[PHASED-OUT]: Tracking the $5k California CVRP Fund

[surfingslovak]

In fact, I question the necessity of a rebate, and could present a pretty decent case, that for the consumer, a forgiveness of sales tax, and a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration would be much more equitable from the standpoint of the consumer.

Not to mention lower administrative costs as well; the dealer would simply not apply sales tax on EVs and the state would not need to maintain a separate EV program and mail checks. I believe this is how it's done in Washington? The other idea has been implemented in the UK and in Germany, the registration fee is waived for EVs for three years or something like that.

 

[planet4ever]

In fact, I question the necessity of a rebate, and could present a pretty decent case, that for the consumer, a forgiveness of sales tax, and a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration would be much more equitable from the standpoint of the consumer.

Do you and surfingslovak realize what you are saying? Rather than pay the rebate now, you want the state to take it on as a debt that it is required to pay in the future? Don't you think we have done enough already to mortgage the future of the state?

I think zhengst's tirade against "money-wasting bureaucrats who are either lazy or stupid" is misplaced. When the fund was put in place no one knew that Nissan was going to jump into the ring in a big way. What was apparent to the most perceptive among us was that electric cars needed to be an important part of our future if we were to have a decent future, and that electric cars were currently very expensive. Something needed to be done to kick-start the transition, and they did it.

Ray

 

[JimSouCal]

In fact, I question the necessity of a rebate, and could present a pretty decent case, that for the consumer, a forgiveness of sales tax, and a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration would be much more equitable from the standpoint of the consumer.

Do you and surfingslovak realize what you are saying? Rather than pay the rebate now, you want the state to take it on as a debt that it is required to pay in the future? Don't you think we have done enough already to mortgage the future of the state?

I think zhengst's tirade against "money-wasting bureaucrats who are either lazy or stupid" is misplaced. When the fund was put in place no one knew that Nissan was going to jump into the ring in a big way. What was apparent to the most perceptive among us was that electric cars needed to be an important part of our future if we were to have a decent future, and that electric cars were currently very expensive. Something needed to be done to kick-start the transition, and they did it.

Ray

I am pretty clear about my thoughts on the matter at hand, and stand by what I said (not the rant you mention but an alternative to rebates). What I am not clear on is your line of thinking. Are you saying a rebate is a more efficient use of the funds, and a better way than a limited tax waiver? How is that a debt? I really don't get your assertion, but will try to if you elaborate.

My plan is to lobby the Brown administration to do exactly what I am proposing, so as to continue to encourage the consumer to make a rational decision and to consider an EV. Perhaps the revenue could be offset by equal offset of raising the state tax on gasoline? Just thinking out loud her.

 

[abasile]

Perhaps the revenue could be offset by equal offset of raising the state tax on gasoline?

That would make a lot of sense. Especially considering California's particular challenges with respect to air quality, gasoline is still too cheap. Besides making more funds available for EV infrastructure and promotion, stepwise, predictable gas tax increases could also help the state budget (which would still need big spending cuts). California by itself shouldn't increase gasoline taxes by too much, though, lest that become yet another factor motivating families and businesses to leave the state.

 

[oakwcj]

An interesting experiment for the very early adopters would have been to offer a choice of a rebate or HOV stickers. I would guess that in Silicon Valley and L.A. those with too much money on their hands would have taken the stickers. I never trust data on income levels, because I suspect that a lot of people, like me, refuse to answer that question. What I don't understand is the need to make ad hominem attacks on supposedly "lazy" bureaucrats. What does that have to do with a policy discussion? The rebates have been administered by a non-profit in San Diego. Everyone here has applauded the work of David, Kyle, and associates for handling the rebate applications efficiently and quickly and for being extremely responsive to our questions and concerns. The size and nature of the incentive was determined through the political process in Sacramento. You can argue about the form and level of incentives, but it has nothing to do with bogeymen bureaucrats.

 

[thankyouOB]

Therefore a more modest $1k (no more than$2k) per car incentive will go much longer way in reaching out to the less-motivated potential buyers than the $5k incentive.

Yet another example showing the policy makers lack basic economic sense and inefficient use of tax-payer dollars.

Huh? That's exactly why they lowered the incentive...so that more people could benefit.

Yeah. Exactly what I'm talking about. After millions of dollars, they finally learned. So taxpayers ended up paying for their learning process? I would rather them giving the money to the universities where it can help educate young people to be more useful citizens than those bureaucrats.

there is nothing stopping you from doing that with your rebate or part of it.
go ahead.

as to the value of the rebate in my purchase, it was a large factor. I am not anywhere near the 140k average income someone cited above for Leaf buyers. I also believe, as said above, that the accuracy of that is suspect. I know I dont answer income questions on surveys, so the survey can be skewed by response rate and question skipping.

My income is about half that and that 140k "average" figure astounds me.

Implying that there still isnt signicant tax credits and incentives for people getting in the Leaf pool now -- that is fooey.
You can save 10k now as opposed to 12.5k a month ago. That is still real money. Sure it is a 20% drop in the combined savings, but it is still a pile of money and a good percentage of the car's cost -- around 45% -- of the final buying price, or 30% of the initial price.
that is significant mark down.

I am not sure why anyone insists on bashing the folks administering this. they are doing a good job.
The sales tax route -- as Washington did -- would have been fine, too, but I dont think the salary of administrator KYLE at CVRP was a big deal in this. He is not even a state worker, so no pension.
You can be sure that foregoing of sales tax would have required review and checking by a DMV worker.

 

[cardw]

I did a quick calculation based on recent population numbers. When we compare the $5000 rebate and the 12 billion dollar subsidy given to the gas and oil companies the rebate costs each person in CA about 25 cents versus the subsidy given to the oil companies costs every man, woman, and child in the whole US about $120.

What if we subsidized alternative energy at the same scale we subsidize oil?

The public benefit from clean energy helps everyone and improves the quality of life. The use of oil costs everyone and reduces the quality of life.

I don't know about you but complaining about subsidies for electric cars seems to be the wrong fight.

 

[zhengst]

Either I didn't express myself more clearly or that some people didn't get my point.

By bureaucrats (for short of a better but still brief description), I mean the policy-makers, not the excutors. If some one executed for death penalty is found to be innocent, do you blame the one who pushed the button or the one who hit the gavel?

To reframe the argument in a better way, my point is that given a LIMITED amount of EV funds to invest, the decision-maker didn't make the best investment decision by issuing rebates to a limited number of first buyers. Other possible EV related initiatives are all good but are separate initiatives involving different stakeholders and levels of efforts. (... and separate topics as well. I think the EV owners should actively participate in policy debates and educate the public and policy-makers.)

But just for the guy who gets to decide how to spend the million dollars, he didn't get the best bang for the bucks. It's like given $10k, are you going to invest in a savings account of 0.5% return, a CD of 2.5% return, a bond of 7% return, or Facebook stocks if Mark will sell them to you? Investing in the savings account does yield some returns, but it's simply not the best possible ROI.

2 anecdotes to support my suggestion that investing the funds instead in promoting infrastructure and awareness campaigns would have yielded better results:

A friend of mine's condo HOA refused to add an EV charger on their garage level for one of their condo owners, citing the charger might catch fire. The poor guy had to sell his Volt. I was like, WTF?! Did they ever worry about their dryers catching fire?

The Blink guy who installed my charger told me one of his other clients was thinking about selling her Leaf because she has a 40 mile commute one way, and her Leaf might not make it round trip to work. I was like, WTF! Can't her company build a charger (even the 110v will do) in their parking lot?

See my point? Facility owners and business owners need quite some push from the government (either by incentive or mandate) for the EV infrastructure (the other bottleneck besides production capacity) to develop as quickly as possible. And a million dollars could have gone a long way.

 

[jackal]

I don't know about you but complaining about subsidies for electric cars seems to be the wrong fight.

+1.

Would there be better ways to administer the funds? Sure. Just make sure you don't shoot the pianist because he isn't playing the song you like ... and don't characterize that everyone would have bought the leaf anyway without the CVRP fund. If the final price is not a factor at all, those would be Tesla's owners. (Not leaf)

 

[zhengst]

I don't know about you but complaining about subsidies for electric cars seems to be the wrong fight.

+1.

Would there be better ways to administer the funds? Sure. Just make sure you don't shoot the pianist because he isn't playing the song you like ... and don't characterize that everyone would have bought the leaf anyway without the CVRP fund. If the final price is not a factor at all, those would be Tesla's owners. (Not leaf)

-10
so you suggest now that the $5k is gone Leaf won't sell?

 

[thankyouOB]

I don't know about you but complaining about subsidies for electric cars seems to be the wrong fight.

+1.

Would there be better ways to administer the funds? Sure. Just make sure you don't shoot the pianist because he isn't playing the song you like ... and don't characterize that everyone would have bought the leaf anyway without the CVRP fund. If the final price is not a factor at all, those would be Tesla's owners. (Not leaf)

-10
so you suggest now that the $5k is gone Leaf won't sell?

u didnt make sense in your previous (long post) where, among other things, you confuse bureaucrats with legislators, and you mischaracterize above statement, as well.

 

[smkettner]

I agree that our government is broke because there is too much giving incentives to do good things and too few taxes on doing the wrong thing.

Yes raise the fuel tax. Yes add a gas guzzler tax on all cars with a higher amount on the worst.

 

[jackal]

so you suggest now that the $5k is gone Leaf won't sell?

Nope. I am just negating your hypothesis that the $5K didn't matter. You should revisit your post before making blanket accusations. That's a sure way to make friends.

 

[zhengst]

so you suggest now that the $5k is gone Leaf won't sell?

Nope. I am just negating your hypothesis that the $5K didn't matter.

For the sake of argument, where in my posts did I say the $5k didn't matter? Find it and I'll shut up.

All I'm trying to say is that it has its impact but not as much as it could have if done differently. What's wrong with the argument of using the money to promote more charging facilities?

This is a typical all-or-nothing mentality. If I say something is not good enough, it's not equal to saying it's a bad thing, all right? It's really frustrating to reason with people not willing to use their full logical thinking capabilities.

 

[zhengst]

I agree that our government is broke because there is too much giving incentives to do good things and too few taxes on doing the wrong thing.

Yes raise the fuel tax. Yes add a gas guzzler tax on all cars with a higher amount on the worst.

I agree with raising fuel tax. People needs to pay for their carbon emissions. If people are OK with paying Waste Management to take away their trash, they should be fine with paying efforts reducing atmospheric GHG that every one freely emits right now.

However, I don't see how higher fuel tax can happen any time soon. Just a few weeks ago, the government opened up the strategic oil reserve only because the gas price is "too high". Also low income people will get affected since they might not have other options but to pay more for fuel.

In contrast, gas guzzler tax should work more easily since people have choice to buy more fuel efficient cars.

 

[jackal]

This is the quote:

For most of us first adopters, we would have purchased the car regardless of the CA incentive.

Being unable to fully use my logical thinking capabilities, I am reading this statement as impling that without the 5K incentive, there will be just as many people purchasing the leaf. Paraphrasing, it implies that the 5K incentive wouldn't have 'mattered' in the decision process for most people.

I am contending that this statement might not be true. This wouldn't be an issue if not because all your other arguments rest upon this posit.

Anyway, I am not interested to pursue who's right or wrong. (there never is) I already concede that there may be better ways to spend the $5K. Unlike you, I don't think the benefits of the incentive is limited to only as incentives for purchasers. I believe it also serves to send a strong signal to car manufacturers to launch their EVs in California, (no coincidence that California is chosen as the early states for which Leaf launch) which will in turn build the EV infrastructure (from grass-roots instead of govt level)

 

[planet4ever]

Are you saying a rebate is a more efficient use of the funds, and a better way than a limited tax waiver? How is that a debt? I really don't get your assertion, but will try to if you elaborate.

My plan is to lobby the Brown administration to do exactly what I am proposing, so as to continue to encourage the consumer to make a rational decision and to consider an EV. Perhaps the revenue could be offset by equal offset of raising the state tax on gasoline?

I am in no position to compare efficiencies of the two approaches, though it certainly seems that the CVRP is operating efficiently, and I often wonder about the efficiency of the FTB and DMV. Rebates come out of the current budget, which must be balanced. The same would be true for a sales tax waiver, though that is harder to budget for. My concern was that you also said 'a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration.' That would reduce income for future budgets (though, in large part, county and city budgets), so is in effect borrowing against the future. The final sentence I quoted above does provide a rather indirect way around this, and I do favor higher gas taxes, but I don't think they are a political possibility in today's climate, not even in California.

Ray

 

[oakwcj]

Are you saying a rebate is a more efficient use of the funds, and a better way than a limited tax waiver? How is that a debt? I really don't get your assertion, but will try to if you elaborate.

My plan is to lobby the Brown administration to do exactly what I am proposing, so as to continue to encourage the consumer to make a rational decision and to consider an EV. Perhaps the revenue could be offset by equal offset of raising the state tax on gasoline?

I am in no position to compare efficiencies of the two approaches, though it certainly seems that the CVRP is operating efficiently, and I often wonder about the efficiency of the FTB and DMV. Rebates come out of the current budget, which must be balanced. The same would be true for a sales tax waiver, though that is harder to budget for. My concern was that you also said 'a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration.' That would reduce income for future budgets (though, in large part, county and city budgets), so is in effect borrowing against the future. The final sentence I quoted above does provide a rather indirect way around this, and I do favor higher gas taxes, but I don't think they are a political possibility in today's climate, not even in California.

Ray

The funds for the CVRP come from an increase in smog abatement fees. The authorizing legislation is AB 118 (2007). I think it's perfectly appropriate for these incentives to be paid for out of DMV registration fees. The legislation delegated implementation of the incentive programs to the Air Resources Board, which held hearings and solicited input before adopting the $5,000 level for the first year. This was done well before the first LEAF was sold and was based on an educated guess concerning the amount of money the fee increase would generate and the number of EVs that would be sold. Because of the recession, car sales were down, and the actual revenue didn't quite meet the projection. The $2 million contribution from the California Energy Commission helped to make up the difference. The rebates were cut in half for the second year as expected sales of EVs are increasing. You can read the staff report from those "stupid" and/or "lazy" bureaucrats at the ARB at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/fundplan/proposed_aqip_fy2011_funding_plan.pdf

The hard-working and rather bright ARB employees used to be called public servants, before it became fashionable to bash anyone who helps our government to function. After a while, though, if we keep the bashing up and salaries and benefits down, we will get the government we deserve.

 

[thankyouOB]

Are you saying a rebate is a more efficient use of the funds, and a better way than a limited tax waiver? How is that a debt? I really don't get your assertion, but will try to if you elaborate.

My plan is to lobby the Brown administration to do exactly what I am proposing, so as to continue to encourage the consumer to make a rational decision and to consider an EV. Perhaps the revenue could be offset by equal offset of raising the state tax on gasoline?

I am in no position to compare efficiencies of the two approaches, though it certainly seems that the CVRP is operating efficiently, and I often wonder about the efficiency of the FTB and DMV. Rebates come out of the current budget, which must be balanced. The same would be true for a sales tax waiver, though that is harder to budget for. My concern was that you also said 'a few years of "no fee" vehicle registration.' That would reduce income for future budgets (though, in large part, county and city budgets), so is in effect borrowing against the future. The final sentence I quoted above does provide a rather indirect way around this, and I do favor higher gas taxes, but I don't think they are a political possibility in today's climate, not even in California.

Ray

The funds for the CVRP come from an increase in smog abatement fees. The authorizing legislation is AB 118 (2007). I think it's perfectly appropriate for these incentives to be paid for out of DMV registration fees. The legislation delegated implementation of the incentive programs to the Air Resources Board, which held hearings and solicited input before adopting the $5,000 level for the first year. This was done well before the first LEAF was sold and was based on an educated guess concerning the amount of money the fee increase would generate and the number of EVs that would be sold. Because of the recession, car sales were down, and the actual revenue didn't quite meet the projection. The $2 million contribution from the California Energy Commission helped to make up the difference. The rebates were cut in half for the second year as expected sales of EVs are increasing. You can read the staff report from those "stupid" and/or "lazy" bureaucrats at the ARB at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aqip/fundplan/proposed_aqip_fy2011_funding_plan.pdf

The hard-working and rather bright ARB employees used to be called public servants, before it became fashionable to bash anyone who helps our government to function. After a while, though, if we keep the bashing up and salaries and benefits down, we will get the government we deserve.

Thanks for the informative post.
and double thanks for reminding MNL's few, loudmouth Galtian slobs ,who think it is cool or will impress their OC neighbors to bash public servants, that it takes good people to run our government agencies.

 

[ggodman]

Got my rebate check Friday 7/15 very quick and efficient process.