California Rebates Funds Exhausted (again)

[johnnylingo]

I realize this is California specific, but since the majority of e-Golf buyers are Golden State, this is worth being aware of:

As of June 30, 2017, only qualified lower-income applicants will receive rebates. ....All other applicants will be placed on a rebate waitlist. Qualified applicants on the rebate waitlist will receive payment if the project receives more funding from the State of California

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng

If I recall, the state budget will be renewed in September, at which point we'll know if funds have been replenished.

I'm getting more and more ticked at the state for doing this. A $2500 rebate is not trivial to a buying or leasing decision, and not having long-term funding is not helping EV adoption.

 

[forbin404]

Still have to wonder who can make $36k and have enough credit to lease an eGolf. Since an eGolf costs $36k (Well less due to deals), it's unreasonable to believe they would buy it with their entire funds

 

[miimura]

The State is committed to this program. It will be funded and everyone on the waiting list will get their money before the end of the year.

 

[RonDawg]

Still have to wonder who can make $36k and have enough credit to lease an eGolf. Since an eGolf costs $36k (Well less due to deals), it's unreasonable to believe they would buy it with their entire funds

Some retired people for instance technically are "low income" but have enough in savings that they can afford the lease payments. They could afford to pay off the lease in one payment (Lincoln at one time offered such a plan) but that's a bad idea in a lease, as you almost never get any money back if the car becomes an insurance write-off.

 

[forbin404]

Still have to wonder who can make $36k and have enough credit to lease an eGolf. Since an eGolf costs $36k (Well less due to deals), it's unreasonable to believe they would buy it with their entire funds

Some retired people for instance technically are "low income" but have enough in savings that they can afford the lease payments. They could afford to pay off the lease in one payment (Lincoln at one time offered such a plan) but that's a bad idea in a lease, as you almost never get any money back if the car becomes an insurance write-off.

But the intention was not 'retirees who don't make much but have ton of $$$$ in the bank' the intention was low income families.

I wouldn't consider an 80 yr old man who has 2 million in the bank but gets $3k/month in SS at the 'poverty level'.

There would be no reason to 'aid' those kind of people.

 

[RonDawg]

You asked who can make as little as $36k/year and can still afford to lease an eGolf, I just gave an answer. I agree it's not fair to subsidize those people but then again we were giving $2500 rebates to millionaires until recently. And unless you live in the Bay Area, or certain parts of LA, $150k/year is doing very well, yet those folks can still get $2500 back.

What makes more sense is to subsidize EV purchases both new and used for low income buyers. With the low prices on late model, low mileage EVs, they're much more affordable and reliable than an equivalent-cost ICEV and a subsidy will make it more so. It also helps the environment as a low-budget car is often high-polluting.

 

[Kosta]

You asked who can make as little as $36k/year and can still afford to lease an eGolf, I just gave an answer. I agree it's not fair to subsidize those people but then again we were giving $2500 rebates to millionaires until recently. And unless you live in the Bay Area, or certain parts of LA, $150k/year is doing very well, yet those folks can still get $2500 back.

What makes more sense is to subsidize EV purchases both new and used for low income buyers. With the low prices on late model, low mileage EVs, they're much more affordable and reliable than an equivalent-cost ICEV and a subsidy will make it more so. It also helps the environment as a low-budget car is often high-polluting.

getting ICE vehicles replaced with EVs is worth the rebate, California should be flush with cash ( green cash ) from the new joint carbon market established with Ontario and Quebec Canada... odd bed fellows , but funds here in Ontario have been politically promised to fund green initiatives, building or transportation ... wondering what California is doing with their share of $$

 

[forbin404]

getting ICE vehicles replaced with EVs is worth the rebate, California should be flush with cash ( green cash ) from the new joint carbon market established with Ontario and Quebec Canada... odd bed fellows , but funds here in Ontario have been politically promised to fund green initiatives, building or transportation ... wondering what California is doing with their share of $$

Building the infamous High Speed Rail.

 

[JoulesThief]

getting ICE vehicles replaced with EVs is worth the rebate, California should be flush with cash ( green cash ) from the new joint carbon market established with Ontario and Quebec Canada... odd bed fellows , but funds here in Ontario have been politically promised to fund green initiatives, building or transportation ... wondering what California is doing with their share of $$

Building the infamous High Speed Rail.

LOL, another union assured jobs and union votes for the Dem party boondogle, that will come in waaay over budget and be under utilized, and never pay for itself, constantly operating at a loss.

 

[johnnylingo]

I agree it's not fair to subsidize those people but then again we were giving $2500 rebates to millionaires until recently. And unless you live in the Bay Area, or certain parts of LA, $150k/year is doing very well, yet those folks can still get $2500 back.

This is why I don't like income-based restrictions for rebates. There's lot of factors other than gross income that affect a person's purchasing decisions and financial status.

Besides, whether the applicant is a prince or pauper, who cares? The whole point of the rebates is to encourage EV usage, which in turn drive demand to improve charging infrastructure, thus making the transition to EVs easier. If anything, I'd move to exclude Tesla, since their charger network is proprietary.

What makes more sense is to subsidize EV purchases both new and used for low income buyers. With the low prices on late model, low mileage EVs, they're much more affordable and reliable than an equivalent-cost ICEV and a subsidy will make it more so. It also helps the environment as a low-budget car is often high-polluting.

Yes, they're low cost but also depreciating rapidly. My lease is essentially $180/month. When I looked in to buying a used Leaf or Focus, I figured it would be $2k/year in depreciation, sales tax, and finance fees. Granted insurance and registration costs would be a bit lower, but point is, even without the rebate, it was a no-brainer to go new.

This being said, I don't disagree with your point. Having a rebate apply to used vehicles does level the playing field a and would do a lot more to encourage conversation for low-income applications.

 

[RonDawg]

I agree it's not fair to subsidize those people but then again we were giving $2500 rebates to millionaires until recently. And unless you live in the Bay Area, or certain parts of LA, $150k/year is doing very well, yet those folks can still get $2500 back.

This is why I don't like income-based restrictions for rebates. There's lot of factors other than gross income that affect a person's purchasing decisions and financial status.

Besides, whether the applicant is a prince or pauper, who cares? The whole point of the rebates is to encourage EV usage, which in turn drive demand to improve charging infrastructure, thus making the transition to EVs easier.

To some, it's the whole notion of "why should I subsidize your eco-fetish?" That's when I turn around and say "Why should I subsidize you having children, or owning a home? Both of them come with tax deductions."

 

[johnnylingo]

There's also a real PR problem: when people think "EVs", they think of Teslas and the millionaires who drive them. The manufacturers have done a horrible job promoting their EVs, probably because the profit margins are much thinner (or negative, in the case of the Bolt).

 

[forbin404]

There's also a real PR problem: when people think "EVs", they think of Teslas and the millionaires who drive them. The manufacturers have done a horrible job promoting their EVs, probably because the profit margins are much thinner (or negative, in the case of the Bolt).

That's because most EV's are 'Compliance'. They are made so they don't have to pay special fees for not complying.

It's the reason why VW and Fiat only sell their EV's in certain states. To meet compliance.
So why should they encourage more sales? They are most likely losing money.

Tesla doesn't make much for each car, they make it from selling those 'Compliance Credits' to other companies. Since Tesla doesn't have an ICE car, they don't have to meet any compliance rules. But they are sitting on a ton of EV credits.

 

[Kosta]

rebates ( have to pay full price and applicable taxes first ) to apply for rebate here .. are static based on seats and type of vehicle . BEV and 5 seats gets the max $14000 .. hybrid and 4 seats gets less , eg: egolf 14k ; i3 13k one less seat ... but it gets an ICE off the road and helps expand green driving. 14k on an egolf is roughly 35% rebate where as 14k on a Tesla is 15% rebate .. that is where the income / means test gets addressed somewhat .. charging off peak uses normally wasted electricity so there is another positive for electric vehicles .. Europe starts banning ICE vehicles as early as 2025 for Norway and Holland , Germany 2030 ... their big export is vehicles so risking GDP on a whim or fetish is unlikely .. we either flesh out Hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure ( large compressed tanks ) to fill them or continue with grid and charger development as gas and diesel will be the next ' buggy whip ' IMHO .. fuel will not vanish over night, but we should see fewer gas stations I hope ... :lol:

 

[2016golfse]

Just for a frame of reference regarding processing times. For me:

6/12/17 - Application materials sent
7/13/17 - Rebate approved
8/9/17 - Check received