Donald Trump Wants To End E.V. Subsidies. Gavin Newsom Is Trying To Save Them.
California's governor is considering revamping wasteful state rebate programs for low-emitting vehicles.

The incoming Trump administration is considering rolling back the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles (E.V.s). This week, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that he would try to restart California's defunct Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) if the federal tax credit is repealed. Like countless subsidies and tax credits before it, this program was expensive for taxpayers and not effective in meeting its goals.
The rebate program ran from 2010 to 2023 and offered a direct-to-consumer rebate for new low-emissions vehicles that met certain criteria. Low- and moderate-income individuals and households were eligible for a rebate of $7,500 for a battery and fuel cell E.V. and $6,500 for a hybrid vehicle. Higher-income individuals (making up to $135,000 annually) and families (making up to $200,000 annually) could receive slightly discounted rebates. Any customer earning more than this could only qualify for a new fuel cell vehicle credit. Funding for the rebate program was drawn from the state's cap-and-trade program and annual appropriations.
While it was still active, the CVRP was plagued with challenges. Customers often faced long wait times to find out if they qualified for it or other clean vehicle programs, according to CalMatters, often because of limited state funding. One individual interviewed by CalMatters waited four months before the state deemed him eligible. During that time, the cost of the E.V. he was interested in increased by $10,000, which priced him out of the purchase. Coupled with California mandating 35 percent and 100 percent of new car sales in the state to be emissions-free by 2026 and 2035, respectively, these subsidies created a bottleneck that increased purchasing costs for consumers.
Many of the vehicles subsidized by the program went to wealthy Californians who would have been able to afford an E.V. without a credit. More than 13 percent of the rebates went to households with a reported income of $100,001 to $150,000 and about 23 percent were used by households earning more than $150,000 annually, according to the program's dashboard. The largest income group—"Not Reported"—took home more than 40 percent of the rebates. Of the rebates to incomes not reported, 80 percent were cashed in by families outside of designated disadvantaged communities, 55 percent of which occurred in the state's 10 richest counties.
The same trend holds for federal subsidies. Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, a majority of clean energy tax credits have been claimed by wealthy households or large corporations and its E.V. credits are estimated to cost taxpayers $32,000 for every vehicle sold. The bill is expected to total $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
In its 13-year history, the CVRP allocated nearly $1.5 billion in rebates, helping to fund the purchase of over half a million new vehicles. Despite this spending, transportation remains California's largest greenhouse gas–emitting sector and the state is heavily reliant on gas-powered vehicles.
Restarting the rebate program would require approval from the Legislature. With the state's fiscal adviser warning that California's budget "does not have capacity for new commitments," a large portion of program funding would likely come from the state's cap-and-trade program. This scheme sets a greenhouse gas emissions cap that industrial polluters must comply with. If they can't, they purchase additional allowance credits at quarterly auctions. The revenue generated funds initiatives like wildfire prevention and high-speed rail. The cost of the cap-and-trade program is passed on to consumers (especially through higher energy prices).
With a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a large share of IRA funding going to Republican states and congressional districts, a full repeal of the bill is unlikely. However, lawmakers may try to accelerate the phaseout of certain tax credits or rescind the law's unspent dollars.
California's clean vehicle projects have largely benefited wealthy consumers, not the environment. They have also been ineffective in meaningfully changing California's transportation sector. In the event that Congress repeals federal energy subsidies, Newsom should avoid using the power of the state to prop up ineffective programs that distort markets.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm sure Newsom will take your recommendation into account, Jeff.
No more living on EV Street?
You are a veritable pun machine!
Newsome's proclamation electrified his audience. The energy in the room was palpable.
Perhaps, but there are a battery of reasons to avoid continuing the subsidies.
It’s the current thing!
Amp it up!
Elon agrees subsidies are bad for business IF ALL of them are removed. The pubic is less taxed, pays less for goods/services. The corrupt lawmakers and crony businesses love subsidies, e.g., Big Oil got $2.1 Trillion during Trumps last reign. That $ was taken by taxes (robbery) and given to the rich/powerful. Still vote? You allow it.
In what way did big oil get $2.1 trillion?
Yes, I'm super curious about this too.
Usually these criticisms count allowing depreciation as a deduction against revenue to arrive at taxable income as a "subsidy".
At 125B gallons every year, that’s $4.20/gal. for 4 yrs. (just in the US and not including robbing people of profits for things like heating oil, jet fuel, and natural gas).
Really? Every gallon of gas bought by a consumer was a gift from the Trump administration?
That is the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks, and that includes many of Harris's interviews and speeches.
Welcome to the Reason forums. Please ensure your sarc-o-meter is properly calibrated.
How much did Little Oil get?
Micro Oil’s subsidies were flaccid.
Shrinkage!
A small amount?
"...Big Oil got $2.1 Trillion during Trumps last reign..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
FOAD, asshole.
^THIS +1000000000...
Retard. You, not Musk or Trump.
I can't decide who is in the wrong until you post JD Vances thoughts.
Abolish the subsidies!
Is this just a scam or Newsome adhering to a party platform [more likely both]?
Both. He's excluded Tesla from the vehicles consumers can buy, even though Tesla is the only EV manufacturer in California, because Rocketman said mean things about the Democrats.
But.....Trump is going to weaponize government against his enemies
Why no mention that teslas would be exempt?
Yeah, the fact that Newsom went to great lengths to exclude the only EV maker who actually manufacturers EVs in California, tells me that this move by the CSSR may be a tad more political than even the article lets on.
Abolish Tesla! And X (formerly known as Twitter)!!!!!!!!!!
TARIFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oops. Wrong thread.
Lol
My copy of the Declaration of Independence doesn't list it, but in an authentic reprint I'm sure it's in the abuses and usurpations:
"He has refused to allow the legislative bodies of the colonies to impose nanny state mandates and subsidies to support some cockeyed theory of carbon dioxide based global warming."
What could be a more important reason to throw off the tyrannical British monarchy?
"Donald Trump Wants To End E.V. Subsidies. Gavin Newsom Is Trying To Save Them."
Trump is on the right track in wanting to end EV subsidie.
Now he should end ALL subsidies as well as grants and foreign aid.
The American taxpayers have dished out enough of their money on crackpot schemes, stupid ideas for grants and free cash for tin pot third world dictators.
Like paying for studies as to how goldfish become more aggressive when drunk.....
i assume these demand subsidies are fully capitalized, similar to homebuyer subsidies?
cut them and watch as EV prices magically drop ~$7500
"The incoming Trump administration is considering rolling back the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles (E.V.s)."
And
"Like countless subsidies and tax credits before it, this program was expensive for taxpayers and not effective in meeting its goals."
Let me see:
Throw Gov’t money (Pell Grants) at college tuition, and college tuition goes up;
Throw money at health insurance (Obamacare subsidies), and health insurance goes up;
Throw money at EV buyers (EV Subsidies), and EV prices go up.
Am I expected to feign surprise when this well-known pattern repeats?
We can't afford subsidies.
Newsom also said tesla would not be eligible for a rebate
Meanwhile, the Gov. of California is paying $9.1 million for a nice home for his family.
While the EV subsidies are, quite simply, garbage…
… this paragraph simply rings as clueless. When the cost of living is factored in, 100k to 200k income in California is neither wealthy nor indicative of ability to afford inflated EV prices without a credit.
If you're making less than 150K, there is no way you can afford to buy a house in my county.
Which means you're stuck on public charging stations, taking half an hour at a time to "fuel up" and paying as much as a gas car because you can't just buy your subsidized solar panels. If you're in a condo and can plug into a garage outlet you're paying 50 cents a KWh for your electricity.
Yeah, 100K is only middle class or above here if you were lucky enough to buy a house 15 years ago or more.
During the "bomb cyclone' that hit NorCal, Tesla owners were waiting for hours at charging stations to recharge their cars.
The only logical starting point is, Was it legal and economically justified to enact EV subsidies to begin with. And of course it was not. Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline in order to create chaos that he would step in to solve. The man is stupid and knows none of the science. "Just Facts" has released a study showing EVs are MUCH MORE polluting than non-EVs.
American taxpayers are tired of paying thousands and even millions of dollars to subsidize studies at colleges and universities, studies that have no real purpose than to skim more money off the taxpayer.
Businesses are supposed to be created with the investment of private individuals and consumers, not the government.
As for Komrad Newsom, before he's finished, Californians will be forced to use only public transportation and the only food they will get to eat will be lab grown.
Meanwhile Newscum is paying $9.1 million for a home.
It helps when you're related to Nancy and Paul.
Indeed. It's time to end the "cars for [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s]" program.
...and every other 'armed-theft' for [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] in the USA.
EV manufacturers don’t need subsidies. Neither do oil companies.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91227817/why-eliminating-fossil-fuel-subsidies-such-challenge
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/climate/tax-breaks-oil-gas-us.html
LMAO.... "What is a subsidy? A subsidy is a financial benefit given by a government to an entity or industry. Some subsidies are relatively obvious others are less visible. A tariff on an imported product, for example, can subsidize domestic manufacturers of that product."
Neat Trick! Tariffs = Domestic Subsidies???
WTF? What kind of retard buys this BS?
Click on the linked Fossil Fuel Subsidies and you get linked to the Communist Manifesto (Gov-Gun planned economies).