2023 battery rules for tax credit

P

papab

Active Member
A temporary reprieve:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1173

Treasury will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in March with proposed guidance on the critical minerals and battery components requirements. By statute, the critical mineral and battery component requirements take effect only after Treasury issues that proposed rule.​
 
So if the $3,750 critical minerals and battery components doesn't exist until the treasury issues the rule, then are they saying that no vehicle can qualify for the $7,500 in non-business tax credits?

I await an official response from the treasury department.
 
The Verge is reporting that this means that vehicles which would be eligible except for the minerals/battery requirements will remain eligible until the rule is issued. So they get a free pass for 2 or 3 months.
 
Bruce M. said:
The Verge is reporting that this means that vehicles which would be eligible except for the minerals/battery requirements will remain eligible until the rule is issued. So they get a free pass for 2 or 3 months.
Click to expand...
So after watching foreign EVs getting the $7,500 tax credit for years while their US-built EVs did not, GM and Tesla will soon find the situation flipped in their customers' favor--until March (unless the Treasury Dept. puts the minerals-requirement deadline on an ever-moving conveyor belt).

Wow, the IRA sure elevated the usage of the word, "minerals!"
 
We talked about this on the Podcast today and here's the key bit that means Chevrolet Bolt EV and some others can get the full $7,500 rebate until sometime in March:
"Treasury will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in March with proposed guidance on the critical minerals and battery components requirements. By statute, the critical mineral and battery component requirements take effect only after Treasury issues that proposed rule."
 
In fairness, carmakers have blurred the lines between SUVs and cars a whole lot. "Sedan" may not be an appropriate term for some of these vehicles, but tall hatchback or tall wagon wouldn't be unreasonable (and the same absolutely goes for my Hyundai Kona EV, which is to SUVs as I am to Tom Brady as a football player). But the end result certainly feels arbitrary.
 
Something to realize is that while we all know its absurd that say one model Y is a Sedan and another is a SUV, the government can't just decide like we do with our eyes. It has to be a number. Weight. Or battery capacity. Or vehicle height, or length. Whatever the deciding attribute is, is must be something numerical the Government can use. If I understand correctly, they are using weight right now. I personally think battery capacity would be better, but that still wouldn't be an SUV or Sedan.
 
To qualify last fall, it was if your order was placed by the effective date of the IRA. To qualify before Treasury issues the rule in March, is it order placed by or is it take delivery of by?
 
I think its: take delivery before the treasury issues the rules. But don't trust anyone on the internet :)

Last fall you had to have a binding contract before the IRA was signed, not just an order
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top