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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.