Photo: Barry Kresch

A direct sales bill did pass the legislature, just not the one we wanted. Connecticut residents now can buy pot, but not a Tesla.

Emerging from the smoke, we can see for the dealers what selling EVs looks like. They prioritize politics over actually selling EVs, protectionism over innovation. The one who loses is the consumer, as most EV buyers are forced to go out of state for their vehicle, and the citizenry at large, as we live with higher levels of pollution and the planet fries. CT dealers sold an average of 1.3 EVs each in 2020 (as reported in Treehugger.com). That level of ineptitude and disingenuousness means that we can watch as the goal the state has set for itself of 500,000 registered EVs by 2030 recedes over the horizon. At this point, it is less a question of whether CT will hit that goal, than by how much we will miss it. It is fine to sign a memorandum of understanding, as the state did to much fanfare with the MultiState Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan MOU, but without adequate legislation and policy, nobody should be surprised when there are no results.

This legislative session was pretty much a bust when it came to environmental legislation. Not only did the EV Freedom bill fail, so did the Transportation Climate Initiative, and the authorization for DEEP to look at implementing California standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. Even in a state that thinks of itself as progressive, entrenched interests can still act against the public good.

In the case of the EV Freedom Bill, SB 127, which was the one the club devoted much of its efforts to support, the bill passed out of the Transportation Committee by a 25-10 vote, but then stalled in the Senate. Had it passed the Senate, an equally contentious adventure loomed in the House.

We were told that our efforts fell just short in the Senate. Legislators, Tesla, and Rivian all said that the grassroots effort made a difference. But we’re obviously not quite there.

If there is anything good to be said of this effort, it is that the various advocacy groups we worked with, from the Tesla Club to the members of the EV Coalition, collaborated really well together. And we found some new partners in the Electrification Coalition, the IBEW (electrical workers union), and new manufacturers, Rivian and Lucid.

Senator Haskell plans to introduce the bill again in January. His task was made more difficult this year by the fact that he did not become chairman of the Transportation Committee until halfway through the session. His advice for next year is similar to this year: Contact your representatives. It is fine to do this out of session. If you can build a personal relationship, so much the better. They need to hear from constituents.

This bill has overwhelming public support. And there are more of us every year.

All You Need to Know About EV Incentives and Free Charging Opportunities

Virtual webinar: July 27th at 7 PM. Free registration is required:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_3fImyGBzT4yzOzrxe-x5Lg

The EV Club will be jointly producing and sponsoring a virtual webinar about the latest in incentives and free charging. Specifically, these are federal and state purchase incentives, incentives that reduce the cost of the electricity used to charge your electric vehicle, incentives to defray the cost of buying EV charging equipment, and free charging opportunities.

The incentives around EVs and charging are fluid.

The state recently implemented a number of changes to its CHEAPR EV purchase incentive program.

There is an expectation that either included or alongside the Biden Administration infrastructure plan, there will be an updated federal purchase incentive. The bill that was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee looks very good, but it could change considerably as it makes its way through the legislature. There is also a federal tax credit for the purchase of an EV charging station that is due to expire at the end of this year. We are waiting to see if that resurfaces. The President and the leaders of the two chambers have talked about getting this done before the August recess. It may be cutting it close, but we are hopeful that the contours of the new plans will be known by the end of July.

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is in the process of adjudicating a new EV rate design that would include lower rates to charge an EV as well as subsidies for charging hardware. A preliminary document was issued on June 17th. The final document is due July 14th. This is a complex piece of regulation, but we will provide the key highlights for the webinar.

New Rules Take Effect on June 7th

Revisions to the CHEAPR EV purchase incentive program approved in February are going into effect on June 7th. This was announced at the CHEAPR board meeting on June 4th. We don’t really know if there has been much advance outreach to the dealers or not. The announcement felt abrupt so it could be that there will be a bumpy transition for a period of time. The details of the program are described in this earlier blog post written when the changes were announced.

In the meantime, the April update was released on June 5th. The March rebates were restated upward to 170 with April at 119. The Toyota Prius Prime continued as the vehicle with the most rebates at 31, followed by the Toyota RAV4 Prime (20), Chevy Bolt (19), and Tesla Model 3 (18). All other models were in single digits.

The program continues to pace below budget.

The numbers have picked up somewhat recently as the economy recovers. The slide below was shown by DEEP and indicates an upward sloping EV sales trend in CT this year through the first quarter.

Even with the March spike, the pacing is still below the baseline budget for that month. It remains to be seen if the upturn in the economy and the new rebates will raise the spend level to match the available funds. We may not really know the program’s true run rate for several months. The new LMI incentives are going to require outreach and education, and the process is more complicated. It is likely there won’t be much traction for a while.

Connecticut Has Poor Air Quality

Our small state has big air, as in big air pollution. Part of the reason is that we’re a heavily transited state situated between major metro areas. As a result, 38% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector, according to data published by the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, which is about 10 points higher than the national average. The American Lung Association in its State of the Air Report gives every county in CT a grade of F for ozone pollution, the kind of thing that exacerbates asthma and other cardio-pulmonary conditions. This backdrop underscores the importance of getting more zero-emission vehicles on the road.

Tons of CO2 Emissions Avoided

It should come as no surprise that a Ford Explorer that is subject to heavy police vehicle use burns a ton of gas. The car isn’t fuel-efficient to start with, garnering an EPA-rated 16 MPG. In police use, which veers from extended periods of idling to pedal-to-the-metal takeoffs, the “real-life” mileage recorded by the Westport Police slides to 10 MPG. The Explorer that was used in the financial analysis dashboard was driven 23,060 miles over the course of one year, translating to 2306 gallons of gasoline.

We used data from FuelEconomy.gov that pegs 1 gallon of gas as causing 20.35 pounds of CO2. Most of that weight comes from the oxygen in the atmosphere that is part of the CO2 formation that happens in the combustion process. Here is the specific link that describes the process.

The math is straightforward, 2306 gallons x 20.35 lbs per gallon equals 46,927 lbs. or 23.5 tons per year. From one car!

Note: This is a comparison of tailpipe emissions only. There are emissions associated with the manufacture of each vehicle, the fuel sources used to generate electricity in the CT grid, and the many upstream emissions of extracting petroleum, refining it into gasoline and transporting it to the various points in its journey until it is pumped into a gas tank.

Avoided Health Costs

Our reference for avoided health costs was the journal Climatic Change, published by way of Think Progress. The data were developed in a study by Drew Shindell, a professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. It’s worth a read if you have the time as it is more wide-ranging than our use of it here which is to narrowly focus on the impact of gasoline. That impact translates to an additional $3.80 per gallon over the retail price in health and environmental costs. Referencing the Ford Explorer’s burning through 2306 gallons, that works out to avoided health and environmental costs of $8763 for one car driven at this level of mileage over the course of one year.

Police Chief Foti Koskinas (left) and Officer Charles Sampson. Photo courtesy of Westport Police.

Post by Barry Kresch

Tesla Police Vehicle Brings Large Monetary Savings

• The purchase premium is recouped in one year.
• After four years, the savings are enough to pay for another Tesla.
• One EV saves 23.5 tons of CO2 emissions annually.

This blog post will discuss the financial aspects of the analysis. A subsequent post will describe the avoided emissions and health costs.

A Big Splash

Using a Tesla Model 3 for police duty was a new idea back in Dec. 2019 when the Westport Police acquired one for use as a fully customized police cruiser, going into service in Feb. 2020. This was the second Model 3 to be acquired by a police force (Bargersville, IN was the first), but according to the Westport Police, this was the first one to be fully tricked out for law enforcement. The Model S or X would also be cool patrol cars, but the lower price-point of the Model 3 made it a more financially realistic option.

The purchase caused quite a splash, generating hundreds of inquiries from all over the world. Since then, there have been some other communities that have gone the same route. To the best of our knowledge, nobody has published a dive into the financials, including the customization.

The police gave us some very positive feedback early on about using the vehicle. This included how its performance enables it to catch up to a speeding vehicle in less time than a gas-powered patrol car, reducing the danger to other motorists, pedestrians, and the police themselves.

When a police vehicle is out in the community, especially at a public gathering, photo ops are common. The usual photo op is with the kids, who like to be photographed behind the wheel of a patrol car. With this car, it is the adults asking for photos.

At the time the purchase announcement was made, much of the attention was focused on the headline purchase price. Sure, the Tesla Model 3 is green. In fact, it is green even by EV standards with a 121 MPGe EPA rating. But is it a prudent use of taxpayer funds to purchase a vehicle costing $52,290 compared to $37,000 for a Ford Explorer, the recent mainstay of the Westport patrol car fleet?

This blog reported extensively on the vehicle when it entered service. The story was picked up in other places, too, including local blogger, Dan Woog, who published a story in December 2019 that generated over 50 comments. Most were supportive, but there were doubting Thomases who wrote, “$52,000 – what a joke.” Or “A Tesla is essentially a luxury item and a novelty; what a wasteful and obnoxious mismanagement of our tax dollars.”

While EVs are typically more expensive to acquire than a comparable conventional, or ICE (internal combustion engine) car, the total cost of ownership, which factors in fuel and maintenance, is often lower. This car turned out to be an extreme version of the savings on a total cost of ownership basis.

The Westport Police worked with Sustainable Westport before the purchase to estimate the numbers and there was a high confidence level that the lower operating costs of the Tesla would translate to payback within three years, plus the tantalizing possibility that the native tech in the Tesla would offer savings on the extensive customization that occurs for a law enforcement vehicle. Fortunately, Westport leadership is committed to lowering emissions and they, including First Selectman Jim Marpe and Police Chief Foti Koskinas, had a bias to action.

Fast Recoupment

The new headline is that the payback happens in year one. By year four, there are enough savings to buy a new Tesla. The details get a little more complicated and I will lay them all out. All data regarding the purchase, customization, and operating expenses come from the Westport Police. At my request, the analysis was reviewed by the Finance Department of the Town of Westport, which has confirmed the accuracy of the data and supports the conclusions.

I use actual data, where available, and due to the relatively short time frame, projections based on the data for future years, done in consultation with the police.

This Tesla and The Next

This car was never not going to save money.  The cost of law enforcement customization is substantial, more than the cost of the Ford Explorer. The Tesla, due to its first-mover status, was given significant discounts from the two companies that Westport uses for this work (Whelen Engineering and Fleet Auto Body, which are both CT companies). Going forward, that free lunch is off the menu. Consequently, when discussing the data, I refer to this vehicle as the Tesla “Pilot,” and a second, hypothetical vehicle, as the Tesla “Next,” where I don’t count the one-time discounts to have a better comparison with the Ford ICE.

Also, this comparison assumes outfitting a car from the ground up. In real-life operations, if a vehicle is replaced with a like vehicle, much of the customization can be reused. The Westport patrol fleet is made up of Ford Explorers and Crown Victorias. The latter model has been discontinued so reuse is not possible when replacing those.

The Car

This Model 3 was the long-range, all-wheel drive, performance version. The police did not purchase full-self driving (which their insurer would not underwrite, though it was moot because they weren’t going to buy it anyway).

Customization

The biggest single item in the customization is the license plate reader, and it is here that there was a savings of $10,000 ($8,000 vs $18,000) due to taking advantage of the technology native to the Tesla. As far as Pilot discounts, there was no charge for added cameras, lights, siren, and the weapons rack. These discounts amounted to just over $14,000.

The Pilot was not outfitted with a prisoner transport cage/partition since that was not needed for its duties. For purposes of comparison with the Explorer, the partition was included in the Next vehicle.

There are two items that applied only to the Tesla. One is a spare tire for $800. (The Ford comes with a spare.) The other is a charging station at a cost of $1000 for hardware and installation. These are categorized as “customization” since they come after the vehicle is purchased. The department is getting two shifts per day on a single charge and charging the vehicle overnight. This is assumed to be the usage pattern of future Teslas, so the conservative assumption on charging is that the charging equipment expense will be required for each Tesla procured and it is included in the Next vehicle. There could potentially be a savings opportunity in the future with a dual-port charger.

The other item, charged to all cars, was a police computer.

Exploiting the native Tesla tech is still a work in progress. There is the possibility of future savings but for this comparison, no further savings are assumed. The customization totals for each vehicle are displayed below. The Pilot vehicle, due to the discounts, cost savings from the license plate reader, and lack of a prisoner partition has a $24,600 lower cost of customization. In other words, based on the customization alone, the purchase premium has been more than recouped. The Next vehicle, without all the discounts, still has a lower customization cost than the Ford in the amount of $8200 due to the license plate reader savings, partially offset by the charging station and spare tire expenses.

One thing that Tesla did was enable the wiring of all the electronic accessories (lights, siren, etc.) into the large battery. That made it unnecessary to add a second 12-volt battery (which is how other police departments have handled this item). In the case of the Ford patrol car, a heavy-duty alternator how the extra load is handled. (The HD alternator is included in the base purchase price of the Ford.)

Ongoing Costs

Aside from fuel, these are the ongoing regular maintenance items that are included in the data.

Both vehicles: brakes and tires.

With electric vehicles, regenerative braking, where the engine slows the car and stores some of that kinetic energy in the battery (instead of its being dissipated as heat), greatly reduces the wear on the brakes. The scheduled brake servicing for the Tesla is once every two years. It is possible the brakes will last longer, but the police use involves hard stops, which will engage the friction brakes, and this is thought to be a conservative estimate. Brake servicing history on the Explorer is twice per year.

The police have remarked that they are pleasantly surprised that the tires are holding up better on the Tesla, which they attribute to a superior suspension. I was surprised, too. Normally, tires are the one area where an EV does not save money. Most EVs use low rolling resistance tires. These maximize range but are not known for long life. In the case of the Westport PD, they are using the same tire for both the Ford and the Tesla. It is possible there was a slight range-loss because of this. They plan to replace the Tesla tires once every two years, compared to every year for the Ford.

Ford only: oil/filter changes, transmission servicing, catalytic converter, water pump, spark plugs, alternator.

The costs were calculated based on driving 23,060 miles in a year.

The EV charger that was installed by the police is not sub-metered. Tracking electricity consumption was a manual affair of tracking mileage and battery state of charge before and after each day. Going forward, the police have subscribed to Tesla-Fi, so there will be an opportunity to tighten those numbers, plus track battery degradation. Based on the data we have, the cost of electricity was 60% less than it was for gas. Also, keep in mind that this car is a 2020 model year, meaning it was before Tesla began installing heat pumps in its vehicles. This will reduce energy consumption in cold weather. Finally, there is a new EV Rate Design currently being adjudicated by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. This has the potential to reduce the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity, depending upon the final rulemaking, how it applies to municipalities, and whether the police could live with a managed charging arrangement. The police would have to install smart chargers, which are more expensive than the dumb charger they have now, but that cost differential would likely be subsidized in this scenario.

The chart below maps the savings from fuel and maintenance on a year by year cumulative basis for 4 years. Bands of color represent items in a consistent way across all 4 panels and all 3 bars and are identified in the legend. In year one, there is already a savings of $8.3 thousand, due to the lower fuel costs for the Tesla, along with the cost of quarterly oil/filter changes, brake servicing, and tire replacement for the Ford. From there, the savings accrue even more quickly due to ICE parts (e.g. the catalytic converter) needing to be replaced, so that by the time we get to 4 years, the savings total $31.5 thousand. This is considerably more than the purchase premium and almost as much as the purchase cost of the Ford.

Service Life

The documented service life of the Ford Explorers is four years. Based on what the police have seen to date, they are planning for a six-year service life for the Model 3. This is big. Costs are calculated on both a cash and amortized basis.

Total Costs – Cash Basis

The chart below shows the total cost of each vehicle with subtotals by category (purchase, customization, ongoing) for each of 4 years. This looks at the costs on a cash basis. The costs are cumulative. Since we are looking at the costs on a cash basis, the 2 blue bands, representing the purchase and customization costs, recognize these expenses in the first year and they don’t change. The ongoing cost does increase each year as more fuel is used and additional maintenance items are performed.  The maintenance load on the Ford, in particular, gets heavier as the years go by and things like the catalytic converter and water pump need to be replaced. Therefore, the year 4 cost is the total spent on fuel and maintenance to this point. Four years is the chosen interval as it corresponds to the service life of the Ford Explorer.

This next chart summarizes the categories into a grand total and displays the 4-year cost trend for each vehicle. This is still on a cash basis and it ties to the totals in the category chart above.

Total Costs – Amortized Basis

None of the charts to this point have taken service life into account. It should be noted that even on a cash basis, the costs for the Teslas are considerably lower. The chart below reprises the category format, except that the purchase and customization costs are divided by the number of years in the service life of each vehicle. This is why the fixed costs increment upwards each year.

This is what the total costs for each vehicle for each year look like. The magnitude of the difference between the Teslas and the Ford Explorer is greater because, after 4 years, only two-thirds of the Tesla purchase and customization costs are amortized. You will notice that year 4 of the costs for the Ford is the same is it appears 2 charts above, because at that point, the vehicle has been fully amortized.

You can easily see the differences are substantial and we have done the math on the savings for you in the two charts below. The first shows the savings for the Tesla Pilot and the second shows the savings for the Tesla Next. Each chart displays side by side the savings on a cash and amortized basis.

As can be seen, the extraordinary discounts for the Pilot vehicle generate an enormous savings of $63,000 after four years on an amortized basis. But even the Next vehicle more garners significant savings even on a cash basis. On an amortized basis, the $52,000 savings are almost the exact cost of the original purchase price of the Model 3.

The bottom line: This is good for the bottom line!

Closing Note: The police buying a Tesla, was a toe in the water, a pilot. As demonstrated in the data, the payback happens in the first year and the savings are substantial after 4 years. The ramification is very clear:  It is possible to move aggressively to replace every ICE vehicle that turns over with an appropriate EV without jeopardizing constrained financial resources. It’s not just about Tesla. The Town of Westport recently acquired 2 Chevy Bolts. The police have several other plug-in vehicles such as the Toyota Prius Primes that are used for parking enforcement. It is about reducing emissions while cost-effectively matching the vehicle to the use case. The potential is there to save millions of tons of emissions and millions of dollars over the course of 10 or 15 years.

Even better news is that future savings could be greater. In the case of the Tesla, making greater use of the native technology is still a work in progress. There could be more savings, but since we don’t have anything definitive, I didn’t want to be overly speculative.

Something new that is happening is the new EV Rate Design issued by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.

Even though the final adjudication was issued on July 14th, there are still working groups filling in the details. We should know everything at some point in Q4. The program takes effect in January 2022. But we do know that it includes subsidies for charging station purchases, make ready, and discounted electric rates.

So I will close by borrowing a Tesla term and say there is no reason not to move forward in Ludicrous Mode.

This is a recent video that was made with the Westport Chief of Police, Foti Koskinas, at an outdoor press conference where he was speaking about the first year of the vehicle being in service.

Inquiries can be sent to EVClubCT@gmail.com

Town of Westport Adds 2 Chevy Bolt EVs To Its Fleet

The Town of Westport has announced further progress to its march to net-zero by 2050 with the addition of 2 Chevrolet Bolt battery-electric vehicles to its fleet. The vehicles are the standard-level trim options and they are the new 2021 model.

Westport has been taking tangible steps to achieve its environmental objectives. These Bolts will be used for municipal inspections by the Engineering Division and the Tax Assessor. The current practice is for vehicles to be swapped out around every four years. As other vehicles turn over, the town plans to continue converting its inspection fleet to EVs.

The Bolt was selected due to its reasonable price, reputation for quality engineering, and being the right size. It has an EPA-rated range of 259 miles.

The Bolt typically comes with an 8-year/100,000-mile battery warranty. However, these vehicles were obtained through Enterprise Fleet Leasing and will almost certainly have been turned over before getting to that point.

Importantly, EVs last a long time, have a low maintenance profile and could lower carrying costs. This was taken into account when making this decision.

Rivian Brings New R1T to CT in Support of Direct Sales

With the fate of SB 127 hanging in the balance in the waning days of the 2021 legislative session, a pre-production version of the Rivian R1T all-electric pickup truck made an appearance in CT. It could be found Thursday in Hartford, where legislators and the governor were given the opportunity to go for a drive and see the future of electro-mobility. The fate of the bill in the Senate is expected to be determined over the next few days. It would then still have to go before the House.

On Friday, a last-minute gathering came together, where some members of the EV Club CT, were also able to get a look. We hope to bring them back to CT once they have started production later this year.

Group photos by Paul Braren

May 13, 2021

Electrification Coalition Support of SB 127 Comes from National Security Perspective

The Electrification Coalition supports SB 127. Its mission statement states: “Accelerate the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles to improve our national and economic security.” Several prominent retired military leaders, including Admiral Dennis Blair, are affiliated with the organization because of the national security benefits of reducing our country’s dependence on oil. Admiral Blair made the following remarks in testimony before Washington legislators on the subject of direct sales of electric vehicles:

“Our group has long seen electric vehicles, and specifically the domestic EV industry, as the most promising solution to break oil’s monopoly over the transportation system. And as the world shifts from gasoline to EVs, China’s dominance of the entire EV supply chain makes scaling up the U.S. market even more urgent.

“As has been made clear in state after state, direct sales is one of the most effective and powerful policy levers to enhance EV deployment.  Some 80% of EVs sold in the country are through direct sales, and states that are open to direct sales see adoption rates of up to 5 times the rates of states that are closed—even in the absence of other direct incentives.”

–         Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Former Director of National Intelligence and Commander In Chief, U.S. Pacific Command

Dealers Pressure Plug In America to Back Away From Direct Sales

Plug In America (PIA) has up until now played an important advocacy role in the effort to pass SB 127 in Connecticut and similar direct sales laws in other states. They acted as a clearinghouse for a lot of information from economists, academics and others that supported our arguments for EV Freedom, and did a lot of coordinating between the numerous parties involved, including the EV Club, manufacturers, environmental organizations, lobbyists, among others.

As of now, however, the coordination Zooms have stopped and the content has been removed from the PIA website. We had copies of some of the content, and what we have is now posted on the EV Club website.

PIA has a business called PlugStar. It is a training program to help dealerships become more effective at selling EVs. The dealers pay for this and it is a meaningful revenue stream for PIA. The dealers threatened to terminate their arrangements with PlugStar unless PIA stopped supporting direct sales. The board of PIA has caved and directed that the ongoing advocacy efforts in this area cease. This is not just a CT thing.

Needless to say, those of us in the EV community were gobsmacked by this “pulling the rug out from under” move at a critical time. And we’re surprised the organization doesn’t have bylaws in place to provide separation and deal with what seems an obvious potential for conflict. We blame PIA for compromising their principles, but, of course, it was the dealers that put them in this position. They show their colors that competition is good for everyone except themselves.

This is from the PIA website:

Plug In America is a non-profit, supporter-driven advocacy group. We are the voice of plug-in vehicle drivers across the country.

It is clear that the position they are taking runs counter to their mission and that they have now become the voice of entrenched interests blocking progress.

Our club would like to see dealers up their game when it comes to selling EVs, but we don’t agree with the franchise laws being used to stifle competition. The majority of EV sales, both nationally and in CT, are from direct sales.

To the extent that club members and readers of this blog donate to PIA, we recommend sending those funds to other organizations instead. You can find a long list of worthy options in the CT Electric Vehicle Coalition.

The EV Club has also filed a Freedom on Information Act Request to obtain the relevant backup documents underlying the decision.

This Bill is Pro EV and Pro CT