I think that it's ridiculous to be picky about the value of the car that gets the incentive, when the most expensive BEV allows the most substitution, and the company involved is actually dedicated to broadening ownership of BEVs in a far more aggressive and complete manner than other companies. The WA amendment is particularly (deliberately?) obtuse because the next generation of plug-ins is liable to be starting in the $35k-$45k range, as this will be the generation where the companies are looking for profitability and a transition from dependency on subsidies before any 3rd generation expansion of volume. The Volt 2 is rumored to have an MSRP starting at $32k, but the LTZ variant will clearly cost a chunk more. A cap on the tax break is fine, but a cap on the price is not.
Maybe lobbying groups like Plug In America need to explain to legislators that the current generation of short-range BEVs and their mandate and subsidy-driven sales are really just helping to build infrastructure for BEVs and EREVs with mass appeal, and explain economies of scale aren't fully developed yet, so the next generation is not going to be an improved Leaf, but a cost-reduced Tesla, and a cap on vehicle price is completely inane.
Maybe lobbying groups like Plug In America need to explain to legislators that the current generation of short-range BEVs and their mandate and subsidy-driven sales are really just helping to build infrastructure for BEVs and EREVs with mass appeal, and explain economies of scale aren't fully developed yet, so the next generation is not going to be an improved Leaf, but a cost-reduced Tesla, and a cap on vehicle price is completely inane.
