
It looks like the state of California is bailing out Tesla - lsh123
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7
======
Govindae
Here's the evidence behind the claim that California's EV subsidy is a Tesla
bailout.

>In California, the largest EV market in the US, 2.7% of new vehicles sold in
the first quarter were EVs, up from 0.4% in 2012, according to the California
New Dealers Association. California is Tesla’s largest market. Something big
needs to be done to help the Bay Area company, which has lost money every
single year of its ten years of existence.

~~~
Alupis
There's also:

> And for instance, a $100,000 Tesla might be deemed to have the same features
> as a $65,000 gas-powered car. The rebate would cover the difference, minus
> the federal rebate (so $27,500). Because rebates for Teslas will soon be
> gone, the program would cover the entire difference – $35,000. This is where
> Senator Vidak got his “$30,000 to $40,000.”

Seems Californians will be footing a significant chunk of all Tesla sales once
the standard Federal $7,500 rebate expires on Tesla vehicles.

This does seem to largely be targeting Tesla's since, according to the
article, are the only US EV maker nearing the 200,000 vehicle sales limit for
Federal subsidies.

~~~
mhermher
This doesn't make sense. Couldn't the car company just arbitrarily raise the
price? Why sell it for 100k? Why not 200k or whatever. The cost to the
consumer is the same, the state just pays you more. Doesn't seem well thought
out.

------
lsh123
Note that most of the Californians (and people in other states) are also
subsidizing electric cars by not collecting the gasoline tax which is (at
least partially) used to fix roads.

~~~
StillBored
What really makes me angry is that a bunch of places have lower rate tiers for
EV charging...

[http://austinenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/2ec866e7-4556-407b-b...](http://austinenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/2ec866e7-4556-407b-baed-207b227c9441/ResidentialPilotPrograms.pdf?MOD=AJPERES)

10Kwh for $30 vs >$100 if you were to just add it to your electric bill.

Frequently now, I've considered getting an electric car on lease, and then
buying a big inverter and running my house off the car parked in the garage...
If it weren't for the price of the car it would be an excellent way to save a
couple hundred dollars a month in electric service.

~~~
mathperson
why does this make you angry? I think these are policies that are designed to
encourage electric vehicle usage. Which if you care about air quality (which
you should since air pollution kills people, albeit in a quiet way) then
presumably people using an electric vehicle in lieu of an internal combustion
engine driven vehicle is a good thing? I doubt at this moment the lost revenue
is significant due to low market share. Maybe when electric vehicles are a
large percentage of cars on the road we will have to reconsider tax structures
but we just aren't there yet I think.

~~~
StillBored
The air quality excuse is _VERY_ dependent on where you live. On average
([https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3))
~30% of the power in the US is derived from coal, another ~30% is natural gas.
So basically for cars your just relocating where the exhaust happens. And in
the case of coal the byproducts are massively more harmful and long lasting
compared with the byproducts from gasoline (which is really quite clean at
this point). So you then have to consider the efficiency of the
generation/transmission/charging/driving which isn't so much better that
electric cars are a mirracle cure for global warming/etc. Particularly in the
case of tesla, which has been repeatedly shown that in most places in the US
actually polite more than a modern econobox mostly due to being such a heavy
car.

So, beyond that, I'm sort of irritated by tax subsidies, because they are
really no different than paying someone cash because someone else has to
makeup the shortfall, be it through worse education systems, or simply paying
more taxes. (I'm also in the camp that believes toll roads are just a
convenient way to raise taxes while simultaneously claiming to cut them).

But back to electricity generation, electric cars are _NOT_ an insignificant
load, and further subsidizing them to the tun of tens of thousands of dollars
in electric charges (assuming a ten year lifespan for the car) on the backs of
the common ratepayers, is about as regressive a tax as is possible. The same
is true of the loss in gas taxes. People who can afford $100k teslas (teslas
are well over 50% of the electric car market in the US given rough estimates,
the leaf being the other significant player with ~30k cars a year) don't need
further subsidies on the backs of people who on average are earning less than
$50k a year.

So, yes the discounted rates are the final tipping point, $7.5k a year in tax
incentives + 1-3x that much again over the life of the car paid for generally
by those that can least afford is is the worse kind of policy.

~~~
greglindahl
So to address just one of your points: you're going to judge the environmental
value of an electric car by the mix of fuels today, even though the car lasts
20+ years?

Electric cars are also extremely useful in that you can choose to charge them
at times when wind and solar are producing "too much" power.

~~~
StillBored
"Electric cars are also extremely useful in that you can choose to charge them
at times when wind and solar are producing "too much" power."

Which sounds great, but is 100% BS in most cases. That Austin energy EV
charging system I linked doesn't turn off the charger when the wind isn't
blowing. Instead its strictly time based, so while much of the information is
public ([http://www.ercot.com/mktinfo](http://www.ercot.com/mktinfo)) it is
pretty much impossible to say "There is spare wind capacity feeding my house,
lets charge the car". I would be interested if anyone actually has such a
system, and further what would such a system do when there isn't sufficient
wind overcapacity for days? Then oddly enough, I see a bunch of tesla's
charging on the chargers at work, which of course is during peak power usage
times (aka when all the NG peak plants are running).

~~~
greglindahl
Sorry that you are blowing off future benefits based on today's actions.

~~~
StillBored
What future benefit is gained by having people driving around 5,441+ lb
electric vehicles given that we will likely (given the current political
climate) still be getting more than 50% of our electric (maybe more) from
carbon emitting sources in 20 years?

No, you want to start solving this problem by attacking it directly. The
problem is too much CO2 emissions, so start taxing CO2 emissions from _ALL_
sources, don't try to pick winners (electric cars) and subsidize them, when
the next big breakthrough might be a petrol engine that can catalyze out the
carbon, or hydrogen fuel cells. Neither of those choices seems likely, but
hey... Much like I think the "environmentalists" are as much at fault for
climate change by fear mongering nukes in order to wish for renewable sources
for the past 40 years as the deniers, I think the electric car people with
their "zero emissions" bumper stickers are preaching a lie.

------
jgowdy
All this shit talking on the people who can afford to buy 6 figure cars fails
to take into account the reality that these terrible people who can afford
these cars are subsidizing the development of mass market electric vehicles by
taking a big risk on very expensive and experimental cars. Beyond that I don't
think that California leading from the front by offering financial support for
a budding technology that will make a huge difference in pollution is a bad
thing. Plenty of states offer absurd amounts of financial support for far less
noble enterprises.

------
woodandsteel
This seems like a smart move on California's part, given it is deeply
committed to slashing carbon emissions, and if the Tesla 3 succeeds, the state
will become home to a major auto manufacturer.

------
mcappleton
I think it's much better to tax the cars you don't want rather than to
subsidize the cars you do want. Why? Because the state is not doing well
financially, and they are not in the place to drop 3 billion on subsidies.

I think it also makes more sense from a moral standpoint. If using a gasoline
powered car contributes more to the environment's woes, paying the tax is
giving back to society in return for having made it a slightly worse place via
pollution. It is also better to directly tax the undesirable car that way the
tax is directly associated with the undesirable car, as opposed to a general
income tax. This may be less politically feasible for that reason though.

~~~
bassman9000
let's compare apples to apples

[http://archive.is/DCWp1](http://archive.is/DCWp1)

are we sure Tesla's are better for the env? Don't get me wrong, I want an
alternative to gas. But let's make fair comparisons.

~~~
candiodari
Subsidize toys for the rich ? With a good story about why it's saving the
planet ?

This is like claiming parks in big cities are good for the environment. Well
they are. For about 2 blocks or so. And especially good for the house values
around there. Which is of course the real reason they're built.

You're acting as if the purpose of environmental policy is to rescue the
planet, and there's your mistake. Giving free money to rich people with lots
of influence is the only factor in those decisions.

If you check, you'll find that all of Elon Musk's companies after paypal share
this characteristic. They are barely working at all, and there's no way in
hell they'd work without this free money. So really, this is about transfering
your taxes to Elon Musk's company so mostly him, and of course quite a few
rich people can get free money and tell a story to themselves about the
environment.

------
dsfyu404ed
It would be one thing if the gov said they were gonna subsidize Tesla and
cited all the pros. Claiming its an across the board subsidy when it's pretty
damn focused on Tesla and only Tesla is slimy.

This is exactly the quality of work I expect in a 1-party state.

~~~
traviscj
Counterargument: not Tesla's fault that the other offerings suck in
comparison.

Another consideration: if it was GM or Ford that was up against that 200k
limit, you think their lobbyists couldn't wrangle a similar deal?

