Threat to Teslas in California Carpool Lane - immediate action required!

Threat to Teslas in California Carpool Lane - immediate action required!

Sorry for cross-posting but many don’t have time to read all threads any more.

There’s a bill up for vote in the CA Legislature that threatens to kill EV access to HOV (Carpool) lanes in California.
AB 1964 would:
- extend green sticker (Plug-In Hybrid) status in the carpool lanes until 2021.
- kill white sticker (Battery EVs) status in the carpool lanes in 2019.
- place income restrictions on carpool sticker applicants.

I don’t know who sponsored this but it smells like an attack on Tesla by the legacy ICE auto companies or their shills.

If you want to have or keep carpool access, you must immediately contact your California legislator and tell him/her to vote against this bill.


Red Sage ca us | 23 august 2016

Shouldn't that be the other way around...? Only with an extension to 2025 for fully electric vehicles?

Earl and Nagin ... | 24 august 2016

Are you saying it should be and extension to 2025 or there is something in the bill that provides an extension for white stickers?

Red Sage ca us | 25 august 2016

No. What I'm saying is that if the Federal provision for EVs lasts through 2025... There is no reason to limit the State level provision to 2019 or 2021. It seems that the instant something looks like it's going to actually work, to make an actual change in market environment, Politicians opt to pull support.

leskchan | 25 august 2016

It has nothing to with Federal Regulations or state policy. It's matter of lane capacity. HOV lane can only take so many cars until it gets congested. The change is to avoid that, otherwise HOV becomes regular lanes.

This same situation will be true for Tesla Supercharging. It is free for S and X. However, it cannot be free for 3 because the sheer volume will flood these locations. Tesla must charge for Model 3 owners if they want to use them to 1) reduce congestion 2) use the proceed to expand the network.

Red Sage ca us | 25 august 2016

leskchan: That is like saying that if people were to actually carpool in their cars, filling all seats on their way to and from work, there would be more traffic on the freeway. That is [BOLSHEVIK]. Tesla Motors is the only major automobile manufacturer with a 100% fully electric fleet. GM will barely reach 1% by offering the Chevrolet BOLT. No way those cars will overwhelm HOV lanes, as the Prius certainly hasn't and those are EVERYWHERE in Los Angeles.

damonmath | 25 august 2016

The current CA HOV white stickers expire in 2019 anyways. This is no different than the expiration of the earlier prius hybrids. What has changed?

leskchan | 25 august 2016

@Red Sage ca us

With Tesla, Nissan, BWM, GM, and Ford EV adoption they will overwhelm HOV lanes.

Incentive is designed to encourage some behavior, until the goal is achieved or saturation. Ex: $7,500 EV credit expiries after 200,000 car per manufacturer. Same will go towards HOV.

Dac | 25 august 2016


If their concern is overwhelming HOV lanes, then why are they excluding BEV's and including/extending for Hybrids? There are far less BEV's than hybrids on the roads.

Dac | 25 august 2016

It would seem more logical to do the opposite to avoid HOV congestion. Especially since BEV's are more effective the Hybrids at reducing emissions.

JeffreyR | 25 august 2016

The fact that it puts an income cap on the HOV sticker points directly to Tesla owners and not capacity. By definition if you are making above-average income there are few of you. Also, right now Teslas cost a lot more than the average person can afford.

Definitely seems like an attack on Tesla to me.

leskchan | 25 august 2016

Incentive to produce certain behaviors. HOV is the reward for complying. BEV is not as environmentally as desirable, so there is no incentive to encourage. Hybrid incentive is done. Plugin Hybrid is still available and should be treated the same as EV, until the behavior is achieved.

The behavior is replace ICE with zero to ultra-low vehicle. Tax credit and HOV privileged are just some rewards.

Dac | 25 august 2016


No matter how "environmentally friendly" you think or don't think BEV's are, how could you possible think Plugin Hybrids are better?

leskchan | 25 august 2016

The income requirement is for further reducing the number of EV in HOV. Let use some example math:

The cheapest EV in the near market is Tesla 3 for $35,000. Great price, easily affordable to rich, and mostly affordable to the poor. Assuming 100K or the 400K Model is delivered in California. You buy the to drive, not park. So in essence you are moving 100K car from regular to HOV lanes. Each year after there will be more on the road.

Assuming that's too many. You have find a fair way to cut the number. It can just be first come first serve. Income is used as a cutoff criteria. It's just like IRS deduction, some are subject to income limits.

leskchan | 25 august 2016


I misunderstood your BEV, I thought you meant Bio Fuel. I think you meant Battery Electric. It still hold true. There will a flood of BEV in the next few years on the road. Objective achieved for EV.

BEV vs Plugin Hybrid. People who still needs a Plugin Hybrid because EV won't provide them the daily range they just drive more. The goal is to reduce to encourage ICE drivers to move over to Plugin. These ICE will not get into EV.

leskchan | 25 august 2016


I forgot to mention one important. This is about extending the status of Green and White stickers, not issuing them.

85,000 Green (Plugin Hybrid) stickers have been issued. No more new ones. You have one, you can still use it until 2021. So there will not be anymore than 85,000 Plugin Hybrid.

White Stickers (BEV) is still being issued and has no limit.

To the point, it's not against Tesla, hence the unlimited availability of White Stickers. "dot" gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm

stevenmaifert | 25 august 2016

As I read the bill, the income restrictions for the HOV lane stickers kicks in only if you also get a CVRP rebate. I don't know how you could interpret this bill being aim solely at Tesla. You could buy a Leaf, qualify for the CVRP rebate, whose income limits are higher than the HOV income limits, and still not qualify for the HOV sticker because of the lower income limits. If your income is too high to qualify for the CVRP, you could still get the HOV sticker as those limits would not then apply, or you could forgo the CVRP (dumb thing to do) and get the HOV sticker. If Gov. Brown and the legislature don't resolve their differences on the CA cap-and-trade program extension by the end of the legislative session Aug. 31, then none of the foregoing will matter for this fiscal year as the CVRP funding is being held hostage so no rebates.

Red Sage ca us | 25 august 2016

leskchan: The only 'environmental behavior' that will be encouraged by extending HOV benefits to plug-in hybrids is that of lining the pockets of politicians and regulators with under-the-table cash from petroleum providers and ICE manufacturers.

Earl and Nagin ... | 25 august 2016

I think you folks are missing the point. This law overrides the current law and automatically extends Green (PHEV) stickers until 2021. The current law calls for a review in 2019 where they will evaluate the state of the carpool lanes and technology. Given the launch of the Model III and other EVs, the result will most likely be to kick Green stickers out of the carpool lane to make more room for more White (EV) stickers. This is exactly what they did back when the kicked the yellow (hybrid) stickers out of the carpool to make room for the more environmental green sticker cars as they came to market.
With this law, it is unlikely that any Model III owners will get any carpool stickers although Volt and energi drivers will -- through 2021.
If you don't like this idea, you might want to contact your representatives and tell them immediately that this makes no sense. Grousing around this forum won't do much.

Linemanap | 30 august 2016

Its a car pool lane not a smug self righteous fast lane for ev. Get another person in the car or get out of the lane. What does HOV stand for? Oh that's right

SCCRENDO | 30 august 2016

@Linemanap. It's about decreasing pollution. More than 1 in a vehicle reduces the number of vehicles on the road. An Ev causes no pollution so they deserve carpool privileges more than 2 people in an ICE or even hybrid. Trucks and large gas guzzlers without multiple people are severe polluters and should not be allowed in even with multiple passengers.

grishmanp | 30 august 2016

@stevenmaifert CVRP rebate is dead anyway, right?

Red Sage ca us | 31 august 2016

SCCRENDO: If I might add...? I believe it was originally about decreasing fuel consumption. It later expanded to include decreasing pollution and relieving traffic. All those goals are served by moving people who are traveling between destinations into a single vehicle instead of two, or three, or four instead.

Linemanap: C'mon, MAN! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being smug or self-righteous. (smileyfacegrin)

SCCRENDO | 31 august 2016

@Redsage. But served even better when you use no fuel.

Red Sage ca us | 31 august 2016

SCCRENDO: Yes, perhaps even best served.

stevenmaifert | 31 august 2016

@grishmanp - CVRP is not dead. There is money in the program, but the legislature has to authorize spending it and the governor has to sign the authorization bill for each fiscal year. So far, that hasn't happen for FY17 which started on July 1.

Linemanap | 2 september 2016

Let me get out my handicap sticker even though I can walk just fine so i can park closer and take that spot away from someone who really needs it

makobill | 2 september 2016

Comparing handicap parking to HOV lane usage? Nobody "needs" HOV access. I'm new here, but gotta call Bolshevik on that one.

HOV is a political tool to encourage specific driving behaviors. With emphasis on the political...

lilbean | 2 september 2016

The HOV lanes on the 405 are so packed. Traffic often moves slower in that lane.

Linemanap | 3 september 2016

I think HOV lanes like handicap parking spots should be used by people who need them. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The state giving you a sticker doesn't make it right for you take up space in the HOV lane just because you have an EV. Let the 5 people crammed into a Honda Civic have that space. Yes I know you are doing so much more for your fellow man by driving an EV then those poor bastards in that polluting ice car but I still don't think it's right

Red Sage ca us | 7 september 2016

Linemanap: Originally, the 'Letter of the Law' in California stated there must be at least two licensed drivers in the front seat of a car to use the HOV lane for carpools. So, at first, the CHP had a field day issuing citations in bulk to Moms who were shuttling their Children about town, filling up rear seats. Because, since they were minors, they obviously could not produce a driver's license, tickets piled up and were protested in masse in courtrooms across the State. Eventually, the CHP was asked to kindly follow the 'Spirit of the Law' in that regard, issuing tickets to blatant violators who rode alone in the HOV lane. I think the actual law may have been changed since.

Incidentally, my Aunt told me that the only reason she uses a handicapped parking placard is that her Doctor insisted. She went to her annual checkup and the Doctor asked if she had one, or wanted one. She said no, she was fine, those should go to people who 'really need them'. The Doctor told her that whether she believed it or not, anyone and everyone over the age of 70 was handicapped by default, and they should take advantage of the benefit while they can.

All those 'poor bastards' that are rolling in gas guzzlers at peak speeds of 11 MPH need to see there is a benefit of traveling a different way on their daily commute. Seeing electric cars whiz by at a mind boggling 40 MPH in the diamond lane may well be enough to convince more of them to consider alternative fuel vehicles if they are unable to carpool. That has the further benefit of greatly reducing consumption of fossil fuels while also working toward the elimination of smog.

With only one mass market automobile manufacturer selling a fleet of 100% electric vehicles, and barely 1% of fleets from traditional automobile manufacturers offering zero emissions vehicles, this is not the time to eliminate the incentives simply because it seems they will actually work as intended if given a few more years. If the new vehicles on the road in California are 20% or more electric by 2025, go ahead and stop the HOV lane incentive program. If that number remains less than 2%, leave it alone and look into it again in another decade or so.

carlos | 7 september 2016

I say end all entitlements......