I don't think it will affect Tesla much since they presently can't fill their orders anyway. Last week, Elon Musk recommended that the EV incentives should be deleted from the proposed bill, so he obviously doesn't them. That decision may affect GM, Ford and Stellantis more, although today's disproportionate drop in GM's share price is probably due more to firing Amman of GM's Cruise division rather than to losing their anticipated EV rebates.
From one point of view, that position could be seen as self-serving. Now that Tesla doesn't need them (or can no longer use them), they don't want them in effect for other manufacturers.
Rebates for new technologies for which there is reason to provide public support are always going to be problematic: how long do you keep them around, when do you know they're no longer needed, how do you know they worked, is it unfair that some manufacturers are in a position to take better advantage than others, etc. What can be hidden from public view is the behind the scenes lobbying that put those rebates into effect. You can readily see how an entity could take advantage by lobbying for a temporary rebate for a technology in which they hold a head start. If the process is not transparent, no one really knows. I have no idea how EV rebates were put into effect in the US or for how long they were supposed to last.
Some people don't want government picking winners. But what if Tesla was a Chinese company? In that case, would all those so-called free marketeers want the US government to aid US manufacturers to catch up? Why would
that be ok?
If a new company like Tesla could benefit from EV rebates but other manufacturers were slower in adapting to the change, removing rebates too early could be detrimental to them. Would that be fair? They had an existing infrastructure to convert, Tesla did not.
I don't know anything about this, and I can come up with some nuance with just 10 minutes' thought, which means it's probably at least 10 times more complex than I can imagine.
