The Business Insider piece sourced it's information on what the bill does not on the bill text, but on a combination of an advocacy email from an opposed legislator and reporting by the Mercury News.
The rebate plan does not do at all what the article claims; specifically, for instance, it does not establish a new general rebate that is designed to match the difference between an electric vehicle's price and that of a non-electric vehicle with similar features. Instead, it establishes a declining rebate for compact electric vehicles that starts at an initial level that would provide an approximate net purchase price after all existing incentives equal to the most commonly sold compact vehicle in the State, but where the rebate level would decline with EV penetration by income segment. (Health and Safety Code 44215.4, as added by the bill.)
In fact, there was no specific rebate plan in the version passed by the Assembly, which notionally is the subject of the article; there was a requirement for the PUC to adopt incentives. The sources the article relied on (assuming BI doesn't misrepresent then) were either inventing bill content from whole cloth or speculating about what the PUC might do; in any case, the bill has been significantly revised already in the Senate, to address the same broad purpose but to be more specific about program parameters and move the primary administrative responsibility for programs to the Air Resources Board rather than the PUC.
FYI, in case the reference to Business Insider in the above seems odd, the mods have apparently not only changed the headline to a more clickbait one than it used to be, but also ibexplicably changed the source article from a BI article to a nearly-identical (to the point that if they were turned in in a the same class in school, the putative authors would probably be hauled in to answer questions about plagiarism) WolfStreet article.
Good to hear, as the way they phrased this was as a blanket invitation for electric vehicle manufacturers to raise prices (if they add $x to their prices, their revenue would go up by $x, but customers wouldn't complain, as they would get $x more rebate)
I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3).
EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here.
Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market.
Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.
Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time.
EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally.
They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actual value of their environmental benefit rather than a politically decided subsidy. California is already discussing doing it's own Cap and Trade market. Instead of subsidizing "zero emission" cars, it creates a market cost for carbon emissions, and raises the prices of gas engined cars, and not just newly purchased cars, all cars.
And it's fair, if your Tesla gets all of it's electricity from coal fired plants, you'll pay your fair share for that plants emissions.
Is Tesla in trouble financially? And I mean actual can-no-longer-be-profitable type trouble? That seems an odd call given that they've so far planned pretty comprehensively, and delivered pretty much on their plans, and those plans would have included the existing subsidy ending as soon as they hit higher volumes.
The fact that they're hellbent on hitting those higher volumes ASAP indicates to me that they know they'll still be profitable after the subsidies are gone. In fact, they'll probably gain some advantage from the fact, as the only EV manufacturer operating at any kind of volume, because it will raise the barrier to entry for newer, still-lower-volume manufacturers.
So yeah, nice windfall for Tesla, but 'bailout' seems somewhat loaded.
They raised a ton of money recently to cover the continuing investment they forecast needing to make it to profitability. But they then turned around and bought hemorrhaging Solar City, so it's unclear how long the cash will last and whether it's long enough.
So if a P100D has the 0 to 60 of an exotic, but all the interior fit and polish of a base trim CLA, taxpayers should... cover the difference in price to a CLA? There has to be something missing here.
Nope, you got it. Small group of people get to decide which products get how much in subsidies, and by extension, which companies get how much taxpayer money. Also, since it's a per-vehicle subsidy, it rewards large companies over small ones. (Not to mention wealthy consumers over poorer ones.)
yeah as someone that bikes 25 miles per day for commute it kinda bothers me how many tax breaks are given to other forms of commute like trains, buses, vansharing, EV, etc.
> Wow, if they're giving that much away to EV buyers, just think how much they'll hand out to people who walk to work!
Well, if you walk (or bike) to work, your public subsidy is not paying gas taxes (and, having the option to not even pay regular sales tax on your fuel.) If your personal vehicle choice is “I walk or bike everywhere, so I don't need a car”, your additional public subsidy is not paying Vehicle License Fee.
Sure, those are actually public levies on those making the alternative choice, but that's equivalent to a public subsidy for your choice, just with a shift in what is the baseline case.
It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.
> Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth
California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits.
dragonwriter|8 years ago
The rebate plan does not do at all what the article claims; specifically, for instance, it does not establish a new general rebate that is designed to match the difference between an electric vehicle's price and that of a non-electric vehicle with similar features. Instead, it establishes a declining rebate for compact electric vehicles that starts at an initial level that would provide an approximate net purchase price after all existing incentives equal to the most commonly sold compact vehicle in the State, but where the rebate level would decline with EV penetration by income segment. (Health and Safety Code 44215.4, as added by the bill.)
In fact, there was no specific rebate plan in the version passed by the Assembly, which notionally is the subject of the article; there was a requirement for the PUC to adopt incentives. The sources the article relied on (assuming BI doesn't misrepresent then) were either inventing bill content from whole cloth or speculating about what the PUC might do; in any case, the bill has been significantly revised already in the Senate, to address the same broad purpose but to be more specific about program parameters and move the primary administrative responsibility for programs to the Air Resources Board rather than the PUC.
dragonwriter|8 years ago
Someone|8 years ago
aphextron|8 years ago
EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
dragonwriter|8 years ago
Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market.
Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
RodericDay|8 years ago
valuearb|8 years ago
EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally.
They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actual value of their environmental benefit rather than a politically decided subsidy. California is already discussing doing it's own Cap and Trade market. Instead of subsidizing "zero emission" cars, it creates a market cost for carbon emissions, and raises the prices of gas engined cars, and not just newly purchased cars, all cars.
And it's fair, if your Tesla gets all of it's electricity from coal fired plants, you'll pay your fair share for that plants emissions.
taneq|8 years ago
The fact that they're hellbent on hitting those higher volumes ASAP indicates to me that they know they'll still be profitable after the subsidies are gone. In fact, they'll probably gain some advantage from the fact, as the only EV manufacturer operating at any kind of volume, because it will raise the barrier to entry for newer, still-lower-volume manufacturers.
So yeah, nice windfall for Tesla, but 'bailout' seems somewhat loaded.
valuearb|8 years ago
BoorishBears|8 years ago
JumpCrisscross|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
woodandsteel|8 years ago
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/18/chevy-bolt-production-r...
Anybody have an idea why?
gfody|8 years ago
Wow what is it about Visalia and Tulare that would cause something like this?
Fricken|8 years ago
givemefive|8 years ago
dragonwriter|8 years ago
Well, if you walk (or bike) to work, your public subsidy is not paying gas taxes (and, having the option to not even pay regular sales tax on your fuel.) If your personal vehicle choice is “I walk or bike everywhere, so I don't need a car”, your additional public subsidy is not paying Vehicle License Fee.
Sure, those are actually public levies on those making the alternative choice, but that's equivalent to a public subsidy for your choice, just with a shift in what is the baseline case.
_jezell_|8 years ago
JumpCrisscross|8 years ago
California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits.
[1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...