Home / Blogs / Business / The Bulletin
Follow this blog:
RSS

Tesla to pay back U.S. govt. loans early

By | March 13, 2013, 8:01 PM PDT

Could Tesla's Model S be a boon to U.S. taxpayers?

Could Tesla's Model S be a boon to the U.S. Treasury?

There’s was a lot of hubbub when some U.S. government loans to green energy companies went bust, but there’s also been notable successes. Electric vehicle (EV) maker Tesla, a loan recipient, is proving to be another exception, so much so that it is reimbursing taxpayers years ahead of schedule.

Today, Detroit Free Press’s Alan Ohnsman reported that the U.S. government had approved a revised repayment schedule with the electric automaker. The amended terms of the loan allow Tesla to accelerate payments to pay off the entire balance by 2017. Tesla received US$465 million from the U.S. Energy Department to fund the development and creation of its EV designs, which are now hitting the market.

The article noted that Tesla is not yet profitable, but anticipates that it will be by the end of this quarter. The company had a net loss higher than previous years at the end of 2012, mainly because it was building up its inventory in anticipation of scaling up for future sales. However, other EV makers including Coda and Fisker automotive have hit troubled times, and success is not guaranteed.

Tesla has embraced a unique sales model that sells vehicles directly out of retail stores and “galleries” instead of dealerships. Customers browse its latest models, make reservations to buy, or in some instances, take a test drive. Automobile Magazine named Tesla’s Model S automobile of the year after it took a spin.

“We weren’t expecting much from the Tesla other than some interesting dinner conversation as we considered “real” candidates like the Subaru BRZ and the Porsche Boxster,” its editors wrote, noting that the Model S outperformed gasoline-powered cars.

Pike Research has estimated that EV sales will hit 3.8 million worldwide by 2020 even as consumer interest wanes. Could Tesla’s financial performance keep pace with its success on the test track?

(image credit: Tesla)

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of his employers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
31
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-6
EV sales of 3.8 million by 2020? Nothing to write home about,
Posted by adornoe  |  Below your threshold
-1 Votes
+ -
ignorance is obvious
You do not know much about this vehicle or the concept of long range marketing do you......
Posted by harleybud73
14th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Your stupidity is a lot more obvious...
since, I did not specifically neither touted the negatives nor the positives of the Tesla vehicle. I was commenting more broadly, and my statements are proven correct by the article itself, which says that, only 3.8 of those EVs are expected to be sold by 2020. That is a big failure by any standard or measurement.

My comments were mostly about how it's governments that are pushing the EV industry, and not a real demand by the people.

Your ignorance and your stupidity are apparently, boundless.

And, btw, Tesla itself is a failure, no matter how much spin they or the government want to spin their current status or the loan payback, which is still about 5 years away, and which, from what's transpired with other such ventures in the past, will likely not get paid. Scheduling for paying back a loan is not the same as actually paying it back.
Posted by adornoe
14th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Just a suggestion
Why don't you hunt for the NatGeo Megafactories episode covering Tesla car manufacturing facility. May be you will learn something new!
Posted by pmshah@...
15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
The Tesla car is and will be a failure, no matter what stories there might
be out there touting it's manufacturing. When a project is not self-sustainable, and can't go forward without some sort of government assistance, then, it's a failure. Simple, ain't it???
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
What's your gripe?
The company is paying the government back in toto, early. That's all you have to worry about, understand?
Posted by ARzondzinska
15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
It hasn't paid back yet, so, no one can say if the loan will be paid
on the schedule they've set, or whether it will be paid at all.

Nothing is done until it's done.
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Ideas/Progress
Whether this is an imperfect and/or unpopular technology nowadays is irrelevant to the fundamental problem: Ideas and technological progress that challenge mainstream have had and will always have its enemies or at least naysayers.
Posted by ignaceous
Updated - 15th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
I doubt anybody is against the technology...
and, what most people will be against, is government pushing those boondoggles upon the people at very considerable expense. If the people don't want a project or a technology, the government should go around them. If the technology can prove self-sustaining and cost-efficient and worthwhile to the people, then, by all means, bring it on. Tesla and all EVs are not cost-efficient nor worthwhile.
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
correction:
If the people don't want a project or a technology, the government shouldn't go around them.
Posted by adornoe
19th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
I want it, and I am one of "The PEOPLE!"
Apparently, if adornoe doesn't want a program, the government shouldn't go around him.
Posted by michaellashinsky@...
25th Mar
-3 Votes
+ -
how are EV loans different from tax crediots to big oil
I've been wondering. Many (most?) of the loans to the a wide range of EV and solar power companies have been lost. Maybe this one will actually be paid back --with interest? So, how are those lost loans different from the multi-BILLION dollar tax breaks given to oil companies --which essentially underwrite the petroleum based auto industries? Note that those tax incentives are never going to be paid back much like the loans lost to EV and solar companies will never be paid back. We underwrite one with loans (which may or may not be paid back) and the other with tax breaks (with no hope of being paid back). Both cost the tax payers. And neither industry really exists in a truly free market system.
Posted by efeist@...
15th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Here is the difference...
The credits to the oil companies are VERY definitely gone forever - right out of the tax-payer's pocket.

The loans to the EV and solar companies are supposedly made with good intent and a purpose. Unless of course if the recipient and the approver are in cahoots for outright fraud. If the recipients are successful the loans would be reimbursed. A whole range of technologies, which are taken for granted, have emerged from such government projects.
Posted by pmshah@...
15th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
Oh please.
That is such tired rhetoric.

Energy subsidies by megawatt hour for 2010:
Oil & Gas: $.64
Coal: $.64
Hydro: $.82
Nuclear: $3.14
Wind: $56.29
Solar: $775.64

The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the oil industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending. That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every dayfar more than from any other business.

After taxes paid by consumers on oil products, oil is subsidizing the government. The government actually makes more per/gallon than the oil industry does.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 15th Mar
-4 Votes
+ -
Oh please. Refuting "tired rhetoric" with "imaginary numbers".
$35.7 B is actually only 7.27% of 2010's non-D discretionary spending. More importantly, corporate income taxes are paid on the corporation's profits, but have absolutely nothing to do with non-defense discretionary spending. Apples and oranges make a nice fruit salad but exceptionally poor fiscal discussions/comparisons. I doubt most "thinking" individuals would believe that "EIA Admits its Review of 2010 Energy Subsidies is Limited, But Still Releases Skewed Report to Congress" describes unbiased, empirical data. This; http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/01/283959/eia-review-energy-subsidies/?mobile=nc debunks, using an empirical (factual and/or observable) methodology, the fallacies of the costs you used to make your erroneous "argument". Be careful if you peruse it though, as they might just require you to use non-rhetorical thought in pursuit of a balanced, fact-based opinion.
Do tell, how do taxes I pay on oil products morph into oil subsidizing the government in the "real world" ?
You should hurry along now. You wouldn't want to miss The Mad Hatter's tea party.
Posted by Datadad
Updated - 15th Mar
+3 Votes
+ -
In case you haven't noticed...
...you pay 18.4-cents/per/gallon Federal tax plus whatever your state charges. That's better than twice what the oil company gets in profit. (Evil XOM makes about 7 cents)

The day when alternate fuel vehicles vehicles hit critical mass, the Federal and state governments are going to have to find something new to tax to make up for the missing revenue stream they now receive from gasoline & diesel. I don't yet know what that might be, but I can assure you it won't be popular, especially if it's any more transparent than it is now.

In my humble opinion, there should be absolutely no energy subsidies. That would have nominal effect on consumer cost for oil, but would certainly decimate the Progressive favorites like ethanol, wind and solar.

But thanks for playing. Please scurry back to your fact-free zone now where your Soros-funded rhetoric plays better.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 15th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
Oh, please! Using an ultra-liberal organization to debunk anything,
is the most foolish thing anyone can do.

It would be like asking Hitler about which ethnic group he prefers. Likely, he's not going to explain the reasons, and he's not going to be truthful, and he's only going to present the few facts which he likes, while disregarding the majority of other facts which debunk his feelings and opinions.

Would anyone ask Obama to tout the benefits of big oil? No? Then, why even approach "thinkprogress.org" with the same kind of question? There are very good reasons the web sites such as "moveon.org" and "thinkprogress.org" have been created, and it's not because they're interested on telling the truth about anything.

So, please, get yourself a more credible source if you want to gain any kind of credibility for yourself.
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
-3 Votes
+ -
Ad Hominem
How about addressing the claims of the article instead of assuming (or trying to get us to assume) that they're all invalid?
Posted by AJ523
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
The claims of the article? How 'bout you addressing the counter
claims which the democrats like to pretend don't exist?

When a website or any media source is as biased and one-sided as "think" progress, then it's not even worth it to visit to begin with.

Like I said, find a more credible source and then we'll talk.
Posted by adornoe
19th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
Hmmm
What do the cumulative figures look like? Fledgling technologies often get the most assistance. Like back when hydraulic fracturing companies had plenty of help with technology that was far from certain.
Posted by AJ523
Updated - 16th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
BIG world of difference...
The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes. The green energy sector does not.

What the government "gives" back in the form of "subsidies", is just a return of funds which belonged to the oil companies in the first place. With green energy and EVs, they have never paid taxes or been productive enough to produce a self-sustaining sector which generates enough tax revenue to warrant getting any of it back. The green energy sector and the EV industries are "taking" from the people, while the oil sector makes huge profits and is therefore able to contribute to funding government. Oil is a net plus, while the green energy and EV sectors are net takers, and that won't be changing for decades.
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
-3 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't be so sure
I suppose it depends on whether society continues to largely ignore the longer term externalized costs of fossil fuels. Alternatives might have an easier time achieving similar economies of scale if it did.
Posted by AJ523
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
The only way that liberals hope for similar economie of scale
or to achieve parity, is by making oil so expensive that, alternate energy sources will seem close to parity, otherwise, if the democrats stopped manipulating and regulating the currently most economical energy sources, then, the stupidity that green energy is, will always remain stupid and very costly.
Posted by adornoe
19th Mar
-3 Votes
+ -
Not many
Only a small percentage of the renewable energy loans have gone bad, the right wing has exaggerated the failures to score political points.

The difference between subsidies for renewable energy and oil company tax breaks is this; tax incentives for oil, which were instituted when the oil industry was just getting off the ground, are long since past being needed. Oil is the most profitable industry in history, it doesn't need any more help. It was in the national interest to help that industry develop, just as it is now to develop green energy. The US has always operated this way (the Erie Canal, the railroads, rural electrification, etc.). No one knows how a truly free market system would work since it's never been tried.
Posted by Greenknight_z
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
Bunk!
The majority of the "renewable" energy loans went bad and continue to go bad. And, green energy initiatives vs oil subsidies, are to the tune of about 50:1; iow, green energy has received 50 times more support and loans from government than the oil industry. Obama was caught in the lie about the oil industry getting so much in subsidies when Romney pointed out the facts where, green energy was getting many times as much, and they all ended up losers. Look up the first debate of the last election where Obama was rendered speechless by the facts.
Posted by adornoe
19th Mar
-2 Votes
+ -
If only people would quit complaining
Too many whiners, not enough doers. Ok, it's understandable that we all can't make cars better, but at least do the math . Solar is still growing, even in the face of tough times. Its subsidy is not as much (per watt) as it used to be yet its growth rate is actually accelerating. Even if it goes back down to "just" 33% a year, it will be able to power the whole world in 13 years using much less than 1% of Earth's land space! It could power 10,000,000,000 people at a western standard using just 2%! That's the power of compounding growth
Machines WILL be mass produced that mass produce subsidy free panels. That's why subsidies are implemented now... to build up the infrastructure (just as with anything else "big").
Tesla is a GOOD example of how the collective can make things better than just the "dog eat dog". Heck, even if they didn't pay back, would still be better than Chrysler!

So, all you naysayers out there, quit whining (destructive) and become part of something constructive - The exponential growth of solar and electric cars happy
Posted by fireofenergy
Updated - 15th Mar
-3 Votes
+ -
How refreshing!
Thanks for that. Is there something in the air that makes Americans so angry and negative about everything?
Posted by ARzondzinska
15th Mar
+2 Votes
+ -
The "collective"? Sounds very communist to me, and,
what part of communism was ever successful anywhere, anytime?

Sorry, if success of an industry is dependent upon government subsidizing it, then, it's bound to be a failure. Just ask the people who used to live under communist rule in the old USSR.

If the "collective" mindset is what you seek, then, there are some countries around willing to take you in, such as Venezuela and Cuba and North Korea and even China. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
0 Votes
+ -
Just love all these personal attacks...
...whatever.

Taking all the politics, big oil, blackmail, embezzling, cons, outright bullying, shady deals and so-called "facts" and "figures", etc out of the picture for a moment (if you're not actually in the business of investing in these new types of technologies, you don't know), the bottom line is this:

You don't invest in new technology, you don't get any new technology. End of story.

The "Horseless Carriage" was a ludicrous idea and would never catch on, "Wireless" (meaning: radio) had absolutely no future, television would never be cost effective enough to be produced on a widespread basis and the concept of the PC was all fine and dandy but it wouldn't ever amount to anything but a hobby.

Investing in new technology is always a gamble and the investors always expect failures. It's inevitable and they know it. What the investors are betting on is the long term...the future. In almost all cases it's a sound concept that's being invested in, not the beginning efforts.
Posted by bandersnatch42vt
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
"Horseless carriage"? How 'bout the airplane?
Fact is that, most of what was ever invented, came from the private sector. Government assistance can sometimes help in getting a project and an idea off the ground, but, it shouldn't have to force a project or an idea on the people.

So, what part of the airline industry would not have happened if government did not push it? Government can be involved when an industry is of national scope, but it shouldn't be involved in starting an industry or forcing it upon the people, like it's doing with "green" energy and EVs and a lot of other projects and programs which are not cost-efficient at all and never will be.
Posted by adornoe
16th Mar
+1 Vote
+ -
prius market
I wonder when they're gonna get around to their "model T" and go for the Prius market?
Posted by veetmeter
16th Mar
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive