More Cash Could Be on the Way for California Electric Car Buyers

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Just as one incentive prepares to fade away, another green vehicle bonus looms on the horizon. California is considering upping the amount of cash buyers of electric vehicles stand to gain from their state government at purchase time — boosting the subsidy from today’s $2,500 to $4,500.

The potential change comes after Tesla reached the 200,000 limit for the full federal EV tax credit in July, with General Motors and Nissan trailing not far behind.

The boosted incentive is just one issue California lawmakers and regulators plan to discuss in hearings this week, Bloomberg reports. Much of the discussion will surely concern the state’s continued ability to set its own clean vehicle and emission mandates — a situation the Trump administration would like to see changed.

Currently, the California Air Resources Board’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) offers buyers of battery-electric vehicles a $2,500 incentive, which can be combined with the $7,500 federal tax credit. Buyers of hydrogen fuel cells see $5,000 under this state program, while plug-in hybrid owners gain $1,500. Since the program’s inception in 2010, California has handed out over $572 million in incentives. Roughly 75 percent of eligible buyers tapped into this MSRP-reducing fund during the first five years.

As the federal government hasn’t renewed the Obama-era federal tax credit program, Tesla buyers stand to see their federal incentive halved starting on New Year’s Day, then halved again on July 1, 2019, before disappearing at the end of the year. GM and Nissan, makers of the Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf, should come up against the 200,000-vehicle threshold within a year. Obviously, losing an incentive could lead to fewer people getting into PHEVs or EVs. California doesn’t want that.

Funding for the existing state incentive program comes from California’s cap-and-trade program, but the additional $2,000 per vehicle, if approved, wouldn’t. That cash would come from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, also overseen by CARB. Under that program, simply put, petroleum-based fuel providers that can’t meet the state fuel carbon standard buy credits from cleaner companies to offset carbon emissions. New revenue is available from this source, Bloomberg reports.

Because it’s coming from a different source, the money might reach buyers at the point of sale, rather than after the purchase. It’s not a done deal yet, however. We’ll update you later this week on whatever California decides.

[Image: General Motors]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 63 comments
  • Redapple Redapple on Sep 26, 2018

    Minimize your footprint. Double GAS taxes. All cars on the road will drive less. 54 MPG Fed Standards will take a decade+ to make a small impact. BroDozers disappear. Yeah!

    • See 3 previous
    • MoparRocker74 MoparRocker74 on Sep 26, 2018

      This kind of fascist crap is why everyone hates greenies so much. Who are you to tell others what theyre supposed to drive, or that our buying habits should be 'modified'? Go live in some 4th world commie/socialist hellhole if that's what you want...there are PLENTY of those.

  • MoparRocker74 MoparRocker74 on Sep 26, 2018

    Nice work, idiots! Doubling down on trying to bribe people into driving horrible ugly weenie pods they don't want! FAIL!!!

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next