Why we made it

The E-Bike Rebate Program Guidebook is designed to support local governments, nonprofits, and transportation agencies seeking to boost mobility access, affordability, and activity in their communities by lowering the cost of owning an electric bicycle (e-bike). Whether piloting an e-bike rebate to demonstrate its impact or seeking to sustain and scale a rebate program long term, the guidebook offers administrators:

• Best practices and lessons learned from early adopters;
• Program models that are equitable, scalable, and sustainable;
• Unified, research-backed frameworks to increase adoption and success.

How we made it

We inventoried a range of programs from across the United States and interviewed several e-bike rebate administrators and independent experts specializing in evaluating program performance.

How to use it

Planners, program administrators, policymakers, and advocates involved in e-bike initiatives can either progress through the step-by-step process laid out or navigate directly to specific topics of interest. Templates, case studies, checklists, and links to relevant tools like RMI’s free E-Bike Environment and Economics Impact Assessment Calculator can be found throughout.

E-bikes are a rapidly growing mode of transportation that combine the efficiency of traditional bicycles with the added boost of electric power. They present an affordable transportation option compared to the high cost of car ownership, which includes fuel, maintenance, insurance, and parking. They also offer a practical, accessible, and environmentally friendly alternative to cars, particularly for short- to medium-distance trips. By replacing car trips, they improve public health by encouraging physical activity and reducing exposure to air pollution. Whether to reach a transit hub out of walking distance, cross hilly terrains, carry groceries, or transport children, e-bikes make it easier for riders to complete more types of trips without relying on private cars.

However, the purchase price of an e-bike is often still too expensive for many people. Pioneering e-bike rebate programs, such as Denver’s E-Bike and E-Cargo Bike Rebate Voucher Program and Minnesota’s Electric-Assisted Bicycle Rebate Program, have kicked off a nationwide e-bike rebate trend. By subsidizing the cost of owning a personal e-bike they seek to realize the many benefits of e-bikes in their communities.

Establish a core team

The initial decision to set up an e-bike rebate program usually comes from city or state policymakers to help meet a variety of local policy priorities, often following lobbying by bike advocacy groups or after seeing the success of other cities’ programs. Once the decision to start a program has been made, establishing a core project team with clear roles and responsibilities (see Exhibit 2) ensures accountability and streamlines collaboration.

Formalizing relationships and roles with external partners in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlines partners’ scope, time commitments pre- and post-program launch, financial commitments or compensation, and decision-making powers in program design and administration.

Determine stakeholders involved

A successful core team will likely convene members from a coalition of partners across local and state government departments, transit agencies, and local organizations such as bike advocacy groups and community-based organizations (CBOs). Often convened as a working group charged with advising the core group and championing the program to the public, such stakeholders (see Exhibit 3) need to be brought in early when their input can be baked into the overall objectives and shape of the program.

Consider using this pitch deck RMI developed to assist in engagement with key partners.

Define and align on program goals

Setting clear goals will help program organizers and their partners agree on priorities and tailor the program to meet local and regional needs. The goals should also inform all subsequent aspects of program design, including rebate structures and community outreach strategies (see Exhibit 4).

Additional benefits and supplementary goals may include:

• Improving access to public transit and employment centers;
• Enhancing public health through increased physical activity;
• Supporting local bike retailers and service providers; and
• Building the case to invest in safer infrastructure for a range of active modes.

Conduct initial research

Many programs today are modeled from the lessons of early e-bike rebate adopters like Denver and Minnesota. Speaking with other city or state officials who have implemented their own programs and who have similar geographies, size, and other characteristics helps avoid pain points and allows programs to borrow strategies. However, no two places are the same, so conducting research questions like those laid out in Exhibit 5 helps tailor a program to specific context and resident needs.

Identify program funding sources

Existing e-bike rebate programs have drawn on a variety of funding sources, often employing a mixture of sources and financing mechanisms. This guidebook outlines several potential pathways. Cities and states are advised to consult their legal and procurement teams to determine what’s viable for their jurisdictions.

Funding options

• General funds come from sales and property taxes, state and federal allocations, and other revenue. The Atlanta City Council approved $1 million of the City of Atlanta’s general fund, $960,000 of which went to the Atlanta Regional Commission to establish and administer the first round of their e-bike rebate program and $40,000 of which went to Propel ATL to conduct outreach. Pulling from earmarked transportation or climate action portions of a general fund can also be supplemented by minimal or no repayment sources like state revolving funds, state energy financing institutions (SEFIs) or green banks, and community development financial institutions (CDFIs).
• Grants from federal and state programs in support of congestion reduction and active transportation have supported several programs. New Orleans will offer at least 3,000 residents rebates totaling $3 million to purchase an e-bike from local retailers through the EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program. There are also philanthropic grants to improve transportation and equity outcomes, like Buffalo and Niagara Fall’s partially funded program through Ford Philanthropy.
• Dedicated sales taxes or mobility fees, typically implemented as a modest hike on retail purchases or even more targeted sales taxes like on car rentals, can offer e-bike rebates a stable funding source. Denver residents voted to approve a 0.25% sales tax to specifically fund efforts to tackle climate change. The city’s Climate Protection Fund backs Denver’s e-bike rebates..
• Utility partnerships and franchise fees are often designed to spur electric vehicle adoption. E-bikes require relatively low energy compared to other electric vehicles, helping advance transportation electrification without placing a heavy burden on the electrical grid and making them an appealing option for utility-backed programs. Partnerships with utilities are particularly effective when aligned with broader goals like demand response management and environmental justice initiatives. Austin Energy offers rebates up to $1,300 to its customers for eligible electric bikes, scooters, mopeds and motorcycles. Cities with electric or gas utility franchise agreements may also allocate a portion of the collected franchise fees to fund e-bike rebate initiatives like in Edina, Minnesota. While these fees typically go into a city’s general fund, some municipalities have opted to direct a portion specifically toward mobility or climate-focused programs.
• Retail delivery fees imposed on goods delivered by specialized carriers, like Amazon, Uber, and DoorDash, can be directed toward active transportation programs. This could include funding e-bike rebates for delivery workers, helping them transition to electric cargo bikes or other urban-friendly e-mobility options.
• Traffic violation reinvestments allocate a portion of revenue from traffic fines like speeding tickets toward e-bike rebate programs.

Design incentive structure and eligibility

Establishing the overall program budget includes determining how funds will be distributed across key areas, specifically, the portion allocated for direct rebates versus administrative and outreach expenses. Many cities cite their percentage reserved for program administration as 20%–30% with between 5% and 10% reserved for outreach. The exact breakdown will vary based on local context, target populations, and whether the program is managed internally by city staff or outsourced to a third-party contractor.

Program structure options

Owned e-bike structure options

• Point-of-sale discounts are widely considered the most effective and user-friendly model. In a point-of-sale system, cities or states partner with local bike retailers to apply the rebate directly at the time of purchase, significantly reducing the up-front cost for participants and the time required if they would need to submit forms for reimbursement after. Typically, applicants must enroll in the program in advance and receive a voucher or discount code to present at participating retailers. This approach increases accessibility — particularly for lower-income participants — and can drive local economic benefits by supporting neighborhood bike shops. However, implementing this model requires up-front coordination with retailers, procurement planning, and may involve additional administrative paperwork or contracting requirements.
• Tax credits given to participants when filing their taxes after purchasing an e-bike are common among state-level programs. They can also be easier to administer where agency capacity is limited. However, tax credits may be less equitable, as lower-income individuals with little or no tax liability may not benefit fully or at all. Additionally, the delayed financial benefit may create barriers for those who cannot afford the up-front cost of an e-bike.

Loaned e-bike structure options

• E-bike lending libraries allow residents to borrow e-bikes free of charge for short periods, typically a few days at a time. These programs give participants the opportunity to try e-bikes in a low-risk, cost-free setting, helping them gain confidence and familiarity before making a personal investment. They also offer accessible transportation options for individuals priced out of e-bike ownership even with a rebate and help those without safe e-bike storage or charging at home like apartment complexes with e-bike restrictions.

• Ride-to-own programs provide participants with an e-bike at no up-front cost, often including essential items such as helmets, locks, and maintenance support. In return, participants agree to meet specific requirements, such as riding a minimum number of miles per month, tracking their trips, and submitting regular feedback. These programs can be especially effective in increasing access for lower-income individuals who may not otherwise be able to afford an e-bike. However, many cities that have implemented ride-to-own models note key challenges:

  • Administrative complexity, including tracking mileage and compliance
  • Equity concerns, particularly around requirements like attending safety classes or submitting ride data
  • Financial risk for participants, especially if they are unable to meet mileage targets and risk losing the bike or facing penalties

  While ride-to-own programs offer promising outcomes in terms of behavior change and data collection, careful design and strong community partnerships are essential to ensure they are equitable and sustainable. Some cities may choose to integrate a rent-to-own or discounted purchase option, allowing participants to buy the e-bike after their trial period — an approach that can ease the transition into long-term ownership while maximizing use of public investment.

Align eligibility criteria with program goals

Establishing clear eligibility requirements is a key component of program design. Most e-bike rebate programs restrict participation to residents of the sponsoring city or state over the age of 18. These basic criteria help ensure local accountability and align with liability and legal standards. Eligibility criteria should also be linked to program goals — that is, if the goal of the program is to address transportation access and cost burdens, eligibility should be built up around income requirements. If the goals are more about mode shift and reducing driving, eligibility could be broader as the goal is to shift trips away from cars. However, in smaller cities or suburbs, broadening eligibility may be beneficial. For example, La Mesa, California, included those working even if they did not live in the city given the program was targeted at reducing regional vehicle miles traveled and encouraging active commuting county-wide.

Determine incentive levels

There is no universal standard for rebate size. Amounts vary depending on local priorities, available funding, and broader program goals. For example, programs may need to weigh the value of offering a few high-dollar incentives covering all or most of the purchase costs to help a select pool of low-income participants versus many lower-dollar incentives to broaden access. Programs approach their income incentive levels in a variety of ways, depending on program budget and overall goals.

• Incentives tailored to e-bike type reflect e-bikes designed for cargo hauling versus commuting. From interviewing programs, cities and states largely cautioned against use-based differentiation (i.e., having a higher incentive level for a cargo e-bike than for a commuting e-bike). Many e-bike types do not have a formal definition, and participants are likely to opt for the e-bike with the higher incentive level versus choosing which one suits their trip needs. In Atlanta, this created an administrative burden with multiple cargo e-bike rebate awardees. After speaking to bike shops, many realized a commuter-style e-bike would better meet their needs, and vice versa, and had to request the change.
• Income-based incentives typically use a resident’s area median income (AMI) as the guiding metric. AMI is defined annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as the midpoint of a region’s income distribution and varies by location and household size. Others use a resident’s access to other support programs.

Programs typically divide incentives into two or three tiers:

• Low-Income (≤50% AMI):This tier receives the highest rebate, often covering most of the e-bike cost. Incentives generally range from $1,200 to $1,500.
• Moderate-Income (50%–80% AMI):Participants receive a mid-level rebate, usually between $700 and $1,000.
• Market-Rate (>80% AMI):Sometimes referred to as the base incentive, this level provides the lowest rebate, typically $300 to $500.

These graduated levels help ensure greater affordability and equity, directing the most support to those with the highest financial need.

To qualify for the LMI-specific tiers, programs typically require proof of income, such as:

• Recent pay stubs
• Proof of enrollment in affordable housing or subsidized health care
• Participation in other public assistance programs

Programs should ensure that verification processes are streamlined and accessible, to avoid creating administrative or psychological barriers for applicants. This will also create ease for the administration side for verification of the provided information.

Several programs also allocate funds for adaptive e-bikes — customized bikes designed for individuals with disabilities that prevent them from using standard models. Because these bikes are often more expensive, some programs set aside special funding or higher rebate levels to accommodate the increased cost and need for customization.

Cities can experiment with seeing the impact of various e-bike incentive levels on metrics — such as reduced vehicle miles traveled or greenhouse gas emissions — using RMI’s E-Bike Environment and Economics Impact Assessment Calculator.

Map out a rebate redemption timeline

Another key element of program design is determining how long participants will have to redeem their rebate, particularly if using the point-of-sale model. Many programs offer a redemption window, on average two months, for participants to select a bike that fits their needs and budget, accounting for the portion not covered by the rebate. To maintain program efficiency, many initiatives include a mechanism to automatically return unredeemed vouchers to the pool after the expiration period, making them available to new applicants.

Bike shops are key partners and essential collaborators with any successful e-bike rebate program. Most cities and states collaborate with brick-and-mortar bike shops to inform and promote their programs, as well as to offer those receiving the rebate test rides, expert advice, and ongoing maintenance and support.

A partnership strategy with local bike shops includes defining a clear and efficient rebate redemption process, creating mechanisms for ongoing support and communication, and providing space for bike shops to offer feedback throughout the life of the program.

Set eligibility criteria for bikes

Cities and states should establish clear guidelines for what types of e-bikes can be included in their programs to ensure safety, quality, and usability. Some considerations include:

• Requiring the e-bikes to adhere to product safety standards like UL 2849 certification or equivalent to reduce fire risk and ensure product reliability.
• Determining which classes are eligible for certain uses, for example:
  • Class 1: Pedal-assist only, with a maximum speed of 20 mph.
  • Class 2: Equipped with both pedal-assist and throttle, also limited to 20 mph.
  • Class 3: Pedal-assist only, with a maximum speed of 28 mph and a required speedometer; some may include throttles.
• Multi-use paths and bike trails sometime prohibit Class 3 e-bikes. Programs should align their eligibility criteria with local laws and infrastructure conditions.
• Requiring maintenance and support from participating bike shops. This ensures riders appreciate and utilize support, as it can be challenging for riders to get regular maintenance for their e-bikes. Some programs include free tune-ups or basic maintenance packages with each sale. Alternatively, shops could be asked to provide a clear list of available services and parts for ongoing upkeep, both as part of the program and for those who buy e-bikes outside of the program.
• Requiring bike maintenance and safety courses, like SANDAG’s ride-to-own program. These may be delivered by bike shops or CBOs to help equip residents use and care for their e-bike long-term.
• Requiring e-bike insurance to cover collisions and theft.

Set the reimbursement process for participating shops

Ensuring prompt and efficient compensation for participating bike shops is essential to building trust and maintaining strong partnerships. When establishing the reimbursement process, include bike shops in these discussions and keep the process clear and transparent. As small businesses, bike shops are disproportionately burdened by delayed payments. A clearly defined reimbursement process promotes program success and vendor satisfaction.

• Streamline the reimbursement process. Most programs recommend offering point-of-sale discounts to participants. If pursuing this method, it is important to discuss the process of how the rebates will be processed at the bike shop and then how they will be reimbursed by the program administrator. If using a method like tax credits, it is important to clarify if the tax credit will impact the bike shop or the participant. Some programs, such as the one in Edina, Minnesota, gave residents checks to use at the bike shop of their choice.
• Establish a practical invoicing process. Many programs accept invoices from bike shops monthly or bimonthly depending on administrative capacity.
• Set a payment timeline. Interviewed programs that went with point-of-sale discounts stressed the importance of processing invoices quickly, with one program targeting ten days from sale and receipt submission to reimbursement. It is important to establish consistent payment windows to build trust and maintain positive relationships with vendors.

Support two-way communication with shops

Whether the e-bike rebate program is approached as a pilot or a more long-term program, maintaining open, consistent communication with bike shops ensures the program remains responsive, equitable, and effective for all stakeholders.

• Host listening sessions prior to launching the program with local bike shop owners to gather input, address concerns, and identify potential challenges.
• Establish ongoing feedback channels, such as a standing advisory group or regular feedback forms, to collect observations and ideas for improvement.
• Troubleshoot logistical issues with shops like delivery timelines, stock availability, or fraudulent applications.
• Boost visibility of and reward partners by recognizing participating bike shops on the program website and in outreach materials. Maintaining open, consistent communication with bike shops ensures the program remains responsive, equitable, and effective for all stakeholders, and will be a positive experience for both the bike shops and the program participants.

Successful e-bike rebate programs rely on effective enrollment, which begins with strategic outreach. It is essential to collaborate with trusted community messengers to raise awareness and build credibility. Developing a thoughtful outreach strategy and engaging, accessible materials is key to generating interest and encouraging participation.

Identify the message and trusted messengers

Programs should develop a compelling and inclusive message that highlights both the practical advantages and aspirational benefits of e-bike use for community members. Messaging should align with the program’s goals and reflect the values of the local community. San Diego’s Mobility Master Plan’s e-bike rebate recommendation offers useful stats. Key themes to consider include:

• Save Money! E-bikes are a cost-effective alternative to car ownership and fuel costs. Reducing transportation costs for community members, especially low-income members, is a noticeable benefit. RMI’s E-Bike Calculator finds that in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for example, participants switching from a car to an e-bike could save $250/year.
• Improve Health! E-bikes promote physical activity with studies finding e-bike riders bike more often and for longer distances than those on non-electric bikes, benefiting people’s health. Drivers switching to e-bikes reduce local air pollution, which benefits human health by lowering risk of heart attacks, strokes, and other chronic illnesses.
• Slash Emissions! E-bikes reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing short car trips. RMI’s E-Bike Calculator can also help cities quantify emissions reduction against e-bike usage.
• Empower Communities! E-bikes increase access to jobs, schools, and services. Reliable and affordable transportation is the single strongest predictor of whether a household can move out of poverty. E-bikes elevate community members’ ability to be economically mobile and participate in their local community.

Outreach should come from a trusted community messenger to garner support. Engaging bike advocacy groups, CBOs, and community leaders or elected officials to serve as messengers can provide visibility and legitimacy to programs. Testimonials and stories from early rebate adopters help potential participants understand the benefits and usability of e-bikes in their daily lives.

Plan the outreach strategy

Visibility of the program is crucial to uptake. Deploying an outreach strategy includes selecting the most appropriate lead and tailoring outreach program goals. If equity is a priority, efforts should focus on underserved communities, using targeted outreach rather than broad publicity. A program emphasizing overall mode shift may benefit from widespread public engagement. Program outreach can be shared by the core team and contracted partners like CBOs and apply multiple tactics.

• Host in-person and virtual information sessions to explain program details, application steps, and e-bike benefits. These can be helpful before and after the program launches to get feedback from the community throughout the process.
• Deploy flyers and printed materials focusing distribution in underserved neighborhoods, schools, libraries, and community centers. Materials should be placed in well-traveled areas.
• Deploy bike lending libraries so residents can test ride e-bikes before applying for a rebate. Partner with CBOs to host and manage these sites.
• Use social media, local news outlets, radio, and neighborhood newsletters to spread information, using culturally appropriate messaging and language across platforms (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, or Nextdoor).

Craft outreach materials and resources

Create a full suite of outreach tools to ensure consistency and clarity about the program across program outreach tactics.

• Launch and maintain a program website to act as the central hub for program information. Some helpful sections to include are:
  • Application instructions
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Selection process
  • Application window
  • Frequently asked questions
  • Events calendar
  • Partner organizations and bike shops
  • Testimonials and success stories
• Design visually engaging flyers that clearly summarize program benefits and event details. Incorporate imagery that resonates with the local priorities.
• Create email and social media templates that include pre-written messages for partners to post or send to their communities. Templates should include graphics, links to apply, and contact information.
• Develop press releases and media advisories for program launch, application periods, and key milestones that retain engagement. See Cambridge Bike Give Back’s press coverage.
• Send mailers and other physical materials to specific ZIP codes or utility customer lists. The materials should include a program overview, eligibility, and how to apply.

Find a variety of outreach resources from other programs:

Outreach flyers courtesy of La Mesa, California

Having contracted bike shops, determined rebate levels and program eligibility, and finalized outreach, programs can be launched and their performance against goals can be assessed.

Plan an official program roll-out

Determine a clear and accessible application and selection method for potential participants. Most involve filling out an application, which is then assessed against selection criteria or awarded randomly. Others ask interested members to enter their names into a lottery and the drawn winners are invited to complete the full application to confirm eligibility before receiving the voucher. Whatever form this takes, all materials should be available in relevant languages so potential participants can easily complete all required information with a low barrier to entry.

Not all residents will have reliable internet access or digital literacy and so may struggle to apply online or at a specific time when a lottery opens. Consider contracting a CBO partner to assist with completing applications in underserved areas. Programs may also mix application formats, such as:

• Online application portal (mobile-optimized);
• Paper applications available at community centers, libraries, or social service buildings;
• Email or mail-in options; and
• In-person support or application drop-offs at public offices.

If using an online application portal, keep it open for a sufficient period to accommodate applicants with varying work schedules (e.g., nightshift workers), ensuring everyone has a fair chance to apply.

Establish the applicant assessment and prioritization process

Some programs award participants based on evaluation criteria, others operate a first-come first-serve model or select randomly. Most programs are quickly oversubscribed, so clarity on how rebates are given out is important to ensure trust. Allowing applicants to self-certify their income-qualified status, then verifying only after they have been tentatively selected, helps reduce administrative burden in oversubscribed programs.

In programs where equity is a goal, some programs ringfence a portion of rebates for applicants with lower incomes (e.g., Atlanta reserved 75% of rebate funds for income qualified applicants) or applicants from a particular geographic region (e.g., Massachusetts split the state into 5 regions and ensured equal funding for each), and then combine those restrictions with another selection method like a lottery. First-come first-serve models are less advisable for equity-based programs, given applicants have to be online exactly when the rebates are released.

Some cities chose to use a scoring rubric to prioritize applicants fairly when demand has exceeded the available incentives. When designing a scoring rubric, it is important to consider what factors matter most for the program goals and be clear about how these factors will be evaluated. Potential factors include:

• Household income level;
• Proximity to transit deserts;
• Disability or need for an adaptive bike; and
• Applicant’s access to a vehicle or other form of personal transportation.

Maintaining fairness is essential in the application process. Cities could consider publishing their scoring criteria in advance so potential applicants are aware of how the applications will be scored.

Monitor program progress

Collecting, analyzing, and reporting program progress supports future iterations and informs broader transportation and climate initiatives.

• Track bike usage by surveying participants to measure trip frequency and trip purposes enabled through the program. Apps like Strava can be sent straight to participants to ease tracking. Colorado’s Can Do E-Bike Pilot Program used OpenPATH (Open Platform for Agile Trip Heuristics) to track how participants used their new e-bikes, demonstrating the effectiveness of the program.
• Collect participant feedback through surveys either once or at regular intervals to assess participant satisfaction, barriers to continued use, and perceived benefits or savings. Denver’s survey after their inaugural rebate showed the new cargo e-bikes were not enabling that many more trips for parents or delivery couriers, so they scrapped the additional $500 for those models, allowing them to award more vouchers overall next round.

• Set key performance metrics that can be used in future applications or to adjust the program, such as:

  • Number of bikes redeemed;
  • Incentive dollars distributed;
  • Distribution across income and geographic groups; and
  • Estimated vehicle miles replaced or greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Engage stakeholders to inform continuous improvement

A consistent feedback loop helps ensure the program evolves to better meet community needs, builds trust with partners, and remains effective over time. Participants can provide valuable feedback on application barriers, overall experience, and ideas for improving future rounds. Participating bike shops should be surveyed about the rebate process, challenges related to inventory and delivery, common customer questions or misconceptions, and their recommendations for future program cycles.

Ongoing dialogue is especially important for programs with long-term funding, such as Denver’s e-bike rebate initiative or Colorado’s state tax credit. Ways to facilitate continued engagement include:

• Hosting quarterly check-ins or feedback sessions with participating retailers;
• Using retailer input to refine incentive timing, application processes, or marketing strategies;
• Surveying community members and holding listening sessions to capture diverse perspectives; and
• Incorporating public feedback through community advisory boards.

As outlined in this guidebook there are five clear steps to a successful e-bike program:

1. Establish a clear project team and define measurable program goals from the outset.
2. Determine the rebate structure and eligibility criteria that best aligns with your program goals.
3. Partner with the local bike shops that will deliver the e-bikes to your community and ensure equitable partnerships with prompt reimbursements.
4. Develop outreach materials that are accessible, multilingual, and aligned with the program’s priorities.
5. Plan for a smooth and fair application process and maintain open, consistent communication and feedback channels throughout the program.

E-bike programs are a proven and effective strategy for expanding access to affordable, sustainable transportation while reducing emissions and reliance on cars. E-bike rebate programs tend to be highly popular and generate strong public interest. However, successful programs do not operate in a vacuum; they require supportive infrastructure, such as safe, connected bike lanes and secure bike parking, to ensure long-term impact and maximize ridership. Successful programs will have e-bikes as just one component in making biking a more desirable option more broadly within the city.

Additional resources

• RMI’s E-Bike Environment and Economics Impact Assessment CalculatorE-Bike Environment and Economics Impact Assessment Calculator, demo video
• RMI pitch deck for engaging with key partners
• People for Bikes’ E-Bike Incentive Design Tool
• Transportation Research and Education Center’s Using E-Bike Purchase Incentive Programs to Expand the Market

RMI would like to thank the public officials and experts who shared their experiences and lessons on implementing e-bike rebate programs. Their insights were invaluable in shaping this guidebook.