I don't like seeing any company get such special treatment. A facility free from sales taxes for a generation is definitively unfair competition. If Tesla does manage to lower costs as expected and floods the market with cheaper batteries, how will this not be dumping based on a private deal?<p>1.3 billion. There are only three million people in Nevada. That's 433$ for each and every person in the state.
These are property and sales tax abatements on property and sales that only exist because Tesla set up shop in Nevada. You can quibble about the length of the tax abatements (10 and 20 years), but the perceived "$1.3B gamble" is tax revenues that never existed.
Not a gamble at all. Aside from the land swap, all the incentives are performance based.<p>If Tesla reaches its target 50 GWh / yr production capacity in 2020, we're talking at least $5 Billion / year in economic output through the 20-year life of the incentive package (assuming a very conservative $100 / kWh). Not to mention all the employment, development and additional economic activity the factory will generate. How exactly does Nevada lose here?
I think company-negotiated deals with states should be outlawed. It distorts competition (small companies can't get them) and is a 'race to the bottom' of sorts (with states as a collective losing).<p>That said, I wouldn't call it a gamble. Almost all of it is tied to performance/output, so there is little risk for the state.