California AB1184

[cpa]

Looks like our legislature is dead serious about increasing the affordability of electric vehicles!

California's $3 Billion Electric Car Subsidy Bill Could Bring Tesla Model 3 Down to Honda Civic Prices

They want the incentive to be credited to the purchase price at the point of sale rather than the previous versions of mailing in the paperwork and waiting for a check.

Let's hope that the Senate sees things similarly and that Governor Brown affixes his signature to this bill should it be passed.

 

[ecarfan]

That approach would be a more powerful incentive than the current system. I also hope it passes.

There is a similar article in the Mercury News at California may adopt bigger incentives for electric cars

Neither article explains the bill in any detail. Here is the legislative counsel's digest of the bill Bill Text - AB-1184 Vehicular air pollution: electric vehicles: incentives.

But I cannot find the actual text of the bill. Still looking...

 

[cpa]

I see the statutes and the strike-out type that is adding, deleting or amending existing law, so what else are you looking for, Fan?

(I know it is a bunch of jibber-jabber that only a lawyer would understand, but it seems to me that verbiage is there.)

 

[BluestarE3]

Since this bill isn't scheduled to take effect until September 1, 2018 (at the latest), its passage will continue to help reduce the cost of BEV ownership in California even if the Federal tax credit eligibility for the automaker has expired by then. So, this should help Tesla and maybe Nissan and GM too.

 

[MIT_S60]

I would be concerned that dealerships would take advantage of this to decrease their incentives a bit to increase their profits. I was hoping this post would be about an extension to the White HOV Stickers program.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Since this bill isn't scheduled to take effect until September 1, 2018 (at the latest), its passage will continue to help reduce the cost of BEV ownership in California even if the Federal tax credit eligibility for the automaker has expired by then. So, this should help Tesla and maybe Nissan and GM too.

I heard of this bill and I hope the changes happen earlier than later, so perhaps I can get both the Federal credit and higher California credit. As soon as I heard it, I'm considering how the timing would work in that regard.

 

[BluestarE3]

I would be concerned that dealerships would take advantage of this to decrease their incentives a bit to increase their profits. I was hoping this post would be about an extension to the White HOV Stickers program.

I guess if that happens, it may give people another reason to stay away from an automaker that employs the dealership model.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I would be concerned that dealerships would take advantage of this to decrease their incentives a bit to increase their profits. I was hoping this post would be about an extension to the White HOV Stickers program.

Good point. That's going to be one side effect on making upfront incentives. The money might be going to dealership profits instead (we have seen a weaker version of this happening with the federal incentive too, with automakers pricing with that in mind).

 

[BluestarE3]

I heard of this bill and I hope the changes happen earlier than later, so perhaps I can get both the Federal credit and higher California credit. As soon as I heard it, I'm considering how the timing would work in that regard.

As a retiree, it would be nice to get both the Federal credit and the proposed (and enhanced) State point-of-sale credit. However, based on when I'll likely be getting my Model 3, I'll be filing for the after-the-fact credit currently in place. Even though I won't be able to take advantage of it, I'm glad to see this legislation get proposed as it will help broaden EV adoption across a wider spectrum of incomes. It does several things right: the credit is applied at point-of-sale, so there's no waiting for a refund (lower cash/financing requirement up front); the credit amount will be graduated to provide more assistance to those with less income (a criticism of the Federal credit is that it favors the wealthy); it will reduce the sticker shock of BEV car prices spiking after the Federal incentive goes away (such as what happened in Denmark and Hong Kong); it will run through 2025, thus providing more time for economies of scale and technological advances to kick in and bring down the cost of manufacturing BEVs so that, by the time the program ends, there may be more price parity with ICE cars.

 

[ecarfan]

I see the statutes and the strike-out type that is adding, deleting or amending existing law, so what else are you looking for, Fan?

I was looking for the part of the bill that described what the EV rebate amounts would be and how they would be calculated. I'll have to take another look...

 

[cpa]

This legislation seems to indicate that this reduction in sales price will be in the form of a rebate instead of a discount. Unfortunately, California's sales tax rules require sales tax to be collected on the full sales price, not the amount net of rebate. So, a $3,000 rebate will not save the buyer another $250-$290 in sales tax.

But I hope I am wrong.

 

[BluestarE3]

This legislation seems to indicate that this reduction in sales price will be in the form of a rebate instead of a discount. Unfortunately, California's sales tax rules require sales tax to be collected on the full sales price, not the amount net of rebate. So, a $3,000 rebate will not save the buyer another $250-$290 in sales tax.

But I hope I am wrong.

That's interesting. How would they handle the rebate if it's done at the point of sale? Would the dealer/store write up the invoice for the sales price of the car, tack on fees and sales tax and then deduct the rebate amount from the bottom line?

Another thought: if the rebate amount is income based, will a customer have to provide documented income information to the dealer/store? If so, there may be some privacy concerns.

 

[cpa]

That's interesting. How would they handle the rebate if it's done at the point of sale? Would the dealer/store write up the invoice for the sales price of the car, tack on fees and sales tax and then deduct the rebate amount from the bottom line?

Another thought: if the rebate amount is income based, will a customer have to provide documented income information to the dealer/store? If so, there may be some privacy concerns.

If this legislation becomes law, then it will be up to one or more agencies to determine how to implement it.

Yes, you are correct; the Tesla store or the Chevy stealership will write up the total sales price, add in sales tax and then subtract the amount of the rebate to arrive at the amount due from the customer. Which leads me to believe that the state would reimburse Tesla or the stealership the amounts of the rebates granted, much the same way manufacturers reimburse grocery stores for coupons taken at the point of sale.

Your privacy concerns are valid. However, the state has broad powers to implement state programs that are income-based. (After all,you are not forced to apply for and receive the rebate; it might be part of the implied contract that anyone receiving this rebate agrees that the state can share selected information with the retailer.) Since we all file a 540-series form, the FTB possibly already has a data base for each of our returns. Armed with our SSN, the retailer could access a secured site with the FTB and receive formal notification as to the dollar amount of our rebate--nothing more--no AGI, no total income, no CA adjustments.

Or, I could be totally wrong!

 

[BluestarE3]

Since we all file a 540-series form, the FTB possibly already has a data base for each of our returns. Armed with our SSN, the retailer could access a secured site with the FTB and receive formal notification as to the dollar amount of our rebate--nothing more--no AGI, no total income, no CA adjustments.

Or, I could be totally wrong!

That seems plausible. The dealer/store could, with your permission, access the rebate amount for which you're eligible (and a broad idea of your income level), but you wouldn't have to provide a copy of your tax return to the retailer.

 

[TEG]

Hydrogen wants in too:

http://californiahydrogen.org/sites/default/files/AB1184 CHBC Support IF Amended with Amendments.pdf

 

[cpa]

Hydrogen wants in too:

http://californiahydrogen.org/sites/default/files/AB1184 CHBC Support IF Amended with Amendments.pdf

So for all the chemists and physicists out there, how can the Hydrogen Council assert in its opening paragraph that by using H2 we are reducing our dependence on oil?

How can they state in their amendment to the bill as currently written that hydrogen does not contribute to greenhouse gas emission?

Yes, I know if H2 gas is produced by electrolysis, it is clean, and it does not rely on oil.

But is not all hydrogen gas now produced by stripping the hydrogen atoms off methane--a byproduct of drilling for oil? Furthermore, what happens to all those carbon atoms once the hydrogen is removed? I would suppose those carbon atoms pick up two atoms of oxygen, and we are back in the same boat. The total deleterious effects may be less than burning gasoline or diesel, but I feel that their claims are disingenuous at best.

Or am I wrong?

 

[miimura]

So for all the chemists and physicists out there, how can the Hydrogen Council assert in its opening paragraph that by using H2 we are reducing our dependence on oil?

How can they state in their amendment to the bill as currently written that hydrogen does not contribute to greenhouse gas emission?

Yes, I know if H2 gas is produced by electrolysis, it is clean, and it does not rely on oil.

But is not all hydrogen gas now produced by stripping the hydrogen atoms off methane--a byproduct of drilling for oil? Furthermore, what happens to all those carbon atoms once the hydrogen is removed? I would suppose those carbon atoms pick up two atoms of oxygen, and we are back in the same boat. The total deleterious effects may be less than burning gasoline or diesel, but I feel that their claims are disingenuous at best.

Or am I wrong?

The technicality is that H2 from methane does not depend on "oil" it depends on natural gas. In addition, the state requires more than 30% of transportation hydrogen to come from renewable sources. This includes capturing methane from farm waste and waste water treatment (ie. human waste) and even landfill bio-gas. Even though the hydrogen production still releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the GWP of the CO2 is much less than just releasing the biological methane into the atmosphere.

I am not a believer in hydrogen for transportation, especially passenger automobiles. I would much rather the State spend money to encourage scaling up facilities to synthesize drop in liquid fuels from bio-methane. It is even possible to use surplus renewable energy to synthesize those fuels from water and atmospheric CO2. The LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) is starting to encourage this kind of thing, but the cost per gallon is still too high. In any case, a range extended EV with a gasoline engine is more competitive on an environmental basis than a HFCV.

 

[TEG]

See also:
New CA bill AB1184 being considered: Up to $10K rebate for EV purchases

 

[miimura]

Now that the legislative session is over, it appears that AB 1184 died, but AB 544 (HOV program modification) and AB 615 (CVRP extension) passed. It appears there was no substantive change to the CVRP program, it was merely extended to 1/1/2019. Presumably funding will come from the recently extended Cap & Trade program.

 

[Viking1]

Plan to boost electric-vehicle rebates to $3 billion is scrapped in favor of state study