Your interpretation of how the new credits will be calculated is how I took it as well. I hope your are right and I get to claim my credit for my 2013 Leaf using the new credit methodology. I'm looking at a 5,400 credit with the new calculation. Old calculation yielded $4600 for fy 2012. Probably would be less for 2013. Makes no sense that the 2014 purchasers would get a higher credit when they cam make the law retro active to January 1, 2013.cgaydos wrote:Ok I've read it for LEAFs, and here's my first take. This is for discussion only - by all means wait for the updated tax publication from Colorado for the actual numbers. In short, it appears that the Colorado LEAF credit is now better for purchasers - potentially back up to $6k for buyers of the high end models, but a lot less for people who lease a LEAF.
For newly purchase EVs take the MSRP, subtract the $7500 federal credit and any other "grants or rebates" and that is your actual cost. Then take actual cost, multiply by battery capacity in kwh and divide by 100 for your credit, not to exceed $6k. I am assuming, therefore, that manufacturer rebates to customers are factored in but not rebates to dealers. Battery capacity is defined as 100% to 0%, but it's not clear whether that is usable as limited by car computers or actual what the batteries can do - I'm assuming the latter so for LEAFs that would be 24. It does not appear that delivery charge or sales tax are included in the actual cost.
An example would be a S model with an MSRP of $28500 and no rebates to the consumer. The credit would be, as I read this, based on: 1) actual cost of $28500-$7500 federal tax credit = $21k, 2) multiply by 24 and divide by 100 = $5040. But for more expensive models or an S with options the credit would be higher. For this reason in most cases *purchasers* of the LEAF should be getting more of a credit than before, UNLESS they use something like 21 kwh as the battery capacity.
For leases it gets really complicated, basically you total up your payments, including down payment, then have to subtract all the taxes, rent charge, admin fees, disposition fee (if included in payments), to get the actual cost. As each lease is different the calculation is different. However, I believe this will result in a much lower credit for people LEASING a LEAF. As an example, last year I claimed almost $2k (and got the refund as a result) - the same lease would yield under $1200 under the new law.
One area not addressed is the effect on people who bought or leased earlier in 2013 under the previous law. As it reads the new law applies regardless, but in the past they've made allowances for people who bought under old guidance even if that turned out to be wrong or changed. For me, having bought a new 2011 (in March, 2013 at a very low price) the net change is actually positive (this is a re-edit from what I first posted) because the credit is based on MSRP, which was $35,440, not on cost actually paid. In fact I will top out at the $6k limit for the credit.
The other question is used cars. As before, no car can get the same credit twice, but you can buy a used car from out-of-state and claim the credit. In most scenarios the credit is better under this law for a used LEAF from another state. Previously you took the credit ($4815) and pro-rated based on what you paid relative to the MSRP. Since the MSRP was before the federal tax rebate your used LEAF is likely to be 60% or less of the MSRP. Under the new law you calculate based on the actual cost of the car to you (interestingly, in the used car clause sales taxes are not excluded from actual cost unlike the other sections - you might even be able to justify the transport costs as part of the actual cost under the wording here) then use the *24 /100 calculation. So, for a $21k used LEAF you'd get a $5040 credit as noted above (with all the assumptions listed there).
I wonder what the purpose of the windshield decal is?42-3-304. Registration fees - passenger and passenger-mile taxes - clean screen fund - definitions - repeal.
(25) (a) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2014, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER FEE IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION, COUNTY CLERKS AND RECORDERS SHALL ANNUALLY COLLECT A FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION ON EVERY PLUG-IN ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLE . COUNTY CLERKS AND RECORDERS SHALL TRANSMIT THE FEE TO THE STATE TREASURER, WHO SHALL CREDIT THIRTY DOLLARS OF EACH FEE TO THE HIGHWAY USERS TAX FUND CREATED IN SECTION 43-4-201, C.R.S., AND TWENTY DOLLARS OF EACH FEE TO THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE GRANT FUND CREATED IN SECTION 24-38.5-103, C.R.S.
(b) THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SHALL CREATE AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE DECAL, WHICH A COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER SHALL GIVE TO EACH PERSON WHO PAYS THE FEE CHARGED UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (25). THE DECAL MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE FRONT WINDSHIELD ON THE MOTOR VEHICLE FOR WHICH IT WAS ISSUED. IF THERE IS A CHANGE OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, THE DECAL IS TRANSFERABLE TO THE NEW OWNER.
(c) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, "PLUG-IN ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLE" MEANS:
(I) A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT HAS RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CERTIFICATION FROM THE FEDERAL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE THAT THE VEHICLE QUALIFIES FOR THE PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE VEHICLE CREDIT SET FORTH IN 26 U.S.C. SEC. 30D, OR ANY SUCCESSOR SECTION; OR
(II) ANY MOTOR VEHICLE THAT DRAWS ELECTRICITY FROM A BATTERY THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING CHARGED FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE.
Another interesting law for renters or condo owners: SB126. (CRS 38-12-601. Unreasonable restrictions on electric vehicle charging systems). It prohibits restrictions on the installation of charge stations by tenants or condo owners. (This is similar in spirit to the 1970s law the prohibits unreasonable restrictions by HOAs on the installation of solar panels by property owners.)CRS 24-38.5-103. Electric vehicle grant fund - creation - administration.
(1) There is hereby created in the state treasury the electric vehicle grant fund, referred to in this section as the "fund". The fund shall be used to provide grants to local governments, LANDLORDS OF MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND THE UNIT OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITIES AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 33.3 OF TITLE 38, C.R.S., to install recharging stations for electric vehicles. The grants shall be prioritized based upon the local government's PROSPECTIVE RECIPIENTS' POTENTIAL FOR, AND commitment to, energy efficiency.
Interesting because I notice the title on my 2011 LEAF indicates fuel is "GAS" not "ELECTRIC". I called the state SOS and they said the local DMV office has to fix it. I think now I'll let it stay as is and see if they remember the $50 fee at renewal time next year.dgpcolorado wrote:... ANNUALLY COLLECT A FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION ON EVERY PLUG-IN ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLE.
It doesn't say so explicitly but the context seems to indicate that the decal is renewed annually thus it indicates the fee has been paid this year - useful for resale of the vehicle. I gather the same approach is used for emissions certifications in the Denver area, but I'm not sure as we don't have those certifications down here.dgpcolorado wrote:I wonder what the purpose of the windshield decal is?
I suppose that could be the case (no emissions stuff here either) but why would anyone care? You can't renew your license plate without paying registration fees so having a current plate sticker means all is taken care of. I'm just curious as to the rationale for the sticker. Probably ought to contact whoever wrote the bill.cgaydos wrote:It doesn't say so explicitly but the context seems to indicate that the decal is renewed annually thus it indicates the fee has been paid this year - useful for resale of the vehicle. I gather the same approach is used for emissions certifications in the Denver area, but I'm not sure as we don't have those certifications down here.dgpcolorado wrote:I wonder what the purpose of the windshield decal is?
For example, a purchase of the S model at MSRP: ($28,800 - $7500) x 24/100 = $5112(a) Category 1. (I) With respect to the tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2013, but prior to January 1, 2019, the actual cost incurred by the taxpayer during the tax year for purchasing or leasing a category 1 motor vehicle multiplied by the battery capacity of the motor vehicle and divided by one hundred;
Thanks for pointing this out. Certainly an S trim level is not likely to get the full $6k credit.dgpcolorado wrote:The new formula is written in such a way that purchasers in 2013 might not get the full $6000 unless the price paid is on the high side. And it isn't clear whether the old or new formula applies because of a conflict in wording, although it is clear that the intent of the new law was that the new formula applies:
HOUSE BILL 13-1247For example, a purchase of the S model at MSRP: ($28,800 - $7500) x 24/100 = $5112(a) Category 1. (I) With respect to the tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2013, but prior to January 1, 2019, the actual cost incurred by the taxpayer during the tax year for purchasing or leasing a category 1 motor vehicle multiplied by the battery capacity of the motor vehicle and divided by one hundred;