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

[ohmman]

Anecdotal evidence ... I own both and still care about the tax credit

Caring is one thing. The real question is whether you'd have bought it anyway, and how much more/less likely is the incentive to move a different income level buyer to purchase an EV.

 

[cgiGuy]

Looks like the amended bill has been virtually gutted and turned into an order for a study by Jan 2019 instead.

Compare Versions

 

[EinSV]

A 315 mile Model 3 is $44k.

Contact Assemblymen Ting if you want income caps on the rebate.

So Hollywood Stars and Professionally athletes don't buy Hyundai Ionic EVs by the dozen.

There will always be loopholes. As a whole the program is good and some compromises that are not ideal may have to be made to get the votes for the program to get enacted. So demagogues don't fake news the incentives programs to death.Such is democracy.

The vehicle price cap (especially at $50K) is just plain stupid and arguably defeats the purpose of the bill. Also, why would Tesla's home state set such a bad precedent after it has done so much to bring great jobs to the state?

Income caps are more debatable. I believe most higher income people do consider price as a major factor in comparing cars like everything else but I suppose Teslas are different enough from the competition that may reduce the effect. There certainly are no shortage of Teslas in Atherton, Woodside and Hillsborough despite the current income cap. I would prefer no cap but don't see it as a big deal as long as it is high enough. I expect politics will probably prevail and there will be a cap.

I am going to call my local representative and senator to weigh in strongly against a price cap. If it passes, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people activating EAP/FSD after purchase to skirt the cap.

Edit: May be a moot point if the amendment described by @cgiGuy's carries the day ....

 

[RobStark]

The price cap is not stupid but now we don't have anything.

It is now a f'ing study due in Sept 2019.

 

[azred]

Looks like the amended bill has been virtually gutted and turned into an order for a study by Jan 2019 instead.

Compare Versions

Thank heavens. CA taxes are high enough without providing more subsidies for greedy rich people.

 

[EinSV]

The price cap is not stupid but now we don't have anything.

It is now a f'ing study due in Sept 2019.

The first relatively affordable 300+ mile EV costs $54K+ with the most popular option sets PUP+EAP. Taking away the credit for a vehicle like that is "stupid" IMO (maybe I should use the softer "short-sighted") It is contrary to the goals of the bill. For many people 300 miles of range may be needed to conquer range anxiety.

Also,many other manufacturers intends to offer expensive long range EV vehicles initially (Jaguar and Audi, for example). Why not encourage those purchases rather than competing ICE vehicles?

Maybe a moot point now though

 

[chronopc]

The first relatively affordable 300+ mile EV costs $54K+ with the most popular option sets PUP+EAP. Taking away the credit for a vehicle like that is "stupid" IMO (maybe I should use the softer "short-sighted") It is contrary to the goals of the bill. For many people 300 miles of range may be needed to conquer range anxiety.

Also,many other manufacturers intends to offer expensive long range EV vehicles initially (Jaguar and Audi, for example). Why not encourage those purchases rather than competing ICE vehicles?

Maybe a moot point now though

Lame ass CA legislature.

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

 

[EinSV]

Lame ass CA legislature.

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

What a disappointment. Who better than California to pick up where Norway left off and flip the switch to EVs powered by sunshine.

It is already happening but California's abundant sunshine, political climate, resources and economic clout could really help accelerate the transition.

 

[chronopc]

What a disappointment. Who better than California to pick up where Norway left off and flip the switch to EVs powered by sunshine.

It is already happening but California's abundant sunshine, political climate, resources and economic clout could really help accelerate the transition.

Good thing about living in CA is that we should get the Model 3 first and get the full tax rebate, but still this is quite disappointing.

 

[insaneoctane]

I certainly would not know what to do if California passed some sort of tax credit or refund to me! I am pretty sure that they just keep taking more and give me less....

 

[T34ME]

I certainly would not know what to do if California passed some sort of tax credit or refund to me! I am pretty sure that they just keep taking more and give me less....

I have pondered moving to Oregon where I would get an immediate ~$4000 credit for my model 3 since they have no sales/use tax. BUT, the cost of moving there would be >$4000 and the increase in my property tax would be >$4000.........................I think I will just stay in California, EV credit or not.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Lame ass CA legislature.

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

Yes!

Why have subsidies that aren't necessary? Bolt, Model 3, Leaf 2, plus Prime, Pacifica, Prime and others are part of a generation that is significantly improving the utility and value proposition of PEVs. There are more vehicles to come over the next few years in this new generation, particularly in the premium segment. The major shift that's coming in the premium segment is indicative of the emergence of a more natural, self-sustaining, top-down market that we normally see with new technology.

In addition to that, California already has the ZEV mandate. Thanks to that mandate Californians can already buy and lease plug-ins at significant discounts, and with the change to credits not traveling, soon other ZEV states should see better discounts. Why have subsidies when the mandates already lead to discounting?

In addition to that, the VW fine will pay for the installation of more public charging infrastructure, which will help increase BEV utility, improving the value proposition. Why subsidize when we don't know how much that improved infrastructure will drive sales?

I really think that we're at the point where costs have narrowed enough, and the technology is sufficiently well-proven that we can back off subsidies and focus on mandates and other incentives instead.

 

[Big Dog]

am pretty sure that they just keep taking more and give me less....

I empathize with the intent, but I hope you understand that math, here. (There are only so many folks to tax to give others their money.)

 

[EinSV]

Yes!

Why have subsidies that aren't necessary? Bolt, Model 3, Leaf 2, plus Prime, Pacifica, Prime and others are part of a generation that is significantly improving the utility and value proposition of PEVs. There are more vehicles to come over the next few years in this new generation, particularly in the premium segment. The major shift that's coming in the premium segment is indicative of the emergence of a more natural, self-sustaining, top-down market that we normally see with new technology.

In addition to that, California already has the ZEV mandate. Thanks to that mandate Californians can already buy and lease plug-ins at significant discounts, and with the change to credits not traveling, soon other ZEV states should see better discounts. Why have subsidies when the mandates already lead to discounting?

In addition to that, the VW fine will pay for the installation of more public charging infrastructure, which will help increase BEV utility, improving the value proposition. Why subsidize when we don't know how much that improved infrastructure will drive sales?

I really think that we're at the point where costs have narrowed enough, and the technology is sufficiently well-proven that we can back off subsidies and focus on mandates and other incentives instead.

I think Tesla will sell all the Model 3s and Ys it can build in California for the foreseeable future, but I am not as optimistic as you are about other manufacturers.

I agree with you that EV technology has progressed to the point that it can be cost competitive on its own but so far none of the legacy manufacturers has a credible plan to build EVs by the millions, and start phasing out their ICE vehicles, which is what is needed. There is a lot of talk but I think they will drag their feet as long as possible.

Some of the premium EVs announced so far by other manufacturers look nice but the hints about pricing suggest they will not be competitive. For example, the Jaguar iPace and Audi Q6 appear to be in the same class as the Model Y, Audi Q5, BMW X3, etc. but will likely be priced 50-100% higher.

So other manufacturers are not planning or building battery capacity for nearly enough volume, are not targeting the right segments to make an immediate difference and their next round of EVs will probably not be very competitive.

EV technology and battery costs are at a point where they can now be competitive with ICE, and the advantages of EVs over ICE will likely grow as battery costs continue to drop. The issue is how fast the transition will be, which requires other companies to get out of their comfort zone and start making the large investments needed to crank out large volumes of EVs. With significant incentives, California could have followed Norway's lead and encouraged the rapid switch to EVs by making buying them a "no brainer." Perhaps other states and other countries would follow its lead (would not be the first time). But not looking good at this point I guess.

 

[Waiting4M3]

What a disappointment. Who better than California to pick up where Norway left off and flip the switch to EVs powered by sunshine.

It is already happening but California's abundant sunshine, political climate, resources and economic clout could really help accelerate the transition.

Maybe they're taking a "gap year" traveling Europe before they begin their "studying"

 

[ohmman]

mod note: Moved some off-topic posts to a new thread.

 

[SageBrush]

I'd like to see a break-down of the vote by name, locale and party affiliation if available.

 

[cgiGuy]

mod note: Moved some off-topic posts to a new thread.

Thank you!

 

[insaneoctane]

I empathize with the intent, but I hope you understand that math, here. (There are only so many folks to tax to give others their money.)

Oh, trust me, the math is not lost on me. The policies that CA is choosing does not appear to be sustainable. Tax rates are among the absolute highest in the nation. The most recent statistics we have show that in 2015, 197,200 people moved INTO California and 207,900 LEFT. It was a NET loss of $2B in income. Tax revenue wise, that is equivalent to the average salary of those who left was $200K/year. People with very large incomes (top 1%-ers) seem to be content here, but people with lesser means, albeit healthy six-figure incomes, may not find this state hospitable. I can tell you the constant tax grabs and misuse of funds is wearing on me.

 

[cpa]

I think you're right. Here in coastal NorCal, I know a ton of people who are very interested in an EV but can't afford them. I've converted a couple to used Leafs, but these incentives are a big deal to them. I bet the story is different in the Central Valley.

Not enough data, is there?

Anecdotes from the Central Valley:

Where we live in the northern part of Fresno, we see Teslas every day cruising along Herndon Avenue. The Ranger believes that there are ~250 Teslas in town.

The landlord for the newish outdoor shopping area recently installed six ChargePoint 30A free charging stations. I go by there occasionally and find the usual mix of Leafs and Fiats and BMWs plugged in. I spoke to a retired Hispanic man last week who was charging his Leaf. He had just leased a Bolt, and he and his wife love it. The Bolt battery lets them drive to their mobile home in Oceano without stopping. He said they leased it because technology keeps changing, so why tie up 30K when a 3-year lease would let them decide what to do when the lease terminates.

We have spoken to three Fiat drivers and they all said that the monthly lease payments of under $100 were too good to pass up. All three drivers charged in their garages on 120V circuits, and overnight was always enough for their next day's commute of 20-30 miles. One person had the availability to plug in at work; two did not.

I spend some time in Modesto during filing season. There are virtually zero BEVs in that town. There are also zero public charging locations besides the car dealers on McHenry.

I come away with these non-scientific, purely anecdotal conclusions:

----Lease incentives will place more people in BEVs. People with much more limited means and a shorter daily commute for work and errands.

----Availability of public charging stations at locations to do things while they grab 10-20kWh of electricity will help convince the masses that you can keep your car fueled while doing other things.

----Ever advancing technology lends itself to leasing over buying outright. Most individuals of modest means finance their cars, and they hope to be able to drive the car for years after they have the pink slip. If lease payments are equal to or beneath the monthly car payment stroke, why not just lease? Then after the 3/4/5 year term, turn the car in and get the latest and greatest.

The bill should be written so that any rebate could not only be applied to an outright purchase, but could also be used to reduce monthly lease payments.