Tesla Shunned By New York State’s New Drive Clean Rebate Program

6 months ago by Steven Loveday 72

All Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles will be void of most of New York state’s new electric vehicle rebate.

New York state Governor Andrew Cuomo mentioned upcoming electric vehicle incentives a year ago, and now, as of April 1st, the plans will become a reality.

Details regarding the “Drive Clean” electric-car rebate program are now available on the New York state website. Based on the information provided, even though the rebate structure is based on EPA all-electric range – and no other automaker tops Tesla in this department – none of Tesla’s current vehicles will qualify for the maximum $2,000 rebate.

Tesla Model 3

The Tesla Model 3 will qualify for the rebate.

This is not a new strategy … we have seen it before. Parameters are set such that expensive EVs don’t get subsidized. Tesla had to restructure pricing in Germany to combat a similar situation. Now that the “60” models are a thing of the past, we can only assume that Tesla will no longer qualify in Germany.

Another situation is playing out in Ontario, Canada, because Tesla vehicles weren’t allowed to qualify for the maximum rebate for a time, but recent changes make it so that even $100,000 vehicles qualify for the entire $14,000 break. Legislators are contesting the new subsidies, in hopes that the rules will go back to the latter.

The thought process is that those buying such a pricey car shouldn’t need the help. Or, there’s the attitude that it doesn’t take a luxury vehicle to save the planet. Many people believe that it’s unfair, or that it is set up specifically to target Tesla.

The price point of a vehicle that a person purchases, much like that of a home, is generally steered by their income bracket. People tend to live within their means. But, does this mean that if you are buying an expensive car, you shouldn’t be entitled to the same incentives as those buying a cheap car? If you break it down, those buying the more expensive vehicles are actually getting a much smaller percentage off, than those buying the inexpensive vehicle. If it was truly “fair,” at least in the minds of some, a percentage-based system would be put in place. Let us know how you feel about this sport of program’s guidelines.

Let’s take a look at the specifics of New York state’s Drive Clean rebate program:

Tesla

New York State’s Drive Clean Rebate Program Details

At least Tesla vehicle buyers will enjoy $500 off. This is a drop in the bucket when purchasing a $75,000+ vehicle. However, added to the federal rebate, $8,000 in total incentives is still nothing to complain about. Soon enough, there may not be any incentives, and regardless of what our current administration decides, Tesla will hit the 200,000 mark in the near future, making the federal incentive a thing of the past.

Fortunately, most – if not all – Tesla Model 3 sedans will qualify for the Drive Clean rebate. Though the car is supposed to start at $35,000, Tesla CEO Elon Musk maintains that the “average” Model 3 will be around $42,000. Most well-equipped Model 3’s should still fall under the $60,000 threshold. So, New York state residents can knock $9,500 off, until the federal rebate goes away. All (both) other current long range electric vehicles will also enjoy the rebate (i.e. Chevrolet Bolt, next-gen Nissan LEAF). It’s too bad that the upcoming Kia Soul EV will likely fall just short of the cutoff.

Sources: NYSERDA, Green Car Reports

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

72 responses to "Tesla Shunned By New York State’s New Drive Clean Rebate Program"

  1. EVA-01 says:

    Why write this article when it makes absolute sense for cars above $70,000 to not get incentives? You yourself said the logic; if someone can afford a $70,000 car, they don’t need 3rd party incentives. Not that people buy cars these days anyway.

    To be honest, in a free market, tax incentives and such shouldn’t even exist. I understand the logic that Tesla won’t be able to afford to make the Model 3 if they don’t make money selling the Model S.

    1. Dominc Richer says:

      Because Tesla is the only car maker doing genuine efforts in order to save this f888in planet of ours.
      The luxury market was the only(and brilliant) strategy to gat abord the very closed car market.
      This strategy is written since 2006 in the “Secret Master Plan” Musk provided

      Tesla have built +200 000 of the cleanest cars available.

      No one, no company can produce affordable cars at first. You have to take advantage of the huge production costs of Economies Scale, this is marketing 101.

      Just for a comparison, Nissan have 39 plants. GM has 99!

      Tesla is no match for this yet.

      And it shows us clearly that Nissan GM or Toyota are NOT actually dedicated in the electric EVolution, or helping stop this criminal madness of hydrocarbons burning.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        Spoiler alert: GM and others will build whatever cars consumers want. And consumers don’t want nothing but EVs yet, so they will continue to build traditional cars as well.

        1. Mil says:

          I think it’s a cheap cop out that manufacturers say “consumer’s don’t want EVs” or similar. Manufacturers are saying this even before consumers have an option.

          There is huge demand for EVs, as Tesla has proven that with over 400k reservations for the Model 3 (which is completely unheard of in the car industry). The only reason why car manufacturers are rushing to build EVs now is because of the competition that Tesla has introduced. Even then, they are still doing it half heartedly.

          If Tesla hadn’t done what it did, then we’d still be addicted to oil for another 50 years while car manufacturers keep pedalling their propaganda rubbish “battery technology won’t be ready for transport until 2050”.

          So yes I agree, Tesla is one of the few companies that actually gives a crap about saving our planet while actually making a measurable difference. (I accept there are much smaller companies that also care but unfortunately they are much smaller and are able to make little impact).

          This is the whole reason why Tesla has such a high value cap which investment “experts” cannot understand. It’s because the people financially supporting the company actually give a crap and are wanting to make a difference.

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            “I think it’s a cheap cop out that manufacturers say “consumer’s don’t want EVs” or similar. Manufacturers are saying this even before consumers have an option.”

            You can think it is a cheap cop out, but it’s true. I work with hundreds of technology gurus and early adopters. We have 12 EVs here, and a few people have Model 3 reservations. But despite high awareness of this technology, the majority of people are still buying traditional vehicles.

            So I hear ya, and I want a transition to EVs sooner rather than later, but it is not simply factual and not a “cop out”

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              “not simply factual” should have read “simply factual” sorry about that.

              1. Big Solar says:

                I talk to people all the time and find that people do want electric cars they just are either uneducated on them or they are “too expensive” or the range issue is still a worry for them.

                1. Kdawg says:

                  Yup. They are still “weird” to most of the public.

                2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

                  To underscore that, many do not want to buy from legacy manufacturers. Legacy manufacturers have tarnished images and are earned.

                  They say nobody wants affordable EV’s yet Tesla has 2 years sold out already?
                  Really? Nobody wants EV’s??????

                  These legacy manufacturers have their blinders on. People want EV’s, just not from these legacy dopeheads with tarnished images.

                  To further this, people hate stealerships.

                  I for one will not buy from these legacy manufacturers anymore but then again, I will also not buy an ICE anymore.

            2. Nix says:

              Clarkson — I think you are describing the actual LACK of choice in the EV market having a massive impact on sales.

              Car makers have failed to cover even a 1/10th of the different market sectors that there are for ICE cars, much less provide the array of market choices ICE buyers have.

              Then some would argue, “hey, look, people are buying an ICE instead of an EV/PHEV” as if that proved that somehow the technology was the whole problem, and not the fact that current EV/PHEV cars offered are clustered in a small subset of market sectors. And not even the most popular market sectors, but market sectors that aren’t the leading ICE sales sectors either.

              The Outlander PHEV is now half a decade old, and still no reasonably priced AWD PHEV in the United States. We should be on 2nd Gen AWD PHEV CUV’s/SUV’s by now. Same with midsize cars.

              1. ClarksonCote says:

                I think lack of choice has a part in it, but if it were simply that, then howcome we still have sales of traditional Ford Focus vehicles when the electric version is available, for example?

                Believe me, I agree that there is not sufficient choice to show what the full EV market potential is at this point, but we still would not see a large take rate on EVs.

                I think that will change in the next 5 years though. Like most new technologies, they take a while to catch on, and luckily they’re quickly becoming cost-competitive with their ICE counterparts.

            3. Nelson says:

              People buy only what’s available to buy. This is why most people aren’t filling their gas tanks with leaded fuel.

              NPNS! SBF!
              Volt#671

      2. Ron M says:

        Dominc Richer
        Well said SPOT ON

      3. DJ says:

        If you truly cared about the planet then get a Leaf. It after all is much more environmentally friendly. No need to plop down 3-5X as much, well that is unless you want to and then you’re going to do it with or without the rebate.

        Don’t get me wrong, if I was getting a Tesla I’d want the $2k instead of $500 rebate and be annoyed that I couldn’t get it but realistically it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. Now, getting an additional $2k on a Leaf will make a notable difference for a lot of people that are on the fence.

    2. mx says:

      This seems to be needing repeating over and over.
      This incentive Does Show Up in the Used Car Market.
      Yes, incentives for the rich will actually trick down into the used car market. Because, more Tesla’s sold will lower used car prices with more supply.

      And since Tesla is the Most Effective Large Car at reducing emissions, you do the most good getting as many into the market as possible.

    3. How about this logic: ‘You want people to stop driving cars that get Poor Mileage: Gas or Diesel; you create incentives to help that hapen; People whose cars are very expensive, are seldom as fuel efficient as cars that are cheap; moving one High End Mercedes off the road and replacing it with a 100D Tesla, is just as effective as replacing a Versa with a LEAF!’

      So, should you get the Max? I say yes, with one cabeat: scrap the Mercedes, and you get the full $2,000 when you buy the Tesla!

      Actually, all the Tax Credit AND rebates should only pay 50% unless you scrap a Gas or Diesel (or Propane, etc.) car!

      But hey, that’s just how I see it!

      If not scrapping it, donate it to a School Shop!

      1. Typo: “one caviot” I think is the intended thought!

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Try again; it’s actually “caveat”.

          Signed, Grammar Nazi 😉

    4. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Whether people can afford the car anyway really isn’t the point. The question is whether an incentive will encourage them to buy the car over the less desirable alternative, and whether you can get better bang for the buck with different incentives.

      And yes, a free market would be nice, but free markets depend on the decisions made by self-centered consumers, which means that the impact of the free market depends on the accuracy of pricing and which impacts of the product are felt at the individual level.

      Clearly, transportation has large externalities and the impacts are felt at large group levels rather than the individual level, and that really means that a free market is not desirable and there really needs to be prodding

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        INATM said:
        “Whether people can afford the car anyway really isn’t the point. The question is whether an incentive will encourage them to buy the car over the less desirable alternative, and whether you can get better bang for the buck with different incentives.”

        Exactly! You hit the nail on head.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…in a free market, tax incentives and such shouldn’t even exist.”

      That’s a nice Adam Smith idea. Sadly, in the real world, a truly free market led to things like the Standard Oil monopoly, and even in today’s more regulated market we still have price fixing resulting in a box of corn flour and sugar worth less than $1 being sold as a $4-5 box of breakfast cereal.

      What the world needs is not a completely free market, but a competitive market, with any regulations and/or incentives needed to encourage competition.

      Sure, I get the reasoning that says “Anyone who can afford a Tesla Model S or X doesn’t need a tax break.” But sadly, like Adam Smith’s ideal of a free market, it’s a nice theory but it doesn’t actually work in the real world. Tesla started out by selling the expensive Roadster “supercar” because that top-end market segment was the only one in which they could successfully compete. It has been Tesla’s strategy from the beginning (even before Elon Musk joined the company) to make successively lower-cost cars as the price of batteries comes down.

      Any new EV startup is going to have to follow the same path Tesla did. Penalizing those startups by limiting EV incentives and rebates to lower-priced cars is, to some extent, going to have the opposite effect that the incentives were designed to encourage. Limiting incentives to lower-cost cars means only existing large auto makers with deep pockets and greater ability to amortize costs over time, will be able to make and sell cars in the price range to take advantage of such incentives.

      Bottom line: If the purpose of the incentives is merely to encourage large legacy auto makers, such as GM, to make and sell EVs, then the incentives should indeed be limited to low- and moderately-priced cars. But if the purpose is to actually accelerate the EV revolution, then the incentives should apply equally to all EVs, regardless of price.

    6. randomhuman says:

      America is not a free market. Even Donald Trump said that. The so called free market doesn’t work because there has to be a government to intervene for example in emission standards or in air quality laws. Free market is unhealthy for the environment and unhealthy for humans. Capitalisms tends to exploit humans, resources and at the end the whole world. We can see that in 3rd world countries.

      1. TomArt says:

        Agreed 100%.

    7. james says:

      Right and the attempt is to steer you to an EV regardless of price.

      You can get Audi, MB, BMWs, etc in that price range to, the point is to get you to go green not to buy an expensive car…

      Same reason to get you into Volt or Energi over other Chevys and Fords.

      1. Martin Winlow says:

        Exactly – it doesn’t matter *who* is buying EVs. The point is that they *are* buying one (over an ICEV) and therefore doing their bit to help the environment/air quality/reduce dependence on oil/kick Big Oil in the goolies/etc, etc. Thus they should be encouraged to do it and one, easy, way to do that is to knock a bit off the price. The way this particular incentive is structured makes sense to me. $2k off a cheap(er) EV favours the likely relatively lower income buyer compared with $2k off a Tesla which will probably be bought by a much higher income buyer and it will matter considerably less.

        The fact that Teslas are American-made (for now) and therefore supporting the US economy and US jobs is a bonus.

    8. None says:

      Maybe some people won’t buy an electric car unless it can nearly completely replace their gasmobile (not everyone wants to spend overnight charging to go on a trip). Tesla is the only one (with limited exceptions) providing fast, easy road trip capabilities for long distance driving. Have you read the number of stories about people eating Ramen noodles to afford a Tesla because they want the long range? They want the Nationwide fast charging network…..OR they will keep their gasmobile and keep polluting air for you!

      So here is a great idea….Limit the rebates to keep the Tesla’s out of reach for some people. Slow the adoption of EVs and keep people thinking they are city cars and that if they take road trips, they should only buy gas cars.

      Ok, give people money to buy cars where they will drive fewer miles overall. Yeah, that makes great sense….

      Why wouldn’t you want to also subsidize the car with the highest potential to rack up the miles driven on cleaner fuel? That was the whole point of that rebate with tiers based on mileage, right? LOL

      /End rant

  2. bro1999 says:

    I’m surprised they even allowed $500. I believe the first version of the bill had a hard $60k cap (anything above $60,000 got zippo).

    Maryland is doing a similar thing with the extension of its EV credit program. Any EV with a MSRP over $60k qualifies for nothing. <$60k can qualify for up to a $3k credit.

  3. Didier says:

    “In a free market, tax incentives and such shouldn’t even exist”

    … but should be replace by an interdiction of combustion engines at least in cities ?

    Hum, as you like !

    1. EVA-01 says:

      I don’t understand your response. Please explain it.

      1. AlphaEdge says:

        I think he said the quantum effect of pollution in relation to the interdiction of population growth is not obligatory to any physics fields of force.

  4. Brian says:

    The title of this article is just wrong. Tesla is hardly getting “shunned”. When they deliver the Model 3 later this year, it will qualify for the full rebate. NYS has nothing against the company – our state is open to their stores (unlike certain other states). The state just wants to make sure the incentive money helps people who need it the most. And that does NOT include those buying $70k+ cars.

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      It does seem like a bit of opinion to say they’re “shunned” for sure.

      Additionally, the caption “All Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles will be void of New York state’s new electric vehicle rebate” is not true… They will have a $500 rebate, which seems like more than being void of a rebate. 😉

  5. ClarksonCote says:

    Presently the only EV to qualify for the full $2,000 rebate is the Chevrolet Bolt EV, though it’s likely the next gen Leaf will meet the requirement too.

    Knowing this has been coming for a year, I suspect EV sales have been stifled in NY state. Hopefully there is a bit of a resurgence in April thanks to the rebate finally coming online.

    1. Brian says:

      Yup. Also, the Hyundai Ioniq and updated VW eGolf (with the 36kWh battery) may squeak into the max rebate range as well.

    2. Bill Howland says:

      Any slim chance of this being slightly retroactive (32 days)??

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        Haha! Boy, wouldn’t that be nice. Kudos to NYSERDA for taking a full year to implement this, sigh. 🙁

  6. flmark says:

    It took nearly a FULL YEAR to implement this program and FINALLY get to this point. I confronted the announcement of this last year with the impending delivery of my Model X. In my seasonal home situation, I had to weigh my delivery options upon choosing Florida or NY and NY had just announced that this was to be available. But thanks to the difference in sales taxes, this rebate would have been negated by NY’s ridiculous taxes and so I pretty much dismissed it and had the car delivered to Florida (and then flew back from to NY to FL only to turn around and immediately drive back to NY).

    Meanwhile, the DC fast charging situation for NON Tesla vehicles in NY is ABYSMAL!!! When they announced details of OPTIONAL fast charging (a whole ‘nother story there) for the upcoming Bolt, I went to Plugshare and found that there was just ONE (non Tesla) Fast charger for the ENTIRE STATE outside of the Hudson Valley. And …that Hudson Valley route was well covered… (Albany…the state capital…to NYC…think where the legislators/power brokers would drive!!) I know that NY just announced the addition of fast charging at service areas along the Thruway, but it is clear that Tesla is THE company which has had the foresight to move us toward electrified transportation…and this is the thanks that NY gives them. Argh. (Fyi…two more SC stations will be available to me in central NY than I had last year…so now I will have SEVEN superchargers, in all directions, within two hours of my home.)

    I used to be a Republican…until the Tea Party wack jobs took over. As another Volt owner said to me, ‘I didn’t leave the Republican Party. It left me!’ I stick by that sentiment. This blue state EV policy is a reminder why I did not SWITCH my affiliation. I am now an independent…stepping back from both our national parties and being alienated by them. Every once in a while, I look at the meanness of the GOP (the recent health care debacle comes to mind) and briefly entertain becoming a democrat. Then I get news like this and realize that those on the left are just as polarized and crazy as those on the right. I hate this (very political) news…but I am certainly not surprised by it.

    Yes, there is an income inequality issue in this country, but the way to deal with it is NOT to attack core ideas…base the rebate value on EV miles available…AND THEN STOP. Even with the way the NYSERDA table is constructed, you realize that the MSRP item is TOTALLY political…we were talking about a stratified rebate system, based on EV capability, and then we judged that some EV miles were not worth rewarding, after all.

    If you don’t think this is political, go to the NYSERDA link and you will see that you can sort their table by EV range. The Chevy Bolt is the ONLY, repeat ONLY, vehicle that currently qualifies for that maximum rebate. If politics weren’t in it, Tesla and GM would both qualify. In fact, the 120 mile range cut off seems to have been arbitrarily chosen to shut out EVERY OTHER car manufacturer besides GM. Now who do you think lobbied NYS legislators to create this bogus system???…I’ll give you a hint…the same people who lobbied Michigan legislators to keep Tesla dealerships out of that state. I cut up my GM card last year over their shenanigans, after using it to buy GM vehicles for a quarter century. I now despise GM as a company and would discourage anyone from buying their vehicles. I love my 2017 Volt, but it is definitely the LAST GM I will ever buy.

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      Hi Mark, I’m surprised you think that the Bolt being the only EV to qualify is some conspiracy. The fact is, the Leaf will have a similar-ranged EV soon, as will others.

      This rebate will not be out for a year before there are at least 3 that qualify for the max rebate, if not more. And the Model 3 — from TESLA — will be one of those.

      I’m also cautiously optimistic that the DCFC situation will vastly improve. It seems that, when the market forces demand it, a non-proprietary infrastructure will have vastly more resources to roll-out far quicker than Tesla’s proprietary standard.

      Of course, that remains to be seen and I completely agree that the SC network right now is on top, by a wide margin. 🙂

      1. Nick says:

        On one hand you see a coast to coast charging network with many stalls for each site and very high power using proprietary connectors.

        On the other you have very sparse relatively low power individual stations with one or two connectors per location which are frequently broken using more open connectors.

        This tells me the business model for quick charging is broken, and it takes a company to built it as a strategic investment or a government to build it as a public good.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Nick said:

          “This tells me the business model for quick charging is broken, and it takes a company to built it as a strategic investment or a government to build it as a public good.”

          Hmmm, I don’t think it’s correct to say that the business model for (for-profit) fast charging stations is “broken”; it’s just that the market hasn’t yet developed. We’re arguably still in the “early adopter” stage of the EV revolution; at best we’re only transitioning out of that phase this year, with the Bolt EV and the forthcoming Model 3.

          To say the for-profit EV fast-charging market is “broken” is like saying the DVD market was “broken” until Best Buy started stocking and selling them in large numbers.

      2. flmark says:

        Eric,

        I am surprised you don’t come to the same conclusion. Shouldn’t rule number one of public ethics debates begin with- don’t enact rules where there is ONE obvious winner? And when you do enact such a rule, shouldn’t you make it LESS obvious. Go back to the NYSERDA list and do that sort by mileage. So you ‘choose’ 120 miles and the next guy who doesn’t make it falls JUST FIVE MILES SHORT??? Seriously? If the bar was set farther away from the runner up (say 150 miles), I might believe they were rewarding the innovative second generation of EV makers. Instead, as is already KNOWN, GM has a tendency to interfere in state legislation to benefit itself. And the whole thing smells to high heaven. ‘If it walks like a duck…’ It does not take a conspiracy theorist to note that Ford missed the mark by just FOUR PERCENT!!! And then, of course, you have the whole concept that sorry, Tesla, you may have the miles, but you are too elitist.

        You can talk all you want about the future, but I have been pointing out the abysmal DCFC situation in NY for over a year a now. And I tell all my NY relatives that if they want an ‘affordable’ EV, they need to either buy a Volt or wait for a Model 3. While those DCFCs on the Thruway will be nice, there is whole lotta NY still left without any coverage.

        No, if I were a NY legislator WITHOUT an agenda toward a particular manufacturer, I would note all those SCs and see who was moving us toward an electric future. I might also note all those Silverado (and other GM) commercials that fail to let the public know that they are helping the world drive electric…and note the dearth of EVs on dealer lots. The term ‘compliance car’ will continue to cling to GM until they stop treating electrified products as the proverbial red headed step child. Is this NOT a public incentive program to electrify transportation?? If so, ALL electric miles are good ones.

        As best as I can tell without further research, this is a rebate program TO THE DEALERS. I had been waiting to see if the program was like some others- a refund of state income taxes. Without a state income tax bill from NY, I cannot benefit. If you TRULY wanted the program to be exclusionary based on income, then it is on a tax form where you can eliminate an incentive like this. Instead you end up with a format that chooses car makers OR MAKER as winners and losers.

        And let’s see how long this lasts, or what format it takes in a year or two. The program could conveniently run out of money as Tesla comes out with its ‘affordable’ EV. And since this appears to be linked to a dealer reward, Tesla’s meager physical presence in NY will keep it at a disadvantage for some time to come.

        Conspiracy? Really? Did you forget I went through THIS with the state of NY???
        http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?111177-NOAA-Better-to-chop-down-trees-for-solar-than-to-use-bright-sunny-dock
        NY has given me PLENTY of reason to believe the WORST when it comes to ‘green-washing’ things.

        1. ClarksonCote says:

          Hi Mark,

          Yes, if there’s one clear winner, the legislation would be biased. But both the next-generation Leaf and the Model 3 are due out in a matter of months and have been announced for quite some time now.

          So to me, there is not one clear winner. Yes, today the Bolt is the only one to benefit, but that will be for a very limited time. Because of that, no, I don’t think it was made to benefit one clear vehicle.

          DCFC is awful in NY, I won’t disagree. The legislation NY recently passed to install at every Thruway station should help, A LOT! And, hopefully when there is a true business case for DCFC, they will become prolific without government intervention.

          In hindsight, it will all become clear, but I’m personally banking on DCFC looking much improved by 2020.

          That’s my opinion and hope, anyway. I don’t mind disagreeing, I certainly intend no disrespect whatsoever. 🙂 I don’t think there’s any conspiracy with GM here. They just don’t sell enough EVs overall and especially the state of NY to even bother. The jury is still out for me on how serious NY is about EVs though.

          As to the rebate structure, I’m a bit confused with what you wrote. It is a point of sale rebate, which would seem independent of whether or not someone pays taxes, correct? I haven’t read up on it much though, will have to do that now.

          1. flmark says:

            Yes, the program appears to be a rebate to dealers, independent of taxes. That is my point- if you make a decision to invalidate expensive cars, why do you do this? Presumably, because you make the assumption because buyers of these cars don’t ‘need’ the incentive. However, the place to ascertain ‘need’ in NOT in the sticker price of the car but in declared income.

            I once benefitted from a NYSERDA program and got a rebate on an energy efficient washing machine. I don’t recall, and expect that, there was no upper price limitation on washing machines. Certainly there was a price difference between models, but little judgment (political or otherwise) on how much you chose to spend. The criteria was energy efficiency…and that is where it STOPPED.

            One year ago, there was exactly one player, with both a car and an infrastructure, that could realistically eliminate gasoline usage from your transportation needs. If you apply the washing machine methodology to the car world, you reward Tesla, not penalize it. At worst, this whole thing smells of back room politics…but even at its best, it appears to be bad governance. It took them a WHOLE YEAR to put this thing out. If they wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, they might have delayed this until there wasn’t just ONE make of car that cleared the bar.

            The website is car purchase focused…no TBA models are on there. You go, you click, and you make a purchase decision based on what the state is telling you NOW!!! If they had little asterisks next to ‘coming soon’ models, it might make all the difference. But as of right now, the state is ENDORSING a winner in an oh so obvious manner. We can debate about how we got here, but again, NY is merely green washing an ignorant electorate.

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              I suspect their intent is to make vehicles more affordable for people that need assistance.

              Yes, you could use tax credits, but what about people that make so little that they aren’t eligible for tax credits, or have other tax credits that zeros out their balance?

              There’s several ways to implement a rebate. Personally, I don’t object to them not including $60k cars as part of that rebate. However, I think they could’ve implemented the rebate far more efficiently by simply making EV’s exempt from sales tax.

              There will be several opinions on the best way to do it. But I don’t think any motivation focused on trying to single out a manufacturer for better or for worse.

              Great to have an opportunity to chat with you a bit on here Mark, it has been a while!

    2. EVA-01 says:

      Just a correction for your last paragraph: Tesla doesn’t have dealerships, they have stores.

    3. ffbj says:

      ..always nice to read your analysis. Thanks.

    4. Former FFE Driver says:

      The 2017 e-Golf with 125 miles should qualify. The Folks at Hyundai must be upset to miss it by 1 mile.

    5. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “If you don’t think this is political, go to the NYSERDA link and you will see that you can sort their table by EV range. The Chevy Bolt is the ONLY, repeat ONLY, vehicle that currently qualifies for that maximum rebate.”

      That was also true when the volt first came out. It was the only PHEV that qualified but even worse is you were only able to use less than 60% of the pack on those models. Talk about gaming the system!!!

  7. guyinacar says:

    “Shunned” is kind of a biased word choice. In Massachusetts, it’s already the one-year anniversary of the $60,000 MOR-EV rebate cap. Any vehicle over $60,000 MSRP defaults to a $1000 rebate, no matter how green, and only if the subsidy pool isn’t exhausted. It’s not really about Tessa at all. It’s simple Progressivism, for better or worse.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      If that’s true and the term “MSRP” is the stipulation, then the base Tesla should be set to less than $60K and the final price should be called “Customer requested/configured Price”.
      😛

  8. Four Electrics says:

    This cap makes perfect sense. The goal is to maximize the number of EVs sold per dollar of rebate. High end cars would be sold regardless of rebate: thus, the rebate is a waste of money when applied to top cost vehicles.

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      You’re making a very significant assumption if you’re saying that people on higher incomes don’t respond to financial incentives.

      1. Nix says:

        Indeed, his comment assumes that wealthy people got where they are by spending money instead of saving money.

        Besides, the vast majority of EV incentives are currently getting passed through to second-owners, who are exactly the people who need them. Because people making the median income typically don’t buy brand new cars at all, whether they are ICE or EV.

  9. Ron says:

    I think the incentive structure should be very different. As was the case with Cash for Clunkers, this supports foreign manufacturers more than it does domestic factories/workers.
    I would have limited the rebate for cars with non-USA manufactured battery or motor to $500.

  10. Kp says:

    This is stupid. Just because you can afford more does not mean you should not get incentives! Should rich disabled people not be allowed to get a handicap sticker because they should be able to afford a chaffaeur? Should rich people be charged more for gas (as there are incentives for gas too)? Should rich people not be eligible for SSI even though they paid in to it? Shoukd rich people not get EZpass green car discount benefit? Should rich people be charged more at restaurants just because they can afford to pay more….. the list can go on. There is a reason for cap of 200K cars. Incentivize to encourage other people to buy. For that matter the reason model 3 became a reality was the rich people buying the model S and X!

    1. bro1999 says:

      If the point of the NY EV rebate program is to simply encourage the growth of EV sales in the state, perhaps you have a point.

      If the point of the bill is to primarily help lower income (i.e. not rich) people to acquire new EVs, then excluding vehicles over a certain price point makes sense. Blue collar worker Joe Schmoe is likely not eyeing an $80k Model X.

      The argument can be made that the “rich” people will buy EVs regardless of rebates, so allowing them to receive the credit does nothing to promote EVs.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        One of the s***tier problems is that some people (lower income) don’t even qualify for the Fed $7500.00…….lol

        WTF is up with that???

      2. Kp says:

        You do have a point. But an assumption cannot be made that rich people WILL buy EVs regardless of rebates. It’s like saying rich people don’t care about money! The rich guy may like a Mercedes or Tesla but may be swayed to take the Tesla for its incentive.

        There will always be some uber rich people who do not care but if you look at the most common vehicles traded in you will be surprised it’s not an Aston Martin or Lamborghini but rather Camry or Honda equivalent!

  11. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    The best incentive is to taper off all the petrol subsidies so Americans can see the true cost of gas.

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      I would personally be all for a 25 cent per gallon tax increase at the federal level, at a minimum. But sadly it will probably never happen.

      1. Ocean Railroader says:

        The State of Pennsyvinia raised their gas taxes by $0.25 cents at the start of the year and New Jersey also raised their gas taxes by $0.25.

        Vriginia however we changed are road taxes based off of the state sales tax.

        1. ClarksonCote says:

          Yes, NH raised their gas taxes this year too. I think it’s great states are recognizing the need to do this, but I still wish it could also be done at the federal level.

          The federal costs to maintain our roads continues to increase but the tax has remained unchanged for decades.

          1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            There’s a perfect example where the feds can taper off the petrol subsides and redirect them to infrastructure maintenance/repairs.
            No additional Tax to push forward!

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Merely ending the tax subsidies for Big Oil would only be a drop in the bucket. The actual True Cost of gasoline would include the trillions of dollars of taxpayer-funded American military might which is used to protect oil-rich countries where we buy oil and to fight unnecessary wars to further their interests; and protect our shipping supply lines of oil on the high seas.

      But of course, the highest cost is one which can never be repaid: The thousands of American servicemen and -women whose lives have been lost, or who have been maimed, by those conflicts and wars.

      1. Get Real says:

        And don’t forget that by the US paying the costs for securing the Mideast and the sea lanes for oil shipping we are basically subsidizing all our economic competitors that are benefiting from the same oil.

        Of course we are doing the same subsidies for the rest of the world by paying artificially very high drug costs that other countries avoid and benefit from Americans overpayers.

        And of course in both cases their are extremely powerful industries that are legally bribing politicians to keep it that way as they directly benefit from these subsidies

  12. DJ says:

    And oh, I’m not sure it’s been mentioned or not but what about the Model 3? You guys make it seem like they’re anti-Tesla when in reality the Model 3 will likely be eligible for the full $2k rebate 😉

  13. Nix says:

    Actually, when you work out the numbers, Tesla owners will likely be the single biggest beneficiaries of this rebate.

    Tesla’s Model 3 targets (with a production rate of around 400K units by the end of 2018, some percent going to NY) will likely mean that more Tesla owners would benefit from the full incentive than buyers of any other car maker.

    I’m not exactly sure how “Tesla Shunned” applies here, any more than “BMW Shunned” for the i8. The incentive seems very manufacturer-neutral. In fact, every single car maker (including GM) gets “Shunned” either partially or completely in the exact same way, since the Bolt is the only car worthy of the full $2000. Even GM’s Volt and ELR get “Shunned” with lower incentives.

  14. Mister G says:

    Folks stop with the free market mythology….want a free market go to a failed state, Somalia and parts of war torn Syria are great free market locations…raise your hands if you wanna go lol

  15. TomArt says:

    We will know if they are anti-Tesla when the Model 3 comes out. IF they change the threshold again, then we’ll know. I doubt they will, however.

    I agree that everyone should get the credit based on the criteria, not MSRP. As the article stated, $2k on a $80k car is a much smaller percentage than $2k on a $40k car. Perfectly reasonable to remove the cap. Get these cars on the road at all price points!

  16. windbourne says:

    Stupidity at its best.
    I agree with giving little for cars costing more than 60K. In fact, I might even suggest taking it down to 40K. And doing it based on milage is smart. BUT the milage that they have is a joke. It is obvious that the big car makers had a MAJOR say in this.

    Instead, it should be that anything less than 120 MPC (EPA rating) gets NOTHING. The reason is that those will either be hybrids, OR will require lots of daytime charging.
    Instead, 120 -160 MPC should get say 2000. 161-200 MPC should get 2000 + the costs of a on-site charger up to 1000. Anything above 200 MPC should get $2500 PLUS the costs of putting in a charger.
    THis will encourage lots of NIGHTTIME charging.

  17. jim stack says:

    The Tesla model 3 can get the incentive. It’s price is afordable and the Incentive will help even more. NYS has been a leader in clean cars and will continue.

  18. John J Brophy says:

    I am one who found I had an extra $1000/mo, then decided to get a Tesla Model S.
    Now I don’t qualify foe CA low income rebate because my income is over $37,600. By $10,000.
    I don’t pay Fed income taxes because my Soc security income is not taxable. So I do not qualify for the Fed’s $7,500 TAX DEDUCTION.
    Poor retired me gets No help as I try to BUY with a conscience toward helping the Planet.