Green stickered PlugIns are gonna ri$e...

I ran some stats for 2013...CA sold 42% of PHEV and 46% of BEV. I wouldn't be surprised if the PHEV %CA was higher here YTD 2014 due to the sticker thing.

Don't forget the state has committed to do what it takes to keep people buying these, although I don't know if they are concerned about supporting PHEV. The market for exisiting green tags may ebb and flow if the state makes some adjustments...so wait and see? Seems like some who don't need green tags might grab a 2015 for the trade.

 

a

Either I haven't been keeping up to date on my info, or that is a confirmation that the 4th gen won't show up until at the earliest a 2016 model (no reason for Toyota to rush it at this point as it won't make it in time for green stickers anymore).

Unless you need the money now, it makes no sense to sell/trade in a PiP until demand for used market Green Stickers go up. How much will it go up this time around? Only time will tell. With White Stickers being available, I would assume the demand for Green ones won't result in as much of a premium unfortunately, but who knows. The best time to sell might be within a few months of Green ones running out. It might not be wise to wait too long, otherwise there is a small chance legislation will bring a few more back. Also waiting too long could work against you as better tech comes out with Gen4 Prius/ Gen 2 Leaf/ Gen 2 Volt/ Tesla Model E.

I was interested in the RAV4 EV, but with a 90 mile round trip commute and no possibility of charging at the office, worry of battery charge loss sold me on the PiP instead. The RAV4 EV sounds like a sweet commuter car for you, but the versatility of the PiP to allow a drive to somewhere like SF on a weekend without having to stop and fill up or recharge in the middle is pretty awesome (and not costing too much too). Keeping your PiP for longer trips might not be a bad idea, but at the same time you could just rent a car for those trips and save a lot of money in the process. Also it's a bit worrisome for a consumer to buy a compliance car when the manufacturer strictly comes out against the tech behind it (Toyota not standing fully behind BEVs, but you probably have more insight on Toyota's reasons than we do).

If you plan on keeping the RAV4 EV after your lease ends, you could sell your PiP when the demand for green stickers goes up (and maybe get a 4th gen when it comes out, or keep the money). If you plan on returning the RAV4 EV when your lease is up summer 2016, keeping the PiP around is probably a wise idea since the sticker will last you until January 2019.

It will be really interesting over the next few years to see where PHEVs and BEVs go, in terms of technology and consumer adoption. Hopefully the PiP is still able to sell without these incentives, but it seems the demand will decrease significantly unfortunately.

 

I see a lot of uncertainty with the HOV stickers...

The one certain thing is that the car itself is a depreciating asset, and it should be used for utilitarian purposes instead of an investment vehicle.

Dianne mentions that the HOV sticker on her PiP is not being utilized by anyone while the car sits in the driveway (did I mention depreciation?). Putting fuel efficient vehicles in the "fast lane" makes no sense. A battery powered car wastes very little energy while sitting in gridlocked traffic. It's the Hummers, Escalades, and pickups that are wasting enormous amounts of energy while they are constantly accelerated.

The HOV lane itself is a terrible idea that should just go away, but besides this, the intended purpose of getting people to carpool has been lost while lobbyists have wrangled control of the resource. We have allowed companies to profit off of our publicly owned resource.

 

I tend to agree about HOV but...
(I am not exactly sure about CA situation) keep in mind the idea of single occupant HOV comes from US Congress who I think says Fed funded roads can allow single occupant green cars in HOV lanes. So that's why we have it in Virginia (whereas if we left if up to VA legislators, green cars would probably get zero HOV priviledges, which could be the right answer as you stated).

The important point to be observed, is the HOV priviledge can be an extremely powerful green car sales incentive in those areas where HOV access can save mucho commute time. I think it accounts for why VA was No. 5 state on Prii sales...but we probably slipped back as our program is scaled back since 2011.

 

On the surface you are correct. Hybrids are more efficient in non-HOV lanes, and gas guzzlers are more efficient in HOV lanes. However, the HOV incentive converts drivers from gas guzzlers to fuel efficient vehicles, so that's where it makes plenty of sense to have these incentives. I traded in a 16-17 mpg Mustang for a 60-65 mpg Plug-in Prius. In my case I'm using significantly less energy with my current setup (not the best example, since my DD was a PriusC with my weekender being the Mustang, now the PiP is my DD with the C being the family car).

Just by getting two people to commute together instead of taking two cars fuel consumption gets cut in half (assuming same vehicles). I wouldn't say it's a terrible idea, but I do feel like it could be improved somehow (but that's a whole different discussion).

Best definition of Fastrak I've heard.

 

Love you dearly, Dianne, but to be fair - gobbled up by dealers too. The issuance rate jumped last September when the dealer program started, and spiked this month until it was terminated.

So should I sell my 2012 PiP to you in SoCal, later this year when it becomes available, rather than to a dealer here in NoCal?

Not right away, IMO.

Range anxiety will continue to keep the long distance commuters, who would most benefit from the stickers, out of the EV market. Sticker lust will move some new plug-in shoppers over to the used market. So I think there will be a sweet spot for used green stickers, starting when the "Green Stickers Run Out" headlines peak and lasting until EV range improves dramatically ($75k Teslas aside)

I've been tracking my 2012 PiP's value on edmunds.com, and it's only dropped about $30 in the last month. That seems small.

 

I find this to be not true! For my previous 2010 Prius to my now 2013 PiP. Both cars are the most fuel efficient when you are in moderate traffic. Meaning the average speed ranging from 15 to maybe 40 MPG. If you're just sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, there's rarely a chance that your Prius is regenerating simply because there's not enough speed. When I'm sitting in traffic, my battery dies quickly and ICE kicks in and will keep running for as long as I'm sitting in gridlocked traffic.

 

It's an abuse of a resource, and completely antithetical to the purpose of HOV lanes. If you want to artificially encourage sales of a particular type of car, then offer a subsidy for it (which they already do).

Who benefits from all of this? Certainly bureaucrats and big business, but also wealthy people that can afford to buy new and fancy technology. We're offering public money in the form of tax benefits to those wealthy enough to already be able to afford the technology, and then allow them to break the rules by allowing single occupancy in the publicly owned HOV lane.

Is there no end to the insanity! It's the opposite of progressiveness (subsidies to the wealthy) and the opposite of environmentalism (efficient vehicles in HOV lanes).

I don't blame people that take part in these special privileges because they would be fools not to, but I do blame citizens in general for allowing corrupt politicians to lie in bed with big business.

You missed the thrust of my argument; that in comparison to inefficient vehicles such as a Hummer, the Prius wastes little energy in gridlocked traffic. If the purpose of HOV lanes is to conserve resources (gas) and protect the environment, keeping the large and inefficient vehicles moving is the best way to accomplish this.

 

It's not the best way if you want people to stop buying them.

 

I get your point, I'm just picking out something that's not necessary true. And I don't necessary agree with your point either. I'm not arguing HOV lanes are practical or impractical. But in a way, you're implying SUV's should have HOV stickers more than EV's or plug in's. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. You want to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars not SUV's.

 

I think he's mixing two concepts. Yes, it is true that SUV's are more efficient at higher speeds than lower speeds, and hybrids are more efficient at lower speeds than higher speeds. However, the goal of the HOV Stickers is to promote more people to buy BEV/PHEV's, which are significantly more efficient than gas guzzlers regardless of carpool lane or not, not just to let green tech "holier-than-thou" people use the carpool lanes.

Besides, if you look at the numbers alone and try to do it the other way around (let trucks use carpool lanes instead of BEV/PHEV's), the carpool lane would have almost as many drivers as any other lane and no longer be a perk (Ford F-series trucks were the #1 most sold vehicle in the US in 2013, with hybrids only accounting for 4% of the total vehicle sales in 2013).

 

If you want to stop inefficient vehicles from being sold, you could make them illegal, charge an extra tax, or increase fuel taxes. However, once the vehicles are purchased and in service on our roads, they should be removed from gridlocked traffic as quickly as possible. Note that I'm not advocating for granting HOV access to inefficient vehicles, rather pointing out the absurdity of allowing access of the lane to the most efficient vehicles.

Those that drive inefficient vehicles already have a massive incentive to stop (fuel prices). They also pay a much greater percentage of the road infrastructure tax via increased fuel consumption.

The reason that HOV is unnecessary is because carpooling already has incentives built in. People save money on gas, they save money on parking, the passengers can have a more relaxed commute and focus on things other than driving... is there even evidence showing that HOV lanes have meaningfully increased the number of people that choose to carpool? I'm not strongly against HOV lanes, and would be persuaded that they are good policy if there was evidence that they do significant good.

 

I don't understand why it's absurd for allowing EV's and plug-in's in HOV lanes. It's just an encouragement for people to buy efficient vehicles over gas guzzling trucks.

 

In Virginia, the single occupant HOV access probably explains some of the animosity against Prius owners, and might have accounted for why some of our politicians temporarily liked the failed hybrid fee.

But our VA free HOV goes to early adopters who purchased hybrids a long time ago, so punishing new owners makes no sense. Crazy VA state rules really. CA is crazy but different....interesting to watch and see how it goes.

PS- Here's another thought, perhaps Toyota is delaying nextgen PiP until CA clarifies future HOV requirements. Or do we already know this?

 

Dealers aren't gobbling up the stickers. They are temporarily holding them for consumers who will be purchasing soon.

Mike

 

Generally speaking, in many cases, wealthy people got that way because they know a good deal when they see it and thus can afford to pay somewhat more for something upfront in return for later benefits (i.e. lower fuel costs, for example). If this is what it takes to get a more environmentally friendly technology past the early adopters phase so it can become mass market, then great.

It isn't going to happen, for example, if you offered 50% off in tax rebates on Teslas only to low income people.

None of the EV and hybrid rebates make the cost of these cars less than what a low income person (with enough income to afford a new car) should prudently be spending on basic transportation.

Mike

 

Have there been any rumblings about the green and/or white HOV decals being cancelled due to congestion in the HOV lanes exceeding some threshold? The law specifically calls out this situation.