Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: In Chicago, Black women’s maternal mortality rate is six times higher than white women’s
Next Post: Davis campaign raised less than promised ahead of another tough primary
Posted in:
* Sun-Times editorial…
In 2021, Lion Electric opened an electric bus manufacturing plant in Joliet. In 2019, Rivian Automotive moved into a former Mitsubishi plant in Normal to start building electric vehicles. But Illinois needs to build on those successes if it is to become an electric vehicle manufacturing center.
To help get there, the Legislature in 2021 passed the Reimagining Energy and Vehicles in Illinois Act, which provides incentives to lure companies in the electric vehicle supply chain and promote renewable energy. Another law passed last year will require new or renovated homes to have conduits to charge electric vehicles. […]
But Illinois ought to do more to boost the market for electric vehicles. In its latest budget, the state trimmed about $7.3 million from its electric vehicle rebate program, cutting it to about $12 million. In the previous year, $19.3 million was available for the rebates, which give $4,000 to customers who buy new or used EVs from licensed dealers. Demand was so high, the program ran out of money about halfway through the fiscal year.
More money should be made available for rebates, though perhaps better targeted, to avoid them going to people buying top-end models who could afford to buy electric cars without rebates.
Environmental groups estimate the EV rebate need for this fiscal year to be about $40 million, which is $28 million more than was actually appropriated.
* The Question: Should Illinois increase funding for its electric vehicle rebate program? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: In Chicago, Black women’s maternal mortality rate is six times higher than white women’s
Next Post: Davis campaign raised less than promised ahead of another tough primary
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
100%. This is a good program and a great way to keep Illinois on the forefront on EVs.
Comment by New Day Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:37 am
No. If EV’s can’t operate without subsidies : they aren’t worth it . Those subsidies could be going to help public transportation pension systems.
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:40 am
===If EV’s can’t operate without subsidies : they aren’t worth it===
Without taking a side on this issue, the entire energy industry is subsidized in numerous ways. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet being just one of them.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:45 am
We don’t need any more tax loopholes. Illinois is broke. What we need are more tax increases. If we raise taxes then more revenue will be generated that we can use on social programs to help those that aren’t able to find a good paying job. Make the businesses pay.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:48 am
Agree with Steve. We should also get rid of all the incentives for the agricultural industry. No more incentives for rich farmers. If they can’t survive on their own then we don’t need them.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:50 am
=No. If EV’s can’t operate without subsidies : they aren’t worth it . Those subsidies could be going to help public transportation pension systems.=
First, excellent point Rich.
Second, now explain American agriculture. Hundreds of billions in subsidies every year for decades. Trillions and trillions spent over those decades.
The EV incentive, especially if it is focused on Illinois manufacturers is a good investment.
As a anecdotal note, I am starting to see Rivians on a regular basis in the suburbs.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:50 am
Yes, they should. I’d also argue there should be a component for buying Illinois-made vehicles. At a minimum, the IL EPA needs to reopen the program ASAP.
Comment by Downstate Dave Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:56 am
I’d rather see more charging stations
I’m rural, and there are no charging stations within 25 miles of me.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:58 am
Yes, but how about a discussion of means testing for the program? Are we trying to encourage people to buy $100,000 Rivians or spur them to consider a used $8,000 Nissan Leaf?
Their are some internal targets in the program, but its great success and apparently overwhelming demand probably warrants a discussion on what exactly is the goal and who are we wanting to help go electric?
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:58 am
The rebate might help a small amount, but power availability is the main bottleneck for Illinois’ attempt to build an EV industry.
Post-CEJA, available power capacity has diminished considerably in Illinois. The fossil fuel plants that were set to be phased out 20 years from now via CEJA phased out early and renewable projects have not come online fast enough to offset the loss of generation capacity. Worse, the EV-related project proposals I’ve seen are relying on 20-100 mW of electrical capacity for their sites, which is just flat out not available right now.
Comment by sulla Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:59 am
No. I am tired of the never ending “priming of the pump” in order to foist EV’s on a customer base that frankly isn’t interested.
Comment by James Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:01 am
It is true that all energy gets subsidies. All big S&P 500 companies get certain write offs. My understanding here is the scale of the subsidies compared to other forms of energy is huge. Also, the batteries are very, very expensive. Is the power grid ready?
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:04 am
No
I don’t feel that EV are anywhere near the price that regular wage earners could afford. Thus I feel that the only advantage an incentive would give would be for the wealthy and privileged. That group already has enough. I don’t think subsidizing someone’s vanity Tesla is a good use of tax money.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:05 am
I’d like to see some sort of plan to address how to off set declining motor fuel taxes before increasing the subsidy. At least a study of how more EVs will impact Illinois’ ability to fund road maintenance and repairs.
I’m not opposed to increasing the EV subsidy, but I’d like to better understand the full cost of doing so. And since we’re headed down the road to reducing the consumption of gasoline/diesel, the state really needs to look into how to find new ways of funding existing and future road projects.
Measure twice, cut once as they say.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:05 am
I look at the question in the context of comparing the benefit of using state funds for this rebate vs. using the funds in a different manner. My thought is that there are other ways in which the funds could be used that would provide better incentives for business development in the state.
The subsidy promotes purchases of electric vehicles manufactured outside of Illinois. Instead, why not use the funds to provide incentives for Illinois-based business.
The proponents of increased subsidies have a different perspective - they feel electric vehicles are better for the environment, so they wish to promote purchasing them, whereever they are manufactured.
Comment by Just the Facts Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:07 am
Yes, increase the funding for Illinois made vehicles, good for the environment and good for our state’s economy.
But Honeybear makes a good point, why subsidize the wealthy? That’s why the made in Illinois option is better.
Furthermore, we need to make sure EVs pay their fair share of road fund taxes through a mileage or usage tax. No exemptions allowed there.
Comment by Suburbanon Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:14 am
===My understanding here is the scale of the subsidies compared to other forms of energy===
Depends if you want to factor the cost of lives lost during Middle Eastern wars and conflicts.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:15 am
No, because 1) EV’s are, at this point in time, not THAT environmentally friendly - some of the benefit in gas engine emissions is offset by greater tire particulate emissions, 2) disproportionately benefits suburbs until charging infrastructure builds out (one positive is all the manufacturers agreeing to one standard, even if it is Tesla’s)
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:24 am
=Thus I feel that the only advantage an incentive would give would be for the wealthy and privileged. That group already has enough. I don’t think subsidizing someone’s vanity Tesla is a good use of tax money.=
I respectfully disagree. There are a lot of electrics out there these days and many are purchased by middle class buyers like me.
There are not many incentives available for people like me. I make a healthy living but not so much that I can hide money offshore.
My kids did not qualify for any income based discounts or scholarships for college or school, but I am not so wealthy that I could pay for them out of pocket.
It is great to help low income folks, but the middle class could use a little something from time to time as we generally pay full freight on everything and pay a lot of the tax dollars that go to help low income folks too.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:27 am
=== The subsidy promotes purchases of electric vehicles manufactured outside of Illinois. ===
That is a very shallow cost-benefit analysis.
Rich just told us that Illinois saw $1.8 billion in
Flood damage due to castrophic rains, which are linked to climate change. Crop failures, climate change. Record asthma attacks, fossil fuels. Air hazard events, climate change. Higher AC bills, climate change. And on, and on, and on.
By the way, we subsidize ethanol, which actually causes a net increase in greenhouse gases.
The best argument against the subsidies would be that they do not increase EV purchases and mainly benefit the upper 25%. That might be true. I would be all in favor of a subsidies that focused on making EV realistic in Illinois poorest urban neighborhoods, including public charging stations.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:40 am
Yes. These companies are start ups or very risky propositions in a risky market. Their product is sound. Additionally, vehicle makers are needed in the Midwest. The South has become the new Detroit.
Comment by Stormsw7706 Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:40 am
=== but the middle class could use a little something from time to time as we generally pay full freight on everything ===
Millions of Americans are happy to trade places with you. The Middle Class exists because the United States is a great country. The Working Poor exist because the United States needs to be a better country.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:44 am
Yes. We went from Canadian wildfire smoke to severe storms, flooding and tornadoes back to wildfire smoke. Parts of America and Europe are roasting. More funding for cleaner energy is a small price to pay, not just for Illinois but much of the world.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:48 am
=== Millions of Americans are happy to trade places with you. The Middle Class exists because the United States is a great country. The Working Poor exist because the United States needs to be a better country. ===
Not sure what the purpose of this comment is. JSMill was trying to lay out in an understandable way how such an incentive program would affect people like him. You seemed to take it as complaining - which I did not take it that way. If your goal is to eliminate all subsidies for anyone that isn’t “working poor”, then just say that. Just because someone isn’t poor does not mean that they have it easy.
To the post, I think that it depends on the benefits the subsidy would provide. If it results in more people driving electric vehicles, growth in the Illinois economy, utilizing less fossil fuels, etc., it should be considered even if it initially only benefits a smaller group of residents.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:18 pm
Yes. It is disappointing that Gov. Pritzker is trying to slow-walk this transition to EVs. Comments he made during the 2022 campaign confirm this. We need to be reducing our emissions now and transportation emissions are the highest source of emissions in the state. Other states have taken the lead when it comes to agreeing to stop the sale of gasoline powered vehicles by 2035. Illinois should be doing the same.
At the same time, I agree with other comments that there needs to be restrictions on who are awarded the subsidies so they aren’t going towards those purchasing $100k+ cars and we need to invest more in rail (high-speed rail and intercity).
Comment by Politistage Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:40 pm
Either we have an EV rebate as CEJA indicates, or we do not have one. Last year about 1,700 people thought they were getting one but were told “NO” by the I-EPA due to the budget shortfall. This year looks worse cutting the average mo. from about $3.4M to about $1M ($12.5 for the year). This is shameful.
Comment by TomColeman Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:46 pm
Yes to the subsidy. If given the choice, I would prefer to give my money to ComEd rather than Saudi Arabia.
The upside is cleaner emissions and fewer breakdowns. The downside is the lag in building charging stations and car fires.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:48 pm
There would be no need to import oil from Middle Eastern countries we were at war with if we returned to the stability of the energy independence we enjoyed during the previous administration
The average electric vehicle in 2023 costs $64,000 vs an average of $48,000 for a new gas powered vehicle
https://www.findmyelectric.com/blog/electric-car-prices/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20most%20estimates%20put%20the,of%20last%20year%20(2022).
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/kbb-atp-march-2023/#:~:text=The%20average%20transaction%20price%20(ATP,compared%20to%20year%2Dago%20levels.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:52 pm
==I don’t think subsidizing someone’s vanity Tesla is a good use of tax money.==
The Model 3 is under $35k. That’s cheaper than the vanity F-150s I see written-off as “business expenses.”
Comment by supplied_demand Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 12:53 pm
@Thomas Paine- Do you think those millions would do what I did to get where I am? Pretty sure they could. I did not grow up in wealth and had to do a lot, make a lot of sacrifices to get what little I have. My entire career has been about educating kids so they can break out of poverty.
I don’t think wanting an incentive to be in place that makes it affordable for folks like me to go a little greener is taking food out of anyone’s mouth.
Tip of the hat to hannibal lecter
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:07 pm
What 47th Ward said.
Comment by Original Rambler Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:32 pm
No. After the original federal rebate expired for Tesla, they continued to be the largest sellers of EVs in the US. The subsidies aren’t necessary.
To the myriad of misinformation in this section so far:
-EVs are already affordable to the middle class. Vehicles like Chevy Bolts Hyundai Konas can regularly be bought for less than $30k.
-Ethanol doesn’t actually increase greenhouse gases unless you only read studies based on bad data.
-Lifetime EV emissions are a small fraction of what an ICE or hybrid produces. The tire particulate baloney has been disproven time and again.
I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Comment by WK Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:34 pm
I don’t want to subsidize the purchase of EVs. I want to subsidize their use. We need to get EVs to people who drive a lot of miles, not to the executive who takes the train downtown and drives his Tesla to the country club on the weekends.
Comment by very old soil Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:52 pm
I stand corrected. I just looked up the MSRP for inexpensive EV’s and they ran from 27-42k. I am now switching my vote to a yes.
I was thinking only of the high end EV’s and had not researched it before I fired my comment. I ask forgiveness from JS Mill who I hold in high regard. I meant no offense towards you.
So now EVs are in reach of regular wage earners. Lowering the cost would bring about needed change.
May the congregation accept my apology.
Rich certainly knows I leap before I look.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:52 pm
==during the previous administration==
You go with that partisan propaganda @LP. Dishonest once again.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 1:58 pm
The program should be open to all car buyers, based upon the car or truck being bought; deluxe expensive models are excluded by a price limit on the vehicle. Also should only be on vehicles that are produced in North America, the same as the federal requirements. They should put in more money then they think it will need, excess money could be put in the following year program. This business of “you don’t get your rebate because we didn’t put in enough money, even though we knew it would need more” is (banned words).
Comment by DuPage Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 2:07 pm
== -Ethanol doesn’t actually increase greenhouse gases unless you only read studies based on bad data. ==
Have you considered that maybe the studies you think are faulty are actually right? The most recent studies seem to certainly paint a not-so-rosy picture when looking at the entire production process.
The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.
Yes, an earlier study from the USDA and biofuel industry said it was good, but…
A 2019 study from the USDA, which has been broadly cited by the biofuel industry, found that ethanol’s carbon intensity was 39% lower than gasoline, in part because of carbon sequestration associated with planting new cropland.
But that research underestimated the emissions impact of land conversion, Lark said.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 2:15 pm
=Have you considered that maybe the studies you think are faulty are actually right? =
I’m happy to rephrase and say “bad analysis of data”. Crop conversion in the US is a non issue. No one here is converting rain forest to crops. Ground is moving between different grains based on profitability with little to no impact on emissions. If the ethanol industry disappears, acreage changes little.
Corn is primarily grown for protein, whether that’s in animal feed or added to human food. Due to things like dried distillers grains, 50% to 70% of the protein is retained after ethanol production and then still used for feed. Your studies like to however assign 100% of the production emissions to the ethanol. That’s how they get to the conclusion they want.
Comment by WK Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 2:55 pm
Adding to Lucky’s references, EV prices have fallen SIGNIFICANTLY this year. Now down to slightly over $53,438 per KBB in June2023, down about 20% from June2022 EV average price and much closer to $48,200 price for non EVs. https://ngtnews.com/ev-prices-see-steep-drop-since-last-year-says-kelley-blue-book Added point on IL EV rebate is that it is available for USED EV purchases as well, making it much more useful to lower and middle income buyers. About 10% of EV rebates in IL have gone to low income buyers. The funding is woefully inadequate given approximately +50% growth rate in EVs annually; we should be ensuring overburdened communities see more benefits of EVs; savings there would have proportionately greater economic impact. Ditto cleaner air.
Comment by thrudasmog Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 2:57 pm
@Honeybear- No need for forgiveness (but you have it) we are all good, just wanted to express my opinion and always respect yours. We are all good.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 6:30 pm
Yes to more subsidies, but they need to be focused on IL product and means tested to help the middle class instead of the wealthy. We can debate where the cut-off is, but any subsidy should likely be phased out somewhere in the $85 - $125 household income level.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 8:06 pm
We are in a serious climate crisis and transportation is the sector that contributes most to global warming. It is essential that the budget for EV rebates be increased to meet the demand for EVs if we want to address this crisis. We need at least $40 million to $50 million a year as the demand grows. The Governor wants us to be a leader in EVs; the only way to do this is to increase EVs on the roads, not just manufacture more of them.
Comment by Pamela Tate Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 9:34 pm
We are in a serious climate crisis and transportation is the sector that contributes most to global warming. It is essential that the budget for EV rebates be increased to meet the demand for EVs if we want to address this crisis. We need at least $40 million to $50 million a year as the demand grows. The Governor wants us to be a leader in EVs; the only way to do this is to increase EVs on the roads, not just manufacture more of them.
Comment by Pamela Tate Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 9:34 pm
I would add that state government could show a hint that it supports EV adoption by having a public charger at the seat of government. They ripped the functioning (mostly) charger out at the capitol and didn’t replace it.
Comment by WK Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 10:16 pm
Yes, and expand to hybrids
Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 17, 23 @ 11:56 pm