@Brett: I totally agree with #2. If there is truly "no market", then the tax credits will not get used.

So what if not everyone can afford an electric car yet? The point of the tax credits is to help lithium battery cars in their infancy, so that costs can come down more quickly.

'ex-EV1 driver' (in other threads) has made a valid point about one downside of the tax credits, though. They provide an opening for EVs to get politicized in a negative way. This has the effect of turning away potential buyers, not to mention businesses that might otherwise have been supportive of EV charging.

Personally, I would not have considered the LEAF in the first place without the government incentives. On the other hand, now that I've tasted the benefits of EVs, I'd still want to purchase one even without the incentives.

Yes, on balance I support the $7500 tax credit, especially in light of how much we are subsidizing oil. It's just a shame to see shortsighted politicians behaving as they always do.

Unfortunately he seems to be basing his point on people not wanting a Volt, which is a hybrid, not an EV. I think subsidies should be restructured, more for actual EV's but with a price ceiling to promote cheaper and more efficient EV's. As much as I love the Tesla Model S, and being that I'm also a stock holder and want them to succeed, I don't think we need to subsidize the models above the base S any more, maybe have a decreasing subsidy above $40K or so.

I just started writing a post on this to put up here but I see Brad beat me to it. I wanted to really make sure the point that Mr Kelly is clearly an "oil man" known. He's not simply a concerned politician, he's a shill for the oil industry and his wealth comes form oil.
Thank you Steve for pointing it out. I'm going to include the link here again because I don't want anyone to miss out on this important little fact:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/05/260558/mike-kelly-oil-subsidies/

I hope this bill does not gain any momentum, because otherwise, I will be unable to purchase the Volt if the tax credit is revoked. Kelly seems to make out the situation as black and white - either you can instantly go out and buy one or you can't afford one at all. Then there's the rest of us, like me, who have to save money over a long period of time to afford a plug-in car. When I plan to purchase my Volt in several months, I will have been saving my money for a year. Adding on an addition $7500 to the price tag will price me out of the car that best fits me for my living situation. Too bad Kelly won't be getting my business at his dealership...

@Tom - You are doing exactly the right thing. There are actually two things the politicians care about: $ contributions and votes. With corporations now considered persons who have the right to express themselves and with money considered expression, all we hear about is the money. But the votes are just as improtant to the politicians and if people band together to support something the politicians will take notice.

The EV industry needs this $7,500 tax credit to have a healthy growth trajectory over the next few years. The reason why this is needed is that if batteries, power electronics and car drive motors are made in limited production both the material and other production costs are high. It is only when we get to higher volume that these costs will come down.

I know that people may be skeptical over hearing that because it is said all the time by the industry. But it is said all the time because it is true. High volume is needed to get the costs down.

And the same thing is true in other industries. When a laptop or cellphone contains new and advanced tech that has not yet been produced in high volume it is also at least as premium in cost as EVs are now. The big difference is how expensive a car is. A phone that costs 30% to 50% more will find some buyers out there somewhere as it is only a $100 or $200 that someone needs to come up with. But with a car this early low volume production premium puts the car price into the range that only the wealthy can afford. So the tax credit is what prevents EVs from only being bought by the rich in the early days and allows EVs to approach the kind of volumes where the tax credit can be taken away.

Back in the days of the Great Depression there was the concept of "priming the pump". This means that if the government puts in some cash to get something going, then the government can back away once everything is up and running. Without doing this from time to time there would be a lot of things that we depend on today that we would not have. Like a national highway system, gasoline powered cars (because we would have run out of oil), the internet, computer chips, the national power grid, etc., etc.

Letting the private sector do whatever it can is great because the private sector can come up with a huge variety of solutions to problems and let the public pick which onces will win. Like the difference between a LEAF and a Volt. But when the private sector just isn't equipped to do something, like overcome the cost vs volume curve of the emergent EV industry, then government can play a very useful role by pushing EVs past the bump in the curve.

And in so doing the government will reduce the country's trade deficit by leading to the day when cars are powered by domestic energy sources once again. Take away oil imports and you pretty much take away the trade imbalance. And make us less vulnerable to foreign wars. Not to mention saving the cities on the coastline from future flooding, etc. It is a strategic move that is in the country's longterm interest. It is not done to be charitable to EV buyers.

well, test or sell. :)

"Bush may have gotten a few things right ..."

I doubt it. He got everything I'm concerned about wrong. Heck, he even missed Bin Laden in Tora Bora.

Luckily control of a woman's body is still legally hers and not dictated by religious beliefs from the dark ages. Abortion will always happen as it always has, and it needs to be legal and safe for the woman. Further more we cannot mindlessly procreate forever, population control will happen, one way or another. I'd rather not have it be disease, famine, and war.

@abasile, actually what's evil is a mindless attempt to oppress women.

@Chad, "I think its a good idea to get rid the of rebate. Unless they amended the rules to not allow dealers to abuse this. I hate the idea of having something taken from me by a bunch of greedy business owners."

Huh? If by "rebate" you are referring to the $7500 tax credit, what has that to do with "dealers" or "greedy business owners"? It is claimed by the car buyer, if he/she owes at least $7500 in federal income taxes. Or it is claimed by the leasing company if the car is leased and then used as part of the down payment on the car.

If we are going to get rid of this limited, temporary, tax credit, we ought to get rid of the subsidies to oil production as well, including the $1 Trillion+ we have spent on wars in the Middle East to keep oil flowing. And we should add the other external costs of oil use, such as pollution, to the cost of a gallon of gasoline or diesel. That would help level out the "playing field" between oil and electricity powered vehicles.

Since that isn't going to happen in the USA, I think that the temporary tax credit for EVs is little enough to help jump-start a product and industry that will be beneficial to national security and the economy.