BMW i3 REx Now Qualifies For $2,500 Rebate in California – Gets BEVx Designation

MAY 2 2014 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 15

BMW i3 and BMW i3 REx Both Qualify For $2,500 CVRP Rebate

BMW i3 and BMW i3 REx Both Qualify For $2,500 CVRP Rebate

It’s now finally been made official.

Both the BMW i3 and BMW i3 REx qualify for the full $2,500 awarded under California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.

Current Rebate Status in California

Current Rebate Status in California

There clearly were some last minute behind-the-scenes discussions in play to get the i3 REx to qualify for the full rebate, but it’s a done deal now.

In addition to the $2,500 rebate, the i3 REx qualifies for the green HOV sticker in California.  However, those green stickers are exhausted or all spoken for – at least for the time being.  A proposition to expand the “green” sticker program has passed the assembly in California and is heading to the Senate.

There are perhaps dozens of i3 RExs sitting at various US ports.  Some have been there on standby for weeks now awaiting these final certifications.

Now that the i3 REx’s rebate status in California is known and with this executive order showing it gets the BEVx designation, the only hold up before BMW can sell the i3 REx is EPA certification.  We expect that to come soon.

The BEV version of the BMW i3 received its EPA ratings yesterday, so the pure electric version can be sold now.

Categories: BMW

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

15 Comments on "BMW i3 REx Now Qualifies For $2,500 Rebate in California – Gets BEVx Designation"

newest oldest most voted

I’d rather have a larger fuel tank and a partial rebate.

No kidding. A 4-5 gallon fuel tank would be much more useful, then you could use the car for road trips.

Does this also mean that the i3 w/REx qualifies for more valuable credits from CARB for BMW?

Yes, and also no sales tax on the car in New Jersey. The sales tax waiver was tied to the BEVx designation so great news for the NJ folks as well.

No, the i3 BEV and i3 REx get the same number of ZEV credits. See the table in section 1962.1(d)(5)(C) on page 14 of http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.1_Clean.pdf

I think what Brian is asking is if it would qualify for the same ZEV credits as the BEV version rather than only for the PHEV ones (like the Volt if the BEVx category didn’t exist). It would be ridiculous if the REx got even more credits than the BEV.

That’s exactly what I was asking. To me, this makes perfect sense as to why BMW would reduce the functionality of the REx (compared to the European version)

On the upside, a huge win for BMW (hooray for big business!) since they really did compromise the car for the California market. While, as a non-Californian, I am not happy about the compromises, I just can’t deny that California is huge (disproportionately so) with regard to EV sales…just too big a percentage for a business to ignore.

I feel your frustration. At the same time, if it weren’t for California’s regulations, BMW might not have brought the i3 to the US in the first place.

I feel your frustration. At the same time, if not for California’s regulations, BMW might not have brought the i3 to the US in the first place!

Sorry, the site hiccuped and my first post disappeared.

Wait, what? I mean this site runs perfectly flawlessly! 😉

Must be that the reduction of the gas tank further, worked.

“Behind the scenes discussions” makes it seem as if politics were at work here. Hate to burst the bubbles of those who live for nefarious intrigue, but nothing could be further from the truth. BMW applied for certification once required federal testing was completed and within a week of being certified, was on the rebate eligibility list. Obviously, that’s a much more boring story…

A car with the range of a leaf, the gas use of a volt, and the cost of a Tesla.

Um, with the REx you have twice the range of a Leaf, much less gas usage than a Volt for any realistic road trip (200-300 miles) (it approaches parity with infinite miles), and it costs tens of thousands of dollars less than a Tesla.

Way to check your facts, Scott.