Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM CEO Misquoted About Chevy Volt Price and Timing, Want it For Less?, Get Tax Credits Passed

May 26th, 2008 | Posted in: Financial, Politics

Last week we experienced quite a bit of buzz about a German publication’s interview with GM CEO Rick Wagoner and his supposed comments that the Volt would come out by 2010 and for less than $30,000.

I remained skeptical about this quote becasue it did not fit well with the information we have been getting from GM.

I now have official confirmation GM spokesperson David Darovitz that “there was an unfortunate misunderstanding that resulted in inaccurate information published.” He also went on to say “we are not in the position to speculate on the retail pricing of the Chevrolet Volt.”

Automotive News also has just published unnamed sources with GM as continuing to state the Volt cannot be sold for under $30,000 without a significant government tax credit, and that the automaker is indeed lobbying for this.

Last year we observed the passage of HR5351 by the House of Representatives which would have allowed up to $6500 plug-in tax credit. It was not passed by the Senate. In a poll , 94% of GM-Volt.com readers support plug-in tax credits.

Last week a new bill called HR 6049 was passed again by the house, allowing $5000 in plug-in tax credits for a car like the Volt with a 16 kwh battery. It allows $3000 as a base plus $200 per kwh over 5 kwh up to a maximum of an additional $2000. It may soon go before the Senate.

Below you can see which Senators voted for and against the failed bill HR5351. If you desire, feel free to contact those in the nay column and see if you could get them to change their mind. Considering Bush’s recent rebuff by OPEC to produce more oil, maybe he just might be in the right state of mind not to veto it if it does get to his desk.

The List:

YEAS – 59:

Akaka (D-HI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Byrd (D-WV)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Clinton (D-NY)

Coleman (R-MN)

Collins (R-ME)

Conrad (D-ND)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Grassley (R-IA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Inouye (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Kohl (D-WI)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Lugar (R-IN)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Obama (D-IL)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Salazar (D-CO)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schumer (D-NY)

Smith (R-OR)

Snowe (R-ME)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Tester (D-MT)

Thune (R-SD)

Webb (D-VA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

NAYS-40:

Alexander (R-TN)

Allard (R-CO)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Dole (R-NC)

Domenici (R-NM)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lott (R-MS)

Martinez (R-FL)

McConnell (R-KY)

Roberts (R-KS)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Sununu (R-NH)

Vitter (R-LA)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting – 1: McCain (R-AZ)

Posted by: Lyle

155 Responses to “GM CEO Misquoted About Chevy Volt Price and Timing, Want it For Less?, Get Tax Credits Passed”

Dan Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

If 59 supported it and 40 opposed it, how come it didn’t pass? I think the price of oil being where it is, it certainly should pass now.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Lyle -

I want to sincerely commend you for this topic. I’m sure that you (like me) are generally very reluctant to bring politics into this forum. When posters venture into politics here it too often results in a firestorm of disputes that too often DERAIL any reasoned discussion of the topic itself!

However, reluctant as I am to say so, I agree that in this case it’s fully justified. As a life-long Republican, I’m becoming steadily more & more convinced that the health of our Earth itself, as well as our nation is at stake. The list you included above showing which Senators voted for and against failed bill HR5351 is shocking yet strong evidence…. EVERY ONE of the 49 Senators against HR5351 is a Republican. I AM OUTRAGED!!!

This is clearly & unmistakably a critical issue that we at gm-volt.com can make a real difference on! So I want to issue a “CALL TO ACTION” TO EVERYONE HERE TO DO EXACTLY AS YOU SUGGEST …..call, email, write your Senators (primarily Republican Senators) and ask them to vote FOR HR 6049!!!

(Quote)
Koz Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Love the graphics. Is that the photoshopped wind tunnel Volt?

This is what I think most of us thought about the pricing. What about the production timetable?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

#1 – Dan,
The vote wasn’t enough to override a presidential veto.

#2 – nasaman,
I’m a registered Republican, but I will be voting Democratic this November.

(Quote)
carcrazy Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I’m a Republican and will still vote Republican. I believe the Republican president and Republican-controlled congress (at the time) were in power when the current incentives for HEV’s were put into place. I did a quick search on that bill and there is a lot more to it than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on “do you want to give a PHEV credit?”. Its a small part of the bill and there will be a lot of versions proposed from both sides to continue tax credits in one form or another before a final is agreed upon. Politicians have spent over $1B dollars of tax money on PNGV and other programs to get people to buy alternative-fuel vehicles – I’m not sure that they’ll be the solution.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Just exactly how can someone be so misquoted? I realize that the press is unreliable, but if they can’t get something as simple a price correct, what exactly CAN they report accurately? I know the German press sucks, but come on.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

#2 – nasaman
Your point is duly noted. Being an engineer, I am compelled to say that there was one democrat that voted “Nay;” Landrieu (D-LA). A minor point, I know.

I did note that there were a few republican “yeas.” They should be commended for stepping outside party lines.

(Quote)
Brian M Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

i thought Republicans liked tax cuts?

… oh wait i forgot, only for the rich.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

I’m disheartened myself by all the R’s that voted “nay”. Not sure of the motive, but I suspect that Elephants who are generally in favor of “big business” see the oil industry as bigger than the auto industry, probably out of tradition, or Bush, or ..both.

It’s time to change and get on board. GM will produce the Volt and the masses will buy it. We may need a little help, and those who support it will be for our country, and not necessarily big business.

I don’t see this as a partisan issue, but rather a national one that both parties should support.

(Quote)
drivin98 Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

According to Opencongress.org this bill would, “This bill would repeal roughly $18 billion in manufacturing tax credits for oil and gas companies while extending and increasing tax credits for a wide range of renewable energy programs. It is expected to cause a contentious debate in the Senate, where it’s chances of being approved are uncertain.”
As I recall, back in the year 2000, their was a loud chorus of folks saying, “We need people with oil industry experience in the WhiteHouse. It will help us keep the price of gas low…etc.” To those folks I would like to extend a big facetious, “Thank you”.

(Quote)
Koz Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

ThombDbhomb
” Your point is duly noted. Being an engineer, I am compelled to say that there was one democrat that voted “Nay;” Landrieu (D-LA).”

Hmmm…from Luisiana. Can’t imagine why he would have voted this way. Tragic that he would cut his nose to spite his face. I understand politics but I just don’t “get it”.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Nasaman and ThombDbhomb, I too, noted the Dem on the Nay side and also the “R’s” on the Yay side. What doesn’t show are the cowards who voted “present”. Personally, I’m glad that the Repubs are FINALLY showing SOME fiscal restraint! It’s been embarrassing how they have spent like Democrats for the last 7 years. The snapshot of a single vote doesn’t provide much of a database upon which to condem (nor praise) one party or the other. Maybe there were even stronger bills in the wings that could have put the funds toward even better energy independence efforts. MAYBE (GASP) the Volt isn’t the ONLY thing that’s going to get us where we need to be, and in almost any case, I’d rather the Feds keep us safe and maintain our infrastructure – period. Isn’t it just possible that STATES could provide some incentives?
DUBYUH has signed renewable energy legislation amounting to hundreds of millions of our money – I haven’t seen much ink in the press on that….
This tech is coming. It’s going to happen. I’ll “duck and cover” before saying that as passionate as we are about this project, there are a few other renewable energy initiatives out there too.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Koz #10

Unfortunately politics are corrupt. Unfortunately It’s not really “by the people for the people” it’s “Buy the people for the lobby”. Grass roots can change that it just takes time. The Volt is on schedule and we of GM-Volt.com are definitely “grass roots”. It’s important that we keep the pressure on.

I’m taking nasaman’s advice and writing my “nay” senator a stiff e-mail. I’d love to see the press get a hold of this and expose it.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pm

As a retired US Air Force veteran, having proudly served, I certainly will be writing my Senators and Congressman (again) to pass this bill. There is an underlying joke to all this of course. The $5,000 credit would be more than made up for in our dollars no longer going over there, to countries despising our democratic values, freedoms and liberty, and if you’re female, more certainly definable.

As a military retiree, I can attest to at least my deployments leading to long stays to do not much more than protect the Oil Freeways for Oil Barons and shekdoms. NO THANKS. This is just as much a security and sanity of our American dilemma than all else. Come on, let’s please get some common sense in Washington this Fall.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

A note about our imports – $440,000,000,000.00 this year alone and growing. What are we waiting for as a Nation. To be how deep in debt to people who never fought for freedom in all their history???

Maddening.

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

comments@whitehouse.gov
Lets all send a message to the White house at the above e mail address.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

JBF,

Ahhhmen!

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

I apologize for hogging space, but this post is very apropos to many posts.

The Norwegian and Swiss governments are paying 50% tax credits to people buying electric vehicles. Why? The article suggests these countires prefer keeping their Francs and Krona at home.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Tag, you’re wrong. Republicans have spent like Republicans for the past 7 years. This one party, one I once voted routinely for, has managed to take the budget from $1.6 trillion to INCOMING lobbed grenade at well over $3.0 trillion coming up. Sorry, but Republicans did that holding hands all the way.

Emotional turpitudes don’t make the postulate correct. G.W. did it with all the Republican Congress in beastially violent agreement. The only sad note is the once grand Government largesse went to the larger part of the average American. Fact check yourself before replying on where the money goes today. The average American was humbly replaced by the more well-to -do and R-connected. Yes, there are sins on all sides, but if you want to post something, at least have the common courtesy to fact check.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Yup, and last time I checked Norway and Switzerland aren’t fighting any expensive wars.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I believe a large percentage of the votes that were no is because the tax breaks for the oil companies that everyone talks about don’t go for just oil companies. I don’t want to put out % when I can’t remember the right numbers, so does anyone know the right % of NON-oil companies that would be hurt by repelling the misnamed bill.

Things aren’t always as simply as they seem on the surface, and it is always best to get both sides of the story. Doesn’t seem right to target the oil companies when it is opec that is most to blame especially when to target the oil companies you are taking down a whole lot of other businesses too. We need a strengthen the economy right now not cripple it even more.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

And Tag, the Volt is a Huge answer to the issue of Oil. As a retiree, this is a finger in the dike issue. Once the technology and political wind is changed, the other manufacturers will have no choice but to offer up the same. The days of using a technology now over 100 years old of puffs of fire in a cyclinder maybe coming to an end. Having been called to and part of the process of sending men and women to protect the Oil Highway of the Middle-East and the violence this entails, I hope you’ll stay open-minded rather than a political junkie espousing the R-party line. Good luck. Been there, done it, now I’ve grown older, wiser, and can see the Nation is screaming for this change. Freed from emotions and no longer tied to any party, I can see a replacement of this R-party in power will help the strength and vitality of this Great Nation again.

(Quote)
nuttzy Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

#11 Tagment: ‘What doesn’t show are the cowards who voted “present”’
Sorry, Tag, but this one is blowing up on you. 59 Yeas vs 40Nays. There are 100 Senators so only one is missing. Scroll to the bottom of the list, and I kid you not, it says “Not Voting – 1: McCain (R-AZ)”
Pretty harsh of you to call McCain a coward, but you just did.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:04 am

I seem to recall that HR 5351 wold have taken tax money from domestic oil companies and some lawmakers used that as their reason for voting “nay.” I’m not sure where the money to pay for HR 6041 tax credits would have come from, or what the stated reasons for “nay” votes were for HR 6049.

(Quote)
Bovine Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:23 am

ok, sent an email to Cornyn (R-TX)!

(Quote)
butters Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 am

Way to slay the ignorant trolls, nuttzy #22!! This isn’t a board for partisan political blog warfare, so when we do discuss politics, let’s keep it to the issues, not worthless media fodder from the campaign trail.
I think it says a lot that 6% of GM-Volt readers, people who are extremely interested in buying an electric car, oppose a tax credit that would make their purchase less expensive. I may disagree with your politics, but I respect the way you apply it selflessly.
It’s easy to see why opposition to this bill would be strong due to the reduction of tax credits for oil companies. Although this is, in my view, the “right thing to do”, it will also cause the price of gasoline to increase as the oil companies pass that production tax on to the consumer.
Like most Americans, I still rely on my gasoline-fueled car to get to work and such, and I would prefer it if they didn’t increase those production taxes until cars like the Volt are, you know, available on the market. There’s no sense in paying more for gas in order to fund a tax credit for electric cars that aren’t yet available.
So it’s important for good American citizens to be vigilant about the details of these proposals, because even this progressive admits with no hesitation that the Democrats play cruel jokes on their core constituencies just like the Republicans do. The gas tax holiday is a great example of both.
There’s been a lot of talk about “change” in the context of which politician can best bring it about, which I think betrays a great misunderstanding of the world around us. The world isn’t standing still, waiting for the right politician to change it. The world is changing at the breakneck speed of multinational private enterprise, and the people are waiting for a politician that will provide the leadership necessary to help society catch up to realities of this brave new world in which we find ourselves.
The world has changed in profound ways in the past three decades, and our government has been doing nothing but cheerleading, failing to do anything but prepare us to live in a brand-saturated reality TV show they call the American Dream, a cartoonishly unrealistic portrayal of an unsustainable way of life.
I’m not idealistic enough to believe that any politician can change the world. We have a global shadow government that controls the central banking system, takes orders from nobody, and whose power cannot be wrested away without plunging the world into violent chaos. They’ll change the world however they like, and if the American government can’t keep up, then they’ll find a market elsewhere.
Thankfully, the priorities of the shadow government might not be as self-destructive as they could be. The Rockefeller family is now putting pressure on Exxon/Mobil to invest more in alternative energy. Maybe they’re starting to worry that the season finale will be a serious downer. ..

(Quote)
Texas Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 am

Check: Country serious about oil situation – Not yet.

Folks, please just go about your business. Soon the government will be running around for a good plan. Of course the sky will be falling but that’s what it’s going to take.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 3:01 am

6, 7, 8 ,9 Gallon of gas here it come!!!!!!!!!!. And American People still won’t take it serious.

(Quote)
RB Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:20 am

I’m disappointed that Wagoner is not a good enough speaker to make himself clear on this important subject.

(Quote)
Jes Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:29 am

I moved from Texas to Oregon a year ago to complete a degree in Renewable Energy Engineering. Just seeing the culture change from the two states first hand leaves me with no surprise seeing that all 6 of Texas, Oklahoma & Louisiana Senators voted no and that all 6 California, Oregon and Washington Senators voted yes.
It’s amazing how little the Senators around Texas value sustainability (environment & diplomatically) and how much they do on the west coast. Eventually I would like to move back near my family, but all my peers with similar beliefs are on the west coast.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:29 am

I paid $4.17 a gallon yesterday. Now costs me $13.59 a day just to go to work and back. My Hyundai Elantra gets 31 MPG.   I am looking forward to the Volt.

Interesting post. I agree with Dan #1. Last year was different. Gas was “cheap”.   It is different this time but the bill may need to wait until after November.

Kent, #5 says, “Just exactly how can someone be so misquoted? I realize that the press is unreliable, but if they can’t get something as simple a price correct, what exactly CAN they report accurately?”

Indeed! How CAN they screw up something as simple and as important as that? I wonder if they didn’t screw up, but Mr. Wagoner did.



(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 am

Jes #29. I envy you. If I wasn’t so old and had the time, I would go back to school and get a degree in Renewable Energy Engineering.
What a fascinating and timely subject to be studying. Good luck. I hope you are very successful.

(Quote)
Jes Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:07 am

#31 Rashiid It’s never too late. I went back to college after 5+ years of struggling to raise my family with just a HS diploma.

The program first started in the U.S. in 2005 in Portland. I think in Fall 2006 (maybe 2007) a program opened up in Canton, NY also. Right now, most everyone in the Portland campus has some sort of electrical, mechanical or chemical background and most already have some sort of degree. I think the figure was 27 different states are represented by the student body in the RE major with 1 international. It’s a little intimidating, but I’m doing what I want to do.

Thanks for the support.

(Quote)
Estero Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:31 am

I don’t have the legislation in front of me to reference but I seem to recall the reason so many Republicans voted “Nay” on this legislation is because Venezuela was treated favorable over other oil companies.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:58 am

Hrm, post #14 in http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/22/gm-ceo-chevy-volt-out-earlier-by-2010-and-for-less-than-30000/ by this ‘Statik’ person

“You all know me. You all no what I am going to say. But go ahead, get excited. This dream will die in 3…2…1…”

I don’t know who this dude is, but he is always flippin’ right.

/pat
/pat
/pat

(Quote)
mmcc Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am

I will be writing my 2 “nay” senators later today. BTW, here is our gas dollars at work:

http://bestpicsaround.com/pic-888-Artificial-Heaven-in-Dubai

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 am

OK, a lot of talk about what’s in this bill. Some infer it would take away money for fighting wars, others talk of it favoring Venezuela.

From what I remember, back 7 years ago when was oil was really cheap, the U.S. government started giving oil companies billions of dollars in tax credits to spur new drilling and refinery investments. This made sense at the time because, with oil so cheap, oil companies had little motivation to invest in new supply infrastructure.

Today, oil companies are making record profits. To be clear, “record profits” means that this is the most money any company has ever made after expenses in history.

My impression is that HR5351and HR6049 are essentially bills that would discontinue the billions of dollars of oil company tax credits, and re-target those tax credits towards developing alternatitive vehicles.

Now, I might have some of this wrong or incomplete, so for those that really know what’s in HR6049, please correct me. It would be nice if people on this forum really knew what else was in this bill.

(Quote)
brad Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Thanks for the list, this can help us know how to vote, becasue getting off gasoline is the single most important issue, National Security, Our Wealth, The Environment, The health of our citizens, spurring the economy with the green technology sector, and lots more.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:30 am

Like Nasaman @ 2,
I am glad that Lyle brought this topic to the forefront. He should keep bringing it up. Although it won’t pass with the current Lame [Duck] President, we know where the candidates stand, which is half the battle (short of McCain). I plan on giving my Senators a mouthful for not supporting the bill. Let’s keep our eyes on this type of legislation.

(Quote)
brad Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:32 am

Thanks for the list, I have written to my Senator who voted against it.

“I was saddened by the fact you voted against HR5351 because this is a huge national security threat, health issue, enviornmental, and economic issue. We need to get off of oil as fast as we can and use green technology developed here in the USA. Please support the new bill HR6049. Thank you.”

Everyone else, feel free to do the same. Thanks, Brad – Florida

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:34 am

OK, I got some real info here:
http://democraticwhip.house.gov/whip_pack/2008/05/19/whip_pack.pdf

Here’s the LEGISLATION AT A GLANCE:
H.R. 6049 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008

Summary:

H.R. 6049, the Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, will provide almost $20 billion of tax incentives for investment in renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects, energy efficiency and conservation. The bill will also extends $27 billion of expiring temporary tax provisions, including the research and development credit, special rules for active financing income, the State and local sales tax deduction, the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers, and the deduction for qualified tuition expenses. In addition, the bill provides almost $10 billion of additional tax relief for individuals through an expansion of the refundable child tax credit and a new standard deduction for property taxes. The bill would be primarily offset by closing a tax loophole that allows individuals that work for certain offshore corporations, such as hedge fund managers, to defer tax on their compensation and would delay the effective date of a tax benefit that has not yet taken effect for multinational corporations operating overseas.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:50 am

I just love it when the threads get political! Everyone is so level headed and so much knowledge and understanding is passed, noted and well-received around the board.
Tax cuts? Really? Jam another $1 on your national credit card bill? There is absolutely no way the price of the Volt doesn’t just go up $5K if theis went through. ZERO!

Hypothetical GM Wagoner/Board of Governors meeting if this passed:

“With this new 5K tax cut, we should keep the price the same as we planned and let beleagured Americans reap this benefit over our bloated cash strapped company…and our jobs”

People are motivated by two things, fear and pain. Not free money. Europe’s move to renewables, eco cars, etc. is base on the taxation of ’sins’ $10/gas.

You want electric cars? You want cars that are ‘good for the environment’ $5 a gallon tax on gas…right now. You got ‘em…they would be everywhere. Alot more than giving a few thousand yuppies (yes, I include myself in them) 5K off a $45,000 car.

Best of all, the gov’t actually brings in money. But wait you say, America can’t afford that, it will put us in a recession. Well, it’s already here, this would be the perfect time to take your lumps.

I think there is still alot of ‘chaff’ driving going on out there. I doubt many people are saying, “yeah we aren’t going camping this weekend because of the price of gas” just yet…but maybe there should be.

Change is not supposed to be easy. Handouts to not make people adjust their behavior…spankings do.

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:09 am

I wrote to both of my Senators who each voted yes, but I wanted to reinforce my views.
I rented a van this weekend to drive 200 miles to haul some items. It cost me $140 in fuel and we drove very modestly and didn’t push it.
We now have two electric cars available in Mid-Michigan.
http://www.greatlakesautosales.net/
There is a small two-seater from China that gets 125 miles on a charge and has a top speed of 45mph. It costs $15k. The 08 model has a heater, whereas the 07 didn’t. Not much of a market for a non-heated car here in Michigan. Then the dealer got a four seater from Canada that gets 150 miles on a charge, charges up in four hours and has a top speed of around 45mph. Fine for city driving and not much else. This one costs $15k.
Here’s a link to a news broadcast on the small Chinese car.
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=resources/auto&id=5868823

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am

I take of two days off to do some work around the house and I come back to major political threads!!!!
I am one of the minority that thinks that a rebate to buy a car is wrong, when our bank balance at the federal level is NEGATIVE TEN TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Let me amend that just a bit. Until we get a grip on the federal deficit, any handout to any special interest should be banned. If we do not get our fiscal house in order, and very soon, we will not have a house at all.

But what scares me the most is that I find myself agreeing with Statik’s post #40! As many of the long time posters around here know, we do not see eye to eye on many topics…..

The rapidly rising price for oil is going to guarantee that very high mileage ICE based vehicles and all of the new alternatives for transportation are going to be here very soon.
JMHO

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:27 am

Wrote to my Senator, Wayne Allard of Colorado. He’s retiring soon, and it appears Mark Udall, a Democrat and strong supporter of renewables and incentives for hybrids is going to replace him this Fall. I am going to donate to Mr. Udall’s campaign today. We need someone to work on American provided solutions. And yes, like most others on the GM Volt nation site, I make over $100,000 per year, in part from my military retirement and investments. Ready to buy a Volt, and I’ll put my personal resources to work for this country.

(Quote)
14L Diesel Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:28 am

#40 Statik – Not a big fan of some of your posts but you nailed it this time. Tax credits are not the answer here although I doubt those who were on the nay side would be inclined to increase the tax on gas. By the way, remember Tsongas? He was laughed out of the presidential race years ago – certainly way ahead of his time.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:28 am

5. Kent,

The translated quote was apparently:
“GM has a clear goal: We want to put the Volt on the market in 2010, at a price of less than $30,000.”

I’m not sure that the article contains any “misquote” at all. Of course GM wants the Volt to be less than 30,000. It was Lyle and the people on this board that glossed over the word “want” and misquoted.

Even now, the start to this page has Lyle writing “…his supposed comments that the Volt would come out by 2010 and for less than $30,000.”.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am

#43 Jim I

“But what scares me the most is that I find myself agreeing with Statik’s post #40! As many of the long time posters around here know, we do not see eye to eye on many topics…..”
Is it just me…or are we doing alot of ‘agreeing’ with each other lately? Surely a sign of the apocalypse.

But in all seriousness, kudos to you for taking a stand on this issue. The right thing is not always the popular one.
/passes spare fire suit

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am

I’m not sure if coward is the right phrase, but hey, McCain should have voted on this energy bill. He’s voted on every other quasi-energy bill authorizing to send our men and women over for oil protection money, so why not vote on this bill to move toward keeping them home.

(Quote)
Van Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:43 am

Folks, I have not studied this bill (HR5351) but it was not a vote on incentives for PHEVs alone. The bill raised taxes by about 18:5 billion and included a proposed outlay of 1.3 billion for PHEV incentives. It might have been a step in the right direction, I do not know, but those who voted NAY were voting not to increase the cost of gas at the pump, because the tax increases fell largely on oil producing companies. Naturally the Democrats say they are closing loop holes and ending “big oil” subsidies, whereas the Republicans say they are fighting to keep taxes low.

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:46 am

News is out that Americans had the steepest decline in driving in our history over the past weekend.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/26/gas.driving/index.html

(Quote)
Theoldguy Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:46 am

It would be nice if some the Volt fans here that are NOT from the US would have some comments on the Volt.. Much as We love our southern friends..No slight intended at all… the Canadian government here is so busy cutting their own throats to spite their faces that we (Canadians) are not going to get the tax cuts/rebates that you all are spreaking of. I assume this sight is for ALL Volt fans…not just the US.. I realize that Most of you are American but the rest of us are really more concerned about what is going on with the Volt developement and production and “how soon can I get one”..
Just my 1.5 Cents..
Ray

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:51 am

I’m not really wanting to ‘wax political’ about ‘the war,’ and it’s eventual end, but with headlines today like this: “S&P: US home prices tumble a record 14.1 pct in 1Q” I will wade in.

It won’t be done because of ‘job complete’ or who is in the White House…or some kind of morale code checkbook that has been completed…it wil be because of self-preservation. America is going to leave, America has to leave…it will be ugly.

Towns everywhere are turning into Saginaw, Michigan. Recession, loss of jobs, deflating dollar. Saginaw has 50K people, but over 1500 houses for sale. Crime is rampant. The per capita income for the city is $13,816

If you live in America, and you don’t have a big bag of Euros somewhere…if you are like most with equity in their homes and you want to see the face of fear. Check out the home listings in Saginaw, Michigan.

http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?ctid=29021&typ=7

What you want $2,400 for you house? Your insane…most I’d give you is $999. Surely, it can’t happen in your neighbourhood…right?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:53 am

#43 – Jim I
I too am a fiscal conservative, so I don’t usually support tax credits and subsidies. But right now we need a fundamental shift in our source of energy for transportation. If we rely on simple supply and demand alone, it will take too long, and things could get really bad. We need government involvement to manage a smooth transition.

To look at it another way, our economy is bleeding almost a trillion a year in oil imports. So if tax credits for plug-in cars help make the transition a year sooner, they should easily pay for themselves through increased tax revenue.

As for the national debt, I don’t think numbers like $10 trillion are meaningful to most people. If you take the national debt and divide it by the number of people in the U.S., you get just under $31,000. So for a family of 4, your portion of the national debt would be $124,000. These kinds of numbers are much more meaningful, and scary.

What’s more scary is that most of the debt is being financed by China. If they start selling T-Bills, our interest rate will soar and we won’t be able to afford anything. They literally have us by the balls. So yearly deficits and pork-barrel spending really could screw us in the end.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am

I watched the most recent oil exec questioning in the senate last week and it was interesting to hear. The big oil in America really only controls about %8 of the worlds oil with the majority of the rest being controlled by state oil companies, Essentially OPEC. Every one of the oil execs on the stand stated that their companies not only drill and refine oil but are NET IMPORTERS of oil from state run government oil companies. This means that some of their older wells may be pumping oil out and it cost 10$/Barrel, but they are also paying the $135 a barrel for all that they need to buy. They also testified that they are currently making on average 4 cents on every gallon of gasoline they sell. That is down from 10 cents a gallon back when gas was cheap. I don’t feel sorry for these guys but at the same time the senators grilling them didn’t show me in any way that what the oil companies are doing is purposely trying to screw the American people for profit.

HR5351 would have taken government subsidies away from the oil companies which is why republicans voted it down. It should be noted that Bush specifically said that taking these subsidies away would get a veto without thinking twice about it. So the Dems passed this basically as a political move. I’m not going to say who’s right and who’s wrong because they all are out there playing games. I will say however that those oil subsidies are paying for oil exploration here in America. I know that Exxon profit as the highest of any company ever, but given the low profit margin and the insane amount of fuel we buy I can’t say I’m surprised. Even if Exxon made 0$ profit and used it’s money to lower the price of oil, it wouldn’t lower gas any more than 4 cents.

We need to pass HR 6049 and we need a congress who can work together to write good legislation. I have read this bill and it looks very positive to me. I don’t think congress will let the solar, wind, and hybrid subsidies lapse, but I think there was a lot politically to be gained by dragging their feet and making political statements prior to putting out good legislation at the last minute. On the plus side it seems that nomatter who we get in November, we’re going to see positive changes in the renewable energy field and Hopefully our government will encourage the Chevy Volt to be one of the best selling cars of all time the way Japan subsidized the Prius!

(Quote)
PeteVE Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Statik, stop being right! I wanted this one.

I think I might gut an ICE and build a BEV (battery elec. veh.). It is looking more and more like the thing to do. I’m not spending $40K for a vehicle ever again.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:04 am

#50 Theoldguy – Ray

I am Canadian. I too mostly am concerned about the when, and the how much. American EV rebates matter little to me on a personal level.
However, we disagree on “the Canadian government here is so busy cutting their own throats to spite their faces that we (Canadians) are not going to get the tax cuts/rebates that you all are spreaking of”

I love the fact we are responsible now, I remember the early 90s when we were spending like drunken saliors, the national debt out of control and our dollar was worthless.

We took our lumps, went through alot of painful years…now we have 10 consecutive years of budget surpluses -AND- we cut income taxes every…go figure. Side perk, our dollar is a icon now.

I took the family to Disneyland 5 years ago, $200 on park tickets cost me $335 Canadian…now its $197.

You should be overjoyed we don’t give rebates, free handouts and are fiscally responisble. If this was 5 years ago, your ‘Canadian Volt’ at $45,000US would have cost you $72,000. There is your rebate…$27,000 worth…and by 2011 it will be more.

This is exactly my point, short tem bandaids don’t fix long-term problems…they hurt them.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am

To Canadian posters,
U.S. tax credits should accelerate the acceptance of the Volt, and may influence other governments to do the same. If I were Canadian, this would interest me.

(Quote)
Gordon Green Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am

I scanned through the House passed bill, and saw lots of items that weren’t obviously renewable energy related.

Hopefully the Senate will eliminate some of the pork. Let the bill be really renewable energy related.
Favorable tax laws for motorsport entertainment complexes, film and television production, …? Maybe if the pork is equally distributed between R and D, then it will pass and get signed.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am

#10-Koz: Hmmm…from Luisiana. Can’t imagine why he would have voted this way. Tragic that he would cut his nose to spite his face. I understand politics but I just don’t “get it”.

I believe Louisiana’s economy is pretty heavily dependant on oil–much of our domestic oil comes from offshore drilling done in sight of Louisiana’s Gulf Coast. And a significant amount of imported oil comes into the US through the port of New Orleans. The political calcuation by Senator Landrieu may have been that anything threatening to reduce US oil consumption is bad for Louisiana (I don’t know this for sure, it’s just a guess).

By the way, Landrieu (D-LA) is Mary Landrieu, a woman. You referred to her as a him.

(Quote)
brad Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:14 am

WHY YOU SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A TAX CREDIT???

Put it this way the tax credit allow GM to recoup some development and research cost without direct funding. This ensures that taxpayers get an end result unlike direct funding which many times we get nothing from it. If because of the tax break GM can charge $5,000 more for 50,000 cars they will get $2.5 million dollars more. This is money that GM gets right away while the government gets to hold the $5,000 until tax time (earning interest). It is a much better deal for the government than direct funding. The government is putting billions of direct funding towards hydrogen. Maybe if they had a rebate program for Hydrogen we would actually see some Hydrogen cars because that is the only way the auto makers would see the money.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am

Just curious Lyle, I have three threads ‘awaiting moderation’ Two of them contained links…so I reposted one without the links and it still got flagged.

Could you tell us ‘the triggers’ for moderation so that we can avoid them, it’s a little frustrating only getting 2 of 3 posts through without having a multi-hour delay on the other one.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am

#52 – Gsned57
It doesn’t surprise me that Japanese government helped to subsidize the Prius. I’m interested. How did they go about doing it? Details about this seem very relevant to this thread.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:40 am

I’m all for paying less taxes, but;

What else is in the bill?

How much is pork pet projects which pander to special interests?

How much corporate welfare socialist redistribution?

How will this bill keep monopolies from forming and are these idiot legislators [NOT statesmen] trying to choose the best technologies for the corporations or special interests instead of simply leveling the playing field so the market can choose the BEST ones for US?

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am

For convenience, here’s a list of all US Senator’s addresses, phone numbers, etc…. Contact Your US Senator

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am

I think that we need to distinguish between good tax policy and bad tax policy. Sending every American family $600 to stimulate the ecnomy does not work. It does not seek to change behavior. Much of the money may be spent on imported goods, which will exacerbate our trade deficit, which in turn adds to the troubles of the dollar.

Good tax policy, like rebates for hybrid vehicles, changes behavior. Folks driving a Prius are buying 1/2 to 1/3 less gas than those of us who are not. This decreases the amount of oil that we import. Imports lower the value of our dollar.

We can also get into the minutia of HR 5351. The bottom line is this: if they wanted to get X done, they would have found a way to do it. If Y (e.g. preferential treatment for Venezuela) was getting in the way, then they (Dems and Repubs) could have agreed to remove it. So either it wasn’t really an issue, or they didn’t really want to come to an agreement. Writing to your Senators who voted “nay” and telling them what you want done is one step. We need to write the “yeas” as well, and make sure they know what our priorities are.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am

W00t moderation gone through! Although I lost one. Here is a synopsis:

“Analyst downgrades GM to Hold” – Citi

SEPT 2007 Citi Uprages GM to BUY, target $41, upside of $57
FEB 2008 Citi Reiterates GM BUY, target $32
TODAY! M’08 Citi downgrades GM to ‘HOLD’ target $21.

Have to be some happy investers when the stock was at $32 in September, they put a buy and a $41 target, with upside of $57. I’m sure they enjoyed there 50% haircut down to $17.

Morale of story…do your own homework, never invest in a company where you have a personal bias, good — or — bad.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am

For anyone who cares to read the complete bill (12 pgs), click…. HR6049

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Again, I apologize for the grammar. My posts here makes me question the credentials of my Grade 6 public school teacher for giving me a ‘A+’ in English.

‘their’

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:09 am

(Let’s see what this one does…)

We need a bipartisan solution to raise the income to pay for the plug-in tax credits. I’ve heard it said that both liberals and conservatives support legalizing and taxing marijuana. Maybe that money could pay for plug-in tax credits. Can we all get behind that? Prohibition doesn’t seem to be working.

(Quote)
David Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am

Dave G – Thanks for crossing the isle on this issue.
For those of you who live in one of the “nay” vote states – vote for someone else in the next election cycle if you truly want to get there attention.

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am

Statik…. Hold on there buddy with regards to Saginaw, MI. It happens to be my city and you misrepresent it by your ’stats’.
We have many homes for sale, largely because GM has been pulling its manufacturing facilities out. In the 1970’s we had 18,000 folks working in their three foundries and other parts plants. There is only one foundry and one parts plant left, leaving around 4,000 working for GM in this area. Saginaw is becoming a medical hub and alternative energy manufacturing hub. Hemlock Semiconductor is in the middle of a $500 billion dollar expansion and an additional $1 billion (that’s billion) dollar expansion is to set to finish in 2012. Our medical industry is expanding in a frenzied pace as it replaces the traditional manufacturing of GM. Do we have a lot of homes for sale? Yes. Do many, many cities across the USA? Yes. Is Saginaw less safe than others of similar size? No. Our crime rate is down precipitously from last year. Saying the crime here is rampant is a complete fallacy and outright lie. Flint, MI, 40 miles to the south has substantially more violent crimes than Saginaw. Check your statistics and not outdated ones. I serve this city and am heavily involved in helping to turn it around. Two weeks ago we had a city-wide meeting of all the neighborhood watch groups and the chief and city manager made their reports. We have made tremendous progress with regards to crime but you made it sound like it was out of control. For shame!
Now for the Volt…. We’re behind in promoting our own businesses and industries here in the USA because we WON’T put tax money once in a while towards pushing those industries. Other countries do it all the time and they stomp our ass right out of that business sector. Enough said.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am

Out of the thread but I have to say thanks to Lyle’s programmer for the imbedded editor for Firefox

(Quote)
DaV8or Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am

After reading the text of HR 6049 I found that there is a little pork in there, but by enlarge it is full of tax breaks and tax credits for consumers and energy and transportation industries for new technologies. It is a cost to the government because of lost revenues, however the bill compensates for this by the following quote:

The bill would be primarily offset by closing a tax loophole that allows individuals that work for certain offshore corporations, such as hedge fund managers, to defer tax on their compensation and would delay the effective date of a tax benefit that has not yet taken effect for multinational corporations operating overseas.

Now it is much more clear as to the Nays. This combined with the fact that it is aiding industries that will be in competition with existing energy concerns (many of whom are friendly with the administration) and create technologies that may come to be mandated on some of those concerns. The Republicans will tell their constituents that this is a bill for huge tax increases and they would be right… if you are an offshore hedge fund manager or a multinational corporation operating overseas (like GM).

(Quote)
Jason The Saj Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am

The issue is probably not the tax credits. More than likely it was an issue of either a) where the money for the credits would be drawn from or b) of what this proposal was embedded with. (ie: earmarks, other requirements, free bus cards for cities, who knows)

You really need to read the actual bill to know what’s going on.

(Quote)
DaV8or Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am

Gordon Green #59

What you are missing is the bill is titled “Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 “ The Job creation act is a catch all phrase so they can stick in what ever pork. The Title tells us that the bill is not just about renewable energy.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am

#74 Kevin

I realize being a local, it’s tough to look at things objectively
Unfortunately, real estate stats come out monthly, and I’m sorry but Saginaw is always the worst, or close.

Here is the report from FOUR days ago.

http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/05/national_study_saginawsaginaw.html

Highlights:
294 foreclosures — in the first quarter alone
Home value dropped 24.7 percent from the $86,900 (2Q’07)

“At the end of April, roughly, the total units sold have gone down about 48 percent (from last year),” Wells (Re/Max).

Saginaw had an 8.5 percent unemployment rate in March, up from 7.5 percent last year, Youngblood said. The city lost 3,066 jobs from March 2007

Crime rate stats, with handy graphs:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Saginaw&state=MI

Pop: 60,000

Murder:
16

Forcible Rape:
74

Robbery:
173

Aggravated Assault:
1,377

Burglary:
1,054

Larceny or Theft:
1,350

Car Theft:
280

Arson:
88

That data is a little old, (2003) but it only got worse thru 2007, with a slight (6%) improvement in 2008. Even if things have marginally improved from 07 to 08…it’s still scary bad.

Feb 22, 2008. The rate of violent crimes committed in Saginaw in recent years has been higher than that of Flint and more than double that of Detroit, according to the Saginaw Police Department. The department reported that around 60 percent of homicides in the city are gang-related.

The decrease you are refering to is SIX percent in violent crime and that is ONLY because the state is trying to get it off ‘the worst list’ (still 14th), by hiring five troopers and a supervisor to literally stand in the red zones.

40 houses burned on halloween in ‘06. Thanks to a watchdog group and ‘local activists’ they got that down to 8. Yippee. If you town program called “Saginaw Arson Watch”"…it’s probably not a real great town.

2008 stats from February (ONE MONTH)

128 felony drug arrests
140 misdemeanor drug arrests
22 concealed weapons arrests
61 jailed drunken drivers
440 people driving on suspended licenses
112 suspects in other felonies
54 people accused of other misdemeanors.
1 out of every 50 paople in Saginaw got a MAJOR put on their record in February alone. (957)

Homicides previous year: 28

Murders/rape in last 10 years? `150, 700
Chances you die of murder in Saginaw in last 10 years: 1 in 333
Chances you got raped in Saginaw last 10 years (27K Women): 1 in 38

“Saying the crime here is rampant is a complete fallacy and outright lie” I eagerly await your definition of ‘rampant,’ like Tijuana style? Give me a example of a couple similar cities that so much worse?

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am

Of the 40 votes against HR5351, 39 were Republican.
I wonder why so many Republican Senators are against tax credits to the American People in our struggle to reduce & eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
They were all in favor of granting a $100,000 Federal Tax Credit to small business if they purchase vehicles with a GVW (gross vehicle weight) of 6000 Lbs+ (SUV’s)
Are the Republicans aware that the terrorists receive funding directly from American petrodollars when we buy oil from the Middle East?
Who’s side are they on?

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am

#74 DaV8or

Thank you for digging a little deeper. You inform and advance the discussion.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Its going to be interesting to see how many Republicans will be left in the House & Senate after the next mid-term elections.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Lyle, if you out there…I got a post ‘awaiting moderation’ on the Saginaw thing…shows as #79 for me.

I realized I really don’t want to throw stats out and beat on something/somewhere that is clearly hurting. If you do get these running across your desk, just delete it for me if you will.

I wish you all the best with your rebuilding #74 Kevin R. Please disregard my post if it pops up.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Am I the only one who sees the loop hole in this, at least the way Lyle worded it? The Volt would get a tax credit for having a 16kwh battery pack…. even though only 8kwh of that capacity is being used (plugging in brings it to 80% state of charge, range extender kicks in when charge drops to 30%)? Allowing the Volt to go 40 miles on a charge (or 8kwh).

So another plug-in with only a 12kwh battery pack but designed to be able to use 66.6% (2/3rds) of that capactity, ie. also 8kwh, would get a tax credit $800 LESS for being a more efficient design (and probably able to get a little bit more miles/charge as it’s pack could in theory weigh 25% less)???

Reminds me of the loop hole of not that many years ago that allowed those buying Hummer’s and other huge vehicles to get huge tax credits for buying them.

Assuming you support any tax credit at all, would it not make more sense to base such a credit on how many EV only miles/charge it gets instead????

My guess it the auto maker’s lobbies like it based on size of the battery pack because they can stick these big packs in higher profit margin vehicles (SUV’s, etc) and consumers will get an even bigger tax credit on these even though they will get a small fraction of the EV only range on a mid-size (or smaller) sedan.

The other loop hole I see is with the “base tax credit” of $3,000 for a “plug-in”. I can see a lot of the existing hybrids adding a plug so they qualify for the base tax credit, even though, because of their tiny battery pack, I can’t see most consumers actually bothering to plug-in to get 2 or 3 miles of EV only range.

As some of you may remember from other threads where the topic of tax credits came up, I’m very skeptical** of them, but if they are given, they should be done right, not written by the auto makers to benefit them most.

** I’m skeptical because I’m in the camp that sees certain tax credits artificially inflating the retail price, and that once they expire the retail price “magically” drops by the same amount of the expired tax credit (I think this happeend with the Prius last year).

Also GM has another incentive to keep the price down as low as they can… it’s called competition. GM is not alone with plans to bring EV’s (with and without “range extenders”) to the North American market.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

#63 Dave G:

Hey, the US government subsidized the Prius.

$3500 tax credit for each of the first 65,000 Priuses sold. There are similar credits for the Honda Civic Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, and the GM Vue and Malibu hybrids. They are less for these others, as the mileage improvements are less.

The Volt will use substantially less fuel than any of the above, and be built in the USA (what a concept!). What’s the problem?

As I said the other day, the thing passed the House and the Senate. Maybe we just have to wait until next year to get rid of the veto threat.

And I follow the lead of Jean-Charles Jacquemin at #73 in thanking you again for the spell checker.

(Quote)
George K Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

# 55 Gsned57; #68 Nasaman
Good info. You can see the problem with our huge government ( I mean, one of the problems). Reading through that bill, it’s all over the place. How about that $5.4B for restaurant improvements?
There were things in that House bill that I, myself, object to. ie, taking tax breaks away from American oil companies (thus encouraging higher gas prices), but, NOT from the Hugo Chavez owned (taken over by force) Citco (thus giving Venezuelan oil an unfair pricing advantage).
Also, that same tax credit was originally given to Hollywood studios, as well???, who got to keep THEIR tax breaks.
But this is a new bill. As Nasaman provided for, I would read it before you encourage your Senator to vote for it. I, myself, find this version quite acceptable, though there will always be things in these Bills that you object to. I guess thats the system.
Anyway, if passed, it will make quite a difference in Volt pricing, and allow many more people to buy the car (or more upgrades)!

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Statik…

I appreciate your thoughts always….

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

I hate how the they lump so much disparate crap into one act, pretty much guaranteeing that no agreement can be reached. This allows them to debate and argue endlessly so that nothing will be accomplished. Can you say job security? This is not about democrats vs republicans to me. In my opinion, they both suck.

(Quote)
George B. Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I sent emails to both of my senators appealing them to support HR 6049 AND asked them why the voted “Nay” on HR 5351, it’s predecessor. I’m sure there were elements of the bill they didn’t like and I expect them to tell me why. Hope I get an answer….

Regarding elimination of tax breaks for oil companies, excuse me, but hey are making quite enough without the breaks. If they pass the additional cost of losing these tax breaks to the consumer, my hope is that the government will take action. I don’t know if you recall the Congressional hearings a few weeks ago but, as I recall, the oil companies response to the suggestion that the tax breaks being rescinded in light of their record profits sounded pretty much like “We just need them! OK?”

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

This $6,000 or so tax credit gives us a good idea about which Senators really DO want America to deal with its OIL ADDICTION. GW Bush too.

For some strange reason, it looks like a lot of Republicans are against THE best solution to America’s oil addiction problem to ever come down the pike … ever … a car that could get up to 150 miles per gallon! Do they WANT America to stay addicted to oil with all the problems it creates? The battery costs will come down once the auto makers get the factories up and running for 5 years or so. The tax credits won’t have to last all that long. Maybe 5-10 years. It’ll be a heck of a lot better than all the money we’ve been spending on corn farmer subsidies and oil/gas drilling subsidies for Big Oil while they are enjoying HUGE, record profits!

Besides saving money on gas and helping the environment, LOTS of people want the new electric hybrids like the Volt for “energy independence” reasons alone. Our soldiers are getting killed in the Middle East over oil and even more of them could be killed in the future over oil for all we know. Economic turmoil has a strong tendency to lead to war. Watch the History channel or the Military Channel. One way or another, economic problems usually causes the wars. That and religion.

We have GOT to start fueling our cars and trucks with ELECTRONS instead of gasoline and diesel. It will solve a LOT of different problems … economic problems, political problems, military problems, environmental problems … and other problems I’m sure. Supposedly, we send our Congressmen and Senators to Washington to SOLVE PROBLEMS. Helping kick start electric hybrids like the Volt will do that. No doubt about it.

If they have the tax credits, those Senators will look like geniuses in 10 years … true statesmen who got things done for the citizens. They’ll have longer careers in Congress. It’s going to look bad for these Senators at election time if the citizens of their states find out they are siding with OPEC and Big Oil instead of with the citizens who CLEARLY want alternatives to powering their cars and trucks with gasoline and diesel. Electric hybrids like the Volt will save people a lot of money at the pump … especially if the gas prices KEEP going up.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I am commenting on the vote (59 – 40) before I have read most of your comments. I assume someone other than myself will note that the bill in question was loaded with other legislation that gave the 40 nays heartburn. Congress has a terrible habit of porking up bills with costly items that would never make it on their own. That is common practice in both the House and the Senate. We may owe some type of apology to the 40 nays for saying us untold billions of dollars. I just wish the nay sayers could have stuck with a nay vote for the farm bill that just passed and overrode a presidential veto. That give away program is really going to cost each of us dearly.

(Quote)
dodahman Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

The problem is, these jack-asses can’t just put together a bill that would be only for a tax credit for the Volt or something.
They have to tack on all this other unrelated $#it, for example,
“Extends through 2009: (1) the new markets tax credit; (2) the subpart F exemption for active financing income earned on business operations overseas; (3) special rules for the tax treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations; and (4) expensing of costs of certain film and television productions.”

What does this have to do with energy tax credits?
HUH?
Stupid politicians.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

#90. Which is why I said they are a useless waste of skin.
They are not in Congress for us. They are there for themselves.
But we (collectively) have only ourselves to thank. We (collectively) keep voting the same idiots in, time and time again.
—————-
I happen to agree with Tax credits for the Volt. It is my money after all. And I could use it for this purchase. But the stimulus check is another matter. They should have used that to pay down the debt.
——————–
One other thing. I do find it shameful that Congress gave tax credits to people buying a Japanese car, but are struggling to provide tax credits or an American made car.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Where is that “idiot checker” when I need it? I meant:
I do find it shameful that Congress gave tax credits to people buying a Japanese car, but are struggling to provide tax credits for an American made car.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Van, I don’t see how a current $10 billion dollar tax credit to Exxon-Mobil alone, and more for tax credits to other oil companies is “Republicans keeping taxes low”? Seems like plain and simple cronyism to me.

Good luck in your beliefs marrying up to facts.

(Quote)
Greg Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Typical need jerk reaction. You need to read the bill, there are other things in this bill that do not make sense. This bill is full of all kinds of other junk. Read the bill then comment. I go to the source for my information. Sorry Lyle, looks like you left out some important details. We need a clean bill that is not a pork project. More money could go toward real projects for getting us off foreign oil but this is not the one.
You can read it here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5351.IH:

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I keep reading comments from some of you in this post and in others about our troops being sent overseas to protect the oil barons and the tanker routes. Well, yes. What do you think would happen to our economy and to each of our own driving habits if the oil fields, oil tankers and oil producing countries were not protected. How long do you think we would have access to the oil we need to fuel our industry and vehicles? I, for one, will be glad when this is no longer necessary. I don’t want a dime of money going to oil producing countries except to the U.S. But, for the time being, thank God for our troops and their protection.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

To add insult to injury, the R-party excuse for the tax credits was to explore more and build new refinery’s. The majors getting all the tax breaks are at an all time low for doing this, and yet are at record setting profits – greatest on record for any company brands.

Beliefs and the party line are one thing, but become an Independent and you can see both sides. There is a need to extract more oil here, but there is a need regardless to find alternatives otherwise this is liking clearing water from a hole dug in the sand at the beach. The problem keeps coming no matter how fast one digs.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

DaV8or, thanks for the more honest read of the bill than the ditto heads of the Nayers are quoting. America isn’t going to become strong again until the Oil oligarchy situation by countries who hate American values resolves.

(Quote)
DaveP Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

There’s sort of a myth that reducing tax credits to oil companies will result in a price increase. The oil companies stand behind a well crafted shield of “world market pricing” every time the price goes up and they make extra billions. And every time there is a congressional investigation that shows, “yup, sure enough, the oil companies are not directly manipulating the prices which are set by the WORLD MARKET”. Well, that is a great shield that probably works both ways. If it’s the world market that’s setting prices, then the lack of tax breaks to the American oil companies is not going to affect the market prices. End of story.
Either that or they’ve all been lying to us all this time. I, for one, am willing to move the tax credits to electrified vehicles and see what happens. That way, we’ll at least know.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

I would like the farm and oil subsidies be taken away. I don’t believe it will increase either food or fuel costs. But, it would save the American taxpayer billions upon billions of dollars. It would end up only costing senators and congressional representatives some support money.

(Quote)
d burgdorff Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Sometimes I wonder if people bother to read the previous posts before writting their own. There were very good reasons for Rebublicans to vote no, and it was not because they don’t favor a tax credit for plug-in cars.

Posters who are excellent with technical information are sometimes naive with the political stuff. Politicians do this all the time. They put something in a bill they know the other side doesn’t want so they can tell the American people you voted against something else that people want. Looks like some of us fell for it. The tax credit will happen this year or next.

(Quote)
Greg Woulf Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Complex issue, I don’t find either side of congress to be innocent, or even one side to be worse than the other.

This bill is typical, at the core is an idea that both sides would agree to, tax rebate for plug ins. If that was the only bill being passed, I think we’d have it. If you read the bill there’s a ton of pork, including one out of place clause to void tax liability for a New York State business.

If we could fix the system so that every item was it’s own bill then we could hold congress to their record. If we could see how they voted without having to consider all the pork then we’d have a lot fewer problems getting things done.

(Quote)
dodahman Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Thats what we need! A rule for lawmakers that only allows 1 issue per bill.
Let’s all start chanting now…”1 ISSUE, 1 BILL! -1 ISSUE 1 BILL!”
ALL TOGETHER…
How about a protest at the steps of congress?
anyone?

(Quote)
MarkFLL Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

“Toyota says its first plug-in won’t go on sale for several years, which would put it behind GM’s Chevrolet Volt, due in 2010. GM has promised an ambitious set of features: a safe, reliable, mass-market plug-in that’s rechargeable from an ordinary power outlet and can travel 40 miles on a single charge before a small engine kicks in. And it is planned to cost $30,000 or less, without requiring massive subsidies.”

This just posted on US News and World Report I guess the $30,000 rumor is out.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

American energy independence should be an important issue to every American that has a love for their country.

As a life long Republican, it saddens me to see the “R” overwhelming next to each name that voted against HR5351. I’m also saddened to know that Republican rejection was a desired intent of bill.

To date, neither side of the political isles has made a positive material contribution towards American energy independence. The bills that have been brought to the floor over the last ten years by either party relating to American energy independence are almost always “grand standing” token legislation that is dead on arrival because the proposed bill is purposely designed to include secondary tagalong items the party introducing the bill knows the other party will object to. Any meaningful legislation that somehow manages to get a start of bipartisan traction through compromise ends up getting further diluted because of the lobbyists influence in protecting the status quo. It’s a big political gotcha game for these guys. This dynamic is not going to change anytime soon.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have for over 25 years been told by the Department Of Defense that the dynamics of America’s foreign energy dependence increasingly constitutes a clear and present danger to Americas’ national security. The DOD risk analysts have evaluated and published reports that the likelihood of an event scenario where America’s foreign sourced energy is materially disrupted is high. As a result, the DOD has drawn up contingency rapid response war/invasion plans in the event our supply to foreign sourced energy is materially disrupted. This is public knowledge that nobody disputes. The gun is loaded, the safety is off. We are one event away from the trigger being pulled. Some would argue that the trigger has already been pulled with our invasion of Iraq although that could be debated ad nauseam.

Our Commander In Chief should (but will not) address the importance of American energy independence as a first order of national security similar to the effort of America sending a man to the moon. Clinton could have done it and did not. Bush could have done it and did not. Whoever the next president is could do it but will not. The next president will likely continue to kick this issue down the road by addressing American energy dependency rhetorically as an important issue but act on it very incrementally to the point that it has no meaningful influence.

I agree with Lyle that we need to write to our legislators to let our voices be heard but don’t count on the politicians to dig us out of this one. We the American people have the power to do this ourselves; the power of one. Inform your neighbor living to the left of you and to the right of you about gm-volt.com. After you purchase your VOLT, trade your VOLT for a day with each of your willing friends so they can themselves experience the fun of driving electric. Buy your neighbor a pack of P light bulbs as a gift and get them excited that they can themselves contribute to American energy independence. Be the first house on the block to put up solar panels. Throw an American Energy Independence block party and challenge the kids in your neighborhood to find ways they can make a difference in their own homes. The politicians will join the dance only when they realize the party has moved and they are standing alone.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

CDAVIS #103
I agree. if each of us could follow your advise we could see some independence not only from the oil producing countries, the oil companies but also from a stupid, do-nothing but get re-elected congress.
We all need GM to be successful with the Volt and carry it out onto their other platforms. Let Toyota, Honda and the rest do what they plan to do. GM is on the right course. Keep up the good work GM.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Lyle,
I am sorry, but please turn off the spell checker. Ever since it was turned on, we get blank lines where we don’t want them and don’t get them where we do want them. It just isn’t worth the hassle. Some of us ignore the misspelled words even when they are underlined. What good is that? Anyway, having misspelled words give some of our writings character. And character is what some of us needs. So, I say turn it off.

(Quote)
VancouverJon Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Just talking about this energy independence made me think about some things written by David Sanborn Scott that are extremely applicable here. He discusses them in his book “Smelling Land”, which has an unfortunate title and I can’t necessarily recommend, but is relevant. We need to understand energy as a system that provides us with the services we want, by converting energy from a source and transferring it through technologies. “Conserving energy” is only useful if you are conserving a resource that needs to be conserved. Right now, almost all “green” measures involve conserving electricity and this can be ineffective or damaging depending on the situation. Case in point, CFL bulbs. If I live in Minnesota in the winter and use an oil furnace for heat, while my electricity is generated by coal, I am making the problem worse by using a CFL in the winter. The reason CFL bulbs are more efficient is that they produce less heat. But in the winter, I need to heat my home to stay warm. Therefore, by using less coal-generated electricity, I am using more oil-based heating. This drives up need for an imported form of energy, while decreasing use of a domestically available form.

So all conservation is not equal. The Volt is huge because it conserves exactly what needs to be conserved…oil.

(Quote)
DG Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

So far only got through ten senators .

http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
http://allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/contact/emailmain.html
http://www.bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm&CFID=19722938&CFTOKEN=22345408
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home

Dear Senator
I am contacting you in regards to your Ney vote against the failed bill HR5351. I am very disappointed that you would not want to support your own country by cutting off foreign supply of oil. Not want to support American based industries as well as degrading the environment you I and your children live in. I hope you change your mind when the nation asks for your vote on bill HR 6049.
Disgruntled Citizen.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

#98 N Riley:

Amen.

(Quote)
Len Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I am a fisical conservative and I am confident that the present bunch of republicans in power are not.

Their excuse for not eleminating the huge tax giveaway to the oil companies this past year was that it would be a tax increase to do so.

Go figure.

(Quote)
Len Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

They were also the same bunch that thought it appropriate to give a huge tax rebate for buying an extra large SUV.

This came out of everyone else’s pocket. That is what I call a tax increase.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

100 and 101, that is exactly what we need. One issue, one bill.
The last few presidents have asked for a line item veto. No go.
Congress is their to protect their own backsides, not ours.
The only way to fix this is to make me King for a week.
Although some would say I would do better as a Court Jester. lol

(Quote)
LazP Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Finally a newspaper article that makes sense:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/971442,CST-EDT-hunt27.article

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I sent a letter to my State Senator today. I hope you all do the same. Hopefully they actually read them.

(Quote)
TED in Fort Myers Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Plug-in electric drive vehicle credit.

The bill establishes a new credit for each qualified
plug-in electric drive vehicle placed in service during each taxable year by a taxpayer.
The base amount of the credit is $3,000. If the qualified vehicle draws propulsion from a
battery with at least 5 kilowatt hours of capacity, the credit amount is increased by $200,
plus another $200 for each kilowatt hour of battery capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours
up to 15 kilowatt hours. Taxpayers may claim the full amount of the allowable credit up to
the end of the first calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer records
60,000 sales. The credit is reduced in following calendar quarters. The credit is available

against the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

This proposal is estimated to cost $1.056 TED

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

LazP #11. Interesting article. I have a quick question. What do they do with the radioactive waste?

(Quote)
Jes Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

#82, Jeff M

From everythng I read, you don’t want to change the charge to a 66.7% discharge. When a battery charges, it charges 80% fairly quickly and then the time constants do not allow quick charge over the last 20%. The closer to 100% you get, the slower it goes. In fact you will never reach 100% (dc/dt appraches 100% but never gets there).

In lithium ion batteries, there is no trickle charge either. Manufactures also suggest not letting it drop below 20% charge as it will shorten the already short life span of lithium ion batteries.

A 12kwh battery will have the same limitations. Fast charging til near 80%. and a recommened level not reaching lower than 20%. So even a 60% range (instead of 50%) on a 12kwh battery would be 7.2 kwh. The last 2.4 kwh, if you plan to shorten the life of the battery and you decided to turn off all the accesories like AC, you are still facing having to frive worrying about if your car can accelerate.

Granted, I think the recharge should be 25%, but a loophole? I don’t agree.

(Quote)
LazP Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

The increased radioactive waste will require the same solution as the already existing waste. The quantity of the problem will not change the quality of the problem. The nuclear waste issue is a long range problem that will be solved. Nevada. Or if you like to watch SCI Fi if wait long enough. We can rocket th waste to a bigger nuclear furnace called the Sun. In any case the electrical grid is the best source of clean and safe d o m e s t i c source of energy and if not from nuclear than at least from coal or even natural gas. Cleaning up the power plant when coal is used should still be easier than trying to greenify 200 000 000 cars.

(Quote)
LazP Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

116 cont’d
Further more I think the existing electrical grid should be able the handle the gradually increasing load that the Volt and related technology require until we can build new nuclear power plants. Since it does take a long time to build them. Same with coal and/or natural gas fired plants. On the other hand to build a brand new energy infrastructure for other alternate energy is prohibitive and also OPEC can play supply-games to make these other alternate energy sources very unattractive.

(Quote)
Greg Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

France has been able to cope with nuclear waste, you can recycle it. The only issue is that the recycled product is weapons grade plutonuim.

(Quote)
Mike756 Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I really don’t care either way. I am torn between my dislike of big government an my desire to have a Volt for a little less. Whatever, I just want one now.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

#116 LazP:
Last I heard, Nevada isn’t too interested.

What happens if the rocket to the sun blows up on the pad? Or 5 miles up? It does happen.

#118 Greg:

Well the world can always use some more of that, right?

As I have said before, I am not totally opposed to nuclear power, if it is totally though through and implemented with very high level safety. Wishing that the waste is going to go away doesn’t get it.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

For those who don’t like the Tax Credit if passed, why all the hub bub? Just don’t take the tax credit. Easy to satisfy the self-righteous angle.

To me, basic economic principles do apply in the real world. A tax incentive incentivizes an action sought, a tax surcharge inhibits a behavior. Worked for smokers, worked with the Windfall Oil profit taxes, and it’ll work here. Anything to encourage a break from our egregious addiction to Middle-East turmoil oil is a plus. Anything that encorages using American supplied power is a plus for the tax coffers of America and a stark hit at the Oil Barons and sheikdoms.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Noel, I’m with you. I like Nuclear Power. I don’t like the radioactive waste. I’m not smart enough to know how to have one without the other.

LazP. I’m into SciFi big time. I agree. Build a large barge. Store the waste on it and send it into the sun. I think that is a great solution, but obviously not for now. Space travel will have to be perfected and made very cheaply. I’m sure Nasaman can give a million other things that have to happen first.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

As I read through HR 6049, I realize how inefficient government is. Hundreds of politicians all looking to support their campaign contributors, future employers, and lastly, their constituents.

The estimated $1.056 billion in tax credits for plug-in vehicles, if averaged at $5000 per vehicle, would subsidize 200,000 vehicles. Of course, the goal for the US govt. is to help manufacturers of these new vehicles get them accepted in the marketplace, and then phase out credits and let these new products survive on their own.
However, with oil prices at their current levels, and the desire we all have to “Get Off the Oil Addiction”, I see no problem for GM to sell a well-executed Volt in these quantities. Just do what we have all discussed, start taking deposits. If by this time next year GM has commitments for 100,000 vehicles, there should be no problem moving the Volt into a high volume (i.e. low cost) production line.
Thus, tax credits are not needed, GM gets the security it needs to move into high volume production, development costs can be spread over a million vehicles in a 10 year span, and the costs are competitive. Uncle Sam can use the tax credits for other energy saving programs.
#114 Rashiid
Just an interesting note, at a power conference I attended in the recent past, a nuclear engineer from one of the major US utilities indicated that all the spent fuel from all the nuclear power plants in the US, from all the power they have generated, would stack up on a football field about 12 feet high.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Off topic…I just saw the Volt on NBC Nightly News.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Bill R, following your logic, I understand you are stating with prices so high, are you thus advocating getting rid of the $18,000,000,000.00 in subsidies to the Oil industry? Or just the car incentive?

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

CHEVROLET VOLT : American-made, American fueled. That will go the longest way in changing America’s addiction while ensuring its’ future.

(Quote)
Terry K Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

RE: tax credits: you’re both right, IMHO (in my humble opinion, for the cell-phone challenged).

w/o $5000 tax credit, Volt Price is $29999.99. With $5000 tax credit, Volt price is $34999.99. You just pay the extra $5000 on April 15. Good strategy by GM – Most people are too stupid to realize that the US government cannot give you anything that it hasn’t already taken from the taxpayers.

On the other hand, if that is what it takes to get GM to finally make the damned things already, it’s still worth it. Yeah, we’re hooked on oil – not that we have many alternatives at the car dealers. 5 years ago, I would have laughed at any US car company making anything like the Volt – see the sad history of the EV1, leased, then yanked away from their loving owners.

Is tax credits a sucker’s game to vacuum more money from our pockets? Absolutely! Is it worth being suckered, to get the Volt into production? IMHO, yes – if only to keep more of our money in our country and lessen oil imports. Oil prices are restarting inflation, and decreasing our standard of living. It’s worth a high price up front, if we gain from the investment.

Still waiting for my Volt-technology powered riding lawn mower. Should arrive any time now. Yeah, any time now. (Falls asleep waiting for delivery). lol

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

How is GM going to keep the Dealers from adding on a “Dealer Markup” of about $5000 or so. The do it every time a new model comes out in short supply. This could kill the price of the Volt for the very people who need it.

(Quote)
koz Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

MarkinWI
“We can also get into the minutia of HR 5351. The bottom line is this: if they wanted to get X done, they would have found a way to do it. If Y (e.g. preferential treatment for Venezuela) was getting in the way, then they (Dems and Repubs) could have agreed to remove it. So either it wasn’t really an issue, or they didn’t really want to come to an agreement. Writing to your Senators who voted “nay” and telling them what you want done is one step. We need to write the “yeas” as well, and make sure they know what our priorities are”
RIGHT ON!

#60 MDDave
This is exactly what I was referring to. She was pandering to her constituents, which is what congresspeople are supposed to do but to a point. “Protecting” your local economy at the expense of the national economy in this situation is cutting your nose to spite your face in my opinion. Perhaps she just disagreed with all of the other parts of this legislation, which would be perfectly understandable, but I don’t believe that was the case.

New bill seems much cleaner. Cut more funding to food based ethanol and hydrogen to offset the plug-in tax incentives if revenue is an issue, which it obviously is with our gargantuan defecit. Also, why limit each manufacturer’s plug-in credits independantly. This does create the urgency that the situation demands. If the budgeted goal is to incentivize a certain number of vehicles (e.g. 300,000), then just set the number and all manufacturers will scramble as fast as they can to take advantage of it. Why should Honda or other follower with a plug-in get an incentive and not potentially a 2nd generation Volt. I know some people will say it is just fair that it be done this way since the hybrid credit was done similarly. Well, I’m all for a home field advantage, especially if the incentive better motivates to the goal.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

The heart of the bill is to take from the $18 billion dollar tax incentive to oil (which is currently reeling in $40 billion in quarterly profits by one firm alone), and move 1/18th of it toward reducing dependence. Why would this rile anyone’s sensibility – political correctness perhaps. Repubs can only give tax breaks to Oil rich companies, not oil poor Americans.

(Quote)
koz Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

ughhh

” This does create the urgency that the situation demands. ”

This does‘nt create the urgency that the situation demands.

(Quote)
noonesbusiness Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

This isn’t a tax cut. There is no reason why anyone buying a new car needs a break on the price!!! Why should I pay for a discount to someone that can afford a new car? If you think it is a great value, that it is good for your country, that it is good for the environment then why would anyone want the rest of us who can’t or won’t buy a new car to pay for you to get a discount. How about those who don’t even have a car! Why should they pay so you or I can get a discount!!! There is no other reason other than I want a freebie from the government or, in other words, from the rest of the suckers that can’t afford to buy a $42,000 car!!!! Because that is about what it is going to cost!!! I’m all for removing any government incentives from oil companies, however, that will only make the gas prices rise even more. Better, let them build refineries quickly. Second encourage people to stop investing in oil!!! That is a bigger problem than inflation!!! The price of oil should be no more than $80 a barrel but because of investor speculation we’re over $135. The demand is coming down even after memorial day!!! Investors have artificially kept the price of oil and gas as high as it is. The demand on the costs are not equivalent to what oil is priced at currently. This is in turn causing inflation which in-turn makes the dollar worth less so oil price goes up… Damn oil investors need to get a good kick square in the… It’ll happen soon enough and I hope they all get burned just like real estate morons paying obscene prices for homes only to now pray that the government (Me and other responsible people) bails them out..

I think this is a great idea that shouldve been out years ago.

Bottom line if you like the car and all it stands for then stand behind your convictions and buy it without help from the rest of us.

(Quote)
RB Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 6:11 am

In the present market the Volt will sell out, if it is electric and an otherwise acceptable car. No tax subsidy is required.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 6:25 am

#127 jbfalaska

What I am saying is that with oil prices not only high, but also extremely volatile, the Volt, if well-executed, will be a popular vehicle when it is introduced.

The goal of tax credits is to assist a new technology that is beneficial to the US to make it into the mainstream. The credits are meant to be temporary.

If GM can move the Volt from 10,000 units per year to 100,000 units per year, costs will be reduced significantly (they also can afford a big investment in battery automation). They can try to achieve these high volumes by using tax credits to stimulate sales, or by pre-selling the vehicles (i.e. take deposits) they can also gauge the demand for the Volt.

I’m not commenting on the oil industry subsidies (don’t know the details), just that the Volt is a game changing vehicle that could be so popular, that tax credits will not be needed to stimulate sales and move it into the lower cost high volume production.

(Quote)
Brad in Texas Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 7:35 am

O.K.

My experience in life has been “when the government gets involved things get SCREWED UP”! If we sit back and let the free markets rule, change will come.

Supply and Demand.

Oil stays high then Demand for EV’s will go up. If GM can sell 100,000 units vs. 10,000 then the production costs will drop. When Ford and the other automakers see GM kicking ass then they will join the EV revolution and prices will drop further due to competition. Remember, the first HD TV’s were high priced, now they are selling them at Walmart, without government tax credits.

Last thing, because I could keep going all day on this.
CRAZY THOUGHT: If the government gets involved then they can manipulate GM to “reduce” the mileage the Volt gets because sales of EV’s are hurting the oil companies.
You say, “Wait that would never happen”.
Where’s our domestic oil drilling…
Why is our electric generation overloaded…
Why are our refineries overloaded…
Where’s our border security…
Why are we dependent on foreign oil after the Arab oil embargo…
Why is Social Security bankrupt…
ETC… ETC… ETC…

The answer is because our government is involved.

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 9:10 am

Some comments about statistics and how they can be interpreted with regards to Saginaw:
1. If we’re talking about finding someplace worse: this article was cited in a previous post: http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews/2008/03/michigan_state_police_effort_c.html, which points out that Saginaw is rated #14 by Morgan Quitno. That means there are 13 that are worse.

2. Have you been to Saginaw?

3. Statistics don’t tell the whole story. Certainly not of economic gains, large and small.

4. In today’s world, it’s very deceptive to look at the statistical profile of a “city” and draw conclusions about it.
I can put boundaries on a map of almost any city in North America that would make that jurisdiction look like the most dangerous place this side of Baghdad.
There are census tracts in the City of Saginaw that are five times as safe as census tracts in suburban Kochville Township.

5. Odds of being a homicide victim in Saginaw are also deceptive. While police say on the record that 60 percent of Saginaw’s homicides are gang-related, the fact is that there are two simple ways to NOT be a murder victim in Saginaw:
a. Don’t join a gang. In 2007, there were 25 homicides in Saginaw. In 19 of them (76% by my count), the victim was a gang member.
b. Don’t buy or sell illegal drugs. Of the six homicides that were not gang members shooting other gang members, two involved drug deals gone bad.

6. Economically speaking, Saginaw has a significant advantage over many of the cities that have been ravaged by the decline of the U.S. auto industry. We got hit by it earlier and the worst is behind us. We’ve actually done a good job of beginning to rebuild and diversifying our economy. O n that score, we’re actually quite a bit ahead of other “GM towns.”

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am

I still say we do not need to be giving the oil companies all of these 10s of billions of dollars. The subsidies were meant to spur domestic production and refinery modernization. Neither of these two has occurred. Congress, and I mean both parties, sends our tax money to oil companies and other special interest of theirs knowing that part of that money will come back to them in the form of political donations and downright kickbacks.
We should take all of the subsidies and create an incentive program to help people purchase clean energy vehicles, namely like the Volt. The money would be spent much better in this fashion than the wasteful way it is done now. Of course, Big Oil would have to continue paying off our congressmen just like other industries do. Congress is addicted to “political” donations and kickbacks in one form or the other.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am

#125 Bill R:

“…all the spent fuel from all the nuclear power plants in the US, from all the power they have generated, would stack up on a football field about 12 feet high.”

So much the better. I guess they just need to get busy and figure out a credible way to get rid of the stuff. How many billions spent at Yucca Mountain with nothing to show for it?

(Quote)
&eye Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

So in order for GM to be able to sell us the car for the price we want, we have to give them some of our tax dollars and/or increase the national debt/devalue the dollar. Sounds like a bad deal to me… If the company cannot produce the product at a price the market will bear, it’s not a good product… Basics of free market economics… :\

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

How many of you actually read the Bill? If you did you would notice that the Republicans shot it down because the Democrats padded it up with relief to projects that have nothing to do with energy efficiency! Hurricane Katrina relief? Attorneys to get additional tax breaks on litigation on contingency fees? Come on, get educated people, the Republicans didn’t vote nay on an energy bill, they voted nay on the crap that got added onto it. Put out a plain energy conservation, tax credit for PHEVs and see that get passed. Get off the Democrat bandwagon and realize that you can help yourself NOW, not with the help of a Democrat that will TAX and GOUGE the hard working tax payers. How many welfare recipients will be driving a Volt?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

There is no way congress is going to pass an energy bill without a lot of pork in it. They thrive on pork. Pork gets them re-elected and guarantees donations flowing into their re-election coffers. The good thing about pork is that everyone wins. Well, except for the taxpayers who are too stupid, in most cases, to know any better than to keep on electing the same ole a**hole year after year. Pork is “distributed” by both parties and they love it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

When gasoline is too high for most of us to pay, congress will issue the welfare recipients gasoline purchase cards. Can’t have them do without the necessities of life, can we? Don’t believe me? Wait and watch the “special interest” groups who are devoted to keeping our poor under control and keeping them poor. Uneducated, poor and voting the right way. Good to keep those goods and services flowing to the needy. Votes depend on it.

In other words, never discount a politican when it is re-election time. Whatever it takes to buy enough votes (darn it, I meant sway voters). Don’t you just love our political system. Every body buys and sells. Not many Honest Abes left anymore. I know, not your congressman or senator. If not yours, then whose. Somebody has been doing the buying and selling.

Big Oil may try to convince congress to not offer tax rebates on the Chevy Volt. It is not in their best interest. You can bet they will be trying to stop electrification of vehicles. Of course, if they can persuade congress to allow oil companies to once again own public utilities, that would solve all of their problems. They could own utilities up to about 30 years ago. You may see it again.

I agree that we need to contact our representatives in congress often and hammer home our desire for clean energy without an oil future. We need more electrical production plants. Solar, wind, ocean currents, nuclear or whatever as long as it burns no fossil fuels.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Good to keep those goods and services flowing to the needy. Votes depend on it.

Should have started with “Got to keep”

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I do not mean to be too hard sounding on our poor. I grew up poor and lived around it all my life. I have seen what government programs do for the poor. They are designed to continue keeping you linked to the government for hand-outs. Poor education, poor food, poor self-esteem are just some of the things “welfare families” must fight every day. I just don’t see what government has ever really done for the working poor of this country except to chain us to them. Somehow we have to break that cycle for our poor people. Education is the pathway. But self-esteem is the spark. Government programs removes self-esteem.

I know, this is off the subject of the Volt. But, I made several comments that I thought needed some more clarification beyond what I said previously. I am successful today because my self-esteem was enough to get me up and make my way in the world. I gained a good high school education, fought in Vietnam with the Marines and came back to go to college for a BS degree in Business Administration with a minor in accounting and data processing. It takes a lot of hard work to accomplish that. Government did offer me (and I accepted) the G.I. Education Bill. But, if it had not been there, I would have done it anyway. I wish I had better answers. Someone does, I hope and pray.

(Quote)
Ken Grubb Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Umm, maybe I’m slow, but yes I did read the bill. All 3 versions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5351:

Perhaps someone will clue me in about all the pork. And then clue me in about how many Republican legislators in the House and Senate can lay claim to having NEVER voted for a bill with pork.

(Quote)
Ken Grubb Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Dang it all. Try this link.
http://tinyurl.com/5layh2

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am

Ken Grubb
All legislators, Democrat and Republican, vote for pork on every bill. That seems to be an unwritten rue. Every bill must contain pork for somebody’s pet project. Most of the bills have more pork spending than spending for the purpose of the bill. I would love to see a time when all bills voted on only contained one subject matter. Let a pork bill stand on its own the same as a non-pork bill. That way the President would not generally need a line item veto. He could either accept and sign the bill or veto it without affecting other things that might be important to get passed. But, that has a snow ball’s chance in h*ll of erver coming to pass.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 am

unwritten rule, not rue. Sorry

(Quote)
Ken Grubb Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am

#149 N Riley

Agree with you about the whole perfect porkless world. But, I’m still having trouble seeing all the excess pork in HR5351.

Looks like to me, for the most part, the Repubs voted against it because of the billions in oil tax credits.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Ken Grubb #151

Probably would not be the first time for the Republicans or the Democrats to vote against a bill because it was against their “friends” interest. Big Oil has their hands deep in both parties pockets. Controlling them when it can by stuffing the pockets with money and favors. Just normal politics that have been practiced by both parties for as long as I can remember over the last 50 years. Before that I am sure it was still done. And will be done 50 years from now.

(Quote)
2010: Odisseia do Híbrido « Anus Cerebralis Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Francine Riley Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am

Talk is cheap get this auto out .Mean while while we wait our way of life out the door to other countries.. We need those water cars out also . Making the world better is suppose to be our middle name not lets see what the other guys will come up with.And keeping our econmy strong here by sending our American students thru school while working for our industries wood help. And I am not talking about gettting students form other countries that go to our colleges to work for our industies , which they send there money back to there countries.

Sorrry about the grammer and spelling ,if I had the money to go to college I guess my vocabulary would get a little understandable.

Thank you
f riley

(Quote)
Cujo Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 6:53 am

I say the Chey Volt all the way! it is awsome! anybody else have any info about the chevy volt?

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

GM CEO Misquoted About Chevy Volt Price and Timing, Want it For Less?, Get Tax Credits Passed

155 Responses to “GM CEO Misquoted About Chevy Volt Price and Timing, Want it For Less?, Get Tax Credits Passed”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts