I am not aware of the original text but almost always when an incentive program which doesn’t have its own statute or law (& even some of the statutory ones for that matter) the agency or the department in charge of running it is given the authority to make rules for implementing & operating the program.
I know you have done a lot of reading on this but i would be pretty certain that the BPU was given the authority in a blanket statement that gives them the authority to tweak the rules to meet the goals of the original program.
I’m sure you are right on that. I just don’t see why they didn’t word it as a program to be administered as the utility commission sees fit in the original bill that was signed. Why bother establishing specific rules if they are just meant for a bureaucracy to change at will anyway?
Chaps my hide that you have to get it at a New Jersey dealer. I have a connection at a MD Chevy dealer and would get my parents a Bolt the day it launched if you could do post-purchase. C’est la vie
I get your frustration, but again i would think that the bill didn’t codify or made the requirements as part of the statute, it probably was just allowing the government to provide incentives to increase EVs & EV infrastructure but allowed the agency incharge to make the rules. Again I’d probably would have to read the original text.
I do think that these changes are meant to provide more “accessibility” or in other words “stretch the funding”.
So found this from the early days of the charge up program.
Below is the language i found in the bill
The board would implement the rebate program until June 30 of the 10th year after the rebate program begins, or after $300 million in rebate disbursements have been paid from the fund, whichever occurs first. The board would establish the rebate as a one-time payment to the purchaser of a new light duty plug-in electric vehicle in an amount set and calculated by the department as equal to at least $25 per mile of the eligible vehicle’s electric power range as certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and determined by the DEP, up to a maximum of $5,000 per eligible vehicle. The board may adjust the rebate amount as necessary to achieve the goals outlined in the bill, but not more than once per aggregate disbursement of $100 million in rebates. The board, in consultation with the working group, would develop and implement a Statewide public education program to publicize the availability of the rebates under the bill. An “eligible” vehicle is defined in the bill as a new light duty plug-in electric vehicle with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $55,000 or less, purchased after the effective date of the bill.
According to this text the only amounts that are required to adhered to is $25/mile, $5k maximum & $55k MSRP maximum. Other stuff is subject to change.
Also i think the reason they made a change this year as it would be total spending of $90 million to meet the “once per $100 million” requirements.
At this time NJ doesn’t need to offer incentive for people to buy EVs, not only do they keep altering it for the worst, but it also runs out in matter 1-2 months? I don’t see how this helps many consumers, only benefits the dealers who will claim it for themselves.
It depends. Last year a Tesla Model 3 SR+ via this program was cheaper OTD than a Toyota Camry.
IDK have the data but anecdotally it seems NJ has more EV per capita than neighboring states.
But the implementation does leave a lot to be desired and has allowed certain dealers to replace a discount line item with a rebate line item and keep the OTD price the same for customers while essentially pocketing the rebate.
Maybe be it did “help” put them on the road in the past however this year there is more EV demand then current supply. These cars will sell with or without rebate, and I’m willing to bet a good amount of total rebate will be pocketed by dealers because desperate buyer don’t have time to shop around because of supply.
Well i posted the language above which requires dealers just can’t add “ADM” but I’m sure that won’t stop them from adding fluff but if they they get caught overdoing it where it becomes borderline violation of the rules they are taking more risk then worth.
So i am not sure it will be that bad but i do think at the end of the both parties will benefit.
The problem is, like many have already said, is that they’ll just markup the car, and with the inventory as dry as it is already, many will pay. I’ll be keeping an eye on this thread to find out exactly when the funding for this gets passed. Thanks OP.
Find a good dealer for the car you want. Start your search now and make good dealer relations, multiple before they change their mind. Probably the best thing you could do.
I didn’t thoroughly read through the new proposal that was posted, here is a provision in PDF regarding dealer markups
“Dealership Participation Requirements: Participating Dealerships and Showrooms shall only apply incentives to eligible applicants and vehicles in accordance with Terms and Conditions. Participating Dealerships and Showrooms must notify eligible customers of the existence of the incentive at the point of sale. Participating Dealerships and Showrooms must communicate to customers that the line item deduction on the purchase or lease contract is a function of the Charge Up New Jersey Program. Dealerships and Showrooms are to deliver cars to customers at the point of sale prior to completing applications. No further actions, such as additional charges, vehicle mark-ups, payment contingencies, or holds, shall be taken against the customer for the incentive. The full incentive is to be applied at the point of sale. Incentives may not be held until the application is approved, nor issued as a check after the transaction is completed. Dealerships and Showrooms may not recuperate the value of the incentive from a customer in the event that an application is canceled due to Dealership or Showroom error or penalty.”
Thoughts? How do you think this will be fair, will dealers just be like, “it’s marked up so no rebate for you.” Is this legal technically? I just attended the hearing. The wording is pretty vague and we all know dealers can find a lot of sneaky loopholes and I expressed that to them so they can make proper adjustments to the wording.
