If the benefit is a net-positive and increasing, then the sticker price may be going up but the cost is going down. After all, the entire point of a law like this – and indeed, of “sustainability” in general – is to minimize cost in the long run.

That said, the verbiage that annoys me far more is when the article calls a tax credit for electric cars an “electric vehicle” tax credit, which is e-bike erasure. Not sure if it’s still the case, but the e-bike market was bigger than the electric car market as of a couple of years ago, so the fact that the government is subsidizing cars but not e-bikes, even though the latter is much more sustainable, is a glaring omission.

The gist I got was, there wasn’t any limit to what companies could claim for tax credits so the more green they do the more money they save.

It does mention that this could cause add more to the deficit, but my thought is that dems are so good at lowering the deficit that it just won’t be quite as low as it could’ve been. So this is pretty legit good news in my book.