The photo above shows the governor meeting with Bruce Becker, Analiese Paik, and Barry Kresch of the EV Club of CT. This was a meeting about how the environmental community can more effectively mobilize to support a progressive environmental agenda.
This past Tuesday, July 27th, the EV Club presented a webinar jointly sponsored with Sustainne, LLC, Sustainable Westport, and the Town of Westport on how to save money when buying and charging an EV.
The speakers were Analiese Paik, CEO of Sustainne, Paul Vosper, CEO of JuiceBar, and Barry Kresch, President of the EV Club. These were the areas we covered:
A written summary of the PURA program is here.
Link to the blog post with the latest CHEAPR rebates is here.
We have been receiving positive feedback. The webinar was recorded and is now available on our YouTube channel.
The final rate design adjudication was released on July 14th. Even though it is the final version, it actually isn’t quite final yet. We now know a lot about the program, but the document creates working groups to fill in unfinished gaps on some important details, such as some rates, approved equipment, etc. The PURA doc is uploaded to the website as a blog post here. It doesn’t exactly read like Jurassic Park, but we need this kind of thing if we are to wean ourselves off “dino juice.”
The program is quite comprehensive, containing incentives for residential and commercial, the latter including workplace charging and fleets, and which also applies to municipalities. The incentives cover hardware, service upgrades, make-ready, demand charge mitigation, and discounted electric rates.
It is important to note that this program takes effect in January 2022. It is not retroactive. If you purchase a charger tomorrow, it will not be eligible for the subsidies.
Below is a summary of the incentives referenced in the chart at the top of the blog post. These are hardware and installation-related discounts:
As noted in the first bullet about residential charging, a household can receive an incentive for participating in a managed charging program. There are 2 levels, called basic and advanced. As mentioned earlier, receiving the incentives for the hardware require participation, along with giving the EDC permission to capture data from the charger.
Note: A common way of protecting the grid, which is used in other places but is not part of this program, is time of use (TOU) charging. We are disappointed that this isn’t part of the program because it is a very simple, easy to understand, no maintenance approach. If you charge during off-peak hours, you get a lower rate. Easy. The adjudication specifically states that it doesn’t foreclose moving that way at some future point. There are regular evaluation points built into this 9-year program. And there is nothing to say that TOU can’t be combined with managed charging. Theoretically, if every EV (assuming many more of them than there are today) started a charging session at the first minute of the off-peak period, there could be a demand surge, but managed charging could mitigate that.
There is an existing installed base of EV chargers, and many of these, my guess is almost all of them, are so-called dumb chargers. They are not WiFi enabled so the EDC can’t see or interact with them. The program tasks the utilities to develop a workaround to include these chargers as it could jumpstart program participation. There are existing programs at other utilities, Con-Ed comes to mind, that do just that. With Con-Ed, the driver gets a flash-drive type device to install in the car’s USB port, or with some manufacturers, there is the ability to connect directly to the telematics of the vehicle with the owner’s permission, and incentives will be developed to reward off-peak charging. This actually comes a little closer to time of use. Finally, a recent development is that there is equipment coming on the market that can add connectivity to a dumb charger. PURA is aware of this, as well as developments in better accessing vehicle telematics, and there is the potential for this part of the program to evolve.
The $200 cap on residential demand response rebates seems low to us. The concern is the lack of differentiation between one and two (or more) EV households. We want to see all vehicles participating.
Demand charges affect commercial establishments. If the demand for electricity spikes for a period of time above normative levels, electric rates increase substantially. Demand charges have been a barrier to the installation of level 3 charging stations. The adjudication directs the EDCs to maintain a temporary rate-rider to mitigate demand charges while taking the time to develop a more permanent and sustainable solution. Demand charges were originally developed so that those putting the most strain on the grid contribute disproportionately to necessary upgrades. These rules were developed long before the modern EV and definitely need to be re-thought.
On balance, this is a strong program. We look forward to seeing, and if possible, being a part of, how it evolves. We intend to keep our members informed and hope the outreach, in general, is effective so it hits the ground running in January!
Post by Barry Kresch
This is a topline description of the new dataset. A more in-depth profile will be available when the EV dashboard is updated in a few weeks. The usual disclaimer: This is registrations (not sales). It is cumulative and net and includes new and used vehicles, as well as someone who already owns an EV who moved into the state. On the other hand, vehicles turn over all the time, and these exit the dataset.
The new count of EVs as of July 1 has been released by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The new count of 17,217 represents a 36% increase from the 12,624 one year ago. This is an improvement from the 18% 12-month growth rate we saw in January, but it still falls short of the level of growth needed achieve the 2030 goal of 500,000 electric vehicles set forth in the MultiState Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan Memorandum of Understanding. There is obviously still a pandemic influence over the growth rate as the economy didn’t begin to recover until the last few months. The growth rate for the past 6 months is 25%. If we were to double that, then we would be roughly on pace with what we need. I will calculate a new required compound annual growth rate and include it in a subsequent post.
One hopeful sign is that the 4335 EVs registered in the first half ot 2021 was about the same as the total for all of 2020, which was 4408. (These may not be completely apples to apples as COVID affected how registrations were handled. I think it still gives a reasonable general picture.)
The definition of EV in the file includes battery electric vehicles (BEV), Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV), Fuel Cell (FCEV), and electric motorcycles (BEMC). Below are the numbers for each.
BEVs account for 57% of all EVs. The FCEV count remains where it has been as these are not sold in the state at this time. BEMCs went from 25 to 32.
Tesla continues to lead all EV Marques by a mile.
This pattern is consistent with what we have been seeing. There are a small number of makes that account for almost all registered, followed by a long tail. This chart includes any make in double digits, not a very high bar, but there are quite a few below that level. When the dashboard is updated, it will have the full list. The only real change is that Toyota had a nice increase of 33% from January. Toyota saw increased registrations for its Prius Prime models as well as a good start for the RAV4 Prime. Tesla had a 20% increase, obviously off a larger base. Chevrolet reversed its net decline and increased 9%. The net declines were caused by the discontinued Volts gradually declining. This implies an improvement for Bolt sales.
The top make is the Tesla Model 3, which increased 16% since January. The top models are below.
The Model Y has now surpassed the Model X. It increased 101% since January. You will note that some models have multiple names due to different names for different trim levels. This is how the file comes. I will consolidate it for the dashboard as I think that is an easier comparison to make for our purposes. There are 3 Prius variations and they total 2151, making it the second most widely registered EV.
These is an arbitrary list and counts of some of the newer EVs on the market. In some cases, there are still limited production runs, so it will not be indicative of how successful the vehicle will be.
Audi Q5 Plug-in – 64
BMW X5 Plug-in – 252. This has quickly become the most widely registered BMW EV.
Ford Mustang Mach-E – 136
Jeep Wrangler Plug-in – 202
Polestar 2 – 8
Proterra Electric Buses – 4
VW ID.4 – 57
Volvo Xc40 Recharge – 31
The two plug-in hybrid offerings from Toyota dominated the rebate activity for May. The Prius Prime (44 rebates) and the RAV4 Prime (30 rebates) together accounted for 61% of the 123 May rebates. (The April count was slightly restated to 125.) The only other vehicles in double figures were the Chevrolet Bolt (12) and Hyundai Kona (10). May marked the first appearance of a VW ID.4 with one rebate. Driven by Toyota, the balance of the rebates tilted heavily toward PHEVs, 85 vs. 38 BEVs.
The program spend continues to pace well under the available funds. The new incentives will help somewhat, but we doubt by enough.
There has been some press about the program this week as the Governor’s office issued a release about the new program, which was picked up by a number of newspapers. Readers of this blog will know that the CHEAPR board approved these modifications in February, but implementation only recently happened on June 7th.
The big headline numbers that are featured, such as up to $7500 in rebates, or on the CHEAPR home page, up to $9500, only apply to Fuel Cell vehicles, which are not currently for sale in the state. But the higher rebates and income-limited incentives are now live and we will see the early reporting in one month.
All rebates by model in the table below:
Police Chief Foti Koskinas (left) and Officer Charles Sampson. Photo courtesy of Westport Police.
Post by Barry Kresch
This blog post will discuss the financial aspects of the analysis. A subsequent post will describe the avoided emissions and health costs.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
February rebate data show 72 rebates awarded, totaling $59,000. January was restated and increased from 68 to 77 rebates with a total spend of $82,500.
The leading vehicle in terms of Feb. rebates was the Toyota Prius Prime, which accounted for 22 of the rebates, and was followed by the newer Toyota PHEV, the RAV4 Prime, with 11. The RAV4 has been showing early signs of life. We don’t know if the vehicle is supply constrained in CT as it is still being rolled out. These were the only two vehicles in double figures. With these two PHEVs dominating the rebates, the spend level was considerably lower than January.
The Model 3 accounted for only 2 rebates. As we have seen, the number of Model 3 rebates fluctuates wildly because only the base level is eligible for the incentive. The CHEAPR rebates don’t track with overall sales of the vehicle. There were 4 Model Y rebates which is unlikely to continue. Tesla first reduced the price of the basic Model Y, which is why some of them qualified for incentives, but it subsequently pulled the vehicle off its online configurator.
This was a tweet from Elon Musk that was published in Car and Driver. It was the sub-250 mile range that did not meet its standard of excellence. Off menu means it can still be ordered, but only by phone or in person in a showroom. It would not be surprising to see Tesla make some tweaks to the vehicle and then return it to the entrées. (UPDATE – We have heard that Tesla is not taking any new orders, not even off the menu, for the MY SR. If we are able to find out more details, we will update again.)
The CHEAPR board adopted a new incentive structure in February. The expectation was that it would become live on or about April 1. Some time was needed for the software implementation. As of this writing on 3/27, there is nary a word on the CHEAPR website, nor a peep from DEEP. Communication is not DEEP’s forte. No board meetings have been held since the new incentives were adopted and none have been announced. We are trying to find out if significant delays have been encountered.
These are the rebates by model for February:
The Transportation Committee, by a vote of 26 to 10, moved SB 127 to the full chamber.
There were several legislators who voted in favor of the bill, but who specifically said they have not definitively made up their minds with respect to the upcoming vote on the floor of the chamber. We will publish some of the questions and objections when we update this post.
Transportation Committee Chair, Senator Haskell, deserves our thanks for his leadership in picking this up and moving it forward, after his predecessor on the committee had decided to set it aside. We also thank Rep. Steinberg who has been a consistent advocate for years in favor of this measure.
This is the final roll call.
What I inferred from the hearing today reinforces what I watched/read during the public testimony period. Legislators are hearing from dealers, of course, who oppose the legislation. They are also hearing from constituents and constituents are supporting the legislation. There is no negative sentiment among the public about this bill.
We don’t take anything for granted. When we have updates with respect to further negotiations around the bill or voting in one or both chambers, we will post them (among other things).
Tesla is keeping its “Engage” page live for ease of contacting your legislators.