New U.S. Congress Bill Proposes a Tax Rebate for E-Bike Purchases
A proposed bill in the United States aimed to help the environment and promote car-free commuting could potentially benefit prospective eMTB-ers, too.
The Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act is scheduled for introduction to Congress Feb. 11 and proposes financial incentives to encourage consumers to buy e-bikes in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
The bill proposes a refundable tax rebate for 30% of a bike’s purchase price up to $1,500 and would be applicable to bike purchases up to $8,000. The tax credit could be claimed once per person every three years or twice for joint-return couples who purchase two e-bikes.
Although the bill promotes e-bikes for environmental reasons, it doesn’t discriminate between commuters and eMTBs. A “qualified electric bicycle” is a two-wheeled vehicle that has pedals, a seat, and an electric motor up to 750 watts that doesn’t provide assistance at speeds of more than 28 mph. (For reference, an e-bike motor producing more than 750 watts would be pretty sporty.)
The E-BIKE Act is led by Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and echoes the tax incentives already in place for electric car purchases.
 | E-bikes are not just a fad for a select few, they are a legitimate and practical form of transportation that can help reduce our carbon emissions. My legislation will make it easier for more people from all socio-economic levels to own e-bikes and contribute to cutting our carbon output. By incentivizing the use of electric bicycles to replace car trips through a consumer tax credit, we can not only encourage more Americans to transition to greener modes of transportation, but also help fight the climate crisis. |
The bill has support from PeopleforBikes, the League of American Bicyclists, the California Bicycle Coalition, Bike Santa Cruz County, Bicycling Monterey, and several other environmental and recreational interest groups.
Congressman Panetta’s press release is available here.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
For the life of me I can't figure out why more energy isn't being put in a renewable battery source. Eventually we're going to run out of places to pollute with batteries and carbon fiber.
But devils advocate... I think they're saying folks that normally would not ride to work will with an ebike. Each of those people takes a car off the road for a few days a week. It adds up. My old commute was 23 miles. Parts of it were a grind. Great for exercise not so great for getting to work quickly... and generally I'd be soaked with sweat. During COVID times... no showers. Not everyone wants to sit in ball sweat and back sweat all day. Ebike reduced those grind sections a bit which speeds up the time to get to work and reduced the ever present smell of sweaty nuts. In short... I'd be more likely to commute on the bike more often on the ebike than not. Devils advocate there.
Personally I don't think rebates are necessary for any of this crap. You're taking tax payer dollars and feeding it back to the wealthy.... I mean for the most part who's buying ebikes and Teslas? Generally folks with disposable income...
In my opinion, they should only provide rebates or subsidies for e-bikes sold with a solar panel recharging system =)
Or alternatively, provide rebates / subsidies for purchasing and reusing (rather than discarding) used vintage bikes like 90’s MTB’s that are just as fun, if not more fun, than gravel bikes. Reuse of old bikes is the least environmentally-impactful approach, hands down.
Example... my dad is in his 60's. Dude hasn't been on a bike in like 30 years. My brother and I ride all the time and he started reading up on things and asking questions. He just bought a gnarly ebike. Things perfect for trail building. And he rides it nearly every day. Is he getting the work out he'd get on a normal bike.... nope... but he clearly wasn't riding a normal bike. Maybe after he gets into better shape and falls back in love with bikes he'll move over to normal bikes. I doubt it. But either way... dudes outside almost every day smiling his ass off. What more could you want for a retired dude who's put in enough work?
There's a LOT of those people. People who either can't ride a bike 20-50 miles a day due to time or fitness or just don't want to. Put them on an ebike and maybe they will.... or can.
I have ZERO problems with ebikes. Not sure how necessary throwing money at people to buy them is. I'd rather money get tossed into green lanes, trail clean up and building/expansion of legal access, etc.
"exactly, lithium ion batteries are no better for the environment. Especially when the electricity being used to charge them comes from burning fossil fuels."
This assumes that electricity being consumed to charge a battery comes from fossil fuel. Unfortunately that's probably more likely than not in the US, while in Canada we have a much higher share of Hydro/renewable generation.
Even still however, there is economy of scale achieved in the use of fossil fuel to power a large generator compared to a tiny car engine. Never mind the savings in energy to propel the weight of a bike compared to a car. There are measurable reductions in emissions in the bike vs car comparison, there is no doubt.
I don't think big brother should be using tax dollars on these rebates however. Especially with the current economic climate.
Also, calories for riding your regular bike have emissions associated with them as well! Food production is a huge source of carbon emissions. If you ride your bike 30 miles to work each day and then eat 5 hamburgers to make up for the calories you have a ton of emissions associated with your commute! Plant based diets have way less carbon emissions in general.
End of the day, this is complicated, but the more people riding bikes (e or regular) the less overall carbon emissions!
Meanwhile elsewhere in the world, outside the USA, many countries have long since been onboard with replacing their cars with bicycles!
If you're suggesting e-bikes (especially urban) owners shouldn't receive a rebate then I disagree.
The only way to win here is to actually be one of the people who takes advantage of the e-bike rebate. The haters lose on this one!
I've got a hardtail to go with my emtb and I'll be building a longer travel fully for those shuttle days, park days, gnarlier than my ebike can handle days. Do it all and do it as well as you can. LOL!
This is just another example of government subsidies and market meddling. I say let demand drive the industry.
And after a "relief" of a few years "thanks" to fracking and tar sands, we may be closing in on the peak of unconventionnal oil. And it's all downhill from here for the economy...
So now governments are pushing bikes cuz' soon your big gaz guzzling car may have to stay parked.
www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-environmental-impact
Downside? clearly trails are being used more and need more maintenance.
And to the subject of the article: Financial incentives are not necessary.
Make no mistake, powers that be already have your real time GPS data because people are forced to give it to them and accept private policies for use of all those apps and cell phone. The problems that arise is how they abuse that data.
I bet less than 1% of the people who upvoted your comment are actually concerned about emissions. Just knee jerk emotional reaction to the inevitable rise of the e bike, and anxiety about the change. It's actually pretty similar to the emotional resistance to 29" wheels on DH/ enduro bikes that we saw for a few years before people accepted the benefits of "wagon wheels".
The first thing I though while I read the article was that e-bikes (in any form) really do make a bicycle based commute more realistic and more likely to happen on a regular basis from my point of view. Sitting in ball sweat all day is a big negative!!... sorry ladies, but I'm pretty sure your equivalent of ball sweat is equally grim too.
The cold hard reality of a tax break of this kind is that it is only likely to be utilized by those with enough disposable income to buy a relatively expensive e-bike in the first place.
The real game changer would be if more affordable e-bikes could start to replace car journeys where the bike cost less than the average Joe's car (including running costs).
When that threshold is crossed I reckon there will be Eeebs bloody everywhere.
There are quite a few cities in the world where cars have already been pushed back and a lot of people are using bikes, Amsterdam and Copenhagen for example. But a key factor in those places was that the infrastructure for safe biking has been provided early on. Especially the US of A is extremely far behind on that count. As long as a country has plenty of rednecks celebrating their backward view by riding coal rollers just out of spite I see not much hope, though....
And lo and behold, suddenly there were gas stations everywhere.
In NZ where co2e/kwh of electricity is ridiculously low an e-road bike would likely break even on c02 emissions at around 6,500km total use if it halved my calorie burn/km.
Given my commute is 40km/day it could break even within a year of ownership.
What is your solution then for charging cars in streets and apartment complexes for high density metropolitan areas? I would like to hear them.
Check your ISO for fuel mix:
Central US: www.misoenergy.org
Parts of California: www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx
New England: www.iso-ne.com
Ontario: www.ieso.ca/en/Power-Data/Supply-Overview/Transmission-Connected-Generation
Every DH'rs dream is more downs with easier ups. Especially when those ups are steep as f*ck like Laguna.
I dont have an E. But I'm currently making an E moto track nearby as that's future fun
Reality is this... as a community we have very little horsepower. The MTB community gets walked all over because of attitudes like yours. So hikers and horse back riders and what not gather up and get legislation going to make trail access limited.
More horsepower is available when larger organizations that work within cities, transportation and other variations of bike riding get involved. People for Bikes has worked very hard to make riding safer on the road for cyclist all over. They directly push initiatives that end up helping other people basically jump on the train. Example... there's now green lanes all over in my small community and any new development that happens green lanes are considered.
They also work to do things like open trail access that joins major commute areas to other major commute areas. Making things like 100 miles of connected trails a real thing.
So do they mess with politics? Yup. Do they get paid. Yup. Are they a real company with a CEO. Yup.
But to play in the land of politics those are all necessary evils. And in the end any progress they make makes it easier for smaller communities and smaller organizations to make things happen.
I don't like politics and big money crap but in order for us small fries to get what we need/want... that crap and those people need to be around. Basically.... someone needs to do it. Lord knows Trek and other big supporters of them aren't going to do it themselves. They have their own crap to worry about. So they throw some money at the folks that specialize in what jumps to jump through.
But on a personal level.... I know from first hand experience that the folks there are very kind and have the right motivations.
Full suspension e-bikes are a luxury toy, on the other hand. I think it's fair if we don't collectively choose to subsidize people buying luxury toys, and instead focus that money on improving society by decongesting our cities and using more energy-efficient transport.
100% agree that government support for biking is important but literally handing over taxpayer dollars for a purchase is short sighted. Increase the tax of driving in specific congested areas then use these new monies to pay for bike infrastructure. This incentivizes people to ditch the car and get ride a bike without increasing taxes on the everyone.
That’s a 100% zero emissions vehicle not getting the same benefits of people who just rideshare in a fossil fuel car.
But go ahead and lobby to subsidize purchases of adult Pow-Pow-Power Wheels.
Pay full price... if you can prove you have commuted on it X amount of days in say 6 months... you get the 30% rebate. otherwise... full price. That'll give people the initiative to use them.
40 minutes or so each way of actually turning the pedals and breathing fresh air, even if you aren't getting your heart rate into the red zone on the hills is exponentially better for you than 20 minutes in the car.
Anyone considering this really needs to know their full tax situation before buying. Any advertised credit is going to be the maximum amount to get people in the door and then will probably be disappointing once tax time comes.
Bottom line....people buying $3k-8k ebikes don't need a goddamn tax break. Supporting people trying to buy a $200 bike for their kids, so they can get outside and be active, would be a much more noble endeavor.
Poor people don't write tax laws, unfortunately.
Fun doesn't deserve a tax rebate. Commitment to cutting back on CO2 emissions, on the other hand, probably does (hence the car thing).
This was also just a hypothetical sidenote to the obvious point that if the goal is to provide an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions (and moreover, do some good for the economy by improving the health of its citizens) I'd be more inclined to support a rebate for NORMAL bikes. Why are E-bikes the magic saviours of the planet all of a sudden?
The point remains.... people who can buy ebikes probably aren't the ones who need a tax break.
you know what doesn't need a strip mine in Mongolia that is miles wide and a mile deep to get Cadmium and lithium?
a regular f*cking bike
This kind of legislation is a classic example of when ideological thinking trumps common sense. I'm all for E-bikes, especially for commuters and getting more people out of cars and on to E-bikes is a net positive, even in a coal-fired power state. HOWEVER, subsidizing consumer purchases is not the way to fight climate change - let alone the "all types of bikes apply" loophole. With these types of programs, typically the higher income members of society benefit, not everyone. Taxpayer money would be much better spent on bike lanes for major cities or even public transit expansion. In other words, spend money one things that provide greener alternatives for everyone, not just those who are fortunate enough to be in the market for high end consumer goods.
This type of program is even more unpalatable given the fiscal state the US (and every other country for that matter). It blows my mind that legislation like this picks up so much steam at the one of the historically worst public debt per citizen eras ever. Just imagine telling your kids that their taxes have gone up in part because they are paying off your Santa Cruz Heckler that you bought 20 years ago. And BTW, programs like this in Canada are 10X more common relative to the US.
www.bizpacreview.com/2021/02/09/roads-not-just-for-vehicles-anymore-covid-tests-before-flights-buttigieg-teases-big-changes-for-travel-1027592
...and then I read this. I applaud our American cousins. Has something changed over there?
VIP and Limited Edition Carbon Boost ..?
I'll give you all the money for a zero % return.
Combined with the development of secured infrastructures (bike lanes, secured bike parking spots) the effect at least in Paris have been absolutely fantastic over the last 2 years.
The number of people commuting by bike jumped from 2% to 6% (car went down from 15% to 10%, everything else is walking and public transportation).
When this covid shit will be away, I hope some of you will be able to visit or come back to Paris you'll notice the difference. So yes incentives for all bikes would be better but incentives for e-bikes are a great start.
People will not dump their cars just because the bike has an electric motor. It's not magic.
- It's still cold/hot
- It's still dark
- It's still wet
- It's still windy/dusty/muddy
- it's still slippery and sketchy
- it still requires specific gear
- it's not that much faster or easier, in some cases even slower
- Bike lanes are still (very often) dangerous
- traffic vs e-bikes is just as bad and dangerous as vs normal bikes, maybe more so
- you still have to carry your stuff in bags
- people will continue to nick the bike at first opportunity
- parking your ebike outside shops sucks just as much as parking a normal bike
- you still have to avoid plowing into pedestrians plugged into their smartphones and headsets
IMO, it's nothing more than an excuse for selling more stuff, make more money. Lots of people buy both bikes and e-bikes with the best intentions, and will never use it for the daily commute, and I totally get it. I commute by bike all year, in +30C or -20C and heavy snow, because I hate sitting longer in a queue in my car than the time I use for riding.
And I like bikes. No, I love bikes. (and some cars too...)
Meanwhile, try to buy a normal bike - a normal bike I said, not the last dentist fancy - and to get the least help: in your a**
- E motors output is decided by the motor controller and the algorithm it implements
- the motor's power rating is on the outside. If this is exceeded for a long period of time it will heat up and fail.
- Peak power upon intial spin up is often much higher than motor rating
- quickly settles into a max countinuous rated power (hopefully below motor's power rating)
So is that 750 W peak or max continuous rated power?
- if it means peak then this is pretty fast but not impossible for someone super strong to produce on their own
- countinous rated power of 750 W is insane and not even top pros can hold that for over a minute without blowing up
Government should be trying to work out how to help companies produce bikes at a lower cost and stop medaling in the free market.
As for charging them, we have 400w of solar on the van roof so, free braaps.
EU use bikes as their predominant commuters for small distances within cities;
E Bikes are superior for within city commute or so;
Please vote NO on the E-BIKE Act. This act would give unnecessary tax credits to purchase E-bikes, to people who don't need them, for dubious environmental reasons. This bill is bad policy on so many levels.
1) it's a giveaway for rich people. Working class people aren't buying e-bikes. This will not incentivize someone who wasn't already planning to buy an ebike to buy one.
2) it will produce NEGATIVE environmental benefits. The environmental impact of extracting materials and manufacturing batteries will outweigh the very small benefits from reducing short-distance car commutes.
3) It will not decrease car travel. An e-bike does not replace a car.
4) Commuting by bike is impractical in many parts of the country for most of the year, due to excessively cold, wet, or hot weather.
5) People are commuting less due to the pandemic; especially office workers who are most likely to commute by ebike.
6) Disproportionately benefits urban professionals, who are in the least need of help. Does nothing for rural people, working class people who live outside the urban core, people who need their cars for work (tradespeople, delivery drivers, etc.), or people who commute in the dark.
7) The bill would worsen the trade imbalance because e-bikes and e-bike components are overwhelmingly manufactured in Asia.
Milton Friedman
Not sure the policy makers got it totally wrong. But there are definitely some flaws in this whole proposal.
Road commuting is perfect for e-bikes and subsidizing might be a good thing. Tagging on E-mtb's which are used purely for recreation, not so much.
but essentially the energy and resources used to produce new tech or automobiles is going to outweigh the benefits until we find a way to produce them with way less energy and waste. keep in mind that more batteries means more lithium, silver, and other mines in developing countries which means more young asian and african kids diving deep into the earth to shake hands with the devil so you can feel like you're making a positive difference in the easiest way possible: you bought yourself something.
science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm
and if the paris climate deal and other similar environmental "pacts" have shown us anything, it's that the biggest polluters in the world don't give a f*ck about our opinions or condemnation. China hasn't lifted a finger to curb their environmental impact (at least not as much as they promised) and other countries followed suit. From an economic standpoint, why would you let off the gas if you know everyone is about to hit the brakes and let you pass?