California Passes Historic $2 Billion Clean Vehicle Bill; Extends Plug-In Vehicle Rebate Program Through 2023

4 years ago by Eric Loveday 18

1 in 35...By 2023 What Will It Be?

1 in 35…By 2023 What Will It Be?

The State of California just passed a landmark clean vehicle bill that provides more than $2 billion in funding to assure that the state meets all of its future climate control targets.

Yes...CVRP Has Given Lots of Rebates Out

Yes…CVRP Has Given Lots of Rebates Out

The bill, called AB 8, guarantees that the state’s clean vehicle and fuel incentives continue through 2023 and that fleets and consumers will receive incentives for the purchase of low and zero-emissions vehicles.

The bill waits only on the signature of Governor Jerry Brown before becoming law.  Brown has already all-but guaranteed that he’ll sign on the dotted line.

AB 8 will extend the AB 118 clean fuel and vehicle programs and the AB 923 local air district funds for diesel emission reduction through 2023.  Within those two bills are several programs that have helped to put alternative-fuel vehicles on California’s roads.  Those programs include the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) and Hybrid and Zero Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Program, as well as the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, the Air Quality Improvement Program and the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program.

What will matter most to potential plug-in vehicle buyers is that AB 8 ensures that the state’s current plug-in rebate program remains in place until at least 2023.

The Senate passed AB 8 on a bipartisan 29-6 vote.  In the Assembly it received the required a two-thirds majority.

Tags: , , , , , ,

18 responses to "California Passes Historic $2 Billion Clean Vehicle Bill; Extends Plug-In Vehicle Rebate Program Through 2023"

  1. Dave R says:

    What you didn’t mention is that the bill also “requires the annual allocation of $20 million for the construction of hydrogen fueling stations until there are at least 100 publicly available hydrogen-fueling stations in California.” – See more at: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130912-ab8.html#sthash.CKmZGo0R.dpuf

    What a boondoggle hydrogen is.

    Elon Musk has said it costs about $250k per Supercharger install. These installs typically include somewhere between 5-8 plugs. There are currently less than 100 DCQC locations in California (look on PlugShare) and nearly all of them are only able to charge one car at a time (except for the Tesla Superchargers).

    $20M would double the number of DCQC locations (using Tesla’s cost to install a SuperCharger) and if 4 plugs are installed per location quadruple the number of DCQC plugs in the state. (Include some 80A J1772 stations so all plug-ins can benefit and not just DCQC equipped vehicles).

    And these would be usable by cards on the road TODAY!

    Not by some imaginary hydrogen vehicle.

    That would do a LOT more for promoting emissions free transportation.

    1. Eric Loveday says:

      Yes…we try our hardest to absolutely ignore hydrogen at all costs… It’s in the bill, but who cares? Not us…

      Wasted money? Definitely

      But our motto is that “hydrogen” has no place on these pages.

      1. pjwood says:

        That cost was just articulated at doubling the SC footprint. It didn’t happen because a number a CA Assemblymen made sure 20mm, in hyrdogen, was in the bill.

        Others, who live in that state, should call them out.

        1. Eric Loveday says:

          Agreed…hydrogen needs to come to an end…pipe dream, nothing more…

          1. HVACman says:

            “pipe dream” – clever word-choice, Eric:)

      2. Jeff U says:

        I agree. Don’t give hydrogen any ink. It’s dead to me.

    2. Daniel Cardenas says:

      Lets give money to everybody so that everybody is happy. 🙁
      What a waste!

  2. scott moore says:

    Speaking as one who has been awaiting my rebate for more than a month now (after approval), I’d prefer that they remove the rebate by about 2016. Its getting time for the economics of the car to gain traction without the distortion of a government subsidy.

    1. James says:

      Hear! Hear!

      Scott, that’s the end-goal of all of this. I’m thrilled with this legislation though,
      as carmakers seem to have the need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into
      the 21st century.

      To all the global-warming naysayers, I just say, ” we all breathe, don’t you want your
      kids to be able to breathe and not suck in toxins?!” They soon shut their mouths.
      California has severe air quality issues that growing population centers like mine
      in Seattle are now seeing as well. Dig that brown cloud over your city when the
      wind dies down?

      God bless Tesla if they get the $30,000 BlueStar off the ground at that pricepoint.
      If Tesla starts moving metal at a point which puts them on the trajectory to becoming
      a major player in the auto industry ( and that’s a big if ), all the economies of scale,
      and higher battery density we’ve been hoping and praying for will just fall in line
      in evolutionary beauty. No longer will subsidies or regulations be needed.

      Automakers and energy providers have so much invested in keeping the status quo
      and keeping Americans in a cycle of buying replacement parts for dirty, complex
      mechanical gas exploders, it’ll take these shoves to get the Titanic of oil consumption
      turned around.

      1. James says:

        The other, cleaner, less complicated and more sensible approach would
        be to increase taxation on gasoline.

        Yes, we are a consumer-driven economy, so if gas is higher, people
        gravitate en-masse to fuel-sipping cars and trucks. This would be
        nirvana for us EV-advocates and clean-air lovers worldwide.

        IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN – though, so all pontificators who realize
        a higher gas price ( via tax or international hostilities ) will bring us
        toward our goals of non-oil dependence, have to just shut the heck up.

        Higher taxation of gas seriously is not mentioned by politicians as they’d
        just give their job to their rival. Once a politician ( who isn’t lame-duck )
        even mentions a tax on gasoline, it’s fodder for his rival to whip him
        on TV ads and public town hall meetings. For the majority of Congresspersons
        it’s all about THEIR jobs, not about what’s best for the community of
        folks who put them there.

        So sadly, due to this very true fact, we take the OTHER option, which is
        to place the impetus of change upon the manufacturer, and not the
        consumer. It’s just the way it is.

        1. bill romero says:

          YOU SIR, ARE FULL OF ****

  3. Spec says:

    It will be interesting times for PG&E. On the one hand they have all these new EVs coming in to use power. On the other hand, solar PV is growing like crazy thus taking away customers and adding lots of distributed generation.

    The electric utility biz is really going to be in flux in the next 20 years. EVs, Solar PV, Wind, natural gas, geothermal, concentrated solar, etc.

    1. scott moore says:

      I have every confidence that PG&E will consider all of the facts, then do the exact wrong thing. They have never disappointed me before.

      This is the same company that, after BLOWING UP an entire neighborhood with a gas line explosion, wanted to pass the extra costs to properly inspect other lines in their system on to consumers, even after it was revealed that they had ALREADY tacked a charge on consumers for pipeline inspections and upgrades before the explosion, that were NEVER done.

  4. Spec says:

    With Tesla now as a prominent growing California based automaker, it comes as no surprised that we’ve decided to extend this program. Well, that and we really are going to clean up the air.

  5. FocusEV says:

    I received a CVRP rebate for my Focus EV. It was a huge bonus, covering the cost of my down payment and level 2 charger. It took a few weeks to process, but was well worth the wait. Ultimately my decision was made on economics ($0.04/mi vs $0.13/mi in my old 30 mpg Corolla) and the environment, but the rebate helped push my decision. I hope more follow suit.

    Hey, Eric nice graphic. Where did that stat come from?

    1. io says:

      Also got the CVRP rebate in like 1-2 months after I’ve bought my Leaf. While 2.5 grands only covers a fraction of the purchase price obviously, it remains hugely welcome to dampen the financial shock a bit — and make the acquisition more acceptable to a significant other who was very skeptical at the time (and now drives the car every time she can).

      The first infographic looks exactly like the other cool ones produced by the CCSE, e.g. http://energycenter.org/programs/clean-vehicle-rebate-project/vehicle-owner-survey , but I couldn’t find it on its website.
      Maybe it was removed because it’s not up-to-date anymore? It would have fitted well with this story: http://energycenter.org/article/seeing-believing

      The second one is an old version of http://energycenter.org/programs/clean-vehicle-rebate-project/rebate-funding-status

      Agreed, Eric should definitely have provided proper credit and links…

  6. Spec says:

    It is a good program and it really doesn’t cost them that much. It is only $2500 and you pay much more than that in sales tax! So really, California still comes out ahead, they just collect less sales tax per EV purchase.