New Bill Calls For Billions In Additional EV Incentives In California

2 months ago by Steven Loveday 61

EV Incentives

The Chevrolet Bolt should qualify for maximum EV incentives with California’s new bill. (Image Credit: Bolt EVs outside Capital Chevrolet in San Jose via George B)

Here’s more details on California’s new bill to up incentives to low-income buyers, and make rebates happen at the point of sale.

We recently apprised you of a new bill that is in the development stages in California. It would allow dealers to credit California’s electric vehicle rebate at the point of sale, and would also take into account a buyer’s income. Now, more details have come forth, and plans will add additional rebate funding.

Democrat Phil Ting is working to put together a $3 billion fund to make more incentives available to low-income buyers, as well as expand charging infrastructure. He told Mercury News:

EV Incentives

The Tesla Model 3 will start production this week and will benefit from California’s new electric car incentives, if passed.

“We’ve been able to dispel the notion that you can’t clean the environment and grow the economy. The next wave is electric vehicles.”

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) would figure out the size of each rebate based on a cost comparison versus an ICE equivalent. Mercury News explained:

“For example, a new, $40,000 electric vehicle might have the same features as a $25,000 gas-powered car. The EV buyer would receive a $7,500 federal rebate, and the state would kick in an additional $7,500 to even out the bottom line.”

The new bill, known at the California Electric Vehicle Initiative, is merely an expansion of CARB’s already aggressive incentives in the state of California. The current Clean Vehicle Rebate Program has given 115,000 rebates to dates, for an impressive total of $295 million in incentives to EV buyers. However, critics complain that it mostly assists wealthy consumers.

The fact that with the new bill, buyers can enjoy the monies up front, rather than having to finance significant costs, is likely to push adoption further. Additionally, not focusing on getting rebates to high-income bracket buyers seeking expensive Tesla vehicles, aims to further satisfy the state’s goals.

Some Republicans opposed the bill, and it’s currently in Senate hearings. If it passes, it will roll out late next year.

Source: Mercury News

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

61 responses to "New Bill Calls For Billions In Additional EV Incentives In California"

  1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    “take into account a buyer’s income”

    This should never be a requirement. Make it available for everyone who buys an EV. Same goes for the Fed rebate.
    Also it should be at point of sale showing the the subtraction from the gross cost of the car.
    Most EV buyers will be more economically capable to buy an EV. I can bet you the ratio will be a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio that there will be more in the upper income bracket that purchases an EV than those in the lower income bracket.
    This is counter intuitive to trying to promote EV’s by limiting what a buyer gets in rebates.

    “the state would kick in an additional $7,500 to even out the bottom line”

    So CA will impose an increase of EV registration cost (~$85) with an additional $100 on top of it but then CA will give you up to $7500 (Depending on income qualification) in state rebate when you buy?
    Isn’t that just moving funds from one bucket to another??????

    1. Mark.ca says:

      The road tax will be with us forever but these rebates not so much.

    2. unlucky says:

      From a perspective of getting bank for your subsidy buck taking into account income levels is the only smart way to do it.

      A $3K incentive will entice a low income person more than a $6K incentive will entice a rich person. To adjust the system so you can entice two low income people with the same money you could entice one rich person means you’ll have a larger overall effect.

      And that’s what we’re looking for from a spending program, right? Large overall effect.

      1. SJC says:

        If you buy a used EV there should be no tax, license nor registration fees. Put those EVs back on the roads.

      2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        “A $3K incentive will entice a low income person more than a $6K incentive will entice a rich person.”

        YOU have probably never talked to people in the lower income demographic. They are in the here and now existence and waiting on the rebate is painful for them and enough to say no. Top that off with needing an AC L2 EVSE for ~$400 to be able to use the dryer plug is enough for them to be pushed over the edge of “he11 no”.
        Many of them in these lower income status buy used cars in the 12k – 15k (civics, accords, elantra, cruze, focus) if they’re lucky.
        Many buy used larger SUV’s.
        Giving them $3k or even $7K off a $35K car still doesn’t help much because the insurance bumps up for them (compared to a used hooptie) on a new car.

        I’m there in the ghetto enough times to know these rebates will only get a very very small margin of buyers in the lower income demographics.

        1. Unplugged says:

          If you use the word “ghetto” to describe low income areas, your lack of understanding that the word is mostly used in the pejorative sense, doesn’t qualify you to have an opinion about any person of low income.

          1. ffbj says:

            In the positively sense, I’m with you.

          2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            Yet another dumb ignorant comment from someone who’s obviously never ventured into what you call “low income” neighborhoods.
            It’s ignorant because if you’ve ever spent time with friends or have family there, you’d know they are the first ones to call it a “Ghetto” or “Hood”.

            1. Unplugged says:

              Right. And I bet you’re the first one to hang out with your buddies in the “hood.”

              Too bad you can’t put words together without resorting to calling someone ignorant. Sorry, bud, but using the word “ghetto” to describe low income neighborhoods is reserved for those who live there. If you can’t understand that rather simple point, go into your favorite “ghetto” and use the “N” word, and see how far that gets you.

              Keep it on the low down, bro….

              1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                Now you’re ASSuming I never lived there.

                lol….

              2. madeinXhina says:

                Haha. It not bro for long time anymore. You watch too much amerkun tv and in sheltered.
                Dumdum.

              3. SJC says:

                You two are both idiots.

        2. unlucky says:

          Short-range EVs are overwhelmingly leased in California.

          You’re talking about giving them an incentive that knocks about $100 off the monthly payment for a 3 year lease on an EV. Things like a 500e can get down to $99/month with very little up front.

          And if you read the article you would notice this isn’t about rebates, it’s about money at time of sale.

          So take your “you couldn’t possibly understand” stuff back and maybe spend more time thinking about this.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            The 500e is at $100/month now…yes you have to fork 3k but when you get 2500 back from Cali and 450 from Edison all that remains is the $100.

    3. energymatters says:

      With 97% of the EVs in CA going to higher income buyers who own homes and the fact that 52% overall and 55% to 70% of urban residents are renters the situation currently is a transfer from everyone to the rich(er).

      those who can then purchase gain in lifetime savings, lowered fuel costs, lowered maintenance costs, etc. Further those wealthier can already utilize the federal credits while lower income drivers cannot.

      The society and the state benefit MUCH MUCH more when the funds being literally burned up in gasoline purchases (remember 80%+ of every gas dollar leaves the country to our terror funding middle eastern “friends”) it stays local and enriches the driver and their community by keeping that money at home.

      Enabling a lower income person to have an EV accelerates this process of enriching the local community, not just the rich(er) and leveling the playing field just a little bit while poking the terror funders in the wallet.

      1. Mark.ca says:

        A million rich people drive evs equals a million of poor people drive evs. Same result on pollution.

      2. Bacardi says:

        Are the majority of low income folks actually doing the routine maintenance? And when they do they often know a hole in the wall neighborhood mechanic who half asses work on the cheap…

        One of the largest factors of insurance premiums is the replacement costs…According to online insurance estimators, for myself a Bolt EV costs me double in insurance compared to a new base Civic…

        Next we have long distance travel; often DCFC along convenient locations is not only not free but it’s quite expensive with $7-$10 “connect” fees on top of $.XX/KW…Worse, often you need to pay a monthly membership fee, even worse, a lot of these chargers have 30min caps, meaning you have to physically unplug, plug back in again then pay the connection fee again…

  2. Mark.ca says:

    “For example, a new, $40,000 electric vehicle might have the same features as a $25,000 gas-powered car. The EV buyer would receive a $7,500 federal rebate, and the state would kick in an additional $7,500 to even out the bottom line.”

    Dealers will have a field day with this! I wish there was a way to stop the dealer price gouging on the cars eligible for credits otherwise the state will just make them rich. This happened not too long ago with the Bolt…

  3. Mark.ca says:

    If this will apply towards leases get ready to drive for free Cali! I gusee that’s one way of convincing people to join in.

  4. Chris O says:

    Anti Tesla bill? Model 3 looks like a $40K car so no rebates for Tesla buyers, Bolt looks like a $20K car so big time subsidies for GM buyers.

    Basically rewards building EVs that are too expensive for their general concept and punishes those who did get the concept right.

    1. DJ says:

      No, it’s a pro-poor people bill. Affluent people still get their rebate, poor people just get more.

      1. Chris O says:

        Not a poor people bill, poor concept bill. GM gets showered with subsidies for doing a $40K compact hatch (=poor concept) while Tesla gets nothing for doing a $40K lower luxury sedan.

        1. DJ says:

          How exactly are Tesla’s ineligible for a rebate?

          1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            I think he’s talking about not getting the full CA $7500 and only get the current $2500.

            If you have a kid working for minimum wage, have the kid buy it and you cosign. That should guarantee you get the full rebate…..lol

            1. Chris O says:

              Come on people, read the article. California plans an extra compensation on top of the federal tax rebate that will smooth out the difference between an EV and an equivalent ICE. Only for cars for which such differences exist presumably so not for Model 3 since that car looks like its price tag.

              1. DJ says:

                We have. 🙂 Maybe you want to read the actual info.

                https://arb.ca.gov/msprog/lct/cvrp.htm

                The bill is pro poor people, not anti-Tesla. It isn’t going to magically rebate you the difference between some equivalent gasser and EV but rather provides you with a rebate amount based on your income. A rebate amount that if you’re “poor” is more than if you’re not.

                1. Chris O says:

                  So you’re saying this Mercury News quote is incorrect:

                  “For example, a new, $40,000 electric vehicle might have the same features as a $25,000 gas-powered car. The EV buyer would receive a $7,500 federal rebate, and the state would kick in an additional $7,500 to even out the bottom line.”

                  1. Asak says:

                    The interior of the Model 3 sure as hell doesn’t “look” like a $40,000 car. So, even if they use that asinine method to determine eligibility, the Model 3 should be perfectly fine. 😉

                  2. DJ says:

                    Sorry, I guess I was understanding the linked bill in its current form. This suggestion just seems like a hugely stupid way to do it.

                    So a $100k Tesla X has equivalent features of a $40k Explorer they pony up $52.5k of the difference.

                    Here is to hoping the bill doesn’t pass. Even on the cheapest car there should be no way in hell we subsidize that much of an EV. Then again ÇA wants that stupid HS rail, healthcare for illegals, oh I just don’t care to list out all the stupid crap that is already approved. You get the idea.

                    Phil Ting sounds like “filthy” which is exactly what that BS would be.

        2. realistic says:

          Incentives hurt Tesla. Musk said so. You should be glad.

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Here’s my thought….
      Tesla should sell the M3 at base and allow owners to later upgrade therefore keeping the price within the rebate range.

      Yes, this can be called an anti Tesla bill by making sure slightly optioned M3’s will be unavailable for the rebate.

      1. Chris O says:

        Looks like there is no rebate range, just blind compensation for the value difference between a specific EV and an equivalent gas car even though Tesla has demonstrated that there doesn’t need to be any such value difference.

        Well, assuming it delivers on its price targets for Model 3 that is.

    3. unlucky says:

      Model 3 looks like a $30K car.

      1. Chris O says:

        To unlucky you. To 400K reservation holders it looks like excellent value.

        1. Someone out there says:

          Half of those reservations were made before they knew what it looked like. Let’s see how many turns into actual sales

          1. Chris O says:

            They have seen every angle of it since and reservation numbers kept soaring. I doubt there will be many cancellations but there will be a lot of new demand once these show up in the streets and more people learn about them.

          2. Actually, only about a Quarter of the 400,000+ Reservations were made sight unseen; Elon said 115,000 right after they rolled on stage.

      2. Bacardi says:

        The Bolt EV looks like a $18K Sonic hatchback…

  5. Terry Lee says:

    Nope, doesn’t say anything about Tesla exclusion so should apply to both Tesla and bolt as they are both EVs. Although i suspect the dealers selling bolts would try to take a cut of the rebate if it’s upfront whereas Tesla don’t sell via dealers so won’t have this problem.

  6. SparkEV says:

    If the opposition is only along the party line, this will definitely pass. CA has Democrat super majority, which means they can over ride any objections from any other party.

    Far better idea is to make up for fed tax credit shortfall up to that amount since low income cannot take full fed tax credit. For example, if they only qualified for $4K in fed tax credit, CA could “refund” $3.5K. If 0 in fed tax (eg, retired), CA would “refund” $7.5K. Then everyone in CA gets $7.5K subsidy regardless of income. Of course, this makes too much sense, so it’ll never be done.

    1. Nick says:

      The repubs can still block things by holding votes on the budget.

      Super bummer setup.

  7. realistic says:

    According to Tony Seba, 1kwh of long-life, ultra-dense electrochemical energy storage is already cheaper than a pile of dirty socks, EVs will soon undercut the purchase price of a Kia Rio and nobody will own a car anyway. I don’t understand all the fuss about incentives.

  8. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Anyone know what CA plans are for the HOV stickers after Dec 31, 2019?

    I’m banking on them renewing a different color to run for 5 years but noise from the CARB folks down the street is rumbling about only 3-4 years.

  9. acevolt says:

    I like the fact that the bill defines “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle” as one that has at least 25 miles of range. That should be the minimum for all rebates and car pool stickers.
    The bill does not give any details on car price limit, income limit or rebate amounts:
    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1184

    1. Tom says:

      Prius Prime would still qualify. Imagine how fast those would fly off the shelf. They’d be under $20,000 it would seem after both fed and state rebate.

      1. acevolt says:

        Maybe thats where they got the 25 mile limit.

  10. Michael Will says:

    What really should get funded is solar generation and car charging at parking lots of work places, apartment complexes and public transportation. That would help balance the grid and allow charging with clean energy in the day time and make electric driving easier on lower income families for their day to day use.

    Not having to pay for and waste your time with filling up gas, going to oil change and smogcheck appointments and expensive service like replacing timing belts will further help, once charging is as easy as plug in when you arrrice and walk away.

    1. DJ says:

      It already is.

      Our workplace basically got credit for installing several charging stations. They’re nice enough to pay for the power but grants paid for all the infrastructure costs.

  11. realistic says:

    Again: why in the world are we STILL talking about incentives? Go back and listen to Tesla’s May 3 conference call (Q1 results) in which Musk clearly states:

    “Tesla has succeeded in spite of the incentives not because of them.”

    Tesla is actively OPPOSING this silliness. With Musk’s perspective quite overtly stated doesn’t it make sense that he is probably supporting Ting’s opponent in the next election cycle?

    Honestly I don’t know what’s going on with InsideEVs reporting or with your readership…

    1. Terry Lee says:

      The key word is acceleration. Tesla will continue to sell cars but with the right structured incentives will acceleration the sales to a whole lot more and help EVs to become bigger part of the market. Just look at Norway.

    2. Asak says:

      Musk also thought it made sense to try to cozy up with Trump. His political sense is obviously crap.

      On top of that, the idea that Tesla isn’t benefiting from incentives is laughable. In that case I guess he’ll be glad to lose them in a year or so!

      Seriously, don’t take everything that comes out of Musk’s mouth as gospel.

  12. JayTee says:

    Let’s just call it the Tesla Bill.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Why? GM will lose the fed credit soon too…maybe sooner than Tesla.

  13. Tom says:

    News flash. Broke people don’t buy new cars. At least not the ones so broke they are using federal poverty guidelines to measure it.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Right.

      Most of the debate here seems to be entirely ignoring reality. About as meaningful as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  14. Mikael says:

    Now just put a one time fee of 10% of the cars cost when buying a non-zero emission car too and you will see some acceleration.

  15. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    They should just give out free cars for the people. In true People’s Republic everything should be free!

    1. Mark.ca says:

      $15K applied towards a lease will make it a free car if msrp under 30-35k so i guess it is the people’s republic.

    2. Get Real says:

      I would settle to just be free from your FUD you Big Oil schill!

      1. Mark.ca says:

        I would settle if the rebate came straight from zzzzzz pocket. That would be nice.

  16. Thanh Lim says:

    Anyone know of news about the expiration of the carpool lane stickers? I’ve seen some info on it and that there are some bills to extend it. I’m personally hoping that only white stickers get extended but who knows.

    Either way, it’s only 1.5 years away before it expires and I’d personally like to see more traction to get it extended.

Leave a Reply