michael said:
I don't think these are people interested in the Fiat electric. This is a Tesla issue.
Well, maybe.
A lot of people where I work make over $250,000 and -- judging from our parking lot over the last couple years -- are very interested in non-Tesla EVs. There are plenty of cars like the Fiat, e-Golf, and tons of Leafs. Do they all "need" $2,500 (or even $7,500) off? -- surely not. Did the rebate still incentivize them? -- I would say definitely yes.
The new CA law is obviously now biasing the incentive towards those who might not otherwise be able to afford
any EV. That said, I don't think the evidence is in yet whether a means-based incentive is more effective than a "universal" incentive that simply applies to everyone who might be interested in an EV.
You can view either option as being the "fair" choice -- one option (the new one) attempts to actively "be" more fair in an affirmative action type of way, and the other option (the old one) is, technically, completely neutral and, in that sense, fair.
Anyway, if the
goal of the incentive is to sell more EVs, does biasing it towards a poorer population necessarily imply that it will be more effective in achieving that goal? I don't know, but it doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion -- we'll see. The change in the law seems to be more about the state reacting to a negative public perception that "rich Tesla owners" are getting hand-outs.
The rebate now seems to have taken on a role as some kind of social aid program, asking the question, "Is the rebate helping more lower-income people buy EVs, while others who don't 'need' a rebate one will get no incentive at all?" When, really, the question should simply be, "Is the rebate incentivizing more EV purchases than not?" These two concerns could potentially be orthogonal.
Further, it is entirely possible that the new incentive rules, although they might "feel good", could actually be less effective than a universal rebate. What if lower-income folks tend to have longer commutes and therefore will find the typical EV impractical, regardless of cost? What if lower-income folks tend to rent and could therefore be more likely to lack convenient home-charging options, again decreasing EV appeal? A rebate can't really make up for these issues.
IMO, the primary concern of the CA incentive should be about its effect on the environment and EV industry, and not whether any individual EV buyer "deserves" a rebate (whatever that means). The rebate should not be about the merit or need of buyers, but about its effectiveness for
sellers. It should function mainly to tip the market towards more EV sales.
If a car manufacturer wants to sell more vehicles, do they bias the discount
only towards people with
less income? No, they simply either universally discount their price in the marketplace, or the bias (if any) is aimed at
whatever group they currently think a discount will appeal to.
michael said:
Furthermore, the $7500 is not an issue since this is a lease. Since it goes to the leasing company, the individual's income is completely irrelevant.
True, and understood. I was just pointing out that, although the CA rebate (for purchases or leases) is now limited, the Federal credit (for purchases) was not affected.
michael said:
So for all practical purposes, anyone in California who might reasonably be interested in a Fiat (or any moderately priced EV) gets the $2500, maybe even more.
I was interested in the FFE -- and am happy I bought it before last July instead of after.
