[dragonwriter]

> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here.

Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market.

Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.

[thewhitetulip]

Why would any govt want to subsidize hybrids? isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?

[dragonwriter]

> Why would any govt want to subsidize hybrids?

Because for many common usage patterns, plug-in hybrids get nearly all the emissions benefits of full-electric vehicles, but a practical for people to use who have a small fraction of use where a full EV would not currently be suitable for reasons of range and state of fast-charging infrastructure.

> isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?

The real goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But, a subgoal of that cited by the governor's executive order that this bill cites is a target to have “virtually all” personal vehicle transportation be zero-emission by 2050. Some (possibly even significant) share of personal transport being by PHV that are used mostly within their all-electric range would not be incompatible with that.

And, in any case, the PHV subsidy in the bill phases out more than 25 years before 2050, because PHVs are seen mostly as a bridge, not a end-goal solution.

[iamryo]

Probably nothing to do with decision makers being aggressively lobbied by major car-makers that would prefer to make the easier-to-sell hybrids than full-blown electric cars.

[thewhitetulip]

But this is the main problem right? The companies are not allowing other companies to grow, they have done so successfully since a few decades, if they had not lobbied so aggressively, we'd have practical electric cars long time ago. It was purely due to Tesla's brand that Electric cars are now alive. nothing else.