(The Center Square) – Electric vehicle makers like Rivian and Tesla are taking a central role in the $162 billion fuel cost increase that will be voted on Friday in California, and much of that increase will be paid by poorer drivers. live He’s away from work because of the state’s high cost of housing.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard program provides credits to EV manufacturers when drivers use manufacturers’ home charging systems and allow the manufacturer to receive the credit, or when drivers use manufacturers’ public charging networks. When refineries produce gasoline or other carbon-intensive fuels for California, they must purchase credits, the cost of which is passed on to consumers. average EV financing cost is $783 per month; That means thousands of dollars in government and utility rebates for chargers or vehicle financing still keep electric vehicles out of reach for working families.

“Millionaires like Newsom and his CARB leaders can save money when the price of gasoline cars drops, but working Californians don’t have the luxury of just switching to a Rivian,” said California Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba. City to Central Square for new provisions. “Those who can least afford it will pay the price for Newsom’s extreme agenda.

The California Air Resources Board, the regulatory agency that created and voted on the proposal, estimates that new LCFS regulations would increase fuel costs by $162 billion by 2046. This money is not a tax because the government does not collect these funds. This comes from the cap-and-trade system, but it is a transfer of wealth from transportation energy producers who are more carbon-intensive than state targets to transportation energy producers who exceed state carbon targets.

Current CARB standards require the state to reduce transportation carbon intensity by 20% by 2030 compared to a 2010 baseline. The proposed rules would call for a 90% cut by 2046, requiring faster carbon cuts than before and thus resulting in a low-end estimate of 47 cents per gallon of gasoline in transition costs to consumers next year.

California with energy costs rising The cost of electricity is twice the national average because of renewable energy mandates, and CARB says rate increases are moving closer to the break-even point where it costs less to run a car on gasoline than to fill it with electrons. Electric vehicle market share growth slowed down Market share of new vehicles in California has increased from 21.5% in 2023 to 22.2% so far in 2024, compared to explosive growth of 9.1% in 2021. Gasoline may experience a large price increase due to the new LCFS requirements. It’s an effective, yet painful, tool for spurring EV sales growth.

Rivian and Tesla, which each operate large-scale public EV charging networks, collect LCFS credits when public chargers are used and are typically home charger users who sign agreements on installing the chargers to allow the companies to claim LCFS. Credit for energy paid by homeowners to charge vehicles. Because LCFS credits represent a long-term source of revenue for EV manufacturers and charging network operators, they often give away chargers for free while collecting charger subsidies from taxpayers and utility ratepayers.

Rivian buying its own charger documentsReviewed by The Center Square reveals how these regulations work: users must cede all environmental credits to the company “forever”, while Rivian retains exclusive ownership of the charging data and expressly prohibits users from accessing information about their charging sessions – that is, the data. Rivian uses it to collect loans.

Rivian Chief Policy Officer Alan Hoffman recently explained to Capitol Weekly how Rivian is leveraging LCFS.

“In Rivian’s case, our Rivian Adventure Network fast chargers generate credits while charging EVs on the road.” wrote Hoffman. “The newly updated program rules, if finalized, would also support earlier investment in public chargers… Our state’s leaders should seize this opportunity to make strategic updates to policy, set robust goals, and preserve and enhance program rules that support charging infrastructure.”

California taxpayers are now on the hook $1.9 billion Additional subsidies for private companies to build an additional 30,000 public chargers, providing dual revenue sources for charger operators (revenue from customers purchasing energy and the sale of LCFS credits).

Ford recently jumped on the bandwagon, launching a program in early October to:freeIt reflects how loan revenue makes it profitable to distribute chargers, which ratepayers often subsidize with rebates, while the homeowner pays for the electricity.

hosts three times Renters are more likely to own electric vehicles, and they are also much wealthier; This makes sense considering the cost of buying a home in California. trio It is at a level that the average household income can afford.

Drivers with income under $50,000 in Los Angeles census records (lowest income category) to have The highest percentage of “hyper-commuters” with commute times greater than 90 minutes. Because electric vehicles are so expensive, these people are unlikely to purchase an electric vehicle and are likely to own older, less efficient vehicles; This means low-income drivers will bear a disproportionate share of LCFS costs, which are covered by wealthy homeowners and electric vehicle manufacturers. take advantage of it.

Tesla was among automakers and charging operators that signed a recent letter sent to the California Senate Majority Leader and Assembly Speaker. persistently adoption of new LCFS standards.

On the evenings of November 4, 5, and 6, the Low Carbon Fuels Alliance, a coalition that includes signatories of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation’s letter, sponsored the Politico California Climate Newsletter, which was read by lawmakers, employees, and regulators and offered proposals. The ability for groups or individuals to “sponsor” the newsletter with their messages.

One of the other parties that signed the letter was the California Electric Transportation Coalition. sent An opinion column in the Sacramento Bee.

carbohydrate Finally Released the final LCFS decision for tomorrow; That decision noted that the board “recognizes that the compliance costs of this program may be passed on to consumers” and may amend CARB “if certain changes adopted under this decision would ultimately increase cost burdens on California consumers.” Again.

But this way noted That process could take years, due to CARB’s insistence on approval and a vote on proposed standards before the deadline expires, and the body having to go through another multi-year regulatory process for new LCFS changes, leaving higher prices in place.