Media Watch - NVX related, page-13021

@docrottdc (HC isn't allowing me to directly reply atm. Happens for some reason from time to time, usually around 1-2am then goes away.

I disagree with your whole premise of your first paragraph below except the first sentence. Sales are equally important as 1A and 1B

Divining the "why" a bill is written the way it is and separating the sales pitch politicians give, vs the clear intent of the law is always a bit tricky. That said, when I read the IRA, I don't think that improving EV adoption is near the top of the priority list. It would have been easy to write the law in a way that simply gave a point of sale credit to EV's. I believe they didn't do that because the 1A and 1B priorities are:

1A: Decouple the battery supply chain from China as a national security program.
1B: Spin up domestic US industry in the battery and EV space.

Why sales are equally important:

1/ When the IRA was first implemented, the goal was to have 50% of vehicle sales to be EV's by 2030

2/ you can't expect industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars if there isn't a robust market to sell into. They'll go broke. Especially the smaller suppliers.

3/ why would they change the sales tax credit to be point of sale if EV adoption wasn't a priority? They got it wrong the first time and it's a desperate attempt to increase flagging demand. People who didn't have a tax refund now qualify

4/ It won't affect NVX in the short to medium term because of their first mover status. However, longer term is a different matter. It allows others to catch up. If you don't have robust demand growth to stay 1 step ahead, supply will quickly outstrip demand. Lithium being the classic example

5/ Demand will still increase

6/ Manchin humbugged the administration with the FEOC rules. They weren't needed. Tariffs are a better mechanism to use if required