Just as one incentive prepares to fade away, another green vehicle bonus looms on the horizon. California is considering upping the amount of cash buyers of electric vehicles stand to gain from their state government at purchase time — boosting the subsidy from today’s $2,500 to $4,500.
The potential change comes after Tesla reached the 200,000 limit for the full federal EV tax credit in July, with General Motors and Nissan trailing not far behind.
The boosted incentive is just one issue California lawmakers and regulators plan to discuss in hearings this week, Bloomberg reports. Much of the discussion will surely concern the state’s continued ability to set its own clean vehicle and emission mandates — a situation the Trump administration would like to see changed.
Currently, the California Air Resources Board’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) offers buyers of battery-electric vehicles a $2,500 incentive, which can be combined with the $7,500 federal tax credit. Buyers of hydrogen fuel cells see $5,000 under this state program, while plug-in hybrid owners gain $1,500. Since the program’s inception in 2010, California has handed out over $572 million in incentives. Roughly 75 percent of eligible buyers tapped into this MSRP-reducing fund during the first five years.
As the federal government hasn’t renewed the Obama-era federal tax credit program, Tesla buyers stand to see their federal incentive halved starting on New Year’s Day, then halved again on July 1, 2019, before disappearing at the end of the year. GM and Nissan, makers of the Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf, should come up against the 200,000-vehicle threshold within a year. Obviously, losing an incentive could lead to fewer people getting into PHEVs or EVs. California doesn’t want that.
Funding for the existing state incentive program comes from California’s cap-and-trade program, but the additional $2,000 per vehicle, if approved, wouldn’t. That cash would come from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, also overseen by CARB. Under that program, simply put, petroleum-based fuel providers that can’t meet the state fuel carbon standard buy credits from cleaner companies to offset carbon emissions. New revenue is available from this source, Bloomberg reports.
Because it’s coming from a different source, the money might reach buyers at the point of sale, rather than after the purchase. It’s not a done deal yet, however. We’ll update you later this week on whatever California decides.
[Image: General Motors]
Why not just give 100% subsidy? I mean obviously the people buying electric cars are supremely good people, who most probably vote supremely intelligently. Bad people should pay taxes and not be allowed to buy cars, and the money should go to good people.
So how about a 100% subsidy? Just have a system where people have to apply for an electric car. Then they’ll just have to wait in line for a while to get their electric car from the state. Naturally this will be such a good policy that demand will be high but no worries: they’ll try to get through the order backlog very quickly! Might have to raise taxes just a bit too.
Naturally those administrators who run this supreme system will be paid a good salary.
What could go wrong?
CARB’s budget is a little under $1B/year. Scrap it and give away 200K electric cars a year and call it even.
240:
Disband CARB and give away the cars?
Add in have Cali go to Federal car emission standard.
I ll bet this would have better long term pollution reduction than the current set up.
California should buy electric cars for the homeless to sleep in. Without tents all over the place it’ll be easier to hose the feces off the sidewalks every morning.
This would take away general fund money that (1) keeps all those humanities degrees holders employed who otherwise would be homeless and (2) also propping up CalPERS. Can’t have that.
Masters in Architectural History here. The liberal-arts major dog pile grows quite old on this site. Some of us studied what we darned well felt liked. I know some of the Eric Jones underwear wearing types on here don’t/refuse to understand that. Nor do we seek release from being internet trolls. Yeah, our uncle paid for my education. Our Uncle Sam.
I’m sure you use what you learned for that degree daily. It’s also nice pointing out that we sponsored your degree. Thanks
“Masters in Architectural History”
I had no idea we had such luminaries in da house. Add in some Art History majors and we can have our very own Occupy TTAC.
Truly a renaissance man. While studying for his Architectural History Masters he also fronted a ska band called Flying Buttress.
Dear EL:
What the hell was your point?
He probably just wanted to let us know that he’s high at the moment.
Maybe his point was that he is sick of the god/guns/guts righty-tighty wingnuts drivel and he is sticking it up your nose?
Make that coffee a large. And add a cinnamon roll with that, to go.
don’t forget your insulin, Rush.
I got a PhD in “The Future of Agriculture.” Maybe we could collaborate on a project.
I don’t mind, so long as you’re a productive, taxpaying member of society, and were able to pay off any loans. Are you in a job where you use what you learned? Just a question, not making any judgment here. A lot of people wind up doing things completely unrelated to their major.
If my math is right, the $572 million amounts to about 0.07% of the cumulative budgets in California over the past 8 years.
For comparison, CA farmers have received about 6x that amount in the same time period.
The former allegedly promotes cleaner air; the latter keeps farmers in business and helps people eat.
Meanwhile CA gave about $1 billion in corporate welfare in the same time period, to defense contractors and entertainment/media houses. This supposedly helps keep jobs in California.
Pick your poison… selectively.
Why selectively? Just cut all subsidies to industry, farmers, EV buyers, renewable energy, illegals, government unions, etc. Stop wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits against the Trump administration and to protect illegals from deportation. Use the major savings to build needed infrastructure (roads, water storage, etc.), cut taxes, and the deficits, and then watch the CA economy grow.
Exactly.
Sooooo, the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t get a donation form you?
Hey that’s really good advice, did you go to Trump University too?
No, it would make too much sense.
I say “selectively” because everyone favors the subsidy which helps their cause.
By the way, the EV subsidy actually is a tax break, awarded for a certain economic decision. Maybe you disagree with this particular one, but I’m sure you’ve deducted mortgage interest from your taxes, yet that doesn’t help renters.
College expenses, uninsured losses, charitable contributions, health care expenses, etc, the list goes on endlessly.
And they’re all enacted by your elected representatives.
I think the only answer I can give you is that people taking the deductions for mortgage etc, would be stupid not to if available.
The point above is they shouldn’t be to begin with.
Government social manipulation is wrong but obviously never gonna end
What is the purpose of government other than what can prejudicially be labelled “social manipulation”? Do you think you would be better off if government did not exist, “social manipulation” went away, and we went back to feudal or tribal culture?
Brand Loyalty: government can exist simply to protect the borders (military and immigration control), protect and enforce laws against fraud, abuse, and criminal activity, settling legal disputes, and protection of property rights (courts and police). Moving beyond those basic functions leads government into activities (such as income redistribution, subsidizing university education to future Starbucks employees, giving tax breaks to rich people to buy Teslas and solar panels, suing companies for not hiring enough incompetent people, giving free medical care to smokers and the obese, etc.) that are mostly detrimental to society as a whole, although certainly beneficial (rent seeking) to individual groups.
Exactly. I don’t blame people for taking advantage of government programs and subsidies they are eligible for, but the programs and subsidies shouldn’t exist in the first place.
I don’t own any “elected representatives.” Hence they are not mine. If they were, I’d either fix them, or throw them away. As they are quite obviously defective.
Ain’t that the truth.
…College expenses, uninsured losses, charitable contributions, health care expenses, etc, the list goes on endlessly…
Don’t forget deductions for religious donations. After all the Catholic Church is only one of the most wealthy entities on the planet. They need to tithe money out of parishioners to keep the clergy out of jail.
On a serious note, SCE to Aux, you are correct that people (me included) pick and choose the things they like and want to see succeed. As for the electric car bit, it is not at all uncommon for the Government to assist nascent industries. I guess the hate comes from those who don’t like electric cars because it smack of environmental concerns.
I think the hate for electric car subsidies comes from the fact that most of these vehicles are luxury purchases, with luxury prices. A Model S starts at nearly $75K. People who can afford that can afford that can afford $85K. Otherwise, they should be shopping the used Tesla lot.
Not to mention the benefit these vehicles get, being able to use HOV lanes. That alone is a luxury people are willing to pay for, and luxury shouldn’t be subsidized.
SCE to AUX – You just stop all this common sense talk, right now!
Actually the mortgage interest deduction is to put buyers on par with renters, at least for the people who aren’t rich. The person who rents benefits from the fact that the landlord is able to deduct the interest on their loan as a regular and customary cost of doing business. That is passed on to the renter as otherwise the landlord would have to charge much more for rent to make a profit.
TTAC. The Truth About…what? I think we’ve seriously digressed.
Amazing how fast Nissan is catching up to Tesla and GM. Just last month they were still 70,000 short of the 200,000 number.
If that’s humor, I recognize that.
Sarcasm
Socialism, anyone? Take from one, give to your favorite…
And take a fat middleman cut…
Can make one happy the muzzies are outbreeding “us,” if nothing else. Always look on the bright side… and all
“Can make one happy the muzzies are outbreeding “us,” if nothing else. Always look on the bright side… and all”
Have these Trumplike cretins taken over everything? sad
Calif may have a long term problem getting enough electricity to support a log of electric cars. Our last nuclear plant is going to shut down, the green energy plan doesn’t really support enough power to make up for it, let alone increase. Of course these are problems that won’t manifest for another 10 years and no politician any where can deal with a problem that far out in the future. Just look at Social Security.
It’s okay. You pay Arizona to take your extra daytime power generated by all the subsidized solar panels, and then buy it back at night when all these electric cars need to be charged.
ppffft. that’s science talk. backed by thermodynamics.
I prefer the idea that electric unicorns will solve everything.
Nah. Following the Enron debacle, CA permitted a massive overbuilding of generating capacity; there are squeaky-clean gas plants operating at 10% capacity.
Communists.
This is dumb.
And to elaborate on the usual internet one-liners….here’s why it’s dumb backed up by actual science:
1. Most of CA’s electricity comes from natural gas. In fact, CA’s CO2 emissions are going up cuz they’re replacing retiring CO2-free nuclear plants with natural gas and wind and solar aren’t taking up the slack.
sidenote: solar panels (current tech) work best at 75 deg. Any hotter, they generate less electricity, which is why a lot of solar plants in deserts are “concentrated solar power” aka mirrors shining onto a tower to generate heat/steam.
2. “But, but, but, but, WIND POWER!” says Mr. Prius. ….yes CA has great potential for wind, but the prime areas are offshore in the Channel Islands. Go find me people at the Sierra Club who want to put up 1,000 ft tall high turbines there.
Go look it all up, if you’re curious and want to learn more.
The easiest way to go cut down CO2 is nuclear power. But obviously that’ll never fly with Mr. Prius.
So it’s a bit disingenuous if someone says that CO2 is the greatest threat facing humans, but then immediately poo-poo one answer to that problem. just sayin’.
i want a green planet too but there’s this thing called reality that everyone has to live in.
Outrageous claims. Depending on how you account for waste disposal, nuclear power is about as carbon intensive as fossil fuel generation. Why do you think the nuclear power stations cost so much? Do you have any idea that it takes energy to mine and refine the nuclear fuel?
https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon
While I won’t dispute that wind turbines can change the view, they certainly are not 1000′ tall. Put them 20 miles offshore and they are basically invisible. Highway networks have a far greater aesthetic impact.
Wow, that’s hilarious. It’s idiocy like this that always reverts us back to coal, or at best natural gas. Anytime someone wants to do something better, and cleaner an extremist like the one you linked to thinks of something. It always happens. Hydro dam? That will kill the salmon. Wind? That will kill the birds. (Plus, I don’t want to see it from my beach house). Claiming nuclear is carbon intensive is probably the most crazy. Do you realize how much energy one nuclear fuel rod creates? There are also technologies that can capture release even more energy. There are already talks about setting up newer plants near waste disposal sights to reuse some of the spent fuel that has been stored. If we actually had productive conversations instead of pointless drivel, we could actually move forward.
If safety is the argument then you would be an advocate for shutting down as many of the old nuclear plants that are running way past the date of their planned decommission. New technologies prevent every problem that has ever happened. Even Fukushima (which was scheduled to be decommissioned in a few years after the accident) did not happen at any other plant nearby that suffered the same earthquake and tsunami. Some even experienced larger earthquake shocks or larger quantities of tsunami water.
The reality is that all energy generation has some kind of impact. If the goal is first and foremost reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear power is going to pay a big part, like it or not. Renewables have made impressive gains (now at 17% of electrical generation -hydro is almost half of that however) but that will not offset the shutdown of old nuclear plants.
The easiest way is to stop wasting so much energy. Check these out…I do not know about the website Vox, but the data is directly from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This is about process, not end user concepts like turning off unneeded equipment.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/13/15268604/american-energy-one-diagram
Bottom line is that the process of taking raw energy and changing it to the form we want to use is horribly inefficient. We can’t change the laws of thermodynamics but there is plenty of room for improvement. Add in the end user waste and real improvement is possible.
@ mbella
It would be helpful if more information about nuclear power was available from objective sources.
Saying all forms of energy have impacts is not the same as saying those impacts vary. For instance, interrupting sunlight on its way to warming the earth is bound to have less impact than suddenly combusting millions of years accumulation of material partially created by sunlight.
I wasn’t aware prior to your statement that other reactors were harder hit but survived better than Fukushima. They were operated by different companies with better safety cultures. The nearest one had raised defenses on the basis of other tsunamis, while Fukushima had lowered a natural berm.
While you can say this is proof reactors can be managed “safely”, Fukushima is proof they can be managed unsafely. The nuclear industry recognizes accidents result from chains of unforeseen events, which have a way of happening when humans are involved. The question becomes risk level, but if risk levels are based on what cannot be foreseen, risk levels cannot be accurately determined. Bear in mind these things are going to be around in some form for hundreds of human generations.
As for efficiency, what does the astronomical cost of the new British reactor suggest? Currently 50 billion dollars or so.
If new nuclear designs are so safe, why do they still require massive, specialized containment? Are they able to purchase insurance?
I’ve often thought that a national initiative to get our best minds to design and build the very best and safest nuclear plant we can would be worthwhile. Standardize the design and legislatively prohibit ANY lawsuits being filed against a utility using said design.
At the end of the day though, the elite lefties just want to make a zillion dollars trading carbon credits and gain more power over the normies out in the middle of the country, so logic and reason go right out the window.
Trading carbon credits is a very cost-efficient way of reducing output of CO2 and pollution. Not sure how you think “lefties” make a pile of money on it.
Reality check: Who would pay a climatologist more money – a nonprofit environmental group or an energy company? Yet some very bright minds are willing to make less to do what they view as important. Maximizing income is not a draw for everybody.
Its more about controlling people than making the maximum dollar. Beauracratic eggheads get their jollies off of reducing people to living miserably in ugly egg-pods, apparently. These people have a visceral hatred of fun, prosperity or personal expression. Hence, all the bile towards successful people who can afford nice cars and trucks.
@mopar: Last time I looked at the sales charts, ugly egg-pods were the most popular type of ICE vehicles.
Al Gore is a lefty and he wrote and book to scare people into backing carbon trading proposals, and then he made millions by getting in early on carbon credit trading. He also made millions by selling his failing TV network to a large producer of carbon fuels.
A-whin we’s gonner stop this lib’ral ee-lectrics, an’ git back to God’s own horses n buggies, then we’ll hose off thur feces. Somebuddy digs Coal!, woohoo.
Thet might last fer 2 mor yars.
Sorry to argue with the little cartoon characters in your head, but the technology which ended the horse-and-buggy era was not created through the forced redistribution of wealth by politicians.
Minimize your footprint.
Double GAS taxes.
All cars on the road will drive less.
54 MPG Fed Standards will take a decade+ to make a small impact.
BroDozers disappear. Yeah!
You’d have to do a lot more than double gas taxes. Doubling gas taxes would still make gas cost less than it did a few years ago, when the F-150 ruled sales volume.
Frankly, I don’t believe any price under $10/gallon would change US buying habits in the long run. Besides, higher gas prices force all prices up, which forces wages up, which makes gasoline affordable again.
Up here in Canuckistan , rough math puts gas at around $3.50 -$3.75 USD per US Gallon ..I live in the heart of suburbia . BroDozers are certainly not a rare sight in these parts.
Want to get rid of bro-dozers? Raise the price of Skoal. Mission accomplished.
This kind of fascist crap is why everyone hates greenies so much. Who are you to tell others what theyre supposed to drive, or that our buying habits should be ‘modified’? Go live in some 4th world commie/socialist hellhole if that’s what you want…there are PLENTY of those.
Nice work, idiots! Doubling down on trying to bribe people into driving horrible ugly weenie pods they don’t want! FAIL!!!