The Teddy Waste Management awards are out and guess what?

[Drone Flyer]

The annual Canadian Teddy awards are out and the Ontario government won the prize for electric vehicle tax payer waste with regards to the $14,000 rebate.
It is their twisted conviction that anyone who can afford a $140,000 Tesla doesn't need a rebate. Of course they miss the point here that the rebate isn't designed to help the wealthy but its purpose is to educate the public about sustainable options with EV cars. The fact that Teslas are expensive is besides the point.
The whole reason is to persuade buyers into adopting electric over gas cars and to help save the planet.
Without the incentives, people would just continue to buy polutting fossil fuel cars.

The Canadian Revenue agency also won an award for tax payer waste as they paid an employee, apparently, a half million dollars for doing virtually nothing.

 

[TexLaw]

I agree. Anyone who can afford a $140,000.00 Tesla can afford a lot of different automobiles, almost ever other one of which is an ICE. The rebate is a valid incentive to get things off the ground.

I heard about that employee, too. It seems he charged a couple thousand hours of overtime while only hanging out in a closet (or something like that). I wonder if he was saving up for a Tesla?

 

[Skotty]

Complaining about rich people not needing credits or rebates kind of misses the point, really. Yeah, it sucks that wealthier people are getting the benefits, but these programs are not about helping poor people, they are about driving technology advancements in areas that can potentially benefit all mankind. The more rich people that buy, the more likely the technology will reach mainstream and get cheap to where anyone can afford.

 

[Jaff]

The annual Canadian Teddy awards are out and the Ontario government won the prize for electric vehicle tax payer waste with regards to the $14,000 rebate.
It is their twisted conviction that anyone who can afford a $140,000 Tesla doesn't need a rebate. Of course they miss the point here that the rebate isn't designed to help the wealthy but its purpose is to educate the public about sustainable options with EV cars. The fact that Teslas are expensive is besides the point.
The whole reason is to persuade buyers into adopting electric over gas cars and to help save the planet.
Without the incentives, people would just continue to buy polutting fossil fuel cars.

The Canadian Revenue agency also won an award for tax payer waste as they paid an employee, apparently, a half million dollars for doing virtually nothing.

The Canadian Taxpayer Federation are in part, a bunch of whack jobs. It seems they would prefer to count their tax savings, rather than breath clean air. They certainly cannot be trusted to do the right thing (supporting environmental stewardship to help maintain the long term health of Canadians).

Whilst I approve of their watchdog activities over government spending and waste, they are frankly making their judgment call on many environmental programs (including cap & trade)...they are superimposing their ravenous desire to curb taxes at all costs, sacrificing our health and environmental welfare.

I'm sorry...I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy...I abhor government waste when a program goes off the rails and costs soar beyond budget...I abhor spending on idiotic programs period.

However, I do not consider programs like EVIP / EVHAP / Cap and Trade to be ridiculous spending programs...I consider them essential environmental programs, necessary to maintain our existence.

No, the CTF does not speak for me.

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario makes 8% tax on a new car purchase.
That's $8000 on the typical Tesla and $1600 on a Smart Electric.
Tesla owner gets to keep under $6000 of the rebate, Smart owner gets more than $11000.

Example : Our Tesla is about 6 months shy of 100000 km and our Smart has ~25000 km on it.

If bought with today's incentives and driven in the same period of time the distances listed above as an example, the $6K incentive for the Tesla owner reduced emissions 4x more than the $11K for the Smart owner, or effectively 8x for the same dollars.

Rebating Tesla owners is more financially effective for emissions reductions.

 

[S'toon]

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is an astroturf organization.

While the Canadian Taxpayers Federation claims to be a "tax watchdog" that opposes waste and advocates transparency in government, evidence suggests its principal purposes are to provide partisan support for the Harper Government, fulfill the corporate agenda and undermine the rights of working people.

The July 2 Alberta Diary post on the CTF's disgracefully misogynistic and personal attack on a group of promising young Canadian scholars for the crime of being awarded scholarships provides an example of the former.

Today let's take a look at the evidence of the CTF's strong anti-worker, anti-union bias, as well as the group's lack of transparency about its own supporters and objectives.

A recent report on the CTF by a group called Canadians For Responsible Advocacy, highlights connections between some members of the CTF board of directors and various anti-union groups in both Canada and the United States

As has been previously reported, the CTF's seven current board members are the group's only members, despite the media's repeated claims it has tens of thousands of members -- a reference to the group's "supporters," people who have clicked on a web button to find out more about the CTF.

<snip>

As the CFRA report indicates, the CTF does not live up to its own standards of transparency, failing to report many evocative connections of its board on its website, refusing to provide audited financial statements, and neglecting to report the names of corporate or individual donors who have contributed more than $5,000 to the organization's annual budget of close to $4 million.

Whatever the CTF is, it is clearly not a "tax watchdog," and it is time for the media and government groups -- not to mention the rest of us -- to stop treating it as if it were, let alone relying on it to report the news.

Full article, telling who the members are, at:
Whatever the 'Canadian Taxpayers Federation' is, it's not a 'tax watchdog' | rabble.ca

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

I am a member of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, as are many other small businesses in my industry. Contrary to what @S'toon states; they are focused on government waste, and ARE a tax watchdog. They are a voice in the wilderness for individual tax payers, as well as minding their corporate clients.

Saying that......

I will pen an email to my Ontario rep, and the Canadian management on their misplaced focus on this rebate. It is no different than paying up to 50% of the cost of energy efficient retrofits for buildings - it's a more efficient use of energy, and helps businesses change their opinions about energy efficient devices.

LED fixtures cost twice to 3 times the price of incandescent or HID fixtures, but save up to 6 times the energy. The highly engineered, energy efficient device vs the "old" energy hog. Sound familiar?
The CTF isn't dogging the various governments on energy efficient buildings

Electric vehicles fall under the same scope, but are often mis-aligned as "toys for the rich". That's the attitude we need to change...

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

My email to CTF this morning (sorry -it's long)


I wanted to send you an email about my disapproval of one of your Teddy awards, and my reasoning for this. I am a CTF member based out of Ontario.



Provincial Teddy Winner: Ontario’s Electric Vehicle Incentive Program

The Ontario government spent over $39 million on subsidies for electric vehicles over the past six years, including $14 million for vehicles with a retail price over $70,000. After reducing the subsidies in 2016, Tesla – whose Model S retails for $135,000 and had previously been eligible for an $8,500 taxpayer subsidy – registered a lobbyist at Queen’s Park. In February 2017, the government didn’t just revert to old subsidy, but actually raised it to $14,000 for cars between $75,000 to $150,000 – a 367% increase.

“The only thing ‘green’ about these subsidies is the colour of taxpayers’ faces after finding out they’re being forced to subsidize millionaires’ car purchases,” noted Wudrick.

Disclosure: I own a Tesla, and received an $8500 rebate on a $112,00 car in 2015

The Electric Vehicle Incentive Program (EVIP) was introduced to assist in changing consumer buying habits. Electric cars are more expensive than a similar gas or diesel vehicle, but are SIGNIFICANTLY more energy efficient.

Why promote electric vehicles?
1. Electric cars convert up to 85% of the energy into motion. Gas cars are 15-20% efficient. this is an energy savings of 400-500%
2. The fuel for these cars is locally manufactured, from local "raw materials". Gasoline may be locally manufactured, but often with oil imported from the middle east, Venezuela, Nigeria, and other locales. I think most Canadians would rather promote local supply.
3. Electric cars are quieter, and do not pollute
4. Electric cars have a battery lifespan of 11 years, after which they can be fully recycled
5. Most of the infrastructure to supply power to these cars is already in place. Charging stations will be a new industry that will be owned and operated by Canadian tax paying companies and individuals.
6. The total cost of ownership of an electric car is lower than gas, over time
7. Petroleum is a finite resource. At some point it will become scarce. We should us it in areas such as petro-chemicals, plastics, where there are no other alternatives, and use electricity to fuel our vehicles

Why is there an incentive?
1. The purchase cost of vehicles is higher than a similar gas car. Developing new technology, and scaling up creates a higher cost base. Early adapters, who will be the initial promoters of this technology have borne the highest cost. As new vehicles are introduced to the market, costs should come down
2. Consumer fear and ignorance of technology. Consumers do not understand the technology, and are very reluctant to change to something that is "black box".
3. Convenience dictates that most people want their electric car to be the same as their gas automobile. This will dictate that larger batteries and fast charging will need to be incorporated in the car, adding more cost, and more resistance due to cost

Until all of these issues are mitigated, the rebate is being used to bring people into the electric fold. It is not being used " to subsidize millionaires car purchases".

Why choose to single out the EVIP?
Ontario has decades of history of providing incentives to businesses and home owners to remove old inefficient equipment. The thinking behind this is to change consumer habits to buy more expensive, but efficient products, and replace the cheaper energy pigs. Examples of this include:
LED lamps vs incandescent
Argon windows vs single pane
Energy efficient drives vs large electric motors
High efficiency gas furnaces vs oil
Fluorescent or LED industrial lighting vs HID

These subsidies are often up to 50% of the cost of the replacement. It can represent up to a 2-300% energy savings, for the life of the product, by purchasing highly engineered, efficient devices.
In the case of the EVIP, it can be a 400% energy saving, for a 9-19% rebate on costs ($14,000 on $75,000-$150,000) of an energy efficient device.

Yet you single this one out.......

Yes, we have some big issues with Hydro One and OPG in Ontario, but electrical energy is the future for us. We need to continue to become increasingly efficient, and rebates on electrical devices will continue be the norm.

I look forward to your reply

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

....and the response from Christine Van Geyn, Ontario manager from CTF - with copies to all of the brass at the CTF

Murray -

Thank you for your note. The government itself recognized a year ago that the incentives for electric vehicles should be capped, because if you can afford a $100k car you don't need a subsidy. They've subsequently reversed course, and bumped the subsidy up again after a year of lobbying by Tesla. What's worse, a senior political staffer from the Environment Minister's office took a job with Tesla right after boosting their subsidy.

Even if all of that backroom dealing wasn't going on, the subsidy is still a bad policy. The reality is that the tipping point for cars like yours, those over $112k, is not going to be the subsidy. So even if we were to accept the arguments outlined in your email, this policy doesn't achieve the job. To respond to your other points, perhaps when the government has faced 9 deficits, doubled the debt since 2003, and is embroiled in an electricity crisis of its own making, subsidizing these vehicles is a poor priority for taxpayer money.

We pick different winner every year. I hope we can continue to count on your support, and that you like our winner next year.

Yours truly,
Christine Van Geyn

 

[SmartElectric]

An electricity mess of their own creation? That's a bit rich. The previous decades long run by conservative governments and the privatization and obvious outcome seem to have been forgotten....

 

[S'toon]

An electricity mess of their own creation? That's a bit rich. The previous decades long run by conservative governments and the privatization and obvious outcome seem to have been forgotten....

Correct. I'm amazed by how people have forgotten it was Mike Harris who Privatized Ontario Hydro. I'm not even from ON and I remember that.

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

Well, I'm formulating a rebuttal. I do not know the individual named as "a senior political staffer from the Environment Minister's office took a job with Tesla right after boosting their subsidy." Anyone have an idea who this might be?

 

[ottawaG]

He is referring to this "story"
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/23/questions-after-murray-staffer-takes-post-with-tesla

 

[Jaff]

Well, I'm formulating a rebuttal. I do not know the individual named as "a senior political staffer from the Environment Minister's office took a job with Tesla right after boosting their subsidy." Anyone have an idea who this might be?

Their arguments are all anecdotal...zero evidence support their (opinions) arguments...and more importantly, despite your best efforts to enlighten them from an environmental perspective, they list zero environmental reasons for their stance.

I'd cut them loose Murray...no sense supporting anti-environmental pinheads with your membership dollars...

 

[sitter_k]

This ev rebate is getting hit from all sides now. Might be gone for next year's election campaign.

 

[RiverBrick]

The $8,777 rebate on the 23 km AER luxury BMW SUV is worse.

They should cap the rebate on vehicles with less than 50 km AER to $4,000.

 

[Drone Flyer]

I think only fully eiectric cars should get the rebate and hybrids and plug in hybrids should not be a benefactor at all!
Also, it's all fine and dandy pointing out the misinformation that the Toronto Star writer puts out, but does the general public see our posts and do they understand? Or are they only seeing their point of view?

 

[Jaff]

I think only fully eiectric cars should get the rebate and hybrids and plug in hybrids should not be a benefactor at all!
Also, it's all fine and dandy pointing out the misinformation that the Toronto Star writer puts out, but does the general public see our posts and do they understand? Or are they only seeing their point of view?

I'm not sure that this is effective or entirely fair...it is very easy for we of the larger battery crowd, who have been driving BEVs for several years to think this...but we do need to remember that moving away form a 100% ICE vehicle will have to be a "process" for some folks...slowly moving from an ICE to a hybrid, to a BEV...I think that some sort of incentive is required to get from the ICE to hybrid stage...but I do agree the incentive should be less for a hybrid than for a BEV.

 

[Drone Flyer]

I'm not sure that this is effective or entirely fair...it is very easy for we of the larger battery crowd, who have been driving BEVs for several years to think this...but we do need to remember that moving away form a 100% ICE vehicle will have to be a "process" for some folks...slowly moving from an ICE to a hybrid, to a BEV...I think that some sort of incentive is required to get from the ICE to hybrid stage...but I do agree the incentive should be less for a hybrid than for a BEV.

Yes, you have a good point!
We just need some form of government this Winter to build that "ICE Bridge" LOL!