Trump Tax Bill Passes in House: Major changes for EVs

[dalton108]

As announced today, eleven US states have formed the "Affordable Clean Cars Coalition", and will continue to promote EV manufacturing, charging, and sales, in spite of the new federal policies: Could possibly help Rivian, Lucid, and Telo, which are based in California. Other EV manufacturers, such as Tesla (Texas) or Slate (Michigan), are not based in Coalition states.

Supremacy clause though. These folk only care about “state’s rights” [LOL] when it’s the >solution< to undermining someone’s civil liberties or invading someone’s bedroom.

Otherwise, SUPREMACY CLAUSE all day, SUPREMACY CLAUSE all night! They will sue the states no matter what they do if it’s contrary to their bought and paid for dogma. Transparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

As I’ve said before, the continued downfall of this nation is going to be the result of Machiavellians on one side and morons on the other with just a big assist from Dunning–Kruger! ?

Sponsored

 

[BrockN]

Sorry, but he said two things:

“if there were no semis or other similar vehicles and only passenger cars and light trucks, the roadway surfaces would never need repairs..”

and

“If properly designed and placed, an asphalt mix that was only loaded by passenger vehicles would last practically forever.”

The condition of America’s truck-free parkways prove both statements to be grossly exaggerated or false. Yes, of course trucks do far more damage than light vehicles. Duh. But are you aware of the huge per-miles excise taxes they pay for road use? They pay far more than their share. Until the advent of EV and High-MPG taxes, efficient cars were free-riding on everyone else. One of teh geniuses of Elon’s master plan was to make EVs widely accepted and as good or better for driving than ICE vehicles. He achieved this and changed the world with the MS advent. But with that comes responsibility. We have now matured and some EVs are the best selling vehicles in the world. Time to act like adults and pay our way. No more tax subsidies and no more free-riding the roads.

Sorry, but this is idiotically pedantic.

Anyone with a functioning brainstem would understand what he meant. And he's not entirely wrong. We could build roads to a level that would last virtually forever (that is to say, decay and deterioration would be environmental, not due to use) if we wanted to pay the price. Unless you have information I don't, it's not reasonable for you to say that truck-free parkways are a relevant data point without knowing the design standard to which they were designed and constructed.

I actually feel dumber for having bothered making this response...

 

[dalton108]

Sorry, but this is idiotically pedantic.

Anyone with a functioning brainstem would understand what he meant. And he's not entirely wrong. We could build roads to a level that would last virtually forever (that is to say, decay and deterioration would be environmental, not due to use) if we wanted to pay the price. Unless you have information I don't, it's not reasonable for you to say that truck-free parkways are a relevant data point without knowing the design standard to which they were designed and constructed.

I actually feel dumber for having bothered making this response...

Punxsutawney Phil? Yeah, sounds about right. It’s best if you keep your comms simple and focus on shadow seen vs. shadow not seen. Even then, you know, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Sorry, but this is idiotically pedantic.

Anyone with a functioning brainstem would understand what he meant. And he's not entirely wrong. We could build roads to a level that would last virtually forever (that is to say, decay and deterioration would be environmental, not due to use) if we wanted to pay the price. Unless you have information I don't, it's not reasonable for you to say that truck-free parkways are a relevant data point without knowing the design standard to which they were designed and constructed.

I actually feel dumber for having bothered making this response...

Parkways are built to the very highest standards. They are heavily regulated and most have incredibly thick concrete bases that have and do last for decades. They are Federally-funded roads and must meet almost ridiculous construction standards. They emerged from the ‘50’s road-building wave, later enhanced by Lady Bird Johnson’s push for parkway construction and roadside beautification (no parkway has a billboard on it, for example). The fact that they are truck-free makes them a PERFECT foil for understanding how trucks impact road durability.

The vast majority of roadway surface damage is from weather. Freeze-thaw cycles are what they are. Notwithstanding your insult (I do have a functioning brainstem), he said what he said and it is false. No road surface will last forever. That was the specific claim, without an environmental damage caveat. They cannot last very long in areas that have freeze-thaw cycles and road chemical use for ice - it is simply a fact of physics that roads need periodic replacement and resurfacing. Why is this even an argument?. Your caveat that roads would last forever except for environmental deterioration is a big tell. Weather is the biggest cause of road deterioration, again proving the point that we all must pay for road use in accordance with our distance driven on that road, perhaps adjusted for weight as we do with trucks, including amortizing regular wear-and tear from environmental exposure. Sheesh.

https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/docs/federal-lands/specs/archives/37486/fp-24.pdf

 

[BrockN]

Punxsutawney Phil? Yeah, sounds about right. It’s best if you keep your comms simple and focus on shadow seen vs. shadow not seen. Even then, you know, take it with a grain of salt.

Yeah, after posting that I thought, "why am I even bothering" and found the Ignore button. Life is too short to waste any of it arguing with pedantic SOBs.

 

[dalton108]

Yeah, after posting that I thought, "why am I even bothering" and found the Ignore button. Life is too short to waste any of it arguing with pedantic SOBs.

Truth! Besides, being a pedantic SOB is MY thing! Or, maybe just the SOB part, idk. ??‍

?

 

[BrockN]

Truth! Besides, being a pedantic SOB is MY thing! Or, maybe just the SOB part, idk. ??‍

?

I may also resemble that remark...?

 

[Gaximus]

No. Roads (asphalt) wears mostly due to what are calculated as single axle loads. The mass of a semi or delivery truck applied to the axles is very high relative to an average EV. For that matter, the average pickup truck is in the same range (or higher) than a typical EV.

A simplistic way to think of the asphalt damage is like metal fatigue. If you don't stress it very much, it will last virtually forever. If you flex it significantly more, to the point of yielding or just before, it won't survive very long. It's not exactly a proportional relationship, meaning that an axle load that is 1/10th of another load won't do 1/10th of the damage.... it would be MUCH less. The heavy semis do more damage to pavement with each loading than a ridiculous number of cars do. If properly designed and placed, an asphalt mix that was only loaded by passenger vehicles would last practically forever and frankly, weathering would probably deteriorate it faster.

So the notion that EVs are somehow destroying roads at a ridiculous rate is essentially nonsense, but it does sound good!

No one said EVs are “destroying the roads at ridiculous rate”. I said they do more damage than a non-ev counterpart. As you said, per axel, EVs weight more. I don’t know why your mentioning semi trucks, but its a good point you bring up, and they have to pay quite a bit more when registering because of the extra damage. What I was saying, was that it makes sense for EVs to have to pay extra, during registration, because they do more damage. But $250 is way too high to account for that. It should be a miles driven per year fee.

 

[BrockN]

No one said EVs are “destroying the roads at ridiculous rate”. I said they do more damage than a non-ev counterpart. As you said, per axel, EVs weight more. I don’t know why your mentioning semi trucks, but its a good point you bring up, and they have to pay quite a bit more when registering because of the extra damage. What I was saying, was that it makes sense for EVs to have to pay extra, during registration, because they do more damage. But $250 is way too high to account for that. It should be a miles driven per year fee.

The "ridiculous rate" comment isn't quoting you, but rather is paraphrasing the BS talking point from the anti-EV side.

But if you look at the math used to calculate ESALs, you'll quickly realize that whether 3500 pounds or 2000 pounds, the ESAL number is still ridiculously low, thanks to the power of 4 exponent in the calculation. So when you recognize the number of regular pickups and SUVs on the roads that don't really weigh much less (often more) than an EV, the argument that EVs are actually contributing more to road wear and tear falls flat on its face. At least until people stop commuting in F-150s and Tahoes.

 

[stymeist]

Sounds like the intention is to make EVs more expensive than ICE cars, but I'm pessimistic. That would be each vehicle averaging almost 1400 gallons per year.

Or 10 gallons in California. LOL

 

[Taildragger]

Let’s let science guide the fees. Combustion emits road-damaging PM-Particulate Matter, especially Diesel.

Per AI: Potential Effects of Particulate Matter on Asphalt Deterioration:

• Adhesion Issues:
  PM can accumulate on asphalt surfaces, potentially hindering the bonding of new layers of asphalt, which can lead to delamination and cracking.
  
  
• 
  Oxidation:
  Exposure to airborne particles, including those from road dust, can contribute to the oxidation of asphalt binders, leading to brittleness and loss of flexibility.
• Water Penetration:
  Cracks and other damage caused by the accumulation of PM can allow water to penetrate the asphalt, accelerating the deterioration process.
  
  
  Have our legislators studied the science? It’s not just about weight.
  

 

[BrockN]

Have our legislators studied the science?

You're joking, right?

As near as I can tell, science has been outlawed. Give it a few more months and you'll be burned at the stake for even whispering the word.

 

[dalton108]

You're joking, right?

As near as I can tell, science has been outlawed. Give it a few more months and you'll be burned at the stake for even whispering the word.

?? ‘e’s a witch!!!

 

[rudedawg78]

Trump's new tax bill passed the house and below are it's impacts on EVs:

• Kills the $7,500 tax credit for EV manufacturers that have sold more than 200k EVs (Tesla) at the end of 2025
• Strips many solar and battery credits Tesla uses
• Kills Commercial Clean Credit
• Imposes $250 a year federal tax per EV to make up for loss of fuel tax
  • This would be in addition to your state tax (South Carolina has $250 per year)

https://www.investors.com/news/tesl...passed-trump-tax-bill-means-stock-market-evs/

Something to keep an eye on as it heads to the Senate.

Doesn't sound like a "beautiful" bill to me.

 

[BrockN]

?? ‘e’s a witch!!!

Canadian, but likely close enough... ?

Sponsored