Oregon’s second attempt at providing a cash rebate to encourage electric bike purchases is far from a sure thing in the current legislative session. Despite several existing rebate programs for electric cars and electric motorcycles, for some reason lawmakers don’t seem to have the same enthusiasm for a cycling-related subsidy.
As I reported back in January, House Bill 2963 seeks to set aside $5 million from the General Fund to create a program administered through the Department of Human Services that would supply a $1,200 rebate on the purchase of an e-bike to about 4,000 to 5,000 Oregonians. The bill is crafted so that only folks who currently receive food assistance from DHS would qualify.
The bill is currently in the Joint Committee on Transportation (JCT) and received its first public hearing back in March. On Friday I called up the bill’s chief sponsor, House Rep. Mark Gamba (D-Milwaukie) to get an update on its chances for passage.
Rep. Gamba (who, in our video interview you can see is quite tired from a long week at the capitol!) said he feels the bill is an “important opportunity” to get “good, reliable, low-cost, and relatively fast transportation” into the hands of Oregonians who are least likely to be able to afford it.
Unfortunately, he said there’s not much chatter about the bill among lawmakers. Its best chance for passage, Gamba believes, is to get the bill inside the $2.2 billion transportation funding package revealed earlier this month. JCT Co Vice-Chair Rep. Susan McLain has told Gamba she will add it to the bill if he wants her to. “I will probably do that,” Gamba said.
Once the e-bike rebate bill language is ensconced into the larger funding bill, it’s unlikely to get veto’d out. If it stays in the JCT, it would likely just get voted out with majority support, only to die in the Ways and Means Committee (where all bills with a fiscal impact must go).
Gamba said one issue that prevents an e-bike rebate from gaining momentum is that we still have many legislators who simply don’t respect bicycles (in any form) as serious transportation tools. “As much as we can talk about bicycles being a form of transportation, a lot of legislators — particularly older legislators — see it as a toy, not as a form of transportation.”
That outlook is unfortunate and misinformed. Thousands of older Oregonians could reap huge benefits from cheaper electric bicycles and tricycles. A recent article in The Washington Post documented how, even people as old as 90-plus years old are buying up e-bikes and embracing a newfound independence. And imagine the application in rural Oregon, where transit service is nonexistent yet distances from home to businesses is relatively far and there’s hardly any unsafe traffic: Those conditions are perfect for e-biking!
Gamba said if people want an e-bike rebate passed this session, they should call or email members of the JCT (available here) and tell them how important the program would be.
Watch and/or listen to my interview with Gamba below:
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
My e-bike is my primary form of transportation and I am privileged to have it. Hope more people can get on them. They’re relatively cheap to maintain and you can go further more easily than a traditional bike and it’s great for the earth and traffic congestion. Hope this bill passes to help out some Oregonians who can’t afford one but want one.
Not as cheap to maintain, or as great for the earth, as a bike.
However,
is the key you are missing. They’re more useful. They do the things that are good for the earth and health, but in a way that is accessible to more people.
I didn’t miss it at all. Do ebikes enable some people to use cars less? Yes. Do some perfectly able-bodied people use ebikes even though they could get around just fine with bikes? Also yes.
To me this bears a similarity to how we end up with badly behaved dogs in retail and restaurant environments. Some people legitimately need their service animals wherever they go, but other people who do not abuse this as a loophole to take their misbehaved, fake service animals everywhere they go.
I do have more dangerous close calls with young people recklessly riding ebikes than elderly people; make of that what you will.
Some people actually need it, but others just pretend they do, and you’re seen as the asshole if you question anybody’s actual need. It’s a plus for the earth if an ebike replaces a car; it’s a minus if it replaces a bike. And as always, the Tragedy of the Commons applies.
“Some people actually need it, but others just pretend they do, and you’re seen as the asshole if you question anybody’s actual need. “
If you think that’s a good analogy and are truly feeling the need to gatekeep e-bikes and feel some people don’t deserve them then I dont know of a polite way to tell you that that’s some insane ableism.
What do you care if a cyclist is on an e-bike or regular bike instead of a car?? Either one is a win against car dependency.
If you’re concerned that people think you’re an asshole for telling them to get on a regular bike, maybe you are.
Yea they are way more useful, especially with the higher speeds they enable you don’t loose too much time compared to a car. The last long commute I had was about 1 hours by normal bik one way, I could do it in 45 but I’d be drenched in sweat. By car it was 20 minutes so big difference.
But I got a class 3 at the time ebike that could hit 28, even 32 mph if unlocked and could do the commute in 30 minutes and not have to take a shower. Made it way more possible. Also feel a lot safer biking at 30 mph on a 40 mph road than 12 mph on the seep uphill half.
Anyone who lives in the Willamette Valley is blissfully ignorant of the giant pit mines we’ll be excavating in Eastern Oregon.
Or not. Brine extraction is promising, and the new battery hotness is sodium-ion batteries that are less energy dense than lithium batteries, but are cheap and can be fully charged in minutes. Debuting soon on Chinese cars. Coming to America… someday.
And though the abundance bros might object, I’d happily restrict open-pit mining for lithium.
Keep in mind the comparison is to internal combustion engines (which as we know have no negative externalities) or electric automobiles with batteries 100 to 200 times bigger than an e-bike battery).
Another comparison is to plain old bikes with no motor, which require no lithium or electrical power at all.
At the school that I work at, one of our families just got a cargo e-bike as their “2nd car”. They needed a way to get the little kids to school and for one partner to do a 4ish mile commute to work. They are low-income but debt free so the ebike allows them to have a little more mobility without having to go into debt or getting a money pit used car. By their own admission, neither parent is really in good enough shape to be riding the distance they currently do on a regular bike, especially hauling kids. On top of all that is it a ton of fun to ride and the kids love riding to school on the back of the bike.
Is the Street Trust advocating / lobbying tor this ?
or
Move Oregon Forward ?
or
another 501(c)3 … 501(c)4 ?
People will buy $1200 ebikes just to sell them for the $. This would be a government cash handout to 4000-5000 lucky individuals. It’s not well thought out from what I can see.
Yep. Coming soon to Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace: subsidized e-bikes paid for by taxpayers
The absolute horror of people owning more e-bikes.
PS: Lower income people are human beings just like you, your family, friends, and acquaintances. People are generally happier when they stop thinking the worst of other human beings.
If true (and there is no precedent for it so I don’t believe you) it would still be doing the job of making e-bikes cheaper and more abundant.
$1,200 is a massive rebate. Why are “qualifying bikes” not defined?
IMO, we should be eliminating all vehicle subsidies. The value proposition for bikes and e-bikes is strong without subsidy. Level the playing field by getting the government out of this market.
I would agree with you, except for the strong, perhaps existential societal interest in electrifying fossil fuel based everything.
*well off person upset that they are not getting a rebate
I am not well off so why should I pay for someone else’s e-bike?
You already pay for a bunch of other stuff! This argument is so odd to me.
Why is it odd?
I don’t pay many taxes as a low income person but the Taxes I do pay do not need to buy an expensive bicycle for someone.
There are really nice used bikes for a couple hundred dollars that most people can afford.
A $4000 e-bike is hardly a necessity.
Just trying to say that your taxes go to other similar subsidies already, so how would this be any different? Also, unlike, say a gov’t subsidy for an e-car, one for an e-bike would have excellent ROI.
https://www.ebicycles.ai/blog/understanding-the-depreciation-of-e-bikes-a-guide-to-resale-value
Great investment.
You could buy a new bike every year with the depreciation money.
Only a very economically comfortable person would view a ******* bike as an investment with resale value.
What are talking about????
Low income people are really hurt when products depreciate.
Wealthy people don’t care.
Your posts are increasing just bizarre.
Low income people are “really hurt” when their cheap bikes or cars depreciate says the well-off person who views his car and bikes as financial assets….
I own a 24 year old Toyota Corolla and live on social security.
My bike is a 15 year old Surly which I ride every day rain or shine.
Anything else a fake man of the people wants to know?
Your e-bike is worth more than my car.
It’s incredibly depressing to have to explain this to you but low income people do not plan to trade in their $90,000 BMW in order to buy a newer BMW a couple of years.
Low-income people tend to use cars/bikes until they don’t work any more (or are un-repairable) and your lack of understanding of this lived experience is about as dumb as a republican presidential candidate not understanding how supermarket scanners work.
You make a lot more money than I do I guarantee….
Mr Socialist troll who works at high tech jobs and acts like some oppressed peasant on the internet.
Your empathy for lower-income people is shining through!
They’re hurt more by not being able to afford the e-bike in the first place. It doesn’t matter if the value depreciates if they get the use value out of the bike. A bike is not a financial investment.
$300 bicycles don’t work do they?
I never said bikes were a financial investment but e-bikes are just a consumer ripoff.
If people want them, buy them, Why does anyone else have to pay for them.
Your argument is just silly.
I mean sure, to a Republican or libertarian, spending money on social good is always a waste. But for everyone else, this kind of thing just makes sense.
E-bikes are less of a consumer ripoff than e-cars, which are heavily subsidized. They’re also much cheaper, so a better use of money.
You can’t compare it to a non electric $300 bike any more than you can compare it to $40 shoes. They do different things. More people are more able to replace driving with e-bikes than other bikes. They’re faster (that matters), riders can go farther (that makes them more viable for more trips), they work better for people who are otherwise unable to ride very far (eg health reasons, which you shouldn’t disregard), and as an escape hatch, they can do more of the work (some people really will not ride if they’re going to get excessively sweaty).
And more to your strawman point, a $3000 e-bikes is not made of disposable, incompatible, one off parts. That is a bike that will work for many years. The batteries are standardized.
I am not a Republican or libertarian but you act like one.
You want poor peoples taxes to pay for your shiny toys.
For the last time, if you want a $3000 bike, pay for it yourself.
Repubs always want tax breaks for all their “needs”.
Always want other people paying taxes, not themselves.
It’s the epitome of republican behavior to lie about the topic while pointing the MAGA finger of projection at someone who wants the opposite of what you claim.
“Also, unlike, say a gov’t subsidy for an e-car, one for an e-bike would have excellent ROI.”
I’m not sure I agree with you, Jonathan. Is this a hunch or do we actually know this? My read on the used e-bike market is very different.
To me this whole topic is just one more example of the capitalist state breathlessly chasing whiz-bang new goodies with public dollars, and environmental values hardly registering at all. Of course the policy is dressed up as good for the environment but if the environmental benefits were really so important then why aren’t regular bikes subsidized?
This is such bad misguided policy.
Most of these bikes will be in landfills in 5 years after the batteries are useless and there are no replacements that fit the frame etc….unlike a normal bicycle frame that will last decades with easily replaceable parts, most e-bike frames and components are junk one off designs.
Heavy and unusable when the technology moves on.
Throw away disposable $4000 bicycles.
It sounds like your unstated assumption is that ROI exclusively means resale value. But for a consumable item, the ROI is the value you get out of it. Transportation, health, etc. You get a lot of those things per dollar spent on an e-bike.
“You get a lot of those things per dollar spent on an e-bike.”
That is certainly possible, as it is with most any object. But I wouldn’t say it is a certainty and I would also say that those outcomes are more certain, dollar for dollar, with a bike that doesn’t need all sorts of specialized and soon obsolete and globe-spanning supply chain parts.
It’s not just possible, it’s fact. Unless all spending on all things just has “possible” value. In that case no money should ever be spent on anything.
Neither is a $4000 bike.
WHAT…IS…YOUR…POINT?
There are plenty of e-bikes available in the ~$800-$1400 range.
So why is the rebate set at $1,200?
This is just very poorly crafted, and there absolutely would be an incentive for someone to buy one of these cheaper e-bikes, get the full tax credit, and then resell it shortly after.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Another great reason to NOT give $1200 rebates for bikes that cost $800.
The absolute horror of more bikes being ridden by people who would have struggled to afford them, Mr. Scrooge.
I have no plans to buy an e-bike, rebate or not. If we are going to spend government money to encourage cycling, I’d rather see it spent on infrastructure. This tax credit won’t move the needle on our ridership levels.
If it gets more people riding (it will), then it increases demand (and maybe political will) for better infrastructure. One can quibble about the specific amount of people who will get a bike and ride because of this, or how many will now be able to commute daily when they otherwise wouldn’t by bike. But it would fly in the face of common sense and basic economics to say this won’t have an effect on ridership.
We can never know for sure before hand how much effect, but doing something like this that is otherwise good for the sake of it (helping people WHO AREN’T YOU get transportation), seems like an obvious good idea.
It’s so frustrating, people will complain all day about how our government does nothing but put together meetings and investigation and analysis about a problem instead of fixing it, but then whine when they do spend a tiny amount of money on something obviously beneficial without doing years of analysis to prove it’s exact efficacy.
It’s not obviously beneficial compared to other ways we could spend the money.
I think they should implement the rebate on e-bikes, scooters, electric motorcycles, one-wheelers, and other small electric vehicles, then measure the impact, continuing the rebates if they prove an effective way to reduce driving and CO2 emissions (as opposed to reducing bus travel, conventional biking, and walking) compared to not providing them. This would probably entail having a control group that does not get the rebates so we could make a valid comparison.
If the program does not have enough impact to justify the spending, it should be discontinued.
And please stop with the “whining” talk. We can have an adult conversation without disparaging those we disagree with, can’t we?
“obviously beneficial”
Not so fast.
I think what some of us are saying is that a regular bike accomplishes this goal better, cheaper, and over a longer period than subsidizing an e-bike does.
I fully understand that you are convinced that this sort of an intervention is ‘obviously beneficial’ and that your posts derive from this conviction. But I don’t happen to share that position.
A “regular bike” doesn’t compare though. They don’t serve the same purpose.
I mean, a person can walk 5 miles to work. It’s probably even cheaper. But it’s not actually a practical replacement because people don’t have that kind of time. Ok, so they could run? People don’t have that kind of fitness.
The distance and speed an e-bike makes people capable of, not to mention disabilities it can overcome (which a lot of very ableist comments are ignoring), far surpasses what a regular bike can do. That’s just a fact, not an opinion.
Are we ready to stop deriding people for valuing convenience, range, and speed in their transportation choices?
If so, you could take another step along the progression from bike to e-bike and get to a vehicle that is even faster and more practical for many people than e-bikes are.
The big jump is from human powered to motorized. After that, it’s just a matter of degree.
Degrees matter. Especially when it’s literally 2 orders of magnitude different in energy consumption, weight, etc.
So, different things are different. Some people need a car because IMO our economy/society is a poor fit for human flourishing. But a lot of people *think* they need a car and they don’t.
But I agree, there are other electric vehicles besides bikes that have good utility.
I’m sure people appreciate you telling them what they need and what they don’t, since you obviously know better than them.
It’s hilarious how many people don’t realize their complete fascist tendencies….
Doing politics is trying to convince people of things, not just cater to the status quo. That’s just polling.
Obviously it wouldn’t be a good campaign to tell people they don’t need a car even if they think they do, that’s why I’m saying it to the choir, we all know people could replace a lot more car trips with biking. It’s weird you would pretend you don’t know that.
Yes, we all know people who would be better off in a myriad of ways if they just followed our example. Bike riding is pretty minor compared to choice of partner, job, spending habits, manner of dress, etc.
But… at some point you get over that, and start accepting that sometimes people, inscrutable as they are, don’t need outside advice telling them how to better their lives.
You’re probably a bit younger than me, so give it some time. I’m quite sure you’ll get there as well.
This isn’t as much about “catering to the status quo” as it is accepting people on their own terms.
No, they absolutely need the outside advice, the key is figuring out how to deliver it, and make the world more amenable to it. People aren’t idealized homo economicus or little black boxes that you have to just accept the way they are. It is absolutely about catering to the status quo to throw up your hands and say let people do what they want, nobody can do anything other than whatever their base instincts tell them to do as if they aren’t completely shaped by the world they’re in and the people they interact with.
FWIW, I’m in my early 40s. I don’t think everyone is as nihilistic as to think nothing can change, even when they get older.
I’m quite sure they don’t.
You might be able to persuade a few people, somehow (as TriMet and PBOT have been trying to do for years) to do something different, but ultimately people are going to continue to decide what is best for themselves. But please, prove me wrong, not with words but with deeds. Nothing would delight me more.
It’s odd that you would consider me nihilistic and think nothing will change. As I’ve written dozens of times, I think everything will change, and that the pace of change is only going to accelerate, perhaps rapidly. And I also believe I’m more optimistic about the future than almost anyone else here, a sentiment I’ve expressed many times.
Nobody decides anything for themselves, that is a libertarian fiction. Everything everyone does is based on all their influences.
Hell, why do you write your representatives, as you say you do? They don’t need your advice.
This essentially boils down to a conversation about free will. It’s a topic I have given a lot of thought to, and have a lot of say about, but I’ll spare you. But without delving into that question, I’ll just say, by all means, go for it. Try to change the people around you. Many have ventured down this path before you.
And I don’t write to my elected representatives to offer advice, I write to request information or demand action.
It occurs to me that there is no reason to support e-bike rebates without also supporting similar rebates for other small electric vehicles, such as one-wheelers, Segways, scooters, and even smaller electric motorcycles.
The same reasons for supporting rebates can be applied to all of them.
Great point I’d love to see more electric motorcycles and alternative electric transportation. Sur-rons have been very popular yet we don’t really offer a way for them to be used for transportation legally for example. Electric motorcycles get a lot better miles per kwh, less road wear and tear and less tire, brake and other similar vehicle side related pollution as well. Would be awesome to see them better embraced as part of a wholistic transportation realignment.
Our bike lanes are being destroyed and overrun by electric “bike” monstrosities. Speeds are way too high, riders of these electric vehicles can’t be bothered to call out “on your left” or anything. So damn rude.
Maybe more people on bikes should wise up and get a rear view mirror and stop blasting their usb speakers or riding with earpods? Everyone is responsible for their own personal awareness.
*Unless a car is involved.
Everyone is also responsible for proceeding in a safe and considerate manner that takes account of other users present whether their conveyance is human or motor powered.
Do you really have much trouble with rude e-bikers? I ride a decent amount around the central urban core and rarely have any issues. Almost everybody is quite courteous.
California had their ebike rebate program and they had website issues so now we have to wait for another date