California Considers Additional $2,000 Electric Car Incentive: Total $4,500

SEP 26 2018 BY MARK KANE 60

California weighs higher subsidies for EVs.

Bloomberg reports that California will hold a hearing this week about increasing incentives to buy plug-in cars from the current $2,500 to $4,500.

One of the reason is that some plug-in car manufacturers already hit or soon will hit the federal tax credit limit of 200,000 vehicles sold, which starts the phase-out of $7,500 federal tax credit (it will decrease by 50% for up to six months and then to 25% for another six months, before drying out completely).

Tesla already reached 200,000 in July, while GM is expected to sell its 200,000th plug-in electric car in U.S. several months from now.

There is also a chance that the additional $2,000 could be provided directly to consumers at the point of sale.

“The state is able to consider an increase in its electric-car subsidy partly because revenue is becoming available as companies buy more credits to comply with the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, said Dan Sperling, a University of California Davis transportation professor who is also a member of the Air Resources Board. At this week’s hearing, the board will consider requiring oil companies to cut carbon intensity by 20 percent by 2030, compared with 2010 levels, from a 5 percent reduction mandated this year.

California may provide the funding generated from this program as subsidies directly to consumers at the point of sale, as proposed by automakers, electric utility companies and others, rather than via mail rebates later.”

The current state rebate ($2,500) is financed from the purchase of credits to comply with the state’s cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.

Other topics under consideration will be whether or not to increase support for:

  • fast charging infrastructure
  • hydrogen stations
  • electric buses

Source: Bloomberg

Categories: General

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

60 Comments on "California Considers Additional $2,000 Electric Car Incentive: Total $4,500"

newest oldest most voted

This will be Great News for the continued sales of the Tesla Model 3, and Chevy Bolt here in California!

1.) fast charging infrastructure
2.) hydrogen stations
3.) electric buses

Please consider more support for #1 and #3, which are hopefully coming soon, to a location where they are still desperately needed, but not yet deployed. An example would be adding DC fast chargers near the intersection of the 10 &110 freeways.

I don’t think fast charging is the solution… just more charging period, mainly level 2, especially in rental properties and public streets. Public utilities needs to step up and come up with solutions like mobile metering, public plugs attached to street lights and utility poles. Commercial developments need to up their charging infrastructure in their parking areas, and this could just be all level 2 charging. Hydrogen is pretty much no go in California. Electric buses and rail are already in wide use in San Francisco with catenary systems… LA needs to step up their game by putting more battery-electric buses on the road.

L2 charging street spaces (LADWP installed), that are adjacent to utility poles and street lights, are great, but they unfortunately are often ICE’d or EVen vandalized, here in So. Cal., in the City of Angels.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

” just more charging period, mainly level 2,”

Exactly. Go visit some shopping malls and count up the L2 EVSE’s you see. You can almost always count them on your two hands. Now consider the amount of parking spaces there are for that mall.
Many people drive intercity to malls and schools. Look at UOP and Stockton in general. There may be a handfull of L2 charging. I had to go to UOP a few times, they don’t have any charging……….LMAO.
I was able to plug into their 14-50 socket in the back utility building with my 40A OpenEVSE.

#1 absolutely. Fast charging negates range concerns and makes EV less expensive overall for the masses. When the last time you were concerned about the size of a new car’s gas tank?

This should bring electric car sales in California to an absolute standstill until any possible increased benefits of the new law/guidelines become apparent…or not.

Hydrogen is almost as bad as gas… so much power is needed to create, store, and transport it. No need to save the gas station owners (the only real ones to get benefits of H2).

Reform H2 from bio methane.

Find enough *sustainably* produced bio-methane…

Hydrogen must be strictly forbidden worldwide, it undermines the story of Great Battery rEvolution, as started by Dear Leader Elon!

Shill for big oil zzzzzz once again shows his utter ignorance of economics.

H2 simply cannot compete in an economic sense with batteries since batteries are 300% more efficient at using the electricity to move vehicles.

Without MASSIVE subsidies, H2 and fool cells would quickly die.

Hydrogen is quicker to refuel and stores energy at far lower marginal cost. If you assume solar will continue to decrease in price, these factors come compelling. Efficiency is a red herring to distract from the real advantage of hydrogen: a zero carbon fuel at lower cost, with greater convenience.

LOL…you complain about “fanboys” attacking you but you seem to be just fine instigating…

One of the several ways in which science-denier “fool cell” fanbois demonstrate their denial of reality is in their belief that nobody realized hydrogen-powered FCEVs were utterly impractical until Elon labeled them “fool cell cars”.

But in the real world, physicists had already been warning of the problem for years, as shown in this article from 2006:

“Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense”

Your report is twelve years out of date. See:

“If vehicle penetration increases up to 20 million vehicles in the base case scenario, a battery charging infrastructure would cost around €51billion, making it more expensive than hydrogen infrastructure, which comes in at around € 40 billion.”

“The hydrogen infrastructure with the inherent seasonal storage option has lower CO2 emissions because of the high use of renewable surplus electricity.”

This might be the case for some manufacturers, but I do not think that Tesla (who now have has the majority of the market coverd on its own) will be hit negatively if this is introduced starting January 2019. Currently, Tesla customers in California enjoy a 2.5 k$ state rebate and a 7.5 k$ federal tax credit, if they are eligible.
Come January, the fedeal tax credit will drop to 3.75 k$ for Tesla, so even if the state rebate increases to 4.5 k from the current 2.5, it is better to take delivery in 2018 to get the full federal tax credit.
The only ones benefiting from a later Tesla purchase would be customers that don’t have paid high enogh federal taxes in 2017 to claim the tax rebate. That can’t be a very high number, as that would mean that they have no income but buy luxury cars (with the exception of writeoffs for losses in former years, as a certain commander in chief allegedly did a while back)
It is a nice gesture towards Tesla reservation holders waiting for the base model, though.

(1) _IF_ that happens.
(2) _IF_ income even qualifies one to get the state rebate (not an unreasonably coarse filter when it comes to Tesla audience).

I don’t earn enough money to take full advantage of the tax credit. I’ve been saving money since before the model 3 was announced in order to make a large enough down payment that I could afford the monthly payments. I had originally planned for $15k down on the $43k car (base + paint + autopilot/self driving). Delays have meant more time to save up, more like $22k down, so I might end up getting a LR RWD car late this year (without FSD) if I can get it without some of the mandatory upgrades. (or if I get a bonus or a significant raise, which is unlikely) Otherwise, I’ll probably have to wait until next year and get the SR RWD car as originally intended, with much lower monthly payments than I had originally planned due to having a couple of more years to save up. I *could* do the more fiscally responsible thing and just never buy a new car, keep driving 10 year old used cars forever, but my commute is 30 miles one-way and cuts through downtown LA, and if I don’t get a car with some kind of adaptive cruise soon I’ll end up insane.… Read more »

Sounds like you have enough to just pay cash for a used Nissan Leaf.

New nissan leaf with 0% financing and a bunch of discount. Or wait for the longer range one or Niro or Bolt or Kona.

I like people who are fiscally prudent and do savings with a long term horizon. Congratulations on your impending Tesla purchase.

Have you even been to California lately? If you spend about 30 min on the road in LA, you’ll probably see more Tesla’s than any European car. There seems to be more Teslas on the road these days than BMW and Mercedes. People are buying EV’s at an alarming rate and subsidy or no subsidy, this trend will not stop.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

At no subsidy the trend will severely slow down.

Tesla’s are still superior when compared to their ICE competition, even without subsidy.
Break even in TCO just shifts a bit backwards in that case, but the “Tesla grin” will still be there right upon delivery.
Compliance cars will suffer, though.
Best progress could be achieved in gradually lowering the subsidies for EVs, while at the same time to a higher extent put some punishment on low gas milage vehicles by a hefty registration tax, and perhaps also an increased gasoline tax, so pollution will be accounted for proportional to gasoline use.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

“Best progress could be achieved in gradually lowering the subsidies for EVs, while at the same time to a higher extent put some punishment on low gas milage vehicles”

That’s a great idea!
Even better is if the gooooberment changed the “Gas Guzzler Tax” to raise the ‘minimum fuel economy’ to 39.5MPG from the old 22.5mpg. Also include Pickups and SUV’s and Vans/Mini Vans with their own ‘minimum fuel economy’ of 33.5mpg or more.

Seems like an old Tax that needs to be upgraded to todays specs.

That’s beside the point. The point he is making is that the uncertainty about a possible additional subsidy might make people delay buying until the situation is clarified…

Though as others pointed out, the fact that federal subsidies are phasing out, means that it actually doesn’t make sense to wait in this case.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

That really does not make any sense. Why wait when you can get the full rebate now?

Sigh and Texas offers their rebate to all but the most US built car… Tesla.

Flying the American Flag high and proudly…Hey TX, is it because it’s a CA company?

It’s because owners of dealerships there are so filthy rich from ripping people off, that they can bribe … I mean contribute to politicians.

Bribing is illegal…lobbying is not…lol!

It is not most US built. Most US/Canada built are Dodge Grand Caravan (76%), Honda Odyssay and Ridgeline with 75% part content. Tesla S/X/3 is only 50-55% US/Canada built.

He was talking about EV rebates.

(Also, he said US built, not US+Canada built…)

Catching up to Colorado, where we have $5k 🙂

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Nice!!! +1

Can’t see if this would be for BEV only.
Time to end subsidies for the plugin hybrids.
I am a fan of Volvo, but XC90 T8, really?

For the more serious offerings, such as the Volt or Clarity, a certain amount of subsidies is reasonable… As long as it’s substantially less than for BEVs.

I agree though that the various European alibi-PHEVs should get very little subsidies, if any.

The trick is to increase the mandatory real world range for the PHEV in order to qualify for something, like ZEV credits. China has shown how that works, and almost over night, PHEV ranges of many offerings in the country have miraculously increased. Also, long range BEVs are now available, as the required range to qualify for subisdies has been raised.

I suppose they could tie the maximum amount of the tax credit to the EPA’s EV range, but that would definitely make things more complicated. You’d need a chart showing the maximum amount for every EV you could possibly buy in California, and that would have to be updated frequently. Tax preparers and California State tax revenue service employees would need that chart, too.

Give subsidies for used cars to lower income drivers.
People with low income should be able to buy a used Leaf for a minimal amount

The State of Colorado is a leader in this assistance, as they have a $5k pre-owned purchase incentive for some, if not all EVs, as “BoltUp” has previously stated above!

Used cars inherit the original subsidy, though… That’s part of the reason why some used EVs are really cheap.

Right. Additional subsidies on used EVs isn’t necessary; they’re already included in the prices.

You can already get a 3-4 years old F500 for $5k…how low do they need to be anyway?

A significant amount of used first generation EVs is exported to e.g. Norway and Ukraine.
Any used car subsidy should only be paid after the car in question has been kept and used (i.e. registered milage increase) for some time or be awarded once a year only. Otherwise, the funding supports small export businesses rather than lower income families.
Even with a low income, the ~5-7 k for a used Fiat or Leaf as a commuter vehicle should be doable, if it replaces an ICE car, basically on gas savings alone over 3-4 years (as those first generation EVs are not really suitable for road trips). Who can’t afford that (with a loan, and maybe putting in a few hours a week as a driver for Uber / Lyft), should perhaps reconsider car ownership as a whole.

Waste of lost tax dollars for the state of California, it’s obvious the Tesla cult customers will buy Tesla at any price or cost so they seriously don’t need any incentives.

Tesla has been in business 15 years, time to stand on their own two feet without subsidies.

You are showing your anti-Tesla bias there Bunny!

I say it is time to stop subsidizing the oil industry and let diesel prices rise to further speed up the electrification of trucking!

Oh and BTW, Tesla will be the first company to lose the much greater $7,500 federal tax credit.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Yes, kill those stupid Petrol subsidies.
Why don’t the idiot politicians see this. It’s like they know the OPEC junk is bad yet turn their idiot heads the other way. You can pretty much say the the Goooberment is subsidizing the destruction of our environment and supporting our dependency on foreign energy.

The credits are not funded by Tax dollars. Now you look like a fool ranting about nothing.

It’s a look he wares proudly.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

CA needs to drop all subsidies for PHEV’s.
Also cancel all HOV stickers to PHEV’s.

No need to keep the OPEC Jizz sucking ICE on life support.

More serious PHEVs, like the Volt or Clarity, drive mostly on electricity — so some level of incentives is fair. I agree about slashing incentives for alibi-PHEVs with mostly useless all-electric range, that drive mostly on gasoline.

PHEV like the X5 and the XC90 are like having a diet coke with your full rack of BBQ ribs, deep fried and dipped into butter. Neither should have HOV access as they get less MPG than most ICE cars. A slap in the face of all drivers on the freeway.

Hopefully, the $4,500 comes out soon (or retroactively) before the Jaguar I-Pace starts selling.

There will likely be an income limit for the rebate is there is now. Usually no need to award financially those who can afford a $70k+ bev. More $$ needs to go to poor folk to buy or lessee bevs

Thats bu11$hit.
Like the poor people would’ve been able to afford to buy and maintain service on a $37k EV when they first came out.
If the market had to rely on that there would be no market and EV’s would be dead again.
And don”t get started on the paying fair share on taxes because I definately know I pay a $h1tload more in taxes than someone in a lower tax bracket.
The poor people you talk about buy civics, corollas and sentras. The other poor people buy those cars used.

They should make this rebate as a CA state tax credit. Wanna get a slice? …put some work into it.
The low income CA rebate is already at $4500!!!

“More $$ needs to go to poor folk to buy or lessee bevs”

That would be pointless, since those people only buy used cars. As has already been pointed out in comments here, the prices for used EVs reflects the the discount for the tax credit, so the redistribution of wealth you’re advocating is already in place.

The working poor can already pick up a used Leaf dirt cheap.

Instead of flat $2,500 charge, it should be range based, that’s what motivates someone to buy a vehicle with higher range.
> 200 miles: $3,000
100 – 200 miles: $2,500
50 – 100 miles: $2,000
30 – 50 miles: $1,500
< 30 miles: $1,000