CVRP changes coming Dec 3, 2019

[cwerdna]

TIL thanks to TMC, I learned about changes coming up on Dec 3: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs ... am-changes.

Sorry... wasn't sure which of the many CVRP threads to put it in.

[paulgipe]

TIL thanks to TMC, I learned about changes coming up on Dec 3: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs ... am-changes.

Sorry... wasn't sure which of the many CVRP threads to put it in.

Yep, bad news. CARB's headed in the wrong direction. Not the way to get to their target. In light of what I learned this week about CARBs work on EVs it fits.

Only one rebate per family, rather than two.
Only $2,000 rebate down from $2,500.

The excuse is their running out of money. If that's the case, the answer is increase the money. Duh!

Paul

[jlv]

The excuse is their running out of money. If that's the case, the answer is increase the money. Duh!

I personally believe the only way to reduce carbon is to incentivize it's elimination; e.g., to tax it. We need less rebates on EVs and increased "exhaust taxes" on ICEVs.

[WetEV]

The excuse is their running out of money. If that's the case, the answer is increase the money. Duh!

I personally believe the only way to reduce carbon is to incentivize it's elimination; e.g., to tax it. We need less rebates on EVs and increased "exhaust taxes" on ICEVs.

With near 50% EVs or more, a carbon fuels tax or "exhaust taxes" exhaust would make more sense.

With 2% EVs, a subsidy is more effective for less government, as many have noted. It is a 50 times smaller program than taxes.

Time for carbon taxes isn't quite here. It is coming, so hold that thought.

[danrjones]

When they say single entity do they mean household or person in the house? In other words is your spouse counted separately?

Sounds like I can personally use it once more.

Is that a lifetime limit?

[rmay635703]

I personally believe the only way to reduce carbon is to incentivize it's elimination; e.g., to tax it. We need less rebates on EVs and increased "exhaust taxes" on ICEVs.

Agreed.

Too bad they do exactly the opposite

[GRA]

I'd started a topic with a link to this article on GCC a week or so ago, but a moderator deleted it and a bunch of others on the grounds that such news stories were creating "clutter" on the forum:

CARB approves $533M funding plan for clean transportation investments

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... 5-arb.html


Now that someone else has started on topic on the exact same story, presumably I can repost that link.

I am glad to see that they finally capped the MSRP, albeit at $60k (presumably to cover higher end Model 3s) rather than at say $40k, which is much closer to a mass market price, and they left the price of FCEVs uncapped as well. Anyone who can even consider paying $60k+ for a car has no business using OPM to buy it. And the income limits remain unchanged and are far too high, at $150/$204/$300k for single/H-o-H/married filing status.

They also changed the eligibility requirements for PHEVs, which now have to achieve a minimum 35 mile AER*, which I think eliminates all of them except the Clarity and i3REx, and seems dumb. I could see a 20 or 25 mile AER minimum, but requiring 35 miles now probably boosts PHEV prices well above the mass market in addition to eliminating almost all the choices.



*"As determined by CARB", so maybe there's some difference between that and EPA AER.

[GRA]

I personally believe the only way to reduce carbon is to incentivize it's elimination; e.g., to tax it. We need less rebates on EVs and increased "exhaust taxes" on ICEVs.

Agreed.

Too bad they do exactly the opposite

The governor agrees with you, but has accepted cap-and-trade instead. From a year ago:

A year after California extended cap-and-trade, Newsom still prefers carbon tax

https://www.politico.com/states/califor ... tax-740266

[jlv]

I'd started a topic with a link to this article on GCC a week or so ago, but a moderator deleted it and a bunch of others on the grounds that such news stories were creating "clutter" on the forum

Just to be clear:
The particular complaint was creating a new thread with nothing more than a single link to an off-site article (no other text was included).
I checked the moderation logs: exactly one (1) thread was deleted, and it happened on Oct 31. The moderator who took this action sent you this message:

Please stop starting threads just to link to other stories. This is becoming spam as discussed before and other users are complaining

[danrjones]

Rebate limits are reducing from 2 rebates to 1 rebate per any single entity for individual and business applicants.

So what does "entity" mean in the wording?

Does that mean household? Or would it be the specific buyer, that is, I can use it once then my wife once.