TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here:

WSJ article on EV subsidies as a drag on the California economy.

Discussion in 'Tesla Motors' started by PhilBa, Sep 18, 2013.

  1. PhilBa

    PhilBa Active Member

    Apr 20, 2013
    A Green Car Named Desire. It very much singles out Tesla but lays the blame at the feet of CA lawmakers. I have to say that I agree somewhat with the article. The Model S is good enough to stand on it's own. I can't blame Tesla or Tesla owners for taking advantage of the tax credits and grants. I also think that hastening the EV conversion of our society is a good thing. However, I would be surprised to see Tesla's sales suffer much if the tax credits were withdrawn. Heck Tesla believes in their product so much that they recently raised prices. Maybe Leaf sales would drop since those customers are probably more price sensitive.
  2. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Dec 8, 2007
    The article mixes in the ZEV credit revenue that Tesla got from other manufacturers (costs CA nothing) and also the grant Tesla got to further develop the Model X (which CA gets money back from extra people being employed and not stuck taking unemployment).

    That only thing that's really costing CA anything is the $2.5k tax credit. The Tesla doesn't really need it, but cars like the Leaf, Volt and other compliance vehicles do need that credit. And they are ignoring the higher sales tax revenue that CA is getting (EVs tend to cost more and the sales tax is calculated pre-credit).

    The "drag" is negligible on the budget, but the extra boost to the economy (esp. for a CA based automaker like Tesla) is much bigger.
  3. Dwdnjck

    Dwdnjck Member

    Mar 11, 2013
    Rancho Santa Fe
    California profits from the sale of each Tesla because the sales tax is much more than the rebate. One might argue that California would get the sales tax anyway. Not true. Many owners stepped up to buy a Tesla or sold a car early. I bought a new car in 2010, knowing that it would be replaced when a Model S became available. I probably spent more in sales taxes because of the Tesla purchase, not less.
  4. ChadS

    ChadS Petroleum is for sissies

    Jul 16, 2009
    #4 ChadS, Sep 18, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
    It also ignores how much money leaves the state if people buy gas cars instead. Keeping 75% of their gas money and spending the other 25% locally (and in a way that helps with integration of renewables) is a HUGE boon to the economy.

    It notes that the money is coming from funds that are meant for pollution mitigation - California has some significant air quality problems. But it ignores that if everybody kept their gas cars, they'd be spending that money on some other solution.

    So they're misstating the effects, and ignoring that the money was already being spent. I'm not a big fan of mandates, but I don't find this article compelling.
  5. richkae

    richkae VIN587

    Jan 15, 2008
    California consumed 14.5 billion gallons of gasoline in 2012. CA gasoline consumption falls for 7th straight year |
    California produces 37.2 percent of the oil it consumes: California Petroleum Statistics Data
    So 9.1 billion of those gallons came from imported oil. It takes about 450 million barrels of oil to make those gallons of gasoline.
    That's about 50 billion dollars that leave the state every year to purchase that oil. ( I know the oil makes other stuff too, but we're talking about money leaving the state )
    If California subsidized 10,000 Tesla EVs at 2500 a pop, thats 25 million dollars. But those Tesla EVs are about 1 billion dollars worth of direct GDP.
    The imported oil is a drag on the economy that is 2000 times bigger than the EV rebate.
  6. Discoducky

    Discoducky Active Member

    Dec 25, 2011
    @richkae and others; well said.
  7. djplong

    djplong Member

    Apr 3, 2013
    Also, how much money comes back to state coffers in the form of income taxes on the employees? (To say nothing of all the other taxes that a well-paid manufacturing employee would pay versus someone on unemployment or slinging burgers)

Share This Page