Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?
wolfstreet.com
wolfstreet.com
The rebate plan does not do at all what the article claims; specifically, for instance, it does not establish a new general rebate that is designed to match the difference between an electric vehicle's price and that of a non-electric vehicle with similar features. Instead, it establishes a declining rebate for compact electric vehicles that starts at an initial level that would provide an approximate net purchase price after all existing incentives equal to the most commonly sold compact vehicle in the State, but where the rebate level would decline with EV penetration by income segment. (Health and Safety Code 44215.4, as added by the bill.)
In fact, there was no specific rebate plan in the version passed by the Assembly, which notionally is the subject of the article; there was a requirement for the PUC to adopt incentives. The sources the article relied on (assuming BI doesn't misrepresent then) were either inventing bill content from whole cloth or speculating about what the PUC might do; in any case, the bill has been significantly revised already in the Senate, to address the same broad purpose but to be more specific about program parameters and move the primary administrative responsibility for programs to the Air Resources Board rather than the PUC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-...
If so, it's written by Wolf Richter, the owner of the Wolf Street blog, and has a link to his "original article on Wolf Street" at the bottom. Not plagiarism.
HN Guidelines ask you to "submit the original source", so this is probably why the HN headline was changed.
EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally.
They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actual value of their environmental benefit rather than a politically decided subsidy. California is already discussing doing it's own Cap and Trade market. Instead of subsidizing "zero emission" cars, it creates a market cost for carbon emissions, and raises the prices of gas engined cars, and not just newly purchased cars, all cars.
And it's fair, if your Tesla gets all of it's electricity from coal fired plants, you'll pay your fair share for that plants emissions.
Presumably, the scare quotes around “economically” are recognition that this argument is based on ignoring emissions-related externalities, management of which is almost the entire cited premise of the bill.
Taxing vehicle sales and offering subsidies are dumb ways to incentivize reducing environmental impact. Instead, just tax that environmental impact directly and don't punish people who figure out how to live environmentally friendly using older, less environmentally friendly technology. People and companies will adjust their behavior accordingly. As a bonus, instead of costing the state billions, the state will collect billions, so they can spend the money building out renewable energy infrastructure, planting trees, creating more state parks and other programs that benefit the environment.
It's really unlikely we can get anywhere near the reductions we need simply by limiting carbon emissions, returning lots of carbon from the air into sinks likely can be far cheaper than stopping the last X% of emissions.
But how will battery costs come down if no one invests in it? You sound like the people in my country, forever waiting for the price of wind turbines to drop.
The Danish, German and Dutch government handed out massive subsidies for the first wind parks. Now, because of those subsidies, subsequent wind turbine parks can be built without any subsidies.
But that would've never been possible without those initial investments.
Just putting in a cap and trade system makes carbon neutral power generation much more attractive. But it doesn't pick the winners, and maybe some technology you and I are skeptical of turns out to be far better than the others.
They didn't, which is why adoption was gradual.
Had there been a concern for a major global environmental catastrophe which more rapid adoption of electric lighting would help stave off, public subsidies to encourage adoption and accelerate development might have made sense.
Also, CA already has a cap and trade program (a bill just passed to extend the program another 10 years). It has been around since 2012.
Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market.
Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.
Because for many common usage patterns, plug-in hybrids get nearly all the emissions benefits of full-electric vehicles, but a practical for people to use who have a small fraction of use where a full EV would not currently be suitable for reasons of range and state of fast-charging infrastructure.
> isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?
The real goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But, a subgoal of that cited by the governor's executive order that this bill cites is a target to have “virtually all” personal vehicle transportation be zero-emission by 2050. Some (possibly even significant) share of personal transport being by PHV that are used mostly within their all-electric range would not be incompatible with that.
And, in any case, the PHV subsidy in the bill phases out more than 25 years before 2050, because PHVs are seen mostly as a bridge, not a end-goal solution.
The fact that they're hellbent on hitting those higher volumes ASAP indicates to me that they know they'll still be profitable after the subsidies are gone. In fact, they'll probably gain some advantage from the fact, as the only EV manufacturer operating at any kind of volume, because it will raise the barrier to entry for newer, still-lower-volume manufacturers.
So yeah, nice windfall for Tesla, but 'bailout' seems somewhat loaded.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/18/chevy-bolt-production-r...
Anybody have an idea why?
Wow what is it about Visalia and Tulare that would cause something like this?
But hey.. my work has a nice locker room that makes biking possible so it's not all bad! I also ride about half the way on bike paths under high voltage lines so I do get some benefits :)
I know this is not what most people think, but in the context of good governance, my view is that no (legal) behavior is any more or less meritorious than any other.
Well, if you walk (or bike) to work, your public subsidy is not paying gas taxes (and, having the option to not even pay regular sales tax on your fuel.) If your personal vehicle choice is “I walk or bike everywhere, so I don't need a car”, your additional public subsidy is not paying Vehicle License Fee.
Sure, those are actually public levies on those making the alternative choice, but that's equivalent to a public subsidy for your choice, just with a shift in what is the baseline case.
California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits.
[1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...
Tesla sells expensive cars, revenue per car is currently near $90.000.