Featured CA Support for EVs

Those in favor of sending checks to EV buyers should also tell their elective representatives which taxes should be raised to fund the program. How do they intend to pay for the roads since they aren't paying liquid fuel taxes.

Your resident bean counter.

 

raise the gas tax some more. or, stop giving petroleum subsidies.

 

There have been numerous such discussions of this.
No matter what anyone says, someone disagrees.

But first, don't over estimate the lack of taxes. There is plenty of time to act rationally before the actual roads start degrading because of EVs.
EV sales are a very low percentage of new vehicle sales.
And an even lower percentage of total cars on the road.
And most EV drivers have a below average number of miles traveled.
And the cars, even with heavy batteries, aren't very heavy, especially compared to semi trucks which cause most damage.

If my math is right, even when EVs reach about 15% of all light vehicles, they'll be about 10% of miles and a mere ~1% increase in the gas tax would offset the entire lost road taxes. A small price to pay by everyone else for helping to make the air cleaner, clearer and more healthy for everyone...and helping to pioneer diversity in the choice of fuels everyone has in the future.

Some people will disagree, I'm sure. But it really isn't worth arguing over until EVs get to at least 10% of all new car sales at the time they get to 1% of all cars on the road.

Mike

 

Keep us informed. But remember what happened last year, there were several Ca. plug-in bills and we really did not understand what was happening until Gov Brown signed the chosen bill.

I would ask what is going on with the extension of the free HOV for plug-ins in CA? Doesn't the program end 2019 pending extension? If they are ending the free HOV, then it makes sense to me that they are increasing rebates to keep incentives very strong, one way or the other.

 

dupe-delete

 

dupe-delete

 

No change. Bill is modified to study rebate policy

LA Times
Plan to boost electric-vehicle rebates to $3 billion is scrapped in favor of state study

http://midwestenergynews.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=ae5d3a0c6088cad29d71bf0d0&id=8a92adc8c2&e=59c5f1dccd

 

there is a collateral carb benefit that goes on also. The 1st time buyer eventually sells, & the 2nd-hand market reaps the benefit of the lower cost plugin that the buyer might not have otherwise been able to afford.
The California bill, with the billions stripped, will do little now - the billions/funding issue could have been resolved by simply adding gas tax during these low $2 gas price times.
.

 

I am still expecting important CA plug-in bills next couple weeks re: HOV policy updates

 

Average gas price in California is now at $3.14 and we already have gas taxes that are among the highest in the nation. Without getting into the politics of it, the average citizen here simply cannot justify adding even higher gas taxes to their tight budgets. Yes, there are some good benefits to it but no, we can't afford it right now.

It actually makes more sense to subsidize clean energy production or tie in clean cars with converting homes to clean energy. Those plugin car charges use a lot of fossil fuels. Subsidize the car only if you have a clean way to charge it. Otherwise, spend the money on solar panels, wind and hydroelectric. For the purpose of avoiding bringing politics into this area of the forum I'll leave nuclear out of it.

 

Considering the wants and actions of the utility companies, you have to leave solar out of it.

 

That's the same as arguing "Considering the wants and actions of the petroleum companies we have to leave electric and hybrid cars out of it." With diversifying their companies, developing new solar plants, wind farms, etc. those utility companies will either be fine or they will go the way of the Wells Fargo Stagecoach. That is their problem, not ours. It's called progress.

 

Progress; it's not all it's cracked up to be.



.

 

You wanted to leave nuclear out of the discussion because of politics.
Utility companies directly and indirectly de-incentivizing home solar is politics.

 

I don't have the time to walk from California to North Carolina to visit relatives. It's much easier to take a train, plane or automobile.

 

Utility companies doing it is not politics. It's how they conduct their businesses. It becomes politics when the government does it.

The utility companies could convert to cleaner energy sources to compete.

 

The utility companies could switch to cleaner energy, and some are.

In regards to reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear is an option. Leaving it out of the discussion for fear of it becoming to political, well, any of energy source can become too political. Nevada recently increased the costs for people with home, grid tied solar, and made starting new installations a money loser to appease their utility companies. Off shore wind died in New England because 1%ers were worried about the view from their beach front homes.

 

Earnings rise for Edison’s top-paid workers – Orange County Register
So Cal utility companies publish with the bills they send out - how poor fixed income retired people are forced to pay higher bills because scumbag solar people get off scott-free by generating their own power, so they need to beg the commission for higher rates, unless they can get more money from the ever-increasing solar people. Solar generators are the minority amount of customers, so even if all of them went down to protest, when the majority show up after reading the lies that get published with the utility bills, guess what happens.
"we must protect the poor people, and socket to the solar freeloaders". Meanwhile, the National Grid is in horribly piss-poor shape. Many transformers run for years after they should have been replaced, but by saving money, the million-dollar top paid exec's can justify giant bonuses for their selves - plus virtually unlimited spending accounts - as pointed out in the article above.

Not politics?
.

 

Non plugin cars use even more fossil fuels, right?

I think it makes more sense to spend any government tax rebates for EVs for two main reasons.

First, if an EV purchase replaces an ICE car purchase you instantly go from 100% fossil fuel to something less than 100%, depending on the local grid and what metric you want to use for "clean fuel." But the percentage of non-fossil fuel in CA is pretty high.

Second, once an ICE car is purchased it will be used, one way or another, as a 100% fossil fuel car for the next 15-20 years. The EV, meanwhile be be less than 100% fossil today and the fossil percentage will drop and drop over the years, most likely. And the owner is somewhat likely to install solar -- perhaps even using the EV rebates to help pay for the solar.

And I lied...3rd reason is that the air quality in cities does matter. Getting people to drive zero emissions vehicles, even if there are emissions at a power plant elsewhere is still a big win. More people breathe the city air every day than the air near power plants. In CA there are no coal plants, the vast majority of power is hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear or NG (which does exhaust to the air, but is much lower than a tail pipe per mile traveled)
Again, buying another car with a tailpipe means it will be used for 15-20 more years.
(yes, CA does import some coal generated power from other states)

Mike

 

We still can't afford it. This is not a perfect world where people can afford or are willing to pay for everything someone else wants them to pay for.