Does anyone know any more details about this than what's mentioned in the article? I have never heard of this before. What are the odds this will happen soon enough for early/mid reservation holders for the Model 3? http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-subsidies-2017...
I think this is designated for 2018. But the thing about 'instant rebates' is that dealers (not Tesla) will just not give a reduction in price but instead tout the 'instant rebate'. Which means the dealer is actually reaping the reward.
The way the legislation is currently written, the price of an EV will be reduced at the point of sale by an amount equal to the difference between the price of the EV and the price of an equivalent ICE vehicle. One of the big unknowns is who decides what those model equivalencies are.
The effect is to bring the buyer's cost down to what the equivalent ICE car would cost. The dealer gets the difference from the State, the buyer gets a lower purchase price.
I wouldn't characterize Tesla as "reaping the reward" from the instant rebate.
Tesla sells the car for $35,000 and it gets exactly that amount in the old system or the new system.
There is no gain here.
The only potential gain is to encourage people to buy more Tesla except Tesla is saying it is not keeping up with the demand in the first place, thus, that is more pressure.
The disadvantage for Tesla is:
1) In the old system it would get $35,000 from customer right away without wait without filing any rebate paper work.
2) Now, the burden of paperwork and wait time will be shifted from the owner who used to file for rebates to Tesla who will have to remind the government where's its money because it didn't get a total of $35,000 for the sale yet.
I excepted Tesla in my statement.
I was referring to Dealers (meaning auto sales people that bargain with the sales price). Tesla's prices are fixed.
Not sure how that new 'rebate' system will pan out in Tesla's case, but with others - where more often they will offer you something off the price of the car (sticker) - now they will just reap that bonus from the rebate without offering the said discount - thus benefiting the Dealer who now will get full sticker (your money plus the 'rebate' money).
Sorry. You are right. That makes sense now. I've been in the cult for so long so I am brainwashed and still thinking about Tesla fixed price and didn't even reorient myself that traditional Dealers are still practicing different pricing.
The model 3 is is actually cheaper than the "equivalent ICE car", so I wonder how they will treat it. They may choose to be generous with "equivalent" and compare to a Ford versus a BMW.
That's an interesting thought, Agent_86.
And....it was scrapped. :(
Yes, I saw that, thank you KP. Well that really bucking flows.
Well, it was a lot of money. And eventually EVs will need to be able stand on their own merits without government subsidies so it might as well be sooner than later. I think the net effect on Tesla is that they'll need to lower prices faster than they would with the increased subsidies. The company won't make as much profit but they'll still churn out (and sell) cars as fast as they can.
To be clear, the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Program is not going away, it just won't be expanded as this legislation proposed.
Well, CVRP may not be 'going away', but it is currently unfunded, which is the next best thing...
Has funding been extended? Is any extension in sight? They have a small bit of funding left for low income applicants, but the usual extension process does not seem to be happening this year. As far as I can see, the whole program is up in the air - it may or may not pay rebates going forward. Anyone have better information?
We'll know by September 15. I would expect more funding to be forthcoming given the program's importance in helping to meet state mandated greenhouse gas reductions and goals for increasing the number of EVs.
An extra $10k instant rebate on all new EVs sold in Calif would hugely accelerate the cause. Many people still don't/won't buy EVs because of the cost. That's the #1 and main reason EVs aren't dominant as of yet. Once you get a 400 mile range EV for under $20k, that will truly be a mass market electric vehicle. A fat state rebate would certainly push this goal in the right direction.
No, it's not better sooner than later. I disagree with that statement. EV's don't/won't need subsidies like this forever. Just until battery prices drop and range increases at a price point competitive with or ahead of ICE vehicles.. Technology always move forward and this will surely happen. How much and how fast is what no one really knows for sure. Until then, it's best entice John Q Carbuyer with huge rebates and subsidies.
I hope you guys can read Typonese well. It's the only language I speak fluently.
We read you loud and clear. We all speak typonese fluently at times!
Nice forum name.
coolnewworld | "Until then, it's best entice John Q Carbuyer with huge rebates and subsidies."
Sure. Because huge rebates and subsidies can be provided at no cost to anyone. It's not as if taxpayers could otherwise use that money to feed their families, educate their children, or otherwise improve their lives. Best to use their money for huge rebates and subsidies for electric car makers and buyers.
Nice sarcastic, and completely lame comment there pal. LOL
Money to pay for these rebates was to come from California's cap and trade fees, (NOT FROM "TAXPAYERS WHO NEED TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES, EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN, OR OTHERWISE IMPROVE THEIR LIVES." as you claim.) Also, who's talking about "subsidies for electric car makers" here? There are none in this bill. Just more poorly thought out, paranoid fantasy on your part. I'm not mad at you Phil. Just very disappointed.
Money from cap and trade should most DEFINITELY be used for rebates to buyers.
Government encourages things society wants and discourages things society doesn't want - that's the point of government in the first place. Now it is only a question if you think cleaner air and a more stable climate is something worth taxing for. Sunset clauses should be inserted into any legislation as tax breaks are always addictive - see the oil and gas subsidies.
I don't know why you're getting so defensive. I clearly stated up front that "huge rebates and subsidies can be provided at no cost to anyone." The money "comes from cap and trade fees". We all know that's a limitless, magical source of funds that could never be used for any other purpose, such as reducing the crushing tax burden of California's non-EV-buyers. And let's face it, if they're not buying EVs, then they can go straight to hell anyway.
Companies that pay Cap and Trade fees never pass that expense on to consumers... Right?
@cool - The #1 and main reason EVs aren't dominant as of yet is range anxiety. The extra cost is recovered in fuel and maintenance savings. Visit any National Drive Electric Week event happening today or this week and ask a non-owner what is the single most reason they haven't yet gone electric.
No, I disagree completely. That's not what I hear at all Steve, because I'm also one of these people... I know 99% non-bev owners and 200 mile range is plenty. It's $40,000+ cost that is the only thing keeping them from reserving/buying now.
As for phil....of course. Fees that are raised from companies shouldn't be used for this, except that's exactly how this works. This is how it was explained (again and again) prior to passage on July 25th.... "This agreement would not only extend the world’s strongest cap-and-trade program beyond 2020, it would generate billions in new investment to reduce emissions while requiring stricter use of carbon offsets under the system."
Gee, it appears that "generating billions in new investment to reduce emissions" have ZERO to do with "taxpayers could otherwise use that money to feed their families, educate their children, or otherwise improve their lives," Your scathing fantasy of what this money is supposed to be used for is just that: A fantasy. Your short-sightedness is laughable at best.
"I don't know why you're getting so defensive." I'm denying your ignorance with facts. Why defend the truth? I mean, Trump's president now and we *are* living in a post-truth era, right? Maybe I should just nod and agree no matter how wrong you are. You know little to nothing about this issue, which you've made crystal clear, yet your tone and attitude is pure crap. I'm no expert, but at least I speak factually from the knowledge that I have acquired since I first read about this. At least I try. What have you done, exactly? Make up stuff to suit your narrative?
"And let's face it, if they're not buying EVs, then they can go straight to hell anyway." More stupidity, more arrogance, or maybe you're just jealous of the aim of this program.
@cool - Well, we can agree to disagree, but I just literally returned from the Drive Electric Week Event here in San Diego, and range anxiety was still the number one reason when I talked to people today. The good news is most were encouraged by the longer range EVs coming out like the Model 3 and the Bolt.
When you read the language of AB 1184, it was clearly targeted at low income and disadvantaged Californians and left it up to the CARB to establish income limit guidelines for rebate qualification for the various classes of vehicle equivalencies. Doubt the M3 would have qualified as a Compact vehicle equivalent to an ICE. Anything helps, but I don't think a $10K rebate is realistic.
Ah.....but those people are much more interested from the start. In contrast, I talk to people that don't drive EVs and only have moderate interest only because the price is too high. But they mostly all say if cost came down, theyd jump at one with "reasonable range" (which everyone knows the Leaf and most others dont have yet.) If a Bolt or a 3 base model were $20K-ish, the consensus seems like it would be a no brainer for them to buy one.
We only talk about Tesla and the Bolt, as theyre the only viable options if they were priced lower. This is probably why range anxiety isnt such a big factor when we discuss things.
Yes, the current language indicates it's either mostly DOA or so watered down it won't help California meet it's aggressive emission reduction targets. It's fine though. Tomorrow's another day. :)
CraigW | September 9, 2017 "Government encourages things society wants and discourages things society doesn't want - that's the point of government in the first place."
In fact, that is not the point of government in the first place. The legitimate and original purpose of government is to protect its citizens from aggression.
You are certainly right that governments throughout much of the world have degenerated into bossy nanny states that do indeed 'encourage' government-approved behavior from their citizens. Government was invented to serve us, but has instead become our master. What could possibly go wrong?