CA Residents - this car costs $2,500 MORE after 3/31/16

[Blastphemy]

The California Air Resources Board requires an executed and signed sales or lease contract. THAT is the document that will determine the date you received the car, not the Purchase Agreement that was generated when the car was confirmed online. Also, the CA vehicle registration you submit will be dated the day you take delivery of the car, not the date you confirmed online.

If one were to base everything on the confirmation date, then someone who confirmed in November 2015, took delivery in March 2015, then chose the lease option would have to make lease payments for November, December, January, February, and March to make that contract valid... which of course is ridiculous because you didn't have the car!

By now, seasoned members of this forum should know that the Delivery Specialists don't always know what they're talking about when it comes to financing, rebates, and insurance. They're Model S/X experts, not accountants.

Of course, y'all are welcome to give it a try if the income limits go into effect and you still don't have your car, but just be ready for disappointment.

From: Clean Vehicle Rebate Project | Center for Sustainable Energy

Rebates are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and issued to qualified recipients in a single payment within 90 days of approval. Delays beyond normal processing times may occur. To apply for a rebate:

1. Submit an online application. The Project Administrator (Center for Sustainable Energy) will reserve funds for your rebate.
2. Submit supporting documentation within 14 calendar days from the date you submitted your online application. The supporting documentation may be scanned and submitted through the CVRP website or emailed to [email protected]. Applicants without internet access may mail the supporting documentation to the Administrator: Center for Sustainable Energy, Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, 9325 Sky Park Court, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. If mailed, submittal date will be determined by U.S. mail postmark. Required documentation will include, at a minimum, the following:
   1. A copy of the CVRP application form signed by the vehicle purchaser, lessee or authorized representative.
   2. Proof of temporary or permanent vehicle registration.
   3. A copy of the executed and signed sales or lease contract with an itemization of credits, discounts and incentives received, if applicable.
      1. For eligible zero-emission motorcycles (ZEMs) and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), evidence of sealed maintenance-free batteries (if lead acid) and a 24-month warranty.
   4. Proof of California residency:
      1. For individuals, a copy of a California driver’s license.
         1. Individuals who do not have a California driver’s license will be required to provide a legible copy of an alternate unique identifier as approved by the Administrator. They must also provide proof of California residency in the form of a utility or cable bill within the last 3 months, a copy of the current DMV registration of another vehicle in the name of the purchaser or lessee, a signed, dated, and notarized residential rental agreement, or other valid form of California residency as approved by ARB.
      2. For a business or nonprofit, a copy of the formation document filed with the California Secretary of State or other documentation as approved by the Administrator. Sole proprietors may submit a copy of a utility or cable bill from within the last 3 months, a copy of the current DMV registration of another vehicle in the name of the purchaser or lessee, or a notarized rental agreement.

Important: If you do not submit the required supporting documentation within 14 calendar days, the Administrator will release the reserved rebate funds back to the CVRP, and you will have to submit a new application. Rebate checks must be cashed within six months of the date on the check. Checks not cashed within this timeframe will be cancelled, and the rebate amount will be returned to the CVRP.

Applicant and Vehicle Requirements

As a condition for receiving State of California, Air Resources Board (ARB) rebate funds, you (the applicant/purchaser/lessee) must comply with the requirements below. You are responsible for reviewing the CVRP program requirements prior to applying for a rebate. Eligible applicants must meet requirements that include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Except for rental, public, and car share fleets, no single entity is eligible to receive more than two CVRP rebates either via direct purchase and/or lease as of January 1, 2015. All rebates issued prior to this date do notcount toward the two rebate limit. Rental and car share fleets are subject to limits of 20 per calendar year. Public fleets are subject to limits of 30 per calendar year.
2. Be an individual, business or government entity that is based in California or has a California-based affiliate at the time the rebated vehicle is purchased or leased.
   1. Eligible vehicles may be purchased out-of-state, but consumers must be California residents at the time of vehicle purchase. All businesses must be licensed to operate in California. Active duty military members stationed in California, but with permanent residency in another state are eligible to apply and may use military orders in lieu of other proof of residence documentation.
3. Be a purchaser or lessee of a new eligible vehicle and submit a CVRP application a) within 18 months of the vehicle purchase or lease date, b) after executing and signing a purchase or lease agreement, and c) prior to exhaustion of available rebate funds.
4. Not make or allow any modifications to the vehicle’s emissions control systems, hardware, software calibrations, or hybrid system.
   1. Commit that any emission reductions generated by the purchased vehicle will not be used as marketable emission reduction credits, to offset any emission reduction obligation of any person or entity, or to generate a compliance extension or extra credit for determining regulatory compliance.
5. Retain ownership of the vehicle for a minimum of 30 consecutive months immediately after the vehicle purchase or lease date.
   1. The original lease must be a minimum lease term of 30 months.
   2. Only rental and car share vehicles are eligible for a reduced ownership provision if retained in California for a minimum of twelve consecutive months but less than 30 consecutive months.
6. Rebate recipients who do not retain the eligible vehicle for the full 30-month ownership or lease period will be required to reimburse ARB all or part of the original rebate amount.
   1. Vehicle purchaser or lessee is required to notify the Administrator to arrange for early termination of vehicle ownership in advance of intent to sell or terminate a lease prior to the required 30-month ownership period.
   2. ARB will periodically check vehicle identification numbers with vehicle registrations to ensure that CVRP applicants meet this requirement. If an applicant violates this requirement, ARB or its designee reserves the right to recoup CVRP funds from the original vehicle purchaser identified on the rebate application form and may pursue other remedies available under the law.
7. Register the new vehicle with the DMV for a minimum of 30 consecutive months from the original purchase or lease date for use in California.
   1. Any government owned vehicle not registered with the DMV is still required to operate within California for 30 consecutive months immediately after the vehicle purchase or lease date.
8. Be available for follow-up inspection if requested by the Administrator, ARB, or ARB’s designee for project oversight and accountability.
9. ARB reserves the right to request participation from rebate recipients in ongoing research efforts that support the CVRP and AQIP goals as well as ARB Research Division efforts.

 

[ohmman]

Thanks, Blastphemy. Great summary.

I think I was incorrect about the confirmation date - my purchase agreement on my MS (which I got that graphic from) was signed about 3 weeks prior to delivery, despite having the Feb 6th date on the front page. That said, I still think that there is no difference between submitting an application without purchase, and trying to keep the rebate if you didn't own the car for 30 months. They're equivalent in terms of breaching the terms.

I didn't realize they limited each entity to one rebate; I like that. I'm happy with the added restrictions overall - I think they're good for the efficacy of the program.

 

[pvogel]

If you look at your MyTesla page, one of the documents is the "Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement" and the date on that is the date of confirmation, with the $5000 being the down payment but you have the full itemization of the sale and it is considered an electronically signed document.

 

[petershk]

Yeah. It's a bit frustrating but a couple thoughts.
1) Anyone who bought a Tesla (including me) kinda had to expect an unpredictable delivery windows, problems and mishaps that go along with any new venture. If you wanted a guaranteed reliable experience, probably wise to steer clear of new technology.
2) I think rationally it makes little sense to lose 2500$ on the deposit vs lose $2500 on the tax rebate and not get the car just to prove a point. If you no longer want the car, then it makes sense. But that's a personal choice.
3) It's kind of a first world problem isn't it .Probably not worth getting super upset over.

Cheers!

 

[Darryl]

@petershk i agree

The risk of delays has to be expected as an early adopter. I think Tesla has done more than expected to try to get as many California owners their cars early at the detriment of non-California residents.

It didn't effect my delivery date but did others. On the other hand I am plagued with a car that has had one defect after another. My car was one of the first cars off of the production line and I have suffered because of it. After my car being delivered to the SC in January and me given a delivery date I finally got it home today which is 65 miles from the SC. Last week, my third attempt at delivery, I only got 5 miles before I had to call the service number and they had to take the car back to the SC.

Back to the orginal topic. At least CA has a rebate, FL has none. I almost find it comical to see people threaten to file a lawsuit against Tesla. With the contract they signed they don't have a chance in hell of winning. Then they threaten to walk away which is even more comical as Tesla has their $5k and they have breached their contract. It is so much like a child throwing a tantrum. There are some people who really have a valid complaint like the Signature owners who have already paid fully for their car back in November and who are making car payments and have no car.

Before they make these posts and threats they should realize there are a lot of people in the same boat but the rest of us aren't acting so childish.

 

[K-MTG]

@petershk i agree

The risk of delays has to be expected as an early adopter. I think Tesla has done more than expected to try to get as many California owners their cars early at the detriment of non-California residents.

It didn't effect my delivery date but did others. On the other hand I am plagued with a car that has had one defect after another. My car was one of the first cars off of the production line and I have suffered because of it. After my car being delivered to the SC in January and me given a delivery date I finally got it home today which is 65 miles from the SC. Last week, my third attempt at delivery, I only got 5 miles before I had to call the service number and they had to take the car back to the SC.

Back to the orginal topic. At least CA has a rebate, FL has none. I almost find it comical to see people threaten to file a lawsuit against Tesla. With the contract they signed they don't have a chance in hell of winning. Then they threaten to walk away which is even more comical as Tesla has their $5k and they have breached their contract. It is so much like a child throwing a tantrum. There are some people who really have a valid complaint like the Signature owners who have already paid fully for their car back in November and who are making car payments and have no car.

Before they make these posts and threats they should realize there are a lot of people in the same boat but the rest of us aren't acting so childish.

I created a poll: Model X - Flawed or Flawless?

Please fill it out, I will share it with Tesla but since you personally had a horrible experience I would recommend that you file a complain directly with HQ

 

[Blastphemy]

If you look at your MyTesla page, one of the documents is the "Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement" and the date on that is the date of confirmation, with the $5000 being the down payment but you have the full itemization of the sale and it is considered an electronically signed document.

I'm sure we'll know soon enough, when the first person to take delivery of a Model X after the cut-off date attempts to use his two-year-old purchase agreement to claim the $2,500 rebate. I can tell you now it ain't gonna be accepted.

 

[dwebb66]

I'm sure we'll know soon enough, when the first person to take delivery of a Model X after the cut-off date attempts to use his two-year-old purchase agreement to claim the $2,500 rebate. I can tell you now it ain't gonna be accepted.

The reservation from two years ago is NOT was is being discussed, it is the order that is placed (at the start of the seven day waiting period). Whither the order is accepted or not is the question.

 

[umeshunni]

his two-year-old purchase agreement

The earliest anyone would have an MVPA is from December and someone taking delivery on 3/29 could try this, so it's not a 2 year gap, more like 4 months.

 

[Blastphemy]

The reservation from two years ago is NOT was is being discussed, it is the order that is placed (at the start of the seven day waiting period). Whither the order is accepted or not is the question.

The earliest anyone would have an MVPA is from December and someone taking delivery on 3/29 could try this, so it's not a 2 year gap, more like 4 months.

I meant to type 2 months, but my fingers decided to type 2 years. Stupid brain. Stupid getting older. Stupid computer.

My assertion remains the same, despite my initially incorrect time frame.

 

[MBTesLosAngeles]

@petershk i agree

The risk of delays has to be expected as an early adopter. I think Tesla has done more than expected to try to get as many California owners their cars early at the detriment of non-California residents.

It didn't effect my delivery date but did others. On the other hand I am plagued with a car that has had one defect after another. My car was one of the first cars off of the production line and I have suffered because of it. After my car being delivered to the SC in January and me given a delivery date I finally got it home today which is 65 miles from the SC. Last week, my third attempt at delivery, I only got 5 miles before I had to call the service number and they had to take the car back to the SC.

Back to the orginal topic. At least CA has a rebate, FL has none. I almost find it comical to see people threaten to file a lawsuit against Tesla. With the contract they signed they don't have a chance in hell of winning. Then they threaten to walk away which is even more comical as Tesla has their $5k and they have breached their contract. It is so much like a child throwing a tantrum. There are some people who really have a valid complaint like the Signature owners who have already paid fully for their car back in November and who are making car payments and have no car.

Before they make these posts and threats they should realize there are a lot of people in the same boat but the rest of us aren't acting so childish.

Thanks for the feedback, Darryl.

I didn't call you childish for complaining about your horrific experience, which some may argue is to be expected for a company that has a history of issues with early models and you were one of the first to actually receive yours. I think your tantrum is just as warranted as mine. Whether the company isn't delivering on his promise to give you a functioning car or its promise to me to actually deliver the car in accordance to priority in a timely manner.

It's irrelevant to the argument whether other states may or may not have a rebate. CA does have one that is expiring, and it's frustrating to me because my income puts me into a bracket where I will no longer qualify. Whether there should have been a tax credit given my income is a different story and I see the argument for high earners not to get it. I digress... Essentially, the $2,500 - 5000 is meaningless, the principle behind getting my car (P90D 7 seat, fully loaded, black rims) after those who reserved 3 years after me, have higher VINS, or those who have a non performance model is just nonsense and I don't understand why nor have I been given an explanation. So yes, for me, at a certain point, it's a matter of principle. I am a model S owner, shareholder, powerwall reserver, solar panel owner, and Model X vin #3xx. Why is it fair for people with Vins in 2000 to get their car before me or people who just reserved in January 2016? I've supported Elon and Tesla in every way possible. Given the disappointment and not feeling like a valued customer, walking away from $2,500 out of principle and waiting a few months to get the car $10k cheaper is a fine option (certainly more economical). Thus, I think I have a valid argument, just as the Sigs who haven't received their car. I think we can all have issues / valid complaints, mine isn't more or less important than anyone else.

I think Tesla should know that they cannot treat loyal customers this way, and hopefully, given your experience you can agree. At some point, we need to hold Tesla accountable, despite being Fanboys, there needs to be some integrity.

 

[Darryl]

I created a poll: Model X - Flawed or Flawless?

Please fill it out, I will share it with Tesla but since you personally had a horrible experience I would recommend that you file a complain directly with HQ

I have gotten good results after having dealing with it with district management. He compensated me for my problems without me asking. He also told me to call him directly if I have additional problems. If you had asked me several weeks ago I would have participated but since this manager has been fulfilling his promise to make things right it would be unfare for me to go behind his back unless I have additional problems he doesnt resolve promptly. From what he told me they are tracking these issues in Fremont and are very well aware of these systemic problems.

 

[ohmman]

the principle behind getting my car (P90D 7 seat, fully loaded, black rims) after those who reserved 3 years after me, have higher VINS, or those who have a non performance model is just nonsense and I don't understand why nor have I been given an explanation

I think this gets directly at why the $2500 matters to you. You're already rightfully sore about others (even 90Ds) getting their vehicles before you. You're annoyed at the lack of communication. And if that weren't enough, you're likely to miss out on a $2500 rebate that these other buyers are getting. I think you've got a reasonable argument.

I hope you're being vocal and escalating within Tesla - that's where it's important to be doing something. They do need to know why you're upset.

I have already mentioned that I asked to be delayed until after April 1st. I am choosing not to take the $2500, and allowing my Service Center to finish the mad push to get cars out - then focus on quality over quantity at the beginning of the quarter. Is it a guarantee that I will have less problems? Probably not, but it is a pretty sure thing that they'll be able to spend more time on my vehicle than in these next two weeks. And the real bonus is that, since the CVRP pool is fixed, that $2500 will go towards someone who was maybe on the fence about EVs, and get one more EV on the road.

It's a small thing, but it might take the sting out a little if you can view it that way.

 

[sukhi]

My 90D delivery is confirmed for Monday March 28th. I am surprised though that folks are still waiting on their P90D and Sigs. I think one of the factors for was the 5 seat configuration not being available as yet.

 

[Blastphemy]

I'm sure we'll know soon enough, when the first person to take delivery of a Model X after the cut-off date attempts to use his three-month-old purchase agreement to claim the $2,500 rebate. I can tell you now it ain't gonna be accepted.

Hmmmm... I could be wrong (there's a first time for everything!). In submitting my own form, I looked at the sample supporting documents supplied by CARB on its website and came across this one:

 

[umeshunni]

Hmmmm... I could be wrong (there's a first time for everything!). In submitting my own form, I looked at the sample supporting documents supplied by CARB on its website and came across this one:

Yeah, my DS reaffirmed yesterday that my 3/30 delivery will still be OK for CARB given the 12/5 confirmation date.

 

[Waldek]

Hmmmm... I could be wrong (there's a first time for everything!). In submitting my own form, I looked at the sample supporting documents supplied by CARB on its website and came across this one:

with this sample from CARB you nailed it. Bottom line the confirmation date is the date taken into consideration for CARB means that people who clicked on "Order" on 3/21 and then order got confirmed 7 days later on 3/28 are still eligible for the $2500 rebate regardless of their income but if someone clicked on order on 3/22 and which confirms on 3/29 then you are capped with income limit... sample forms from CARB you showed are clear on this now
thanks for posting them!

 

[flar]

Aha! How about this for a no-holds-barred, very specific answer to the "which date matters?" question.

I was looking through the documents on the CVR site and they now call out Tesla by name and have noted that the policy for the date for a Tesla rebate has changed. Document is at:

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/site...cvrp/documents/CVRP-Implementation-Manual.pdf

On page 12 (per the numbers on the pages in the document, but the PDF thinks it's page 15):

For Tesla vehicles ordered prior to March 29, 2016, the vehicle order date will be considered the date of purchase or lease. For Tesla vehicles ordered on or after March 29, 2016, the date of first registration with the California DMV will be considered the date of purchase or lease.

It looks like those worried about the income restriction are grand-fathered in with the favorable interpretation, but those who ordered after the income limits went into effect are now subject to a more conservative definition of the purchase date.