Bike Electric provides point-of-sale rebates to eligible residents of Alameda County and Ava customers in San Joaquin County purchasing new electric bicycles from participating local bike shops.
Applicants must be at least 18 years old, with recipients selected through monthly random drawings. Since the first drawings took place in July 2025, Ava reports receiving more than 30,000 eligible applications, indicating demand has significantly exceeded the number of rebates currently available.
An important part of the program’s structure is its focus on participating brick-and-mortar retailers. Ava currently works with 29 bike shops across Alameda and San Joaquin counties rather than allowing rebates to be redeemed through any online or national seller.
Program data shows that each dollar of rebate funding redeemed generated $1.71 in sales at participating stores. That suggests customers often contributed additional spending beyond the value of the rebate when completing their purchases.
For policymakers and energy providers evaluating transportation incentives, that spending pattern adds another dimension to the cost-benefit discussion. Electric vehicle subsidies typically involve larger incentives attached to higher-priced purchases, while e-bike programs can spread smaller amounts of funding among a wider pool of consumers.
The approach may also keep a greater share of program-related spending with local retailers, although the long-term economic impact will depend on factors including continued bike usage, maintenance spending and whether demand remains strong once rebates are reduced or removed.
Affordability is another central element of the program. At least 40% of Bike Electric rebate funding is reserved for income-qualified customers participating in California’s CARE, FERA or EAP electricity assistance programs.
According to Ava’s participant surveys, 96% of respondents said they would not have obtained an e-bike without the rebate. The figure is self-reported rather than an independent measure of purchasing behavior, but it suggests cost is a meaningful barrier for many participants.
That finding could matter as utilities, municipalities and regional agencies consider how to design transportation programs that reach households unlikely to make an electric mobility purchase without financial support.
The larger question is whether subsidized e-bike purchases lead to sustained changes in how people travel.
Ava estimates participants logged approximately 1.9 million miles during the program’s first year. The organization views increased e-bike use as one way to reduce vehicle trips, congestion and transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Mileage alone, however, does not show how many car journeys were avoided. Some e-bike trips may replace driving, while others could take the place of walking, conventional cycling or recreational travel that would have occurred regardless.
Participant feedback indicates the bikes are being used for a mix of commuting, errands, recreation and family transportation. One program participant in Tracy, for example, reported using an e-bike for commuting as well as exercise and trips with her children.
Those overlapping use cases may ultimately be more important than total mileage when assessing program performance. E-bikes are more likely to affect transportation patterns when they become practical tools for routine travel rather than purchases used primarily for recreation.
The extension through 2027 gives Ava a longer window to measure whether those behaviors continue after the initial purchase period. It also gives other energy providers and local governments additional data to evaluate as they weigh e-bike rebates against other transportation electrification investments.
With $13 million now committed, the Bike Electric program is becoming a useful test of whether smaller-scale mobility incentives can deliver results across several priorities at once: consumer access, local business activity and reduced dependence on cars.
The next phase will show whether those early indicators translate into durable transportation changes—and whether the model is cost-effective enough to replicate elsewhere.
