[magnetic1]

Looks like the house just passed their bill (3rd reading). Now off to Senate 4/4.

Notes:
Caps $3MM per year.
Equipment credits reduced from before: 40% off with lower total limits.
$100/kwH credit (old was 125) with cap of $3000.
Purchase price cannot exceed $60k
Battery capacity must be greater than 5kwh

NOT retroactive. In effect 7/1/17.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb0406t.pdf

GAM-HB0406 Summary 2017 Regular Session

 

[Jeepowner]

I just sent and email to all senators from Montgomery county asking them to consider backdating the credit.
Here is a link for those interested.

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/07leg/html/gaco.html

Not sure if it will help (but it can't hurt) as I am sure like many of you I am hoping to have the car in April.

 

[ljnelson109]

Magnetic1, thanks for posting the update.

Jeepowner, I took your lead and sent an e-mail as well. I agree, it can't hurt, although may be late since the house has already approved the bill. Time will tell.

 

[generaltso]

I just sent and email to all senators from Montgomery county asking them to consider backdating the credit.

These types of credits are meant to be an incentive for people to buy electric. Making them retroactive doesn't really accomplish that goal since existing owners have already decided to purchase without the incentive. Doesn't hurt to ask, but I certainly wouldn't count on that changing.

 

[magnetic1]

These types of credits are meant to be an incentive for people to buy electric. Making them retroactive doesn't really accomplish that goal since existing owners have already decided to purchase without the incentive. Doesn't hurt to ask, but I certainly wouldn't count on that changing.

All it's doing it making me wait and wait and wait to make the purchase. Though not a huge deal since they keep delaying them

At this rate, I might as well wait for a 2018 :surprise:

 

[ljnelson109]

These types of credits are meant to be an incentive for people to buy electric. Making them retroactive doesn't really accomplish that goal since existing owners have already decided to purchase without the incentive. Doesn't hurt to ask, but I certainly wouldn't count on that changing.

I agree. On the flip side, though, given this knowledge, I may consider delaying my purchase until July. So, to your point, it is not "influencing" me to buy, but to delay a buy. By July, we should have information regarding the 2018, so depending on the news, I could end up delaying my buy further.

The other thing is that this is not a new program. It is a renewal of an existing program that ran out of funding. They are lowering the rebate amounts while increasing the budget for the program. So, my argument in my message was to allow FY2018 funding to support the end of the FY14-17 program. Here is the rub, that could get complicated. The old program had a higher rebate. So, they would have to write-in language that allowed the new rebate amounts to apply to purchases in the old program window. The long shot just got longer.:frown2:

 

[magnetic1]

Also unclear in the bill is how the "Purchase Price" is determined. Is that after trade? incentives?

 

[ljnelson109]

Also unclear in the bill is how the "Purchase Price" is determined. Is that after trade? incentives?

I hate to sound selfish, but for the Pacifica Hybrid, it is irrelevant. There is no reasonable way that a PacHy purchase price could exceed $60K (US). That would be an unfathomable amount of negative equity rolled into the deal!

 

[magnetic1]

I hate to sound selfish, but for the Pacifica Hybrid, it is irrelevant. There is no reasonable way that a PacHy purchase price could exceed $60K (US). That would be an unfathomable amount of negative equity rolled into the deal!

Yes but if this rollout takes any longer, I may get into a X5e, then it matters

 

[ljnelson109]

Yes but if this rollout takes any longer, I may get into a X5e, then it matters

In that case, then you may be in a bind. I gather that they picked that price tag to specifically eliminate the high end Plug-ins. You will definitely need to get clarification on their definition of price! I think that Maryland has the dealer calculate tax before rebates and incentives. While there is a 'credit' for trades, I think that reduces your tax liability but may not reduce it for this incentive. Worse yet, I don't even know who would be an authority to clarify this for you. If you find an answer, you have definitely piqued my curiosity.

 

[magnetic1]

In that case, then you may be in a bind. I gather that they picked that price tag to specifically eliminate the high end Plug-ins. You will definitely need to get clarification on their definition of price! I think that Maryland has the dealer calculate tax before rebates and incentives. While there is a 'credit' for trades, I think that reduces your tax liability but may not reduce it for this incentive. Worse yet, I don't even know who would be an authority to clarify this for you. If you find an answer, you have definitely piqued my curiosity.

After some research, I found that the way they define purchase price for excise tax calculations is as follows so I assume it would be the same for the electric vehicle credits also:

"Excise tax is 6% of the price certified by the dealer, less trade-in allowance, with no allowance
for down payment or manufacturer’s rebate."

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/_resources/docs/Interactive-Title-and-Registration-Manual.pdf

Relevant pages: 45-48 (section 04)

 

[aork]

Does anyone know what the deal is with SB 393 (passed the Senate on 3/27, now in the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee)? Why are there two seemingly separate bills with essentially the same content?

GAM-SB0393 History 2017 Regular Session

 

[magnetic1]

Does anyone know what the deal is with SB 393 (passed the Senate on 3/27, now in the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee)? Why are there two seemingly separate bills with essentially the same content?

GAM-SB0393 History 2017 Regular Session

That's how it works usually. Senate and House have their two bills, they pass, then to opposing chamber to approve. One bill makes it out at end for gov. to sign.

 

[aork]

That's how it works usually. Senate and House have their two bills, they pass, then to opposing chamber to approve. One bill makes it out at end for gov. to sign.

What I don't understand is why there are two Senate bills, SB 315 (cross filed with HB 406) and SB 393. Wouldn't one suffice?

 

[magnetic1]

What I don't understand is why there are two Senate bills, SB 315 (cross filed with HB 406) and SB 393. Wouldn't one suffice?

This is the MD general assembly youre talking about....

 

[aork]

This is the MD general assembly youre talking about....

Point well taken :grin2:

 

[magnetic1]

Looks like bill cleared the General Assembly.

Only change from the beginning was the cap per fiscal year went back down to $2.4MM (they tried to up it to $3MM). Assuming a Pacifica Hybrid 16kwh battery... that's only 1500 vehicles per year. Better hurry!

 

[aork]

Better hurry!

... in July!

 

[snowang]

So will it apply to vehicles leased before July but delivered after?

 

[magnetic1]

So will it apply to vehicles leased before July but delivered after?

I mean usually you dont pay until you take delivery...