California is not serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If they were, those bemoaning the loss of the federal EV rebate of $7,500 that happened at the end of September would not be pushing for California to revive its own EV rebate with what critics have complained is a “paltry” $200 million that Gov. Gavin Newsom set aside for such an endeavor.

And before going on, those who like to blame the meanies in power along the Potomac for draining the momentum out of powering electric vehicle sales, Sacramento beat Washington to the punch by ending EV rebates first.

The plug was pulled on the $7,500 state rebate back in November 2023, a full 22 months ahead of the federal government doing the same.

Of course, they will say California had to because it ran out of money.

But if the No. 1 crisis facing the state as Californians were told for more than a decade was climate change caused first and foremost by vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, what could be more important than getting fossil fueled cars off the road?

It is now being proposed that EV manufacturers match any rebate the state comes up with.

Given what is supposedly at stake, it is kind of like debating where the deck chairs on the Titanic should be placed.

It’s an apropos analogy given that just like the lifeboats on the Titanic that went to be more well-heeled, the SS California basically funneled the rebates to those in the economic levels above steerage.

In fairness, California does have a plan to help get those in “steerage” out of older cars that get the worst gas mileage and therefore pollute more and into EVs.

It’s called the Clean Cars for All program and it gives qualified individuals up to $12,000 to purchase an EV.

That $200 million budgeted by Newsom should be diverted to the Clean Cars for All effort to effectively replace the loss of the $7,500 federal EV rebate.

Doing so when combined with PG&E rebates for low-income customers to cover Charger installation costs, gives a less-than-well-positioned buyer $19,500 off the cost of an EV.

Assuming the state takes possession of the low-income buyer’s current fossil fuel powered vehicle and has it dismantled for some parts but basically recycled, it will be picking the hardest to reach fruit on the tree.

And let’s be honest. Those that took advantage of the state EV rebate as well as that offered by the federal government were the proverbial low-hanging fruit.

EVs have been manufactured long enough now that the quality and range are improving, even if ever so slowly, as the years progress.

That means just on the much ballyhooed merits of less maintenance costs and lower costs per mile to power an EV should be enough of an incentive for buyers in a position to buy a new vehicle without government help to opt to do so.

Of course, if Newsom wants to get more people to decide to buy electric instead of fossil fueled vehicles he might just want to do something about PG&E et al.

If you are one of 16 million people depending on PG&E as your electric provider, that means they are going to be your “gas station” if you have an EV.

Average gas prices in California in 2023 were hovering around $5 a gallon.

Today, they’re about a dollar less.

PG&E electricity costs never go down.

Yes, you do get the California Climate Credit twice a year for electricity.

That money does not grow on trees.

The state actually siphons it out of your pocket as it is collapsed into prices refineries have to pay to be allowed by the state to convert oil into gasoline.

Who would you rather be your “gas station”, PG&E or Maverik?

Perhaps if Newsom can reign in PG&E costs instead of the state forcing them to keep expensive renewable contracts such as the one that locks them into paying prices for solar generates at the Ivanpah plant in San Bernardino County that is significantly higher than on today’s market, driving an EV may be harder to resist for potential buyers that were targeted by the state’s EV rebate.

But that is clearly wishful thinking.

Newsom has had almost eight years to address affordability issues with PG&E.

The end result, PG&E customers in California still enjoy the highest electricity rates by far in all the 48 continental states.

Make electricity more affordable and you may not need a state rebate to make owning an EV more attractive.

But that would require more effort than just spewing out snappy sound bites while playing the role of the “anti-guy.”

And when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the reality is that lower income households drive older cars that are likely to have mileage per gallon that is far below levels for fossil fuel powered vehicles manufactured today.

The differential is made worse if the older vehicles aren’t properly maintained.

What better way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than to get older cars off the road owned by people that can’t afford new cars, let alone new EVs, on their own.

You could go one better and interject one of the favorite buzz words of hardcore greenies into the mix — “environmental justice.”

Add the $200 million to the Clean Cars for All program with the proviso it is spent on those low income people in California residing in areas with the worst air quality.

The plan being advanced by the Newsom administration guarantees only the well-heeled will be able to access the $200 million.

That’s because the proposal is to dish out whatever size the rebate ends up being on a first-come, first served basis.

The proposed rules do limit new passenger cars to those priced below $55,000 and SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans capped at $80,000.

Any wild guesses with submitting rebate applications when sales are executed at a dealership on a first-come basis how many of those that would benefit the most from a basic Prius and who have to go through an elaborate state approval process, will be taking advantage of a new round of state rebates?

Add to it the projection by experts that the $200 million would only cover 20 percent of EV sales during 2025 in California, and you start to understand the entire exercise is about scoring political points and not doing the grunt work to get the cars that likely effect climate change the most off the road.

You can rest assured the $200 million in rebates that will help fund fuel EV purchases won’t require buyers to trade in their fossil fuel powered cars and having them destroyed.

A true greenhouse gas reduction initiative would require that such trade-ins be destroyed.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com