...the whole point of the incentive: to provide money to make up the difference between an EV and whatever ICE they were considering in it's place. If a Leaf purchase displaces at Sentra, what is wrong with a Model X displacing a Range Rover when the whole point is carbon reduction through higher EV sales. It's not meant to be some sort of social equity program. It has nothing to do with "rich vs. poor". Your argument would also seem to suggest a "rich" person should not get any rebate if they decide to buy a less expensive EV either.
I will say this, however. The program was very poor at measuring actual effectiveness. I was heavily involved in the saveONenergy programs run by the electric utilities a few years ago. We did all kinds of effectiveness measurement including calculating the "free ridership" levels each program saw. (Free ridership is the percentage of those taking advantage of a program who would have made the same decision without the incentive anyway). You will never get free ridership to zero, but until it is actually measured and evaluated, I don't know how anyone can say one class of car "needs" the rebate while another doesn't. For all we know, free ridership levels may actually be higher with less expensive cars. Results are often counter-intuitive.
These programs are theoretically designed to benefit the environment by reducing fossil fuel use and reducing pollutant emissions. The most beneficial targets are those that address the heaviest users and most polluting ones. That suggests busses, commercial vehicles, taxis, heavy-using municipal users such as police cars. Some cities in Europe and China have been doing that successfully, led by Shenzen, more recently by German, Italian, Spanish and other cities.
As much as I like the idea of incentives for personal vehicles (I absolutely claimed my
P85D benefits) none of those carry the benefits of eliminating/minimising diesels and have use ICE vehicles. Sadly, more logically based incentives/penalties rarely have carried the political will to be executed. We in North America (I include all three major nations) are not adept in forming logical and consistent national policy. We are grossly generous in some political units (e.g. BC free EV charging) and grow weary quite quickly if they cost too much money (e.g. GA and ON rebates) while a change of government invariably results in a sudden reversal of prior policy. (e.g. ON right now, US right now) which at their best are temporary (South Australia housing solar panel cessation followed by a quick reversal when the old way proved too expensive).
Luckily for the planet the EU and China are both moving rapidly to embrace greater efficiency and lower pollution. If we are all very, very lucky the Trumps and Fords of the world will quickly be removed. I suspect we are not very, very lucky.
In the meantime nobody gains by suggesting that any country, province or state has a monopoly on gross stupidity and bad policy. Sadly, the world has plenty of that.
That said, however imperfect, the BC model I respect. Even when planning to cut some freebies, they do manage to invite public participation:
B.C. Utilities Commission seeks input on electric vehicle charging stations future | CBC News
Disclaimer: I admit that I am a participant in all this from a distance. As a mostly Brazil resident and citizen I am uniquely ill-positioned to opine, since we get every item wrong here. OTOH, I was by birth both US and Canadian, so I offer my unqualified opinions anyway.
