or your know. It should be done federally although both is not a bad option.
I wish
The Colorado Energy Office’s overview of the subsidy, along with what consumers need to bring with them to the bike store (eg Colorado ID and proof of residency): https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/ebike-tax-credit
For retailers, how the tax credit is handled on the back end, since even though the tax credit isn’t claimed until tax return time, it can offset the quarterly estimated taxes that most businesses pay: https://tax.colorado.gov/electric-bicycle-tax-credit
Taking all this info together, the Colorado program is good through 1 January 2033 at its stated subsidy level for an unlimited amount of ebikes, unless the state budget does not expect to grow by 4% in any year. In such case, the subsidy is halved for that year. See text.
The problem with e-bike subsidies like this is that they require buying from a local retailer. It’s great for small business, I guess, but it means the final cost even after the rebate ends up higher than buying a direct-sell brand (e.g. Lectric, Rad) — let alone sketchy eBay junk — unsubsidized.
They need to think about whether their goal is “buy local” or to actually get people on bikes.
This is indeed a valid consideration. At the same time, ebikes open doors for people that maybe haven’t ridden a bicycle since childhood, and might not know the first thing about assembling – let alone maintaining – a bicycle made for transportation, rather than as a children’s toy. Throw in the whole (somewhat misplaced) concern over cheap batteries bursting into flames and it’s not totally outside reason why the Colorado government went in this direction. Encouraging/subsidizing local bike shops as part of the rollout of ebikes could be viewed as taking the long-term approach.
