By on June 25, 2011

Ever so environmentally conscious California  offered its citizen a rebate up to $5,000 if they buy an electric car. That and the $7,500 federal tax credit adds up to a good chunk of money. 1978 vehicles later, the state is out of funds. No more. According to the California Air Resources Board, “the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project may run out by July due to high consumer demand.”  May run out? It already did.

If you go to this page, you will see that California’s clean kitty of  $11.1 million is already empty. People are already on a waiting list.

The California Air Resources Board has requested more money, between $12 million and $17 million. It hopes the money will be available in fall. Then, however, the rebate amount should be halved to $2,500 says the ARB. Also, “even with the anticipated increased number of rebates available, this funding is limited and may not be sufficient to meet consumer demand next year, so consumers are encouraged to apply early.”

You don’t need to wait until new fund become available. Hand in your application, and you will land on the waiting list. Then pray that the ARB will receive the funding it requested.

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

24 Comments on “EV Subsidies: California Runs Out Of Juice...”


  • avatar

    1978 cars sold in a state with a population of around 36-38 million is not exactly an overwhelming consumer response. That rate would be equivalent to about 18,000 cars in the whole United States.

    • 0 avatar
      PintoFan

      It is when you consider that basically no new EV’s were available 2 years ago. You could have said the same thing about horse versus car sales at the beginning of the 20th century.

      • 0 avatar
        vww12

        Funny, you could have said the same thing about electric versus gasoline cars sales at the beginning of the 20th century, back when most cars were electric and hardly any used gasoline.

        The other funny thing is the people of a certain IQ who do not realize that cars did not receive any subsidy of any sort… cars simply won in the marketplace because cars are better than horses.

      • 0 avatar
        M 1

        @vww12… and gasoline cars won out over electric cars because…

  • avatar
    obbop

    My invention failed to enrichen me.

    Just no demand for disc buggy brakes.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    SO 1978 cars at $5,000 each is $9.89 million, leaving $1.21 million for program oversight or only 11% of the total funding went towards nothing whatsoever productive. Quite excellent for a government handout, actually.

  • avatar
    PintoFan

    I know California is broke, but I hope that they can scrape together the funding necessary to keep it going. A gas tax would work well here, although I’m sure I’ll get an earful from the combustionistas for even suggesting it.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Brilliant. With the state nearing bankruptcy and soon to be a burden on the rest of the nation, we should continue throwing subsidies at rich people’s second and third car purchases.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        Which is why I proposed a tax to fund it, so the money wouldn’t be coming out of general revenue. You act as though nobody but the ultra-wealthy is buying these cars, which isn’t true anyway. But if electric cars are going to become more widespread, they need to come within the price ranges that regular consumers can afford. A subsidy is one way to accomplish this. Taking the money out of the fuel for the vehicles of yesteryear is only logical.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        A gas tax is levied for this purpose is still a subsidy of people who can afford the luxury of multiple cars, or at least cars that either cost well above comparable compacts or that don’t acually do the job of a real car. Driving a $20,000+ golf kart is a luxury, as it reveals the existence of either a 2nd car or the resources to rent when you need to leave town. Gas taxes are also regressive, meaning that the burden will be greatest on the working poor so that people who don’t know where battery materials come from can be self-righteous.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        The point of the subsidy is to stimulate consumer demand, which then drives the push for technological innovation as consumers buy more electric cars. This in turn brings them within the price ranges affordable to the “working poor.”

      • 0 avatar
        MikeAR

        How do you know that it’s not true that only rich people are buying EVs? Can you cite a source for that?

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        CJinSD is right. Subsidies for these vehicles are basically anti-poor.

        Nobody is buying an EV as their sole vehicle, due to the range limitations. And if someone is springing for a Volt to avoid range limitations, they aren’t among the ‘poor’, when that car’s list price is $41k.

        PintoFan, you assume that there is actually a need for EVs; there isn’t. The net energy consumption and infrastructure burden of these cars is debatable. Remove the subsidies and see how much demand there really is. The same argument applies to ethanol.

        This doesn’t mean I’m not an EV fan – I am. I particularly like the Leaf, and would take advantage of the subsidy. But subsidies unfairly burden other taxpayers with my consumer choice.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    Brilliant. With the state nearing bankruptcy and soon to be a burden on the rest of the nation, we should continue throwing subsidies at rich people’s second and third car purchases.

    This make a hell lot of sense, when municipal worker, Police, teachers, Village people et al are all competing on the same meagre source!
    Should tell these clean air folks to walk.

  • avatar
    HoldenSSVSE

    But wait a minute, I thought that the California tax break on Leaf purchases was going to be the death of the Chevy Volt?

    Oh well, I guess the good citizens of California won’t be getting a tax hand out from the near bankrupt state when they buy the last of the $109,000 Tesla Roadsters. I’m not exactly sure why George Clooney needs a government hand out to buy a Tesla (just name dropping, I have no idea if Clooney owns, or would own one – don’t be so damn literally) or any other, “look at me I’m saving the planet,” EV vehicles.

    All of the tax breaks, going back to the original hybrid tax breaks that Toyota lapped up like honey are bogus. The free market should be allowed to decide what the free market wants to decide.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      The Chevy Cruze will mean the death of the Chevy Volt.

      • 0 avatar
        HoldenSSVSE

        Now THAT I would believe. For the short term if a customer walks into a Chevy dealer to look at a money losing Volt, and drives off on a pays the bills and profitable Chevy Cruze – I call that a win.

        The same strategy worked great for Toyota. Although the Prius has sold well historical (sales are down about 50% from the peak, and this was even before the earthquake and the 4-day inventory level), the same applies; if someone walks in to a Toyota dealer in 2005 and doesn’t buy a money losing Prius (Prius started turning a profit per unit about 2007-2008) but drives off in a Corolla or 4-banger Camry LE – big win for Toyota.

  • avatar
    obbop

    “combustionistas”

    Nifty nomenclature!!!!!

  • avatar
    dwford

    It’s bad enough that we subsidize poor people’s poor life choices. Why do wee need to subsidize rich people’s need to green wash their personal image?

  • avatar
    amca

    California is like a guy who knows he’s bankrupt, but decides to run up the credit cards in the run-up to the actual bankruptcy filing.

    • 0 avatar
      BigFire

      Or like Michael Vicks buying a brand new Mercedes-Benz on credit card on his way to serve his sentence and promptly left the car outside the jail. What are they going to do, he declared bankruptcy.

  • avatar
    PHDC

    BREAKING NEWS!: Washington Post charges White House and Department of Energy with corruption and bribe-taking in funding (and not funding) green energy projects. Details at:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-focus-on-visiting-clean-tech-companies-raises-questions/2011/06/24/AGSFu9kH_story.html?nav=emailpage

    Also see updates to background of this story at:

    http://corruptiondoe.weebly.com

    This is why there has not been a single mainstream-market American all-electric car built since the program started in 2008. Write the media and demand an FBI and Dept. of Justice public investigation & hearing. The White House and certain politicians have stopped the law enforcement agencies from investigating this. Tell them you know what is up and to get the investigation going!

  • avatar

    So the electricity to run these EV’s. What is it’s source? Solar? Wind? Wishful thinking? More than likely it’s carbon based combustion heating water to produce steam. So much for us “combustionistas”!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India