California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project Set To Get $230 Million In Additional Funding


The California Air Resources Board’s Project Allocations For $500 Million

Currently, it is being proposed that California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) will get $230 million in additional funding. This is nearly half of The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Low Carbon Transportation Fund.

Tesla Model S

Tesla Model S

On April 4, 2016, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is holding a workshop for the public. It will focus on the 2016-17 Fiscal Year Funding Plan for Low Carbon Transportation and Fuels Investments and the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP).

CVRP offers vehicle rebates on a first-come, first-served basis for light-duty ZEVs, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), zero-emission motorcycles, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Rebate amounts are $2,500 for battery electric vehicles (BEVs); $1,500 for PHEVs; $5,000 for fuel cell electric vehicles; and $900 for zero-emission motorcycles and neighborhood electric vehicles.

At the end of March, rebates will increase for low and moderate-income drivers, while a cap will be put in place for high-income drivers.

Rebates for lower-income will be $4,000 for BEVs; $3,000 for PHEVs; and $6,500 for fuel cell electric vehicles. (This will apply to households less than or equal to 300% of the federal poverty level).

There has been much past criticism concerning subsidies granted to Californians in the high-income bracket. To negate this, the cap will exclude individuals earning more than $250,000 and joint filers earning more than $500,000.

As of February 1, 2016, the CVRP has rebated over $291 million, covering 137,000 vehicles.

Source: Green Car Congress

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

8 Comments on "California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project Set To Get $230 Million In Additional Funding"

newest oldest most voted

I still don’t get why the Fuel Cell Rebate is TWICE the BEV credit.

Why are they dumping money into a very problematic drivetrain technology? Who is pushing for such high-reward spending, to promote these green-washed vehicles, when there are so few functioning Hydrogen Stations???

Chicken or egg: hydrogen infrastructure is sparse because there are not many FCV drivers because hydrogen infrastructure is sparse. You have to start somewhere; incentivizing the drivers who do live within range of a H2 station is one approach.

There is currently no other solution in development for people who are unable to charge at home, which comprises nearly half of American drivers.

Sure there is. Grid power to a parking lot or structure is far less expensive then the hydrogen filling stations are. Apartments can be required to have X outlets per lot. Even good ‘ol 110V can work, though it would make most sense to use 220V.

A lot more feasible to use the exiting grid than build stations at a few million per.

Unlike fossil fuel companies, utility companies have been uninterested in entering the EV charging network business. Most apartment complex owners do not currently handle utility billing for their tenants’ energy usage (as tenants have direct accounts with utility companies), so it is difficult to see why they would choose to start doing so with EV charging.

So who is going to take responsibility for creating this new charging (and, most importantly, billing) infrastructure for nearly half of the drivers on the road? Keep in mind that any solution you devise must include authentication or some other sort of security lockout (because electricity isn’t cheap).

This is to say nothing of the millions of Americans who park curbside on the street. Who will be responsible for building out an EVSE network for those drivers? Who will manage the billing for this network? How will curbside users authenticate to gain access?

I wanted to add that for hydrogen, the above isn’t really a problem; the prospective business model for that fuel is the same as with petroleum, where the fuel producer would also be the reseller (through centralized refueling stations).

Yes and there is now shared 220 technology – a lower cost way to retrofit older buildings. The power on the 220 circuit is shared between the number of vehicles plugged it. Good for residential (overnight charging) applications

I know every time I go to Los Angles, I have to charge using the DCQC EVGo stations. It is hit or miss whether you can find one unoccupied, and will have to wait up to 30 minutes for the person before you to finish up. If every car out there were in the same situation, the DCQC stations wouldn’t even make a dent in the situation.

I mean in all of the San Fernando Valley, there are only about 10 DCQC stations. If every gas car out there had to use 10 pumps, and took 30 minutes each session, there would be lines around the block.

I don’t mind dealing with charging now, but I drive only BEVs, so I fear what the future may hold.

FCEV’s with enough stations, would easily be adopted by those that have no intention of going with a BEV now due to range limitations.

I also don’t think they should punish us early and faithful adopters with a 2 car lifetime cap on the CVRP.