California Breaks New Ground With Plug-In Electric Car Incentive Program For Low-Income Families


California has just launched a clean-car incentive program aimed squarely at assisting low-income families.

The idea is to help low-income families afford the cleanest cars in California’s most polluted regions.

Green Car Congress sums up the program quite well as follows:

The pilot program is available for three income levels:

Low Income (≤ 225% of the federal poverty level, FPL). Buyers in this income level who replace a scrapped car with a conventional hybrid car (e.g.Toyota Prius) that is less than 8 years old that gets 20 mpg or greater, are eligible for $6,500 in incentives. If the replacement car gets 35 mpg or greater (Toyota Prius or Honda Insight), that goes up to $7,000. A plug-in hybrid (e.g. Chevy Volt), or an electric car (e.g. Nissan Leaf) receives $9,500.

In addition, up to $2,000 for a charging unit at a single residence or multi-unit dwelling is available for the purchase of battery electric cars. In the case of either a brand new plug-in hybrid or electric car, buyers receive an additional $1,500 and $2,500, respectively, from a separate program, known as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.

Moderate Income (226% – 300% of FPL). Buyers who replace a scrapped car with a conventional hybrid model that gets 35 mpg or greater receive $5,000, rising to $7,500 for a plug-in hybrid or electric car. (In addition, buyers can receive up to $2,000 for a charging unit for battery electric cars, and if those are brand new cars, an additional $1,500 or $2,500, respectively.)

Above Moderate Income (301% – 400% of federal poverty level). Buyers who replace a scrapped car with a plug-in hybrid or electric car receive $5,500—which includes an additional incentive of up to $2,000 for the charging unit for battery electric cars, and an additional $1,500 or $2,500, respectively, if they are brand new.

For now, this pilot program is offered only in the Greater Los Angeles area and San Joaquin Valley.

Detailed press blast below:

California helps low-income families afford the cleanest cars,
saving them money on gas, cutting pollution, greenhouse gases

Old, dirty cars scrapped; incentives provided for cleaner cars in
California’s most polluted regions

SACRAMENTO – In coordination with local air officials, the Air
Resources Board is initiating a retire-and-replace pilot program
in the Greater Los Angeles area and San Joaquin Valley to help
people of low income replace old, polluting cars with cleaner,
more fuel efficient vehicles that also cut greenhouse gas

“What’s not to like about a program that cuts greenhouse gases,
cleans the air and helps low-income families in the most polluted
neighborhoods afford the cleanest, most fuel-efficient cars? And,
as icing on the cake, it will put money in their wallets by
slashing what they spend at the pump,” Air Resources Board
Chairman Mary D. Nichols said. “Thanks to the leadership of
Senate Pro Tem Kevin de León, the Plus-Up program is a smart
investment in California’s hardest hit communities, and fulfills
the promise that California’s efforts to fight climate change
will benefit us all.”

The air district-administered program provides incentives on a
sliding scale, with larger cash payments for the lowest-income
families moving up to the cleanest cars. The lowest-income
recipient purchasing the very cleanest car receives the highest
incentive amounts. Under the program, it is possible for a family
that meets income guidelines to receive as much as $12,000 toward
the purchase of an electric car.

Consumers can choose to replace their vehicle with a more fuel
efficient conventional gasoline-powered car, a conventional
hybrid, a plug-in hybrid or an electric car. Eligible consumers
will receive between $2,500 and $12,000, depending on their
income and the type of replacement vehicle they choose.

Income and residence

The pilot program is available for three income levels — those
with a household income equal to or less than 225 percent of the
federal poverty level (FPL), those between 226 and 300 percent of
the FPL, or those between 301 and 400 percent of the FPL.
Low-income consumers in either of the two participating regions
who would like to replace their dirty vehicle with a more fuel
efficient conventional vehicle, a conventional hybrid, a plug-in
hybrid or an electric car would qualify to receive up to $4,500.
Additional funding is available for low-income recipients who
live in a ZIP code that contains a ‘disadvantaged’ census tract
for the purchase of a conventional hybrid, plug-in hybrid or
electric replacement vehicle. (SB 535, introduced by State
Senator Kevin de Leon, directs funds to provide economic and
health benefits to the state’s disadvantaged communities — those
that are most impacted by both poverty and pollution.)

Additional incentives

Eligible consumers also may qualify for:
• Up to $2,000 for a charging unit at your single residence
or multi-unit dwelling for the purchase of battery electric cars;
• An additional $1,500 and $2,500, respectively, for the
purchase or lease of a new plug-in hybrid or electric car from a
separate program known as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.

Money for transit

Finally, residents who scrap an old, dirty car but choose not to
replace it are eligible for public transit passes valued at
between $2,500 and $4,500, depending on their income.

ARB worked for more than a year with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District in support of the development of the pilot
projects. Each air district developed a program tailored to the
individual needs of that district. The program (also known as the
Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program and Plus-Up Pilot Project)
is partially funded by proceeds from cap-and-trade revenue under
the California Climate Investments Initiative and AB 118.

Besides SB 535, another bill helping to drive the program is SB
1275, the Charge Ahead California Initiative, also introduced by
Senator de Leon, which aims to ensure that low-income
Californians, who are disproportionately impacted by air
pollution, benefit from California’s transition to a clean
transportation sector.

Governor Jerry Brown issued an Executive Order in March 2012
calling for 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California
roadways by 2025. And in January, Governor Brown made climate
change and carbon pollution a core part of his agenda, calling
for California to cut in half petroleum use from cars and trucks
by 2030.

For more information on the program, visit
for the fact sheet.

For more details, contact the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District at (559) 230-6000 or the South Coast Air Quality
Management District at (909) 396-2647.

Categories: General

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

69 Comments on "California Breaks New Ground With Plug-In Electric Car Incentive Program For Low-Income Families"

newest oldest most voted

I am all for helping the low income families with education and healthcare, but helping them get electric rides, ridiculous…

Having a low income level is not always someone’s “fault,” and I think it is great that the state would rather give them the opportunity to move into a high fuel economy, or fossil fuel free vehicle, than to look past them as unworthy.

The low income folks are also less able to keep an old clunker in good tune, so they are probably driving higher polluters as well.

Providing them this extra “help” actually makes them feel unworthy. I don’t make enough to buy a Model S, yet I don’t feel like I should get extra help to buy one. I wouldn’t feel that way even if I wanted to buy a Leaf. I know that being low income is not always their fault. But what else should middle income people help low income people with. Perhaps money off vouchers on organic food? How about vouchers for holidays, they deserve them right, who doesn’t? List could go on and on…

This pilot program is also helping reduce pollution in California’s most polluted areas. It assumes the families with lower income drive the most polluting vehicles as they don’t have the money to properly maintain them. This program benefits all residents as rich and poor breath the same air. It’s not all about helping the ones with low income only.

@Mark C, @Goaterguy: +1 to each!

@Boris: my family has benefited *twice* from the $7.5k incentive to get a Leaf on amazing lease terms.

Somehow, I do not feel the least bit unworthy.

Only cynical politicians who make their career out of disdaining “the other”, could have come up with the whole “Worthiness” (TM) canard. On the ground, it’s pure BS. You need help, you get help, and almost always it’s a win-win. End of story.

It’s just money. Poor people and the California government dig that. Get over it.

7.5k goes to everyone, not just to poor. When I went to grad school, I only had balls to ask my parents for flight tickets to Europe to see them. When I was buying $1 hamburger and made my fries at home with Coke from Walmart, for some reason I did’t think I was entitled to eat a $15 lunch. However if everyone was offering me help I would sure have felt like a loser, then I would get used to that help and after a while that I sure would feel that it’s well deserved.

Nowadays, entitlement is viewed as a birth rite by some. Does the federal government really have to give free cell phones and cell service to the low income? You should see some of expensive food items people purchase with their EBT cards (electronic food stamps) at my local supermarket. Even someone as jaded as myself raises an eyebrow when the person in front of you at the checkout line is wearing a fur coat and paying with an EBT card, then putting their groceries in a 5-series BMW or some other expensive luxury car.

Yeah, let’s trot out the [black/brown] “Welfare Queen in a Cadillac” out here, why won’t we?

Or will the trolling end at some point?


Assaf, please don’t sterotype. It was not a black/brown person, but in fact was a white Russian immigrant from the nearby Brighton Beach community in Brooklyn, NY, not a black/brown person. Don’t be naive by burying your head in the sand and pretending that welfare and medicaid fraud isn’t rampant in the U.S.. I live in the big city where I see and read about the fraud going on here on a daily basis. In one luxury beach-front condo complex in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, 6 fabulously wealthy residents have been busted for welfare fraud! The 34-year-old woman busted in the news story in the link below, lives in an ocean-view penthouse (which sell for upwards of $1.6 million) and “likes to shop at Jimmy Choo, vacation in Vegas and tool around in a leased Porsche, Aston Martin and BMW.” So she doesn’t drive a Cadillac, but does drive three more expensive and luxurious cars!!! LOL! Here’s another recent story from Brighton Beach, Brooklyn where a single individual physical-therapist bilked Medicare for $4 million dollars in one year from his small office by giving kickbacks to his “patients.” He “treated around 1,950 Medicare patients that year. On average, [he] was… Read more »

A wealthy woman, a professional crook no doubt, and a medical professional bilking Medicaid. Neither are poor. Most of the people bilking Medicaid are health providers and medical equipment sellers, not the poor. Why no 50 year minimum mandatory sentences and some enforcement efforts? Because these people make big political contributions?

Off all the well advised comment you’ve made on this site Sven, this one ain’t anywhere close to being valuable.
Crook are everywhere, they’re just much, much more dammageable at the top of the chain.
Remember Bernard Madoff? Or the AMD of all the political class that ripp off the country of billion dollars “reconstructing” what they have destroyed, except all the live’s including american soldiers.
I know it’s a lot easyer to hit a dead duck but it give you no glory.
Align your target correctly please!


I just call it as I see it, and I have seen it with my own two eyes. The example I gave is one that I have witnessed numerous times at the supermarket, but there are far more egregious examples.

You don’t realize just how blatant the fraud/abuse with EBT cards is in NYC. I don’t know if they finally stopped it, but in NYC its EBT cards are/were being used in liquor stores, casinos, strip clubs, and porn shops to purchase liquor, cigarettes, and lap dances!!! I am not making this up. But I wish I were. 🙁


As mentioned in one the links above, the low income or elderly patients are paid by the doctors or physical therapists to come into the office so that the therapists can bill multiple procedures that are not performed to Medicare. In other words, the low income patients get a cut of the action. They are in on it. Crooked doctors/therapists compete with each other to attract these low-income/elderly patients, with the patients often choosing to go to the crocked doc who pays them most money.

I recall some docs getting caught billing the government for procedures alleged done on patients even though those patients had died years ago!

Do you think America’s safety net programs are so generous that they allow recipients to buy furs and BMWs? Or are America’s poor so clever that they know how to collect benefits for several people, as in Reagan’s welfare queen story (later proved to be false)?

Or could most of the fraud be committed by the well off, like doctors, pharmacists, physical therapists and medical equipment sellers?

Here is an excellent and detailed exposé from New York Magazine of how one Brighton Beach scam worked. It was perpetrated a Russian émigré with a criminal background who was not a doctor or physical therapist. He was suspected of perpetrating $27 million worth of health-care fraud. “He was charged with grand larceny (and marijuana possession) and pleaded guilty. . . . he was sentenced in federal court to two and half years in prison, to be served concurrently with a two-to-four year sentence imposed by a state court.” With time off for good behavior, he’ll be out much sooner! Moral of the story: crime does pay. 🙁

No, it’s a tax rebate. If you don’t pay enough taxes (most likely because of a low income) you either don’t get the full amount or nothing at all.

I think this is a great program and will also help make it easier to sell a used EV for all the current owners.

If its is like the prior program, its not a tax credit, but a straight check you get from the state–I think you might be thinking of the federal program.

You were a grad student, not really a poor person, e.g. a single mom trying to make ends meet on a minimum-wage job.

Besides, you are veering us even further off-topic than your original comment which was already a derailing one.

On the facts, EVs are *very* often criticized for being a “toy for the rich”.

So it is great to see a program trying to address this, even if it grates against some people’s self-serving ideology.

I think this single mother should be allowed decent healthcare for her and her child and her children should be able to go to school from at least age of 3 to age 18 for free, that’s the way I see it. That makes me a super socialist in some circles. I also think that she definitely shouldn’t get help to buy an electric car, and this statement makes me ultra-conservative, hmm, what does that make me? An ultra-conservative communist?

I agree 100%. It also helps get a large portion of the population that really can’t think about cleaner vehicles talking about a problem that, frankly, we can’t solve without them. Think about all the folks that could be enlisted to help get our ignorant politicians to admit that climate change is a problem. And since it’ll impact poor folks well before it’ll impact me in a meaningful way it sure makes perfect sense to me!

Boris, think about it. Electric vehicles cost very little to run and maintain. Who would be a better recipient of a low maintenance, low operating cost vehicle than low income families?

If the battery breaks, poor people will never be able to whip out $5k for a new one. Simple as that.

Same Argument applies to the ICE.

You’re kidding right? What has to go wrong on a Civic or Corolla to pay $5K for?

If we talk about incentives, this one helps to fight the argument “EV incentives are only for the rich, because EVs are expansive”. I want everyone who needs a car to be able to get an electric one.

This also makes the air for everyone a little more breathable, so everybody benefits.

This is video of the crushing of the first car traded in under this new low-income family EV incentive program. Yes, that is definitely a work truck with flat bed, a standard cab, and a single-row bench-seat, which the low-income family obviously did NOT use as their grocery getter or for picking up the kids from school. The work truck probably needed some very expensive repairs and was just about to be junked. The work truck was traded in for a 2013 Prius. According to the article, “Mendoza is particularly excited that he will be able to put the savings from lower fuel costs toward his remaining payments on the 2013 Toyota Prius. His old truck netted Mendoza about $9,000, more than a third of the car’s price.” It’s safe to say Mr. Mendoza will not be using the Prius as his work vehicle. Call me a cynic, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Mr. Mendoza will be using the $9,000 that he saved on the Prius to buy another high-polluting low mpg used work truck to replace the one he scrapped. Who says the “low income” can’t scam, I mean game, the system. LOL! 😉

If only we could figure out a way to force the poor to breathe all the polluted air and leave the clean air for us.

It is not at all ridiculous to me. An electric car makes great sense for low income people. Many low income people have to make a decision between buying food or buying gas to get to work. With an electric car, there is more money left to buy essentials for a family that is poor.

Further, we all benefit from somebody else driving an electric car. We have cleaner air, we have quieter streets and there is an economic boost to the local economy because the money that is usually spent on gas and sent out of the country is now spent on local goods and services that stays within the community and creates a higher tax base and more local employment.

Also, if you drive a gas car, an electric car is not competing with you at the gas station for a pump and also lowers demand for gas, which reduces the price of gasoline. So, all around, an electric car makes perfect sense for a low income family.

I am surprised this qualifies on used cars. I mean, a used Prius often can be bought for $7,000. Does that mean they get the car for free?

There are 195 Toyota Prius model year 2008-2009 listed on autotrader within 500 miles of LA.

5 (2.6%) are under $7000 (170k-260k miles), 18 under $8000, 33 under $9k, 72 (37%) under $10k.

You can bet those prices will bump up if this goes through. This is a huge subsidy on those vehicles, but it’s not exactly a “free” car.

Exactly. The trade-in value of my 12 Leaf (if it wasn’t a lease) is close to $9500. Dealer markup puts it around $11k retail. That makes it practically free.

For the Low Income group, can it be a used plug-in? I didn’t see where it said it had to be a new car.

The graphic clearly states on the upper left corner ‘Eligible vehicles must be less than 8 years old’
So I would presume cars can be used.

OK, thanks. I didn’t even look at the infographic.

Wow, this means some people might be able to get a free used Leaf. That’s awesome.

Assaf, why don’t you go out and buy someone a used Leaf? wouldn’t that be awesome, or maybe 2 used Leafs?

I hope you feel the same way about the trillions $$$ given to private wall street firms after the great recession? An AIG CEO had the balls to sue our government after he was bailed out because he felt that he needed more bailout money. Did you protest wall street bailout?

I protested against the city of London bailouts and would have about the wall street it it had been my tax dollars.

These are not my tax dollars but I can see far greater justification for helping out a low income earner with a grant to buy a used Leaf than to give a tax break to a high earner to buy a Model S, BMW or a Porsche.

BTW I am note sure what the salaries in the US are like or what these cut offs actually mean in terms of dollars and cents but a low income normally means single mum working as a nurse or a teacher not someone screwing the system for every last cents (those are normally called high income earners…. sorry I couldn’t resist)

In Florida, if your household income is around $30,000 per year that is low income IMO. You nailed it the high income earners of America,e.g., banksters, hedge fund managers, finance executives, pension fund managers, oil-coal-gas executives are all screwing the system and getting filthy rich, meanwhile low and middle class fight each other over the table scraps.

If 1%-ers are gaming the system and lobbying for benefits or loopholes so they get away with not paying taxes or whatever else, that is wrong, that actually outrages me more than when poor people try to game the system. However, when the poor constantly learn to feel sorry for themselves, that is also very wrong, in both cases the middle class isn’t treated fairly. I am not American, but I lived there for many years and love the country. I think it’s because republicans live in such a bubble, they are automatically ridiculed for all of their ideas and democrats can do stupid stuff and people cheer for them no matter what.

It will be awesome!

Let’s pool our money and all do it! 😉

Better for both the poor and people who live on Earth and breathe here.


I think this is great!

I am on my second federal tax break of $7500 for the lease of a Leaf and now a Mercedes-Benz B Class, which I am able to get 125 miles to a charge with the use of its range package button.

1/2 of my lease payment on the Mercedes-Benz B Class is payed for by my fuel savings of driving a 10 mpg pickup.

I fortunately can afford a lease payment on a MB, but my goal and hope is to get electric cars down to the masses who have been left behind due to wage stagnation!

This will do that, advance EV’s quicker and get us out of oil wars sooner.

This will definitely increase demand for EV’s!

I live in Idaho and couldn’t buy a Mercedes-Benz out of California, so I had to have one delivered out of Portland, but the additional demand will make all the car companies take notice and create new supply sooner and get away from the compliance car mentality!

I think this is a good thing. Publicizing is key. So you put out a flyer with all the zip-codes on it, and income rates, saying something like “If you live here, drive an old clunker and makes less than x amount of money, you can get x dollars on your next vehicle purchase.”

People in those categories are notoriously clueless about the various programs designed to help them. So maybe an ad campaign on late night TV would of help too.

I think this is great. A used leaf is about $12K and you can get into that car for peanuts. As a low income person, you rarely benefit from the Federal tax incentive unless you lease, because you have a low or non existent tax liability. Leasing may not be an option due to credit history or credit quality. So if you buy, you pay more. The current federal tax credit is disproportionally favorable to the higher income bracket.
Secondly, a car is a vital part of the ability to go earn money, where as a tesla is often one of many cars in a wealthy person’s garage. SO I say go for it. Well done California.
Take a clunker off the road and lower someone’s daily costs significantly.

For you rich Republican folks, 1%’ers, hush!

There’s a lot of 1% ers in LA and I would venture most aren’t republican. And I know most of them have never “hushed” in their life. If you’re asking people to shut up please put them on your list.

My worst fear with this is that the parasitic car dealers will jack the prices up on all the used cars in the area by a huge junk. A example of this is the Mitsubishi i-miev cut their prices by $6000 but the parasitic car dealers made up for it by jacking the price up $4000.

The program sounds nice but I think the car dealers will wreak it.

Elon would be stupid if he didn’t take as many incentives as possible and dealers would be stupid if they didn’t try to make as much from the used cars they sell as possible. Same goes for the poor and for extremely rich, we all try to pay as little as the law lets us, that is why the rules should be set the same for all…

I guest wish they could have taken human greed into account when they set up this new rule.

If you set up things with human greed into account you can detect the greed to get things to work.

Personally if Aunt Calli was going to give me $6000 bucks to buy a used leaf or i-miev I would stop typing on this computer of mine and go out and run out and buy one as soon as I finished reading this story here.

Wow! Only in our BS liberal run state would this be a reality. A freakin progressive credit on electric cars. Unbelievable! I guess I better check out the hard numbers here and see where I fall, if I’min the $5500 boat, I better go out and buy another ASAP

Given the prices of used Leafs and Volts out there, in many cases, the government is just giving people free cars! This is completely ridiculous! Go ahead. Give away all of my tax dollars! So what you’re telling me is that if I’m poor and live in a crappy neighborhood of a crappy city, I get welfare, HUD, medicaid, food stamps, free lunch for my kids, and now I get a free car too. Explain to me why I want to go back to school or try and get a job?

You forgot the free cell phone and free cell service plan.

Just in case you wanted a dose of reality to go with your monocle popping outrage. 🙂


I agree with the temporary federal incentives on EVs that are designed to jumpstart an entire industry that benefits everyone.

But I don’t agree with giving free cars to people because they are poor. (even if they are electric or hybrid) That is unfair to me since I work hard for a living.

The difference is that one incentive is designed to help sell a product. The other incentive is designed to give poor people free stuff.


Well said.

Because living on American government assistance is a bare subsistence which few people, if any, would be happy with.

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m all for helping the poor but let me tell you about a situation I encountered recently living here in California.

I have a baby. She goes to one of the many corporate-run daycare center (e.g. KinderCare).

Tuition (i.e. fees) is $1200 a month.

That’s a lot of money! So we were thinking real hard about being able to afford a 2nd child. At the minimum, we might have to wait till the first is out of daycare and starts public schooling.

Then I saw this lady who runs a house/maid cleaning service. I saw her paperwork. She must be officially poor because she has some sort of federal/state aid. She brings in 3 kids and is charged only $400 each.

So here I am, a working professional who cannot afford 2 kids in daycare but there you have it, a poor person who can afford 3.

How did we end up in a situation like that?

There is a child care subsidy based on income. It’s nice to think everyone is fortunate enough to “decide” when they have children.

Obviously the child care provider is a quality caregiver. Having the low-income person have quality childcare, saves money when the child reaches school age. Too many studies to list on the benefit of quality childcare.

“It’s nice to think everyone is fortunate enough to ‘decide’ when they have children.”

Huh? Doesn’t everyone of legal age know about the birds and the bees? Birth-control/contraception is available to everyone, and isn’t some secret that the rich and middle-income keep from the low-income.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? It used to be an important/core American value. 🙁

“Doesn’t everyone of legal age know about the birds and the bees[and contraception]?”

No, thanks to “abstinence only” education.

Women in poverty tend to lack access to birth control. They also tend to use less effective birth control (pill instead of IUDs).

Not to be crude, but Walmart does sell jumbo-sized boxes of condoms for a very reasonable price. In the U.S., the Affordable Care Act was passed a while ago. The health care law now requires everyone to have health care insurance. As for low income women with health insurance through Medicaid, they have full access to birth control, including IUDs, without a copay. The link below states the following: “What types of birth control are now covered with no cost sharing? The full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including oral contraceptives (the pill), injectables, the ring, contraceptive implants, diaphragms, and cervical caps.* Sterilization for women is also covered. For greater detail and further explanation, please see the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Frequently Asked Questions” and our explanation here. The bottom line: Whatever method of birth control you and your provider decide is right for you, that method should be covered by your plan without a co-pay.” “What about women on Medicaid? Prior to the health care law, Medicaid already prohibited co-pays for birth control, although states did not cover every method for every eligible individual. Under the ACA, states can expand their Medicaid program and the ACA’s preventive… Read more »

This is a fantastic program.

How much does it cost to provide healthcare to the people in the targeted areas — way more than the rebate. Low income communities traditionally have lower quality foods, high in sugar, the bus depot/wastewater treatment facility/garbage dump also are located in the low income communities.

Getting an EV (plug in or hybrid) is going to improve the air quality. Having a BEV that has zero maintenance, except for tires reduces expenses.

That truck – probably leaked oil, getting into the stormwater system that has to be filtered to get drinking water (that they do not have in Cali). Maybe it was the person’s only car, and a messed up ride beats a dressed up walk every day.

Since this is a CA state program, why can’t ALL CA residents with a low income participate? Why is it limited to only a few select zip codes?

My guess is because those are two of the districts with the dirtiest air quality. I would also guess they cannot afford to expand the program state-wide.


This is a program to improve air quality (for everyone), not a program to help low income people. It does help, but that is just a side effect.

Air quality is likely not bad enough in other zip codes to warrant the expense.



“Greater Los Angeles area and San Joaquin Valley”

Do these politicians think there are no other low income families elsewhere in the state of CA?

That said, I think it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. They already offer “Low income Internet Service” and give out EBT cards to any Joe in the state.

So the incentive is, don’t strive to get any better, the Govt will take care of you.

Air quality is not dire enough in the entire state of California.

Did no one notice this is an ARB (Air Resources Board) program, not a welfare program?