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

[dlich18]

Good job CCSE! A beacon of bright light in a sea of confusion.

Where did you get the extra $71? :lol:

 

[Center4Energy]

Hello All,

Yesterday I received an email from a new LEAF driver that prompted this post. The new driver was concerned about the potential for consumers to apply for a CVRP rebate before they purchase the vehicle, and thus jump ahead of individuals that have followed the rules of the CVRP. I want to assure all of you that CCSE will do everything in our power to ensure this does not happen.

We have and will continue to audit each rebate application very closely. In fact we have recently canceled applications for individuals that have not followed the rules, just by reviewing the online application step. Each application will also undergo closer scrutiny as we check, and double check the sales and lease contract to ensure the applications are showing the correct information.

On another note, I want to address this issue of $71 dollars. I heard through the grapevine that there was this idea floating around that CCSE was holding the last rebate because we were $71 dollars short of $5000. This is completely untrue. We are $71 short of $5000, but that will not hold up that last rebate. The way the program is structured, we have some vehicles that receive an uneven rebate amount (e.g. NEVs), as the rebate amount is based on the MSRP which results in the program resulting in $4929 when all is said and done, not $5000.

CCSE will provide $71 for this rebate so that the applicant gets a full rebate check. So if you hear from someone that CCSE is withholding a rebate because of being $71 short of $5000, please inform them that this is certainly not the case.

Before I sign off, I would like to ask everyone to please be patient with us as we work through all of this paper work. That being said if you need further clarification or additional information, we are always available.

Best,

David Almeida
[email protected]
858.244.1190

Kyle Goedert
kyle.goedert.energycenter.org
858.244.4877

 

[OhmPah]

David,

Thank you for your posts. Its really great that you are keeping us up-to-date on this. Your information helps us to understand the process and your position. I also appreciate your prompt response to my email earlier this week.

Dave Krahl

 

[juniorboy90210]

Hello All,

Yesterday I received an email from a new LEAF driver that prompted this post. The new driver was concerned about the potential for consumers to apply for a CVRP rebate before they purchase the vehicle, and thus jump ahead of individuals that have followed the rules of the CVRP. I want to assure all of you that CCSE will do everything in our power to ensure this does not happen.

We have and will continue to audit each rebate application very closely. In fact we have recently canceled applications for individuals that have not followed the rules, just by reviewing the online application step. Each application will also undergo closer scrutiny as we check, and double check the sales and lease contract to ensure the applications are showing the correct information.

On another note, I want to address this issue of $71 dollars. I heard through the grapevine that there was this idea floating around that CCSE was holding the last rebate because we were $71 dollars short of $5000. This is completely untrue. We are $71 short of $5000, but that will not hold up that last rebate. The way the program is structured, we have some vehicles that receive an uneven rebate amount (e.g. NEVs), as the rebate amount is based on the MSRP which results in the program resulting in $4929 when all is said and done, not $5000.

CCSE will provide $71 for this rebate so that the applicant gets a full rebate check. So if you hear from someone that CCSE is withholding a rebate because of being $71 short of $5000, please inform them that this is certainly not the case.

Before I sign off, I would like to ask everyone to please be patient with us as we work through all of this paper work. That being said if you need further clarification or additional information, we are always available.

Best,

David Almeida
[email protected]
858.244.1190

Kyle Goedert
kyle.goedert.energycenter.org
858.244.4877

How many applications have been rejected so far? I am on the waiting list and am still holding out hope that I may still get the full rebate amount if enough people ahead of me get rejected.

 

[kieodadie]

Has anyone gotten their rebate yet especially if your delivery date was in the month of June?

 

[dlich18]

Yes

Leaf Delivery 6/2.
Received rebate check 6/23

 

[DaveEV]

Has anyone gotten their rebate yet especially if your delivery date was in the month of June?

No, but I sent Kyle an email about it yesterday as it's been a couple weeks - said mine should have been mailed out today.

 

[Lannierose]

I picked up my Leaf June 11. Filed for CA rebate immediately. Got my check for $5,000 yesterday, so it took a little under four weeks.

 

[GregH]

Leaf picked up 6/13, confirmed funds 6/14, mailed materials 6/15, confirmed received in San Diego 6/17, program closed 6/20, $5k received 7/6

 

[zhengst]

I still don't understand the logic behind this scheme of incentivizing a few first adopters with a big sum of money and then leaving much less or probably nothing for people a few spots behind.

For most of us first adopters, we would have purchased the car regardless of the CA incentive. (Per recent Nissan data, average annual income of the Leaf owners is $140k.) The incentive would be more effective for those borderline people who are considering but haven't reserved an EV yet.

Also getting the EV early itself is a big financial incentive. I would save over $2k in fuel and maintenance by taking delivery a year earlier than otherwise. So far the wait time is still over a year.

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.

 

[davewill]

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.

 

[jackal]

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

For me, the CA incentive worked to make me decide buy the leaf. So I would say the policy definitely help me to adopt EV and it isn't dumb at all. You do realize that you don't have to apply for the CA incentive if you don't want to right?

 

[zhengst]

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.

 

[earther]

For most of us first adopters, we would have purchased the car regardless of the CA incentive. (Per recent Nissan data, average annual income of the Leaf owners is $140k.)

Apparently I don't represent a majority of Leaf buyers, but in my particular case, the Leaf would have been financially out of my reach had it not been for the $5k state rebate + $7.5k federal credit + EVProject QC&EVSE. The Leaf's MSRP is more than my annual salary, and it took me several years of planning for an EV purchase to save up.

 

[davewill]

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.

I credit the initial, higher rebate with a big jumpstart of EVs in California. You're welcome to your opinion that the money would be better spent elsewhere, but I personally think the money has been handled pretty well.

 

[dlich18]

I personally think the money has been handled pretty well.

+1
Incentives are needed to get early adopters engaged.

With all the issues we early adopters have had, it's clear why this is necessary. Ordering snafus, utility problems, Ecotality problems. I've had my Leaf for 6 weeks now and still no Level 2 charger. With all the problems with coordination among different agencies and simple screw-ups (like the utility running out of the very meters they are requiring), I think I deserve a little "incentive" for helping get the "kinks" out of the system.

Most people would be unwilling to adopt early without a little kick in the pants. And, new technology is a good investment of government money. Historically, the payoffs have been outstanding.

 

[zhengst]

On the individual level, the program worked out well for those who got the money (not a lot of them), not for those who didn't (quite a lot). The root of the problem is, unlike the federal incentive, the CA program fund is really really limited. All in all it funded around 2,000 cars. That's a tiny drop of water in the ocean of California cars.

On my commute, still every other car around me is powered by fossil fuel. And the CA fund is depleted already. Even though there might be additional funding, it's competing against college funding and jobs of teachers, firefighters and policemen.

At the current speed of adopting EVs, it will take forever to achieve any critical impact on carbon emission. It got me really worried.

Let's look at the bigger picture. At the current stage of EV deployment, cost is less of an issue than availability. Even though some people can't afford the car without the CA $5k, there are a lot of other people who can afford it but have to wait in line (meaning they have cash or credits sitting in banks doing nothing for EVs).

In other words, there are enough personal funds (plus federal funding) to ensure full capacity EV production for at least a few years without the CA funding. Then how can the state most effectively use their money?

If I were to have a say, I would just allow whoever can afford it get the cars first while waiting for manufacturers ramping up their capacity. The state can spend their limited fund on building infrastructure (currently almost nonexistent) or educating the public of EV benefits (financial, environmental, economic, health, national security). Money thus spent would be in use instantly.

Like I mentioned above, giving out money to a limited number of individual buyers would simply push back potential personal fund for EV further down into the waiting list. On the other hand, reducing range anxiety with more L3 charging stations and promoting EVs on TV would convert more people to reserve EVs. And with an expanded market, the unit price would naturally drop because of economies of scale.

Even for giving out money, it could have been done more effectively. For example, people who receive the rebate will need to host say 5 EV awareness parties or offer 50 test drives in the next 2 years. Actually driving an EV is one of the best ways to convert hesitators to EVs. With only limited Leafs delivered, the state should have asked the rebate-receivers to participate in such awareness campaigns.

Giving out free money is the easiest way to do things. And easiest way tends not to be the best way.

In summary, I still hold my opinion against the money-wasting bureaucrats who are either lazy or stupid.

That being said, I really wish Leaf owners (whether you got the CA rebate or not) would take the effort of educating people in your network about the EV benefits. I'm going to host parties for my friends and neighbors, so that they can check out and test drive my Leaf. I'm also going to write a blog and post on Facebook and twitter.

Living a low carbon life ourselves doesn't guarantee a positive result on climate change. We need to convert as many people as possible to EVs in order to get any real result. Like the Evangelicals, we need to spread the good words to others.

 

[davewill]

On the individual level, the program worked out well for those who got the money (not a lot of them), not for those who didn't (quite a lot)...

AFAIK, anyone who didn't get the $5,000 is in line for $2,500, still a significant rebate any way you look at it. I'm not sure just who it is that had money just burning a hole in their pocket to buy one sans rebate, but it's not very many of us. Sure, Nissan would have sold all the cars they built so far, but many more of them would have sold outside California, and the demand might have been tapering off by now.

I just can't buy the argument that the rebate didn't do the job intended.

 

[stanley]

+ 1

 

[JimSouCal]

On the individual level, the program worked out well for those who got the money (not a lot of them), not for those who didn't (quite a lot). The root of the problem is, unlike the federal incentive, the CA program fund is really really limited. All in all it funded around 2,000 cars. That's a tiny drop of water in the ocean of California cars....

This is so true.

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. Anyone buying this car should know in advance whether or not they will be eligible for an incentive, and how much it will be.

Those who ordered early, and missed out--well, not very equitable--assuming one is behind managing and influencing market forces--which I do think makes sense.