CARB Considers Eliminating Tesla Model S and Cadillac ELR From CVRP Rebate Program !!
Bad idea. Some of us are stretching to purchase a Tesla and the rebate really does make a difference. If I didn't buy a Tesla I wouldn't buy a cheaper EV, I'd probably buy a comparatively optioned BMW or Mercedes that was $10k less to offset the tax savings. The atmosphere does not care how much the car cost that the tailpipe emissions came out of, and neither should CARB. They are confusing their environmental mission with a social one.
I disagree with their decision. Each car contributes equally to their mission.
Other states - like NJ - do not charge sales tax. That I disagree with, since Tesla purchases get a bigger break that less expensive cars.
The sales tax (on any of the cars) is much more than the $2500 - so it could be viewed simply as a reduced sales tax on qualifying vehicles.
So much for the argument that Tesla purchases are not driven by the rebates - Tesla says dropping it from $10,000 to $7,500 by eliminating the CA portion would cut their sales in half!!
Reduce defense spending and reroute funds to this. Like much of western stuff, Chinese (Russia currently does not get this) will figure out weaponizing against someone living on same planet is dumb and will cut spending because they can't fight smog with missiles. Russians will get that their current route is a misguided one quickly also.
It is true, luxury vehicles may not be the prime candidates in the long run, but the solution isn't in curbing spending on this but increasing it.
@tes-s, where did Tesla say that? I didn't see it in this article.
oops can't delete. I guess they did sort of say that...
More evidence that CARB has fallen into the pockets of the fool cell industry.
@useless: You are right. Tesla said "could jeopardize" not "would cut" 2,500 cars, which is half their annual sales in CA.
+1 Jonathan, my sentiments exactly.
@Mike C +1 And oil industry. They have finally found something that will continue to use fossil fuel and can utilize their filling station infrastructures too.
So... Business as usual in government. Put together an experimental program. Be surprised that it is actually working. Gimp it so that it is of no use to anyone. Cancel it because it isn't meeting minimum requirements. File a study with the results that proclaims the experiment was a failure and no one should ever bother with this course of action. The end.
Be sure and write the board and give them sound reasons why this shouldn't happen. They are supposed to work for you and be concerned about getting as many zero emission vehicles on the road as possible.
Changes like this were a part of what killed the electric car the first time. The loss of incentives shut down the industry for 15 years.
They could maybe try not offering the rebate to any car that has a combustion engine in it of any kind. At that point some car makers may suddenly discover they can cram a few more batteries in somewhere.
Whenever I read the pitiful sizes of the battery packs that are in the 'competitors' to Tesla Motors, I don't know whether to laugh or weep.
Makes total sense as a flat subsidy creates a much bigger percentage discount off a cheaper car.
If CARB has limited $, obviously better to direct it at cheaper cars to drive EV adoption.
Does anyone have a link or email address to write CARB?
So you pay $30,000 extra (that you wouldn't pay if you chose another car) for a 85 kWh battery pack.
You get a $2,500 rebate.
The rebate is merely the *additional* sales tax that you had to pay for the big battery.
So if you instead don't buy a Tesla, and you therefore save the $30,000 on the purchase price, you don't get a rebate (nor do you pay the offsetting sales tax on the $30k battery).
It's a total wash from the state's point of view.
Sales Tax on battery is completely offsetting the rebate.
Go buy an ICE car instead -- on the one hand, no rebate check. On the other hand, no offsetting sales tax either.
So why is there a fuss over this?
I always looked at the rebate from ca. as a rebate of a portion of the sales tax. I felt this was fair since the model S is a car that many people buy when the don't actually need a new car. That was certainly the case for me. While a discount on sales tax is nice, I don't really think the loss of the rebate will affect sales that much.
Here is information on the ZEV program modifications that are getting butchered. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/zev2013/zev2013.htm
Check out the list of commenters and comments: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=zev2013
Unfortunately, the public comment period closed for these proposed modifications just yesterday. It might be worth a formal protest since we are just learning about it now. The entire list of proposed changes was alarming. Here is just one example of a "minor modification".
"Though staff does recognize the potential for a battery exchange to help market the vehicle, other vehicles earning Type IV and V ZEV credit depend on fast refueling for vehicle operation and success. Staff is
proposing to remove battery exchange from qualifying under the fast refueling definition, starting in 2015 model year.
"Hydrogen fast refueling capable Type V ZEVs will still earn 9 credits each in model years 2015 through 2017 upon placement in service. Staff believes it is important to maintain the difference in credit level between the two ZEV technologies to ensure appropriate incentives are in
place to support hydrogen technologies as infrastructure ramps up through 2017. Hydrogen remains a long term solution for all vehicle classes, and is essential for meeting California’s long term air quality and GHG reduction goals."
Not only are they trying to kill battery swap program altogether even though it might be critical for fleet adoption, they are favoring another technology that has so many significant shortcomings.
Contact info for CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/contact.htm
Ombudsman contact info: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/omb/omb.htm
From the Ombudsman page: "Frequently, small businesses, community activists, and private citizens do not have the necessary resources to play a major role in the development of regulations that affect them. If you have an interest in a specific air quality issue, the Ombudsman and her staff can help you gain access to the regulatory process. We want everyone who chooses to do so, to have an opportunity to participate in the development of California's air quality programs. We will work with you to determine ways in which you can get involved."
Public Meeting about rebate program waiting list on April 25th.
April 21 is the deadline for written comments.
Proposal to eliminate Tesla Model S and Cadillac ELR due to $60k+ price is on page 23.
They need to know that a less expensive vehicle wouldn't have been capable of making EVs viable and mainstream. They still need to maintain that pricing until the technology can get scaled up and until the general public is willing to make the leap to new technology. It is a matter of risk reduction for the manufacturer and for the consumer.
They want to kill a program that created the success they were seeking. I don't agree with some of the information they used to promote a decision to eliminate the more advanced EVs that can travel longer distances. It essentially is because someone labeled the cars as luxury and the buyers as rich people that would have paid more anyway.
I can't find the appropriate place to comment on the modification. Perhaps it will be addressed at the April 24 & 25 Public Meetings.
Contacts are at the end of this presentation:
More commenting information:
Denying Tesla vehicles this rebate punishes the innovator who's having the greatest effect on EV adoption.
Tesla is the first and only manufacturer to build a car with sufficient range to convince buyers that an EV is a viable, mainstream alternative.
Many people who normally don't buy premium cars stretched hard to buy a Tesla, because it could viably replace their consumption of gas.
It is those mid-income buyers who would be most harmed by this proposed change. Those people on the margin would be prevented from switching to an EV because of a very discriminatory decimation of the law.
Today, buying a lower-end EV means having to keep a gas car for longer trips (and probably an older, higher pollution model at that). This does not help reduce the population of gas cars.
This proposed discriminatory revision defeats the chartered purpose of the law, and conflicts with the CARB, mission, which is to reduce air pollution.
The factions attempting this cynical change will see very fierce pushback.
The staff commentary in favor of Hydrogen is evidence of bias coherent with gasoline vehicle manufacturers.
The proposed revision does not discriminate against the rich, but instead against range.
Low to mid income buyers who need range would be shut out, resulting in more gasoline cars on the road.
This is truly the opposite of the CARB mission.
Based on sales, GM may eliminate the ELR, before CARB does anything. That would place CARB in the position of singling out Tesla.
Well the silver lining in this it that it might push Tesla to get Gen 3 out faster. Gen 3 would still get the credit etc..
Captain_Zap - Thanks for posting the reference material. So it would be an across the board reduction in the rebate amounts, with a $60K purchase price cap. I think Tesla is overstating the projected impact on their CA sales if this rebate goes away. Their comments about this and the loss of the CARB "fast fueling" incentive credits that they sell just gives ammunition to the naysayers who argue green companies like Tesla can't survive without government subsidy to incentivize the production and sale of their product. Tesla - lay low and press on!
We are only talking about $2,500 on a generally $100,000 car. That's 2.5% of the car's cost. I don't think anyone would really use this as a reason not to purchase a Model S. Now it would be a bigger deal if we were talking about the federal tax credit, but we're not. We're just talking about California. I doubt it would have any impact on Model S sales.
@Mark K +1. Range should be part of the equation too. I would think Leaf owners tend to drive another ICE car more so than MS owners because of the range limitation.
Here is GA we get a $5,000 rebate. The republicans tried to remove it this year but did not get the bill passed in time. It will be gone next year.
The sad part is that I paid about $6,400 in sales tax. I would NOT have bought any other car from any other manufacture so the state would NOT have made over $1,400 off of me even with the rebate.
It is true that I might have purchased the car anyway, but it was a huge Plus to have this credit at the state level and I might not have done it without it....