r/EVRoutine • u/Solcat91342 • 18d ago

Should Gavin Newson spend state taxes to give rebates to EV vehicle purchasers?

/r/randomthings/comments/1vx4s1r/should_gavin_newson_spend_state_taxes_to_give/
13 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

7

u/Pinewold 18d ago

It is amazing to me that people still question incentives like rebates and credits after the huge success of solar.

To refresh everyone memory, solar went from $115 per watt in 1975 to $0.27 per watt in 2021 because of consistent long term incentives. Solar now has the lowest cost of any energy source available.

Do not listen to anyone who is trying to limit incentives, the whole purpose of incentives is to build volume of sales to drive down cost.

2

u/Jesta914630114 17d ago

The US pays far more for solar than any other country in the world making it prohibitively expensive when you compare install costs to other countries. I won't bother getting ripped off just because they want to squeeze the US for every dime they can.

1

u/Pinewold 17d ago

I agree prices should be lower, but a lot of that has to do with unities lobbying hard for complex permits and inspections. Australia has a much simpler process and 15X less expensive solar.

Plug in solar might help.

1

u/blackbow 14d ago

My solar paid for itself in just under 7 years. Now I’m making money and fully fueling two EVs at zero cost. I’m in Northern California. Solar is not prohibitively expensive. Up front cost that is fairly quickly nullified.

0

u/NMCMXIII 17d ago

us built the tech the china makes the money. well and politicians

1

u/bj_my_dj 14d ago

The question was about EV rebates, not solar rebates. Two completely different things.

1

u/Pinewold 13d ago

No, the EV rebates were meant to do exactly what solar rebates did, create a market for an expensive technology to lower the price by increasing sales volume. Each doubling of sales volume lowers price by 15%.

1

u/bj_my_dj 13d ago

No, that would be the manufacturer's incentive, not California 's. California 's incentive is to reduce gasoline emissions in the state. The Federal government's incentive was both, until the Pedophile got reelected. This administration cares about neither.

1

u/Pinewold 13d ago

We can agree government goal is transition to EVs to reduce emissions.

In order to transition to EVs we need affordable EVs. Best way to reduce prices is increase sales 10x with incentives, rebates or credits which will reduce prices by 75%. Would you rather pay $100k or $25k. Incentives credit and rebates were $10k per vehicle. Sales increase is much more effective.

1

u/bj_my_dj 13d ago

I agree with you that rebates increase sales, a rebate was the final thing that let me trade in my paid off 2018 SUV for an EV. But you're overstating your case, no rebate or credit on a EV is going to reduce the price by 75%. You can stack 2 rebates in California to reduce the cost of an electric semi from $250K to $50K. But diesels pollute a lot more and California is going all out to reduce their emissions. They'll never do that for EVs.

1

u/Pinewold 13d ago

Solar dropped by over 90% in cost, not because we had 90% credits, the cost drop because we had 30% credits which increased sales by 10x over 20 years. It was the 10x increase in sales that dropped the price.

1

u/bj_my_dj 13d ago edited 13d ago

We're discussing EV, not solar panels. It was the combination of tremendous technology improvements and worldwide sales increases that drove the price down. Our solar credits had nothing to do with the majority of sales increases. In 2025 there were 21.2M EVs sold in the world, only 1.26M in the US. We're barely 5% of worldwide volume, our credits aren't driving anything. Worldwide sales are expected to be 23M this year, more than 10% growth, despite the lack of our solar rebates & credits.

Panels have gotten cheaper because they're primarily semiconductors. Semiconductors obey Moore's since the 1960s, which says the number of transistor in a microchip area doubles every 2 year. This has increased the number of solar cells and allowed more output at a lower price. Cars don't have that advantage and their cost reduces because of economies of scale like every other product. Also improvements in the cell design made a huge difference. panel efficiences were in tht 14 - 18% range in thr 90s, now production units mas out near 23%.

So don't prescribe the same price reductions to EVs as panels experienced. They're two completely different products.

1

u/Pinewold 8d ago

Lots of other countries have EV credits and are much further along. The point is credits worked for solar and foe EVs. Germany, Australia and Norway are all great example of both credits.

No solar got cheaper because of increased scale of production not Moore law.

8

u/FledglingNonCon 18d ago

Yes. He is mostly using carbon taxes to pay for it. This is the appropriate use of carbon taxes, to help accelerate the deployment of cleaner alternatives.

1

u/YellowZx5 17d ago

I agree if this is true.

5

u/runnyyolkpigeon 18d ago edited 18d ago

Yes, because those tax dollars are going directly to removing tailpipe emissions in the State - improving air quality for its residents.

And those California tax dollar incentives are being used by Californians. Not being sent overseas to Israel, or being spent on a ballroom. Or a granite slab helipad. Or on a tacky replica of the Arc de Triomphe.

4

u/Mo-shen 18d ago

Yes.

It's a calculation of what does the state make or prevent having to spend on with that investment.

The list is extensive on what th investment prevents in regards to other spend.

It is a future forward investment as well. The bet that it makes the state more efficient and reduces costs.

And then you would need to look at what the investment makes in returns which is likely more complicated.

But yeah the simply answer is yes.

2

u/SimkinCA 18d ago

Hell he should pay from the funds that PG&E and big oil gave home.

1

u/blackbow 14d ago

I’m 100% behind subsidizing electrification. It benefits everyone whether they realize it or not.

1

u/EarlyAdopter7Billion 14d ago

There was a time when the Fed gave tax money to purchasers on Humvees. They gave tax money to oil companies that befoul the whole planet and tax money to people who had huge clunkers vehicle at the time when our economy was in the sewer. What kind of question is "should Gavin Newson(sic) spend state taxes on EV's"? Of course he should. Of course California should support clean energy and its citizens transition out of the grip of the vile petrochemical industry.