If the benefit is a net-positive and increasing, then the sticker price may be going up but the cost is going down. After all, the entire point of a law like this -- and indeed, of "sustainability" in general -- is to minimize cost in the long run.
That said, the verbiage that annoys me far more is when the article calls a tax credit for electric cars an "electric vehicle" tax credit, which is e-bike erasure. Not sure if it's still the case, but the e-bike market was bigger than the electric car market as of a couple of years ago, so the fact that the government is subsidizing cars but not e-bikes, even though the latter is much more sustainable, is a glaring omission.