The California Legislature initially set aside $10 million for the program in 2021, as StreetsBlog reported. The California Air Resources Board put the money into the California E-Bikes Incentive Program, which granted low-income people up to $2,000 toward the purchase of an e-bike.
Ultimately, about 2,200 vouchers were issued before the state canceled the effort and moved the remaining funds to a program for drivers. The air board, which spent about $7.6 million on the program, said that “state law directed CARB to reallocate the funds due to budget constraints.”
With California facing a budget deficit, spokesperson Lindsay Buckley said, the Legislature directed the board to move some “unencumbered” funds — those not already locked into a specific contract — to the “Clean Cars 4 All” vehicle trade-in program. The contract with the e-bike administrator was expiring, and “there were definitely some challenges with that contractor,” Buckley said.
The funds were shifted. But between Northgate and Gardenland, the money spent had already created a handful of new riders.
Dewayne McDaniel, who got a bike he uses to get to the store to buy food, praised the scuttled e-bike program: He couldn’t afford a car but, with the bike, he could easily pick up groceries for himself and for his neighbor who was unable to walk. Another neighbor in his complex, AJ Ortiz, walks with a cane but loves the e-bike he purchased with a voucher. Ortiz’s bike gives him a low-impact way to incorporate more exercise and movement into his life, and he can visit friends downtown and get to the bank without having to rely on the bus.
They said they were disappointed that the state had ended the project.
“It’s a shame,” Ortiz said. “They should have gone and asked us, ‘What was it that you found daunting?’ ... That’s what I think that they should have done, and kept the program going, because it’s a worthwhile program.”
The e-bike voucher rollout — which was delayed until late 2024 — encountered serious problems. It was plagued by glitches and overwhelmed by the number of people trying to sign up. The application process was overly complicated, according to Ortiz, McDaniel and a third person in their complex, Anna Crespo, who also got one of the electric bikes.
One application window this year was essentially handled through a first-come, first-served system for the entire state. The nonprofit contractor who distributed the vouchers, San Diego -based Pedal Up, could not be reached for comment, and the website for the program was taken offline. But the San Diego Union-Tribune previously reported that in April, the California Air Resources Board said that the program’s site crashed as about 150,000 people tried to get 1,000 vouchers.
“They got inundated,” Ortiz said.
Marbella Sala, the president of the Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association, was involved in outreach for the program. She described the April round of applications as a mess.
“Like it’s a Taylor Swift concert,” she said. “If you don’t push that button in one second, the tickets are sold out. ... Surprise, surprise: No one in our community received a free bike.”
The final voucher distributions were carried out in closer coordination with community-based groups like the neighborhood association. The state program had set aside a certain number of vouchers for people in designated “disadvantaged communities” who could apply with the help of people on the ground.
The community-based organizations received money from the administrator that went toward costs associated with finding applicants and, in Gardenland and Northgate, hiring temporary workers to help would-be participants fill out forms. The air board said that the project spent $563,339.46 on payments to 26 community-based organizations out of the total $7.6 million.
Sala’s organization did successfully facilitate vouchers for nine people in late summer — out of an allocation of 25 vouchers. Sala and her fellow board member, Annette Emery, said that they had worked with 31 low-income people they were sure would qualify for the program, exceeding the allotment in case there were technical issues with any applications. CARB said they received only 23 applications. But Sala said those who didn’t receive the bikes had usually just overlooked or misunderstood parts of the requirements.
This fall, the air board shuttered the entire program and shifted the remaining $18 million in e-bike funds to a car trade-in program. Through the car initiative, low-income Californians can trade in older, more polluting vehicles and receive a voucher to help pay for newer, less-polluting hybrid or electric vehicles.
A spokesperson for CARB said that “the state remains committed to helping Californians with low-incomes access clean transportation options and significant funding has been dedicated to this effort.”
But Ortiz, McDaniel, Crespo, Emery and Sala were disappointed that the e-bike program was ended rather than retooled.
“In a lot of our families in our community, those old 15-year-old cars, that’s the only car they have, and they’re not gonna give it up,” Sala said. The Clean Cars 4 All program gives up to $12,000 toward the purchase of an electric or hybrid vehicle made within the last eight years, but participants have to trade in their old, less-efficient car. “To give it up for an e-vehicle that costs more money, that will — they’ll have to get a loan — they’re not gonna do that. ... The program the way they’re designing it now will not work for poor communities. It just won’t.”
“Yeah, even an e-car, you’d still have some out-of-pocket (cost),” Ortiz said. “Coming up with that kind of cash, whatever cash ... that would be quite a commitment.”
It also applies only to people who already own a car.
Riders Find Joy, Convenience of E-Bikes
Crespo has access to a vehicle, but she doesn’t have a vehicle that’s in her name. She went out and bought her e-bike with a thrill the day after she received the voucher late this summer. “It’s a blessing,” she said.
“I wanted it because I could get from here to there to do things, carry my groceries,” she said. “I’m so excited when I get on it.”
McDaniel uses the bike to get food, too. He said he couldn’t afford a car and — because he has congestive heart failure — he couldn’t walk very far or carry much weight. “I can only do a limited amount,” he said. But now with a new form of transportation, he can go to the store and pick up food for himself and one of his neighbors.
“It makes life simpler,” he said “It gives you a better quality of life.”
Even with his health issues, he can get around with the help of the bike.
“If your thumb is working, you’re good,” he said with a laugh, joking that he and Ortiz were “the Wild Hogs.”
Sala said that many people in low-income neighborhoods would love to get an e-bike if they could afford the initial purchase: The $2,000 voucher could cover the whole cost of a bike as well a helmet and locks. The California Air Resources Board reasoned that an e-bike can replace many shorter car trips for far less money.
Sala pointed out that her neighborhood — like many of the “disadvantaged neighborhoods” identified by the program — suffers from a disproportionate amount of pollution. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment puts parts of Gardenland and Northgate in the 65th and 77th percentile of “pollution burden” among Census tracts in the state; both North Sacramento tracts are close to the 90th percentile for asthma.
The intent of the program was in part to help offset pollution.
Hurdles Before ‘Life-Changing’ Bikes
The application was online and, Sala and Emery recalled, fairly complicated. The applicants needed a document from the IRS showing their income. For many of the people they recruited, that presented a hurdle.
McDaniel had to race to get a document from the IRS after he learned the income verification paperwork he submitted was not sufficient. Ortiz was told at first that he hadn’t qualified for the bike, and then later learned he had qualified.
The neighborhood association used funding from the e-bike program to hire a few temporary workers to help applicants, including McDaniel and Crespo, fill out forms. Emery and Sala both thought that they would be notified if the applicants they worked with needed to provide more information, and that they would have time to rectify incomplete applications. They were notified — but, Emery said, only “five or six hours” before the deadline.
“That afternoon, I’m trying to contact these people — it’s really short notice — to resubmit,” she said. “In the end, we got nine vouchers out of the 25.”
Sala said she hoped the state would still find a way to give her neighborhood the remaining 16 e-bikes. “We were guaranteed 25,” she said.
“CARB’s program administrator notified the participating community-based organizations that reserving a voucher did not guarantee it would be awarded,” an air board spokesperson wrote in an email. The air board acknowledged that some forms had been incomplete, some applicants had not met the income requirements and some applicants hadn’t responded to follow-up questions from the program. “We recognize their disappointment, but it’s important to note that the same guidelines applied equally to all participating organizations.”
The spokesperson added that other community-based organizations in the state “successfully exhausted their initial allocations and requested additional vouchers before the deadline.”
Eric Guerra, a Sacramento City Council member who is seated on the air board and is running to represent the neighborhood on the county Board of Supervisors, was critical of the program’s failure.
“The California E-Bike Incentive Project was intended to fill a key transportation gap and transform the lives of low-income families who cannot afford the high costs of vehicle ownership,” Guerra said in an email. “The agency’s poor administration of public dollars and time delay does not help families who see the cost of transportation rising.”
Several of the applicants in Sacramento were families with children. Sala said one resident used her voucher to get a cargo bike so she could take her kids to school; they didn’t have to take a long walk anymore.
“She was so happy that she got a bike,” Sala said, who described the e-bikes as “life-changing.”
Although very few riders received them, the demand remains — statewide, the board said, at least 150,000 people wanted them. Emery of the neighborhood association has seen continued interest, too.
“I still get people contacting me,” she said, “going, ‘Is there any chance at all I can get a bike?’”
©2025 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
