Score:2)
hmmmm
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
For Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, 100% of his votes align with Biden and the Democrats. That includes razor-thin party-line votes on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution (50-49), expanding voting rights (50-50) and $1.9 trillion for COVID-19 relief (50-49).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you missed all of the news where much of the recovery and infrastructure legislation that Biden has tried to get passed has been gutted into hollow shells of what they were supposed to be because Manchin* was holding it hostage to republican talking points and his fossil fuel industry benefactors? 'Cuz I didn't.
*And, to be fair, Sinema as well. But she, at least, is no longer masquerading.
Re: (Score:2)
dont forget Taylor Swift!
Re: (Score:2)
And M&Ms !
Re: (Score:2)
Manchin is a democrat you idiot.
Re: Republican war on EVs and the IRS (Score:2)
Since you haven't been paying attention, I'll explain. Manchin is the Republicans useful idiot in promoting their destructive agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
So, like Mitt Romney then? Because there's a lot more Republicans promoting the Democrats' destructive agenda than the other way around.
Just a Hissyfit (Score:3)
This isn't actually going to become law. The Democratic Senate isn't going to have a vote on it. The bill is just his way of telling everyone he's upset.
US is a mess (Score:2, Insightful)
Manshin's a Dino (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know right, someone fighting against the outsourcing of American industrial labor ... that certainly can't be a democrat ;)
I'm not saying it that's why he's doing it, but he's still doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he debates his party he is democrat in name only?
At the end of the day, he almost always votes on party line.
https://apnews.com/article/ap-... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
on the super big issues, he votes with the R's.
like that little pixie from the west side of the country. she'll not get re-elected which is why she switched parties.
both are scum and both would create some happiness in the world if they both disappeared from the earth; any way poossible is ok.
the US without them would have been a much better place in so many ways.
both of them are scum. does not matter on the toy votes; the real votes - they both fucked us and fucked us HARD.
So... (Score:1)
This is good news for Tesla, and bad news for BYD and CATL?
If that's the case, that's the first I've heard of the U.S. government not trying to sabotage Tesla. Your politicians are fucking clueless and keep wasting money on dead companies like GM and Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's bad news for everyone. The current rules already include must-be-assembled-in-the-US. What it lacks is that the materials (lithium, cobalt, etc.) must all be sourced from US mines (or free trading partners).
Which is all levels of stupid, economically speaking. No EV would qualify and mining rare earth materials isn't exactly a huge job category. So the win is very small compared to the cost.
There are 2 explanations:
1. He's so out of touch that he thinks mining for lithium and cobalt is like mining f
schadenfreude (Score:2)
Old Joe needs to just take his lumps. He was the holdout that could have stopped this multi-billion dollar package of pet project giveaways. He eventually caved and how he's getting screwed by the folks on his team; fucking the workers in his state along with it. The names of these acts ultimately have little to do with what's actually in the legislation or how they're implemented in the executive branch.
I suggest he names his proposed act as "I'm with stupid."
Time? (Score:3)
It is unacceptable that the U.S. Treasury has failed to issue updated guidance for the 30D electric vehicle tax credits and continues to make the full $7,500 credits available without meeting all of the clear requirements included in the Inflation Reduction Act
Are you fucking kidding me? The law passed on August 16, 2022. Rule making by the Treasury could not begin until the next day at the absolute soonest. November and December have never been rule making hearings on new legislation because you cannot get everyone to the hearings because of the various holidays. Those two months have always been reserved for things that just need warm bodies to vote to move a motion ahead.
So that leaves September and October as the months where new rule making could have begun. They have to have six hearings. SIX before moving to a motion to open for public comment. And each hearing must have twenty business days between them. And that's assuming that they all just voted to amend the calendar for rule making unanimously. So in the best of cases, in that they already had ideas on implementation and just needed the 17th so that they could vote to change the calendar, put up a public position, have a posting, and then all agree to lay before the committee an agree on the rules before them. EVEN IF, they got literally all the business needed to change the direction of the ship that usually takes a couple of week done in a single day. You can only get three of the six mandatory hearings in that time frame.
Even if some sort of magic happened and they got full hearings during November and December (120 days), and on January 17th (I didn't actually do the math but let's just assume somewhere around there is literally 120 days) they were able to issue updated guidance, NONE of that means anything. They still have to wait 90 days before they can do public comments. Then they have to have a meeting about hearing the comments. Then they have to have a meeting about the actual comments. Then they have to have an open floor hearing for business makers (er, I mean the public) to attend. Then they have to have a final rule making decision which could be way different than the guidance. Then they have to wait somewhere between 90 and 180 days before that goes into effect. And THEN they could start cracking down on foreign batteries.
Joe Manchin is a fucking idiot who is just whining to the heavens. He knows that there wasn't a way to get the law implemented by (checks calendar) January 25th. And his dumb ass sure as shit took all the recess time provided. Fucking twat thinks the lesser critters in the offices should work 24/7 while he heads back home for Christmas. There was no reasonable way to get this law implemented. And even if we got to guidance being issued. You'd hear no end of the other side screaming "NON ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULDN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO!!" There's a fucking reason it takes nearly a year to get to final rule making. Because it gives a large window of opportunity for the public at any point to question the new rules a non-elected body is about to establish.
I swear, fucking idiot.
Law has deadline of Dec 31, 2022 (Score:1)
"The Treasury Department failed to meet the statutory deadline of December 31, 2022, to release guidance for the 30D credit "
Rules do change at the drop of a hat when a law is passed. Limiting acceptance of credits could be done without public hearings if limiting acceptance of credits was specified in the law.
Are you in favor of red tape and government inefficiencies to delay and delay? That is how nothing gets done.
US Battery content (Score:1)
Since there's almost no US made battery content. I guess there's no more EV Tax credit anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax credits (and by extension EV) are for rich people anyway, poor people don't itemize on their taxes.