Real Estate, The Economy, and News: Government Subsidies

Showing posts with label Government Subsidies. Show all posts

Friday, May 18, 2018

Washington D.C. Public Transit System Purchases Fleet of 14 Proterra Electric Buses

Technological innovations in this day and age, especially those in the realm of transportation, have been focusing more and more on green energy. From Tesla's cars to Nikola Corp's trucks, many companies are trying to steadily phase out the necessity of fossil fuels for long-distance travel. The problem with that goal is that, at the moment, green energy sources and vehicles that utilize those types of energy tend to be more expensive. To that end, the companies that focus on electric vehicles usually need some sort of governmental relationship to get off the ground. With Tesla, customers were able to get government rebates/subsidies after purchasing cars like Tesla's Model 3. According to Russ Mitchell's L.A. Times article, Proterra (a manufacturer of electric buses) sold 14 of its vehicles to the Washington, D.C., Circulator transit system earlier this month.

The complete cost of those buses was not reported, but Proterra's buses are known to cost somewhere between $700,000 and $900,000 each, so it's likely that this purchase cost D.C. quite a bit. On the one hand, spending millions of dollars on electric buses may seem exorbitant, but to another perspective, the fleet of buses serves to show millions of diplomats and tourists from around the world that the United States is working on developing technology with lower environmental impacts and better user experience. Though nearly a million dollars per bus is a lot of money, Washington D.C. gets tens of thousands of tourists each day who use the bus system to visit the various landmarks and museums.

Although Proterra is based out of Northern California, the company has a factory on each coast: one in the City of Industry, California, and the other in Greenville, South Carolina. The South Carolina plant has a perfect location to be accessible to the nation's capital, while the California plant is right in the center of all kinds of innovation going on in the state. The East Coast side of the business puts it in the view of politicians and lobbyists who make the decisions regarding public transportation around the country, and the West Coast side of the business has been able to draw from engineers and manufacturers already in the area for work in the aerospace industry.

Proterra doesn't have a monopoly on electric buses, though. California's plethora of skilled workers has made the Los Angeles area a hub for the development of electric buses and other such vehicles. Another company, called BYD, which is based out of China, has a factory in Lancaster. According to their own numbers, BYD has sold at least 722 buses, while Proterra has sold over 546. For such a pricey commodity, both companies seem to be doing relatively well in an industry that is fairly new. Even some universities are switching their bus systems to electric ones. There's no way to tell for sure, but it seems like the trend of electric buses could really take off throughout the nation in the near future.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, April 21, 2017

LA County to Offer Lower Utilities Rates Through Community Choice Aggregation Programs

In this day and age, as technology continues to advance and resources are stretched thin, energy sources are often on the mind of the common consumer and government entities. Electricity rates have been going up, and even as we search for alternative, green energy options, it can be difficult to make those options affordable. Fortunately, earlier this week, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors approved a public energy program that gives Southern California Edison customers an alternative, government-backed energy source to purchase from. According to Ivan Penn and Nina Agrawal's article in the L.A. Times, the public energy program is expected to lower individual costs by around 5% and is open to residences and businesses alike.

Not only will the energy program be providing power to customers at a lower cost, it will also be focusing on green energy sources. The county will be able to purchase energy from the market and invest in solar energy projects. Because the community choice aggregation (CCA) programs are government entities, they aren't allowed to make a profit on customer rates, which means they will charge the bare minimum to break even. This is very different from companies like Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., who can charge however much they want.

Hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses in the L.A. County will be able to enroll in the new CCA program, and many people in other counties could be allowed to as well, depending on local regulations. This new energy plan is expected to revamp the entire electricity industry. Private companies will be forced to find ways to lower prices and bring in green energy sources in order to compete with the government entity. Competition tends to drive down prices and drive up demand, so everyone should be happy in the long run. Some private electricity companies worry that the long-term implications of this project remain to be seen and that we should take things slow before rushing into anything.

All in all, CCA programs seem almost too good to be true. A government program that lowers rates and improves the usage of green energy sources seems like a pipe dream. Yet, with proper planning and careful budgeting, it could work out. Technology is redefining various industries, and to survive, the entire country has to change with it. With the new program, new customers can decide exactly what kind of energy they want: wind, solar, or other resources. By giving people options and lowering costs, customers become loyal and are more willing to face the changes that come with dramatic improvements. As long as the CAAs make sure their budgeting is solid, things should work out, at least for the near future.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, April 8, 2016

Not All Tesla Customers Will Get Expected Tax Rebates on Model 3

Tesla's new electric vehicle, the Model 3, is making waves throughout the market. Thousands of buyers are looking to get their hands on the luxurious, energy-efficient, affordably-priced car. At $35,000 before any governmental rebates, the Model 3's price can't be beaten by other electric vehicle producers. Thousands of dollars in state and federal rebates are offered to buyers, thus making the car an even better deal, but the rebates are not as easy to get as a buyer might think. According to Rob Nikolewski's article in the L.A. Times, buyers shouldn't count on the rebates when determining whether they can afford to purchase Tesla's Model 3.

Just this week, Tesla allowed potential customers from around the world to put down a $1,000 deposit in order to reserve their Model 3, which won't actually hit the market until December 2017. In the first 3 days, over 270,000 customers reserved their future vehicle, drawn in by its price, appearance, and the Tesla brand name. Many also took into account potential rebates that they expect to receive from the government, which Nikolewski considers an unfortunate oversight. According to him, most of the government rebates could run out by the time people get behind the wheel of their Model 3.

Southern Californians can receive $7,500 from federal subsidies and $2,500 from state subsidies when purchasing one of Tesla's electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the subsidies are only allowed for a certain number of customers. After 200,000 Tesla vehicles have been sold, the government will start to phase out the subsidies until, eventually, there will be none left. Additionally, the state recently announced that wealthy buyers (a head of household income of greater than $340,000 or a single filer income greater than $250,000) will not qualify for the state rebates at all. So, some buyers are trying to play the odds to have the greatest chance of getting the $10,000 in tax rebates.

One customer in Santa Monica, Paul Scott, decided to go for the $50,000 version of the Model 3, which comes "fully loaded." Scott's logic in ordering the most expensive model is that he assumes that Tesla will produce their more expensive models earliest, which means that he will have a greater chance of getting the rebates before they run out. Either way, Scott asserts, he is fully willing to buy the car, whether he gets the tax credit or not. Other buyers, however, don't even seem to realize that the tax rebates are not a definite source of income. They are assuming that the price will automatically be $10,000 less, and are making their purchasing decisions with incorrect numbers, a mistake that they will regret.

Tesla needs to make the terms much more clear for customers. While $35,000 is still an incredibly low price, especially for a high-end, energy-efficient vehicle that grants owners the use of Tesla's supercharger stations, customers will not be happy if they find out that they won't be able to get the $10,000 in tax credits that they had expected. For all we know, California may decide to raise the number of individuals to which they will grant rebates, in order to encourage more potential buyers into greener vehicles. So, it is possible that a lot more than 200,000 customers will get tax credits. Either way, Tesla needs to make the situation as transparent as possible so as to avoid upsetting customers and losing potential customers forever.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, December 11, 2015

Faraday Future to Break Ground on Billion Dollar Nevada Plant in 2016

Like its competitor, Tesla Motors, electric car start-up Faraday Future has decided to open up shop in Nevada. Faraday Future, a new, relatively small rival to the other electric car producers, was debating among California, Nevada, Louisiana, and Georgia for their billion dollar production facility, but eventually made their decision and will start construction in the beginning of 2016. a main factor influencing Faraday's decision was an offered package of over $300 million in tax incentives by Nevada legislators, According to company executives, this wasn't the only reason, though, and a more detailed analysis of the choice is made in Chris Kirkham's and Ivan Penn's L.A. Times article.

Faraday Future, which is branded as an electric car company, has not yet produced an electric car. One of the company's founders and primary backers is Chinese media mogul, Jia Yueting, who has a net worth of several billion dollars and is ranked as China's 17th-richest person. Many of Faraday Future's top executives previously worked for Tesla and luxury car companies like BMW and Porsche. As such, they have quite a bit of experience with electric vehicles and the selling points behind them. The market for electric vehicles, while it is still undetermined based on Tesla's sales over the past decade, has the potential to grow larger, especially as people become more environmentally conscious and try to find ways to be more energy efficient.

Nevada legislature offered similar perks to Tesla Motors a year ago. With the help of $1.3 billion in tax abatements, Tesla began work on a $5 billion factory outside of Reno. While Faraday only received a $335 million deal, that is still nothing to scoff at, and will go a long way toward creating more jobs in Nevada and producing vehicles that rely more on renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels. These deals, which might look to some like a waste of money on the part of legislators, can actually be quite beneficial to the state as a whole due to the production of jobs and the increase in goods for export to other states and other countries. The money in tax incentives that Nevada is providing to these companies can be earned back many times over by increased productivity over the long-term future.

Faraday's business model must be pretty sound for the state to take a risk and invest in them and in the hope of domestic growth in the future. Faraday doesn't just get the $335 million immediately; they have to prove that their company is moving forward. According to legislators, Faraday will not receive all of the tax abatements and other promised perks until it has invested at least $1 billion toward construction of the plant. Even without help from the tax incentives, Faraday's investment could pay off very well in the long run. As gas prices stay low, more individuals are going back to larger SUVs, since they can better afford to fill up the tanks of such automobiles. However, if and when gas prices rise again, people will be more interested in the fuel efficiency of electric vehicles and hybrids. So, as companies like Faraday and Tesla start getting ready now, they may be able to have their production running smoothly by the time demand for electric vehicles increases again.

While the tax incentives helped Faraday to make their final decision of Nevada, there were aspects of the other potential states that could have made them better choices. California, Louisiana, and Georgia all have direct ocean access, which means that they have ports and, therefore, make shipping and receiving of products and parts much simpler. Between California and Nevada, the latter has more wide-open spaces in which to build large factories. All in all, Nevada, which lacked direct access to seaports, still provided close enough access to make shipping of parts not too much of a nightmare in transportation. Highway 15 provides Nevada an almost direct route to the West Coast's ports, which, when combined with the tax incentives, made Nevada a better choice for Faraday's base of production. While we don't know whether California's legislature offered similar tax incentives to convince Faraday to choose the Golden State, in the end, Faraday made its choice, taking the best deal for itself while also benefiting the state of Nevada.

***************************************************************************************************

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Decreased Chinese Demand Harmful to American Exporters

3/6/15 - Labor strikes at ports on the West Coast and the current strength of the American dollar are both contributing greatly to exporters and other businesses that rely on exports. However, Don Lee claims in his Los Angeles Time article that China's slowing economy is causing even more damage to the American market. The strong dollar is not a good thing for most exporters because it makes their products more expensive overseas, in their target market.

While the U.S. economy as a whole seems to be pretty steady, many worry about the effects of significant Chinese withdrawal from American imports. Last year, American exports to China grew only 1.6% while American imports from China grew 5.7%. This trade deficit is bad news for scrap-metal exporters in California, Midwestern manufacturers, and cotton farmers in the Mississippi Delta.

As China's economic growth slows, amid increasing production around the world, China is forced to reduce foreign imports and focus instead on domestic businesses. Even American companies with locations in China are finding it difficult to compete with private Chinese contractors. Fortunately for America, the decrease in trade with China is being somewhat balanced out by increased exports to other countries, including Mexico and Canada. Trade, which has been involved in about one-third of America's economy in recent years, has started to become less-viable as an economic practice.

China is switching from a majorly goods-based economy to more service-based, and according to some of Lee's sources, this may not be a bad thing. Yes, it will have negative effects on businesses and companies reliant on imports and exports, but as a whole, the American economy does better off with services, like finance, accounting, and entertainment. Such service-based businesses are affected to a much lesser extent by the strength of the dollar, which is beneficial for everyone involved.

Besides the slowdown of China's economy, the Chinese president has been cracking down on corruption, forcing government officials to cut back on gifts and parties. Because of this, exporters of such products as fine wines and premium fruits have lost a sizable number of their usual customers. A combination of the new strength of the dollar and an increase in productivity by many countries has driven the prices of commodities down, which could hurt goods-based economies.

According to Lee, the export of agricultural products by California fell 9% last year, due greatly to China's changing economy. Farm shipments on their own plunged by 30%, and other products like grapes and nuts felt dramatic drops in price. The economy as a whole seems to be holding up, but it looks like it is just a matter of time before we are forced to make changes to our economy, or face devastating consequences.

***************************************************************************************************

Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

FHA Set To Re-institute Quick-Flip Restrictions

11/14/14 - The Federal Housing Administration, a federal agency involved in providing mortgage loans to real estate investors, is set to reinforce restrictions that were lowered in 2010 in an effort to help the weak housing market. These restrictions set a minimum of 90 days for investors who wish to buy a home and “flip” it, by fixing it up and reselling it. The 90 day period between buying and selling is meant to prevent the selling of poorly-fixed houses for “hyper-inflated” prices. On the other hand, forcing flippers to hold onto a house for 90 days raises their costs, which they then have to incorporate into their selling price. An article by Kenneth Harney of the L.A. Times investigates the positive and negative aspects of the FHA's restrictive 90-day flipping period.

By waiving the 90-day flip period in 2010, the FHA enabled investors to buy, fix, and sell houses quickly and at lower cost, thus allowing first-time home-buyers to more easily find homes in a lower price range. These quick-flips benefited both investors and buyers, lowering prices across the board. Because of the decreased restriction, over 100,000 homes were revitalized and sold, thus improving the housing market.

This improvement is the reason for the FHA's reinstitution of the 90-day flip period. The waiver program has done what it was meant to do: it stimulated home sales, thus stabilizing the market and allowing newcomers the chance to become home-owners. The program has worked relatively well so far, but such a program always has its possible dangers.

In the past, before the 90-day period existed, investors would commonly resell seemingly well-maintained houses, which were nothing more than run-down homes with a fresh coat of paint. This would lead to buyers defaulting on their mortgages, and the FHA would be forced to cover the losses. By forcing investors to take at least 90 days in fixing the houses for resale, the sellers are encouraged to actually do a decent job on the construction.

Whether the restrictive 90-day period is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. Yes, forcing flippers to hold onto a property for longer than they need to would raise sale prices, but allowing quick-flippers to sell dilapidated properties at synthetically-high price would also hurt the housing market. The main point addressed in Harney's article is this: whether you like it or not, the FHA has made its decision. The waiver program will stop at the end of December, and the 90-day resale period will come back into practice at the beginning of 2015.

***************************************************************************************************

Using Economic Principles to Reduce Water Shortages

10/15/14 - Economics is all about supply and demand, cost and benefit analysis. Yet, when it comes to water, one of the world's most necessary goods, government subsidies and and reduced costs lead to people treating this resource as if it has an unlimited supply. In his article in the New York Times, Eduardo Porter discusses how treating water as a commodity could reduce the effects of the drought nationwide.

As with any product in a healthy economy, as price goes up, demand goes down, and as price goes down, demand goes up. Across the United States, water prices are very low. These low costs, combined with a high personal benefit, lead people to purchase more water, and thus consume more. It's one thing to ask nicely for people to reduce their water consumption, but a higher cost would be a more successful deterrent for many consumers.

The scarcity of water is not going to change. No matter how many icebergs are towed to land for human consumption, no matter how many desalination plants are built, we have a limited amount of water in the world. Water costs around the country are commonly reduced to a point at which water companies would be losing money if the government wasn't providing subsidy funds. But that isn't how it should be. If water cost more, people would be more careful about leaving a faucet running while doing dishes, or would think twice before deciding to drain and refill a swimming pool.

While many homes, even in the middle of a drought, pay a flat fee for their water usage each month, there are a few places, Irvine Ranch for example, that charge more money per unit of water as the number of units increases. Some states require the purchase of already-existing water rights from an owner of such rights before beginning a new building construction. In that way, only a specific number of people can own water rights at any given time.

According to Porter, farmers are the worst cause of water shortage in America, accounting for about 80% of the total national consumption at a fraction of the price of most consumers. Due the government's reduction of water prices for farmers, such farmers commonly perform “flood irrigation,” a process by which the entire field is flooded with water, in which much of the water goes to waste. While the actual, unsubsidized cost of an acre-foot of water might be $2000 and the sale price of an acre-foot of alfalfa that uses this water would be $920, which makes no sense economically, this is the way water is being used currently. If farmers were to be charged the actual cost of the water, they would realize that the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost.

Water is a necessity, but it is also a good. If prices are raised, if water is is treated economically, then people will be forced to reduce water use. In general, people understand cost-benefit analysis; we perform it on a daily basis. If wasteful usage of water were to lead to higher costs, then people would stop wasting it. While everyone likes low water costs and would likely be upset if those were to end, increased prices and reduced subsidies may be the only way for us to scale down the negative effects of this drought and any others in our future.

***************************************************************************************************