from Hacker News

Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

by buckbova on 7/20/17, 4:38 AM with 42 comments

• by dragonwriter on 7/20/17, 6:37 AM

  The Business Insider piece sourced it's information on what the bill does not on the bill text, but on a combination of an advocacy email from an opposed legislator and reporting by the Mercury News.

  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.

• by aphextron on 7/20/17, 5:54 AM

  I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3).

  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.

• by taneq on 7/20/17, 5:35 AM

  Is Tesla in trouble financially? And I mean actual can-no-longer-be-profitable type trouble? That seems an odd call given that they've so far planned pretty comprehensively, and delivered pretty much on their plans, and those plans would have included the existing subsidy ending as soon as they hit higher volumes.

  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.

• by BoorishBears on 7/20/17, 4:46 AM

  So if a P100D has the 0 to 60 of an exotic, but all the interior fit and polish of a base trim CLA, taxpayers should... cover the difference in price to a CLA? There has to be something missing here.

• by woodandsteel on 7/20/17, 9:08 PM

  The Chevy Bolt got great reviews, and it was supposed to be big competition for the Tesla 3, but so far sales have been disappointing.

  https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/18/chevy-bolt-production-r...

  Anybody have an idea why?

• by gfody on 7/20/17, 7:01 AM

  > http://vidak.cssrc.us/content/district

  Wow what is it about Visalia and Tulare that would cause something like this?

• by Fricken on 7/20/17, 5:34 AM

  Wow, if they're giving that much away to EV buyers, just think how much they'll hand out to people who walk to work!

• by _jezell_ on 7/20/17, 6:33 AM

  It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.