Sunday, September 14, 2014

Nevada gambles on Tesla gigafactory

Electric vehicles, if they are charged by green electricity, can reduce carbon emissions. Battery technology is a key factor holding back electric cars. Physics Nobel laureate Burton Richter in his admirable 2010 book, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Climate change and Energy in the 21st Century, recommends more research into battery technology.

Accordingly, there were national as well as local issues at stake this week, when the Nevada Legislature met in special session. They voted unanimously to give the Tesla company $1.3 B in tax breaks as incentive to build a $5B Gigafactory (battery factory) near Reno. Tesla claims the factory will create 6,500 new jobs, which works out to $200,000 per job.

I hope they got some of that in writing, because verbal promises are worthless. If Tesla ends up creating only half the number of jobs that it touted, are the tax breaks cut in half also?

Nevada's governor, Brian Sandoval, kept the legislature in the dark until the special session met, and presented it to the legislature as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

Tesla was negotiating with other states besides Nevada, and was in a position to drive a hard bargain. It took a stupendous mount of bribery ($1.3 B works out to $471 per Nevada resident) to get the factory in Nevada.

Skeptics think that Tesla stock is the latest bubble stock. Insiders at Panasonic, VW, and Daimler have expressed skepticism. Analysts say that the factory will only be profitable if it can reduce battery manufacturing costs by 30% from present levels, and must sell 500,000 cars per year. Last year, Tesla sold under 25,000 cars. The company is not currently profitable.

Critics of the deal came from the right and left. The right was represented by the NPRI , Nevada Policy Research Institute, which claims it supports government "transparency". However, NPRI refuses to disclose its funders, so their funding sources remain officially secret (but widely viewed as a front group for at least one big casino.) NPRI thought the governor's calculations of the benefits of the factor were too optimistic. The left was represented by the NPLA, Nevada Progressive Leadership Alliance, which was concerned with funding vital government services. In the short run at least, the result will be a demand for government services for schools, police, fire, roads, etc, but without any additional tax revenues.

Governor Sandoval claims that Nevada will benefit by $100 Billion over the next 20 years, even after the tax breaks. Even if it doesn't happen, he'll still be OK. The factory won't be running before 2017 at the earliest, and Sandoval is widely touted as a potential vice-presidential Republican candidate for the 2016 election cycle.

I wrote to my state legislators, pointing out the price tag of $200,000 per job. I asked politely if I form a company and create five jobs, do I get a million dollars in tax breaks? I will let my faithful readers at Rabett Run when and if I hear anything. Don't hold your breath.

51 comments:

Fixed Carbon said...

Rabbet isn't that different from bunny and cotton tail. Cotton tail ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottontail_Ranch) probably has tax breaks. Be careful about what you aspire to.

Anonymous said...

Call me a weird Bay Arean, but like the idea of spreading some of the potential risk and wealth of new stuff, so I thought outside of Reno made some sense. The factory will be close to the Bay Area and along major rail routes. I'd feel much better about it if the subsidies were dropped to a much more reasonable level. I have no idea what that level would really be.
Nick in SF

Jonathan Gilligan said...

According to the NY Times, the governor leaned heavily on an estimate by someone at the Small Business Development Center at University of Nevada, Reno, that the factory would produce over 100 billion in economic activity in Nevada over the next 20 years. (6500 jobs and $5 billion of capital investment is a small business???)

It also reports that the tax breaks kick in proportionally to the amount of money Tesla spends on the factory.

The story also quotes Richard Florida, who claims that Tesla was bluffing---that it would have built the factory in Nevada even without big incentives.

I would make a comment on the irony of a game where you can win by bluffing against the house, but it's not clear to me who's the house in this game, and who's the whale.

Fernando Leanme said...

I assume it's a tax break. Now they can have more housing and infrastructure, golf courses and air conditioned malls in the middle of the desert. The additional consumption should generate state taxes.

The battery business itself sure sounds like a scam. I bet his next move is to get a subsidy from the Feds. It's a subsidy for rich folk to feel green in their $50k vehicles, I suppose.

Like you wrote, the battery technology needs a lot of work. We need it to make wind and solar work. I'm afraid the future won't have much space for a car like this Tesla, it's a really weird form of American consumerism to have a wasteful "green" car, isn't it?

J Bowers said...

Let's not lose sight of a tax break being tax expenditure, and tax expenditure is a subsidy.

J Bowers said...

And also not lose sight of a tax break, by its very nature, is written into the tax code and therefore stays put until someone thinks to launch a bill to delete it. A subsidy ends at the end of each budget cycle and must be actively reapproved for the next budget cycle, which means subsidies endure greater scrutiny and caveats.

Fernando Leanme said...

A tax break isn't a subsidy. It means as it says, a tax break. In other words these guys will pay lower taxes. Presumably if they don't show up there won't be any taxes to collect. The whole electric car for rich folk is a scam. They ride their fancy cars and want us to eat soylent green.

Fernando Leanme said...

Bowers, a tax break can be written with a time limit land subsidies can be legislated with no limits. Subsidies cost money. Tax breaks are a bad idea, but they usually don't cost as much money as subsidies.

EliRabett said...

You joke

Anonymous said...

Right Eli, all money belongs to the government and they are being overly generous in what they allow us to keep.

What perverse view.

J Bowers said...

Fernando, a tax break is tax expenditure, and tax expenditure is most definitely a subsidy because IT IS DEFINED AS GOVERNMENT SPENDING THROUGH THE TAX CODE, but one that's more difficult to cancel or alter than a formal subsidy. I'm sorry if the standard definition of tax expenditure doesn't fit with the pro-fossil fuel standard narrative, and it must be a shock to have that crib sheet lobbed into the dustbin marked 'yeah, nice try', but, whatever.

J Bowers said...

Nando - "Bowers, a tax break can be written with a time limit"

But rarely ever are. They've become bungs to chums and politicians' investment portfolios.

Anonymous said...

The state of Nevada is built on scams to "relieve" people of their money.

No surprise that we should see yet another.

BTW, Where is Elifwitz to defend his hero Elon Muskox?

EliRabett said...

Eli looked at the bills in the Bunny's pocket. Yes, they belong to the government. Ms. Rabett demurred saying they belong to her.

Fernando Leanme said...

Bowers, a tax break given to a new business is not spending. Just in case:

Jane and Bob want to start an African Drum Factory in Peoria, Illinois. Their business case includes building a factory, buying equipment, stocking materials, hiring 26 Peorians and importing one Master drum maker from Congo. However, to make it through the first five years they will need to be exempted from real estate taxes. If they don´t get the exemption they will built their drum Factory in Indiana.

Peoria has a choice: Either they forgo the taxes on the NEW factory and the business they bring, or they let the business go to Indiana.

In this case a five year tax abatement on a FACTORY and losing the real estate tax on empty land occupied by a cow (if any) in exchange for the hefty taxes on the FACTORY after the business is built isn´t really government spending (unless you consider the real estate tax on the empty land they fail to collect for five years to be "spending").

J Bowers said...

Nando, thanks for the demonstration of blockheadedness. But, getting back to the point:

Tax Deductions or Tax Expenditures?

"Instead of looking at all the breaks for mortgage interest, health care, retirement savings and so on as deductions, picture the government writing you a check for each item. This equivalence between tax deductions and government spending leads economists to call them “tax expenditures.” Reformers have hit on an even more pointed description: spending through the tax code...
[...]
...Taken together, individual income tax expenditures are the equivalent of sending $686 each year to those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution, $3,175 to those in the middle fifth, and $30,714 to those in the upper fifth. The average member of the top 1 percent gets nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year."


The wannabe K Street cowboy who goes by the name Anonytroll finds such truths difficult to process, as, clearly, do you. You can both enjoy living in your fantasy 1950s, but the rest of the world has moved on.

Jeffrey Davis said...

I don't know at what point "the rich" begin. I know a woman who cleans houses for a living who drives a Prius. I'm not the most observant of men, but I think either it's her 2nd or she had it painted.

Jeffrey Davis said...

There's a hefty big of hoohah regarding taxes here. A factory needs public services: roads, sewers, drainage, police, fire department, schools, etc. If the factory's taxes don't pay for them, someone else's must pick up the slack.

Fernando Leanme said...

Bowers, your quote doesn´t apply to a new business line developed as per my example. IF a government entity foregoes a large amount of tax income it can be called an "investment" or spending in the business venture. However, note my example was set as a project built on empty land.

Let me ask you specifically, what´s the expected impact on the Nevada government´s cash flow during the tax holiday period? My asumption is that Musk is building a plant in open desert land which doesn´t generate income for the city.

I thought we already discussed why you benefit if you are polite as you write comments.

Regarding Musk´s venture itself I think it´s a waste. I don´t support subsidized electric vehicles selling at over $50K each. It´s a toy for the rich, intended to make greens feel good and so on and so forth.

Fernando Leanme said...

Jeffrey, I´m assuming the factory infrastructure is to be built by the private venture. Regarding the other infrastructure costs (cops, schools), I would expect them to be paid by the economic activity created by the people working in the plant as well as businesses providing services.

I have served as part of management in a large project, and I understand the positive as well as negative impacts they can have. For example the contract to provide catering to the workers was very beneficial for the local community. On the other hand the workers do create an impact on local schools which has to be managed. Such things are considered in the impact statement prepared before the construction goes ahead, but I don´t know if Nevada has anything close to such a procedure. The United States can be quite uneven.

J Bowers said...

"IF a government entity foregoes a large amount of tax income it can be called an "investment" or spending in the business venture."

Or we could call it what it is: tax expenditure. That addresses your next paragraph.

"I thought we already discussed why you benefit if you are polite as you write comments."

Must've been someone else. I'm the one who finds persistent sophistry a thousand times more impolite and offensive than harsh language.

Jeffrey Davis said...

The Leaf sells for around $28,000 in this neck of the woods.

There have been subsidies for automobiles that use internal combustion engines that dwarf those
for electric vehicles. Not even counting the fouling of the atmosphere and AGW.

Fernando Leanme said...

Bowers, you would have to show the government is losing income by agreeing to the deal. A subsidy such as what we are forced to pay solar power generators here in Spain is a very real subsidy.

I suppose your school of thought is some how trying to rewrite the definitions to make subsidies more palatable?

Regarding the Nissan Leaf it gets a direct subsidy from the government? That's a stupid move. Electric vehicles are too expensive and can't compete with hybrids. This is one reason why I think the whole green movement needs a mental makeover, a lot of what gets proposed doesn't make any practical sense. A better approach would be to take those dollars and loan them at 4 % to Colombia to build hydropower plants.

J Bowers said...

"Bowers, you would have to show the government is losing income by agreeing to the deal. "

No I don't, because formal subsidies, shock horror, also generate revenue. That's what subsidies are for. Just look at the iPhone. Ta-ta for now.

J Bowers said...

"I suppose your school of thought is some how trying to rewrite the definitions to make subsidies more palatable? "

You mean economists? You're slipping your comfort tinfoil hat on.

(and if anyone's wondering, Nando and I go back a while at the Guardian, just to clarify)

Raja Bob said...

Battery technology is not what is limiting Elon Musk's vision of a clean energy future; battery production volume and cost are.

Battery technology is not what is limiting demand for electric cars. Battery cost and range anxiety are.

Demand for $100,000 Tesla motor cars outstrips supply, and the supply is currently limited by battery production volume.

Musk has systematically undermined every argument against electric cars.

Tesla's cars are fast, beautiful, high status, long range, quickly recharged, practical for long distance interstate travel, and safe. What they are not, quite yet, is affordable to the mass market, but that has been Musk's stated goal from the very founding of the company, and the Roadster, Model S, and Model X are all strategies to make the Model III possible.

The Model III is slated for production in 2017, which coincides with battery production from the giga-factory. This 200+ mile range $35,000. car will roll into a world where an installed Supercharger network provides fast and FREE supercharging for Tesla cars, for life. The network by then will service all of the continental U.S. Interstates, most of Western Europe and Scandinavia, and large parts of Asia.

Demand has never been the limiting factor for Tesla, it has always been production, and demand for the Model III is going to be, well, giga.

And then of course, there is also the energy storage market. If Musk can deliver on price, there will be plenty of demand for the giga-factories product.

I'm a bit surprised that there was no mention in this blog post of the fact that this factory will be 100% powered by renewable energy; wind, solar, and geo-thermal.

Musk sees a fossil free energy future and is doing his best to promote it, and help make it happen.


Anonymous said...

range anxiety is due to limitations of battery technology. cost is too to a certain extent.

Anonymous said...

pure EVs will remain a niche market in N America for the foreseeable future. PHEVs are much more sensible and eliminate the range anxiety issue all together.

MJ

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Wow, because some guys on the internet said so! Let's just give up now then.

J Bowers said...

The anti-renewables crowd are so 'Can't-Do'. Do they even bother to get out of bed in the morning?

Raja Bob said...

@Anonymous,

I disagree that range anxiety is due to battery technology limitations.

Tesla Motors has demonstrated that existing battery tech can deliver a 300 mile range car that can be recharged quickly.

It is battery cost more than battery technology that is limiting vehicle range, but the biggest factor in range anxiety is mindset. Most people will drive less than 40 miles per day, most of the time.

A PHEV is still 100% dependent on petroleum; a pure EV is not. Affordable rooftop solar PV can provide all needed energy for an EV. In my view, that is more sensible than remaining dependent on fossil fuels for transport.

Fergus Brown said...

Some bunnies like hydrogen FCEVs. And you can make it at home, and use it to heat, cool and power your home, as well as drive to work.

Anonymous said...

"this factory will be 100% powered by renewable energy; wind, solar, and geo-thermal."

The question is not whether the factory will be powered by renewables, but whether the cars will be.

This literally puts the cart before the horse.

It would make more sense for Nevada to offer that billion in tax breaks for home-owners and small businesses so that they could install home solar arrays.

The number of people who would benefit would be much greater and so would the carbon emissions reductions.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

The question is not whether the factory will be powered by renewables, but whether the cars will be.

Nobody is preventing you from plugging your cars into your own solar panels, or plugging your house into your car batteries.

Liiiiiberrrrtyyyy! Amurrrrkkka!

It's your choice Gomer.

Raja Bob said...

@anonymous,

"The question is not whether the factory will be powered by renewables, but whether the cars will be."

The batteries produced in this factory, whether installed in EV's or used for storage, can potentially help in the creation of a 100% renewably powered grid through load balancing.

See: http://www.theecoreport.com/green-blogs/technology/energy/utilities-energy-energy-articles/europes-first-100-renewable-grid-is-online-figuratively-speaking-is-officially-online/

Anonymous said...

Raja,

there is no reason that biofuels (e.g. renewable diesel) couldn't be used to completely satisfy the liquid requirement for PHEVs. your assertion that PHEVs need be 100% dependent on petroleum is false.

MJ

Anonymous said...

'Nobody is preventing you from plugging your cars into your own solar panels, or plugging your house into your car batteries.

That's not the point.

The POINT is that Nevada is considering giving a $1.3 billion tax break for the project.

why should they do that when they could give tax breaks for home-owners and small businesses so that they could install home solar arrays?

I realize you just love everything Elon Musk does and says, but that's not a valid reason.

Quite frankly, I don't know why someone with as much money as Musk has needs tax breaks.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

That's not the point.

The POINT is that Nevada is considering giving a $1.3 billion tax break for the project.


Why do you hate Nevadans for their freeeeeedoms! Gomer. If you've got that big a problem with it, feel FREEEEEE! to move to Nevada, register to vote and then vote.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Quite frankly, I don't know why someone with as much money as Musk has needs tax breaks.

That's because you are oblivious to the 'big picture' and are clueless to the severity of your self inflicted problems and what must be done to solve them. You think all is as it was and as it is and as it should be. Gomer. In Mayberry.

Anonymous said...

Dear Elfinwitz,

The point (which you are obviously too stupid to understand) is that giving a tax break for people to install solar arrays assures that emissions will go down while giving it for batteries for electric cars does not because there is no guarantee that the electricity will not be produced with fossil fuel. In fact, it is very likely that it WILL be produced with fossil fuel.

And if you actually believe the voters of Nevada are the ones making this decision, you are even dumber than your comments here make you appear (and that's pretty dumb).



Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Your concern trolling for the fate of Nevada taxpayers is deeply ... concerning. I'm pretty sure the legislators voted into office by the Nevada citizens (whether taxpayers or not) don't, and didn't, give a second thought to emissions when they made this decision, which is theirs and theirs alone to make.

One word young man - jobs.

And Freeeeeeedom! lol.

Raja Bob said...

@MJ,

Yes, you're factually right about liquid bio-fuels for PHEV's, and that's a good point.

Although the EROI from bio-fuels, and their current dependency of fossil fuel inputs for production likely makes my point accurate in practice at this point in time.

Personally, I'm just weary of living with the noise of combustion, and have hopes of experiencing a quieter urbanity within my lifetime.

Marlowe Johnson said...

Raja,

EROI isn't really a useful metric IMO. all that really matters is economics and GHGs. on that front there are a number of pathways that look pretty good. think diamond green's waste cooking oil to renewable diesel for example. are some worse than others? of course. but let's not be lazy and lump all biofuels in the same basket and dismiss them based on as useless metric (in this context) like EROI.

MJ

Hank Roberts said...

Who handles recycling of the Tesla battery packs when they're due? Same facility in Nevada?

I gather they aren't easy to swap, so the notion that Tesla charging stations would give you a fresh battery in the time it takes to fill a gas tank -- isn't applicable for their current vehicles. Anyone know?

Hank Roberts said...

Who handles recycling of the Tesla battery packs when they're due? Same facility in Nevada?

I gather they aren't easy to swap, so the notion that Tesla charging stations would give you a fresh battery in the time it takes to fill a gas tank -- isn't applicable for their current vehicles. Anyone know?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You can take a lead acid battery to a local recycle now and get paid for it. I suspect in the future you would be able to do the same for Lithium ion batteries except they have valuable packaging containers and voltage control electronics in them that would make it more advantageous to recycle them with the manufacturer. In the future these kinds of battery packs will no doubt be charged at home, from domestically owned solar panels, and serve as storage capacity for homes and businesses when the cars are parked. These are really simple concepts that have been around for ages since the advent of the alternative energy businesses and products.

Anonymous said...

Hank,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VH4JloWFEI

Paul Klemencic said...

Well, this thread is likely tapped out, but thought I would try to correct this post, and another earlier post that completely misses the economics of electric vehicles.
I submitted a set of comments to the DOE recently, that reviewed the major energy markets in America. The worst performing market? Crude oil and vehicle fuels.
Here are a couple of clips from the comments:
Page 13:
A program of rapid substitution for oil products would save customers several hundred billion dollars annually. Half of the cost savings would fund enough incentives to reduce carbon emissions in the US by 80%. And a effective substitution program would end the misallocation of about $400B of capital investments annually into crude oil exploration, production, and refining.
Industry corporate executives have opposed and stymied change by attempting to block government actions and policies intended to drive substitution, reduce crude oil demand, and reduce customer long-term costs. These policies would increase substitution causing lower oil prices, and reduce the incentives to invest in frontier and unconventional oil resources, oil refining, high cost oil products technology, and instead shift huge capital investment flows to vehicle manufacturing, biofuel, and general manufacturing sectors. Some of the energy industry sabotaging actions includes funding political disinformation campaigns to mislead customers and the American public. Corporate managers in both the oil industry and vehicle manufacturing have failed to develop a comprehensive plan to ramp deployment of green vehicles and biofuels, expand use of alternative transportation options, and failed to provide the leadership needed to drive change in this important economic sector.
Page 31
The biggest problem is the irrational global oil market pricing method. Essentially, the oil market treats customers like rats fighting for food. The global oil price is driven higher by a rationing premium, as customers fight over a limited production volume of crude oil. Suppliers of substitutes, and customers who purchase green vehicles, biofuels, or use more energy efficient transportation alternatives, don’t receive benefits commensurate with the value delivered to customers in the global energy markets.
Page 33
After 1.25% substitution, the vehicle fleet would have 79 CVs in the fleet for every BEV. Each owner of these CVs would save 22 cents per gallon on fuel energy cost, totaling over $800 in fuel cost savings for each CV over the vehicle lifetime. The indirect oil cost savings means that each BEV deployed to reach the 1.25% fleet penetration in the US/Canadian market saves the corresponding pool of 79 CV owners $65,000 over the 12-year period used in the vehicle lifetime analysis. Other oil products customers (e.g. jet fuel customers) save $28,000, bringing the indirect oil cost savings to over $93,000 per BEV deployed.
The indirect oil cost savings overwhelms the increased cost of the BEV. In the case shown in slide 18, the net cost of the BEV falls from $62,000 to a net savings of $31,000. The net cost $40,000 for a CV, turns into a net savings of $31,000 for each BEV deployed, a cost reduction of $70,000 for US and Canadian oil products customers for each BEV replacing a CV. The gasoline vehicle costs over $70,000 more than a comparable electric vehicle over the vehicle lifetime.
The analysis used on this Rabett site to review EVs ignores the impact of green vehicle (and biofuel) substitution on global oil prices.

If you want to really comment on the costs of moving to green energy sources, you should read my comments submitted to the DOE.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6HOZyGCkCB9YTVLYWZST1ZKTm8&usp=sharing

Paul Klemencic said...

John, I think your analysis fails to address the key issue...
Just what is the impact of EVs on energy markets? And how does a rapid EV deployment ramp help reduce climate change impacts, and other important stakeholder needs?
I submitted a set of comments to the DOE covering a rapid substitution effort of green energy in the important energy markets. In my comments, I extensively discussed the impact of green vehicles, particularly BEVs on the crude oil market.
Let me quote two clips from the comments:
Page 31
The biggest problem is the irrational global oil market pricing method. Essentially, the oil market treats customers like rats fighting for food. The global oil price is driven higher by a rationing premium, as customers fight over a limited production volume of crude oil. Suppliers of substitutes, and customers who purchase green vehicles, biofuels, or use more energy efficient transportation alternatives, don’t receive benefits commensurate with the value delivered to customers in the global energy markets.
Page 33
After 1.25% substitution, the vehicle fleet would have 79 CVs in the fleet for every BEV. Each owner of these CVs would save 22 cents per gallon on fuel energy cost, totaling over $800 in fuel cost savings for each CV over the vehicle lifetime. The indirect oil cost savings means that each BEV deployed to reach the 1.25% fleet penetration in the US/Canadian market saves the corresponding pool of 79 CV owners $65,000 over the 12-year period used in the vehicle lifetime analysis. Other oil products customers (e.g. jet fuel customers) save $28,000, bringing the indirect oil cost savings to over $93,000 per BEV deployed.
Copy of comments submitted on google sharing site:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6HOZyGCkCB9YTVLYWZST1ZKTm8&usp=sharing
I recommend establishing a regulated private sector entity, a Green Energy Coalition, to invest in incentives and subsidies to increase green energy substitution for crude oil, natural gas, and ramp green electric power output. The Coalition would recover their investment by sharing in the reduced energy cost of oil products buyers.

Paul Klemencic said...

So now lets re-examine the analysis in your post. If the battery factory turns out enough batteries to add 500,000 cars annually, then the indirect cost savings by oil products customers is $46B annually. Of course, customers all over the US save that amount of money, not just Nevada.

Nevada drivers drive over 22.5B miles per year, and most of the EV batteries will be in out of state vehicles, so the predominantly gasoline and diesel vehicles in Nevada benefit from the lower prices.
US drivers drive about 3000B miles, so Nevada uses about 0.75% of the nation's gasoline and diesel vehicle fuels. And Nevada relies a lot on air travel, and a big chunk of the cost savings will be in airline tickets, and that should help Nevada's considerable tourist trade.
Lets estimate Nevada gets 0.75% of the $46B in annual indirect oil cost savings from deploying 500k EVs per year = $345M per year.

Now of course, someone still has to buy these EVs, and those customers are likely to be California buyers. California provides another $2500 added to the federal tax credit of $7500 for each BEV. So in this case, Nevada benefits from California tax breaks to EV buyers, and California drivers can buy more EVs due to Nevada tax breaks for this factory. A classic win-win scenario!

Now of course, the Nevada governor can do something about the estimated shortfall in road taxes, currently about $100M annually. With lower gasoline prices, the governor can recapture some of the cost savings by increasing the gasoline tax to pay for the Highway fund caused by road tax revenues rising slower than inflation rate.
Here is the link for a paper on this:
http://cber.unlv.edu/publications/NevadaHighwayFund.pdf

Maybe you should write the governor back, saying that upon further analysis, getting the battery factory was a good deal. Then suggest he get a second factory!

Jade Graham said...

from paying property taxes on its new solar installation. solar tax break