Route 7 EV Corridor Designation

Route 7 is now an EV Corridor as officially designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These alternative fuel corridor (electric is only one of them) designations are intended to raise awareness among current EV owners and the public at large of the access to nearby charging. This is part of a strategy to promote interstate cooperation and a national build out of charging corridors. All corridor designations have to be re-certified every 5 years. This designation currently applies to the section of Route 7 from the I-95 interchange to New Milford.

Along with the designation, the ceremony held at Fodor Farm in Norwalk also acknowledged the donation of a level 2 charging station by JuiceBar, a Connecticut manufacturer (based in Norwalk) of EVSE.

The presenters were (left to right):

Tammy Thornton, Wilton Go Green

Barry Kresch, President, EV Club of CT

Senator Bob Duff (Majority Leader)

Carlo Leone, CT Department of Transportation

Mayor Rilling of Norwalk

Daphne Dixon, President of Live Green CT

First Selectman Dunn of Brookfield

First Selectman Marpe of Westport

Senator Will Haskell (Transportation Committee co-Chair)

Paul Young of JuiceBar




First Look at Managed Charging Incentives

Utility EV Rate Design – Proposed Details for Single Family Residences

The grid at the top of this post comes from a filing by Eversource for its proposed EV charging incentive structure for single family residential homes. It is one piece of the many-legged creature that is the new EV Rate Design Adjudication that was released by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). In turn, the EV Rate Design is but one facet of PURA’s larger grid modification docket. To be clear, these incentives come from the utilities.

When the adjudication was released in mid-July, not all of the incentive levels and implementation details had been determined. Working groups were set up to address the unfinished work. This is the month when a lot of the submissions are required.

The EV Rate Design is a big program that includes incentives for residential, commercial, workplace, fleet, and public charging. The incentives include hardware and installation subsidies, make ready, demand charge mitigation, and financial incentives to avoid charging during peak periods. The grid up above is only the single family residential part. This is not final. It has been submitted by Eversource to PURA for approval. There is a comment period and there could be changes. It is our expectation that changes will likely be at the margin. For that reason, we thought it worthwhile to tease it and these are the provisions.

Please note that this program begins in January 2022 and the subsidies for hardware and installation only apply to purchases after the start of the program. The first set of bullet points are for hardware and installation.

  • A household can receive a $500 subsidy to offset the purchase of a smart charger. It has to be a smart charger, meaning WiFi enabled, in order to be able to participate in the program because the utility, or Electric Distribution Company (EDC) as they are referred to, has to be able to see the charger/charging activity. Taking this subsidy requires participation in the demand response or managed charging program. $500 is a meaningful amount as there are smart chargers out there in the $6-700 range. Only approved equipment is eligible. The approval list has not yet been released. This is necessary because the EDC has to know that the unit will function in its particular software environment.
  • There is an additional $500 subsidy to offset the cost of bringing a 240 volt line from the panel to the garage. The total cost of this will vary with each residence based on the amperage of the line being pulled and the difficulty and distance in getting from the panel to the garage.
  • If your panel does not have enough capacity for an EV charger, or the charger you want, you would have to upgrade your electric service. There is no provision to offset that expense, which can be $5000 or more.
  • There is an installed base of dumb chargers among existing EV owners and the program has a provision for these folks to participate.
    • If the vehicle has telematics access, GM and Tesla being the specific examples cited in the filing, the utility can capture the data via the car without needing the smart charger.
    • If there is not telematics access, the utility will send a device to track it.
  • There may be an installed base of smart chargers. The filing doesn’t address this. It may be an omission. If the program wants to treat these differently than a dumb charger, then one would have to wait for a determination of whether this equipment is approved.

The next incentives are for participation. The idea is to offer discounts to get customers to charge their EVs during periods of lower electricity demand. This will help load balance the grid.

  • For those accepting the hardware and installation incentive, since that comes with the obligation to participate, there is no enrollment incentive.
  • For telematics participants, there is a $200 enrollment incentive. For non-telematics “device” participants, the enrollment incentive is $150.
  • Charging incentives for smart charger and non-smart charger participants are capped at $200 annually.
    • The program is intended to have 2 levels of participation: demand response and managed charging. Only demand response will be rolled out for 2022. Managed charging will follow 12 months later.

Demand response means that the utility will alert customers when a high demand period is coming. The alert will typically happen 24 hours prior to the event. These events will generally be 3 hour blocks of time occurring between 3 – 9PM in June through September on days when demand spikes. Customers with smart chargers will be opted-in by default but have the ability to opt-out for a given event in response to an alert. Being opted-in means that the car will either have its charging rate curtailed or will temporarily not be able to charge during the high-demand block of time. If a car is simply not plugged-in, that counts as being opted-in. Customers are permitted up to 2 opt-out events per month to remain eligible for the incentive. Telematics customers will work similarly, except it is up to the customer not to plug-in during these times (since the utility can’t control the charger). The incentive is structured as $50 per month for each of the 4 months, paid annually after the summer.

The minimum participation requirement is 24 months. After 24 months, participation continues unless affirmatively withdrawn by the customer. Participation may be terminated prior to 24 months if there are extenuating circumstances, such as customer no longer owning an EV or moving to a new residence.

The more advanced demand charge level allows the utility to throttle the rate of charge as needed. There are no discreet events as with demand response. Customers can switch between tiers in either direction, but must participate for 6 months before switching and then another 6 months before switching again. The EDCs have proposed that a higher incentive be made available to participants in the more advanced managed charging program but have not yet specified how much it will be.

As noted at the start of the post, this plan is not final. We will publish updates as events unfold.

 




Bolt Owners Still Treading Water

The Chevrolet Bolt recall is inching closer to the one year mark, having started in November of last year. GM expanded the scope of the vehicles being recalled over the course of several stages until in August, it expanded to every Bolt manufactured. That’s the bad news/good news. The recall involves every Bolt, but it hasn’t been a big seller. The irony is that was beginning to change. Since the introduction of the redesigned model this year which came with a lower price, it has been getting traction as one of the better BEV values. Below is the registration trend of the Bolt in CT, compared with its stablemate Volt that was discontinued in 2019. The most recent numbers in the chart are as of July 1, which was before deliveries began of the Bolt EUV.

Bolt Trend in CT

 

There may finally be a ray of hope. ElectricDrive.com reported that GM has identified the cause and that its supplier, LG Chem, has restarted production lines. New battery cells could be reaching dealers by later this month. It is not known how long it will take to work through the recall backlog as well as the resumption of new vehicle manufacturing. The automaker also announced “new diagnostic software” to be deployed over the next 60 days.

The recall does tell us a couple of things. If you read the ElectricDrive piece, the problem is described as a defect in the manufacturing process. There is more detail than that, but the point is that it isn’t a problem with the battery design or underlying technology. It is strictly quality control. In the article, it specifies that the problem occurred at the LG plant in Korea. But LG opened a plant in Michigan in 2019 and newer Bolts have batteries manufactured at that facility. The fact that GM included Bolts with batteries manufactured in each facility indicates a more across the board concern. (Batteries are very heavy and expensive to ship. It is much more cost-effective to co-locate battery and vehicle manufacturing. The Michigan facility is likely part of how GM was able to lower the price of the refreshed Bolt. Perhaps it provides some measure of hope that there will be a meaningful battery manufacturing presence in this country, a critical national security technology, as opposed to our usual practice of developing technology and then ceding the manufacturing to the Chinese, e.g. solar panels.)

There are a number of Bolt owners among club members. For a variable number of months now, depending upon which recall batch their vehicle is in, they have been living with a vehicle that needs to be garaged outdoors and used in a range-compromised fashion. The Bolt’s 259 mile range is now effectively 163 with the guidance to maintain a battery state of charge of not less than 70 miles and no more than 90%. With this slow-rolling, multi-stage recall, where there is still no definitive no end in sight, how proactively has GM or its Chevy dealers been  communicating with their customers? Bolt owners responded to our query between September 21st and October 4th.

GM has been in a difficult spot, given the expanding scope of the recall, the elusive nature of the cause, and possibly its negotiations to get LG to assume some portion of the liability. Nonetheless, GM and Chevy dealers are responsible to the customers and the general consensus is that there has been a minimal level of communication. The near-silence from GM may be be because it hasn’t had much to say, but there does not seem to be much of a communications strategy in place. The number of communications from GM seems to basically be one, or one per recall if the vehicle was in one of the earlier batches before the full scope of the problem became apparent. The content boils down to, “be patient.” Some owners are frustrated, while others have more equanimity, with GM getting points for proactively expanding the scope of the recall. The dealers don’t seem to be much in the loop. Updates have not been forthcoming as the saga has dragged on. No complimentary loaners have been provided.

Some customers have requested that GM repurchase their vehicle. One advised that there is a YouTube channel called “Wrenching Fool” that provides guidance on how to go about getting a case number. The repurchase requests are being evaluated by GM on a case by case basis and do not appear to have been resolved to this point.

There was one exception to that. Club-member Glen Zackowski reports reaching a favorable repurchase deal with his dealership, Grossman Chevrolet, in Old Saybrook. He will have to wait until the car is fixed. At that point, he will be the owner of a new Bolt EUV. No doubt, staying in the family helped. Customers also report that they like the car. They just wish this process had been made easier for them.

 

 

 

 




Westport Police Led The Way, And Will Be Again Next Week

Tesla Tech Enables Innovative Solutions to Law Enforcement Customization

The Westport Police were out in front of the market when they acquired a Model 3 for patrol car duty in December 2019.

What is becoming apparent is that their diligence and attention to detail placed them further ahead than others who made a similar move after they did.

Case in point – how does one handle the police electronics. In a conventional ICE police car, the vehicle is equipped with a heavy-duty alternator. The Tesla doesn’t have an alternator – what to do?

One option, as was done with a Model Y that went into service this past July in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, is to add a second 12-volt battery. Eden Prairie, MN, Model Y, battery in frunkThis photo was published in DriveElectricCanada.ca. It shows the additional battery parked tidily in the frunk.

While that works, a more elegant solution was arrived at in Westport, which was to wire the police electronics directly into the large battery. The police report this being a trivial drain. It required the police and Whelen Engineering working with Tesla to do some recoding to make it happen.

The point is that there is a lot there when it comes to the potential to re-purposing the native tech in a Tesla. Westport has also been able to incorporate some of the camera and computing power into the license plate reader.

We don’t know how widely this knowledge about these opportunities to lower the cost of customization is being disseminated, though the Westport Police have more than done their part in terms of being generous with their time and sharing what they have learned.

The police have the approval for another electric patrol car, which will most likely be the Model Y.

Model 3 to Lead EV Parade

Officer Charles Sampson, who was the project leader for the Tesla patrol car, will be driving the Model 3 as the escort for the EV parade on October 2nd. There will be an opportunity to check out the vehicle before the start of the parade. The parade departs from the Westport Train Station at 10 AM. Registration is still open at https://bit.ly/GreenWheels

Drivers should arrive between 9 and 9:30 to give us time to organize.




Governor Lamont Meets with EV Club

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.




Webinar – EV Purchase incentives and Free Charging

EV Purchase Incentives, EVSE (charging equipment) Subsidies, Free Charging

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:

  • Latest changes to CT CHEAPR program of EV purchase incentives
  • Update: There is a recent change to the CHEAPR program not reflected in the webinar. EV buyers can now receive 2 rebates beginning with June 2021, meaning if you had previously received a rebate, you can receive 2 more. They must be spaced at least 24 months apart.
  • Federal purchase incentive
  • Newly release EV Rate Design from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) that directs the utilities to offer a range of subsidies for residential, Multiple Dwelling Units, commercial, fleets, and municipalities. These include subsidies for the purchase and installation of level 2 or level 3 chargers and discounts on electric rates.
  • Many automakers offer some level of free charging with the purchase or lease of a new EV. They vary a lot and are either miles or time-limited. There are also numerous options for free level 2 public charging.

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.




New EV Rate Design Released by PURA

Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) Directs Utilities to Offer EV Charging Incentives

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:

  • A residential incentive of up to $500 for the cost of an EV charger. This incentive is for a smart charger, which is a WiFi-connected charger. EV charger prices vary, in part depending upon how many amps are drawn by the charger, but according to MYEV.com, the range for a smart charger is $600-$800.  If you take advantage of this incentive, you are required to participate in a managed charging program. The point of the connected charger is to enable the utility (which is also known as an Electric Distribution Company or EDC) to see and communicate with the charging unit.
  • Also for a residence, there is a subsidy to help with the cost of an electric service upgrade if that is necessary if your current panel does not have the capacity to accommodate the added amperage of an EV charger. The amount of the subsidy is not yet determined.
  • There is no mention in the chart of a subsidy specifically for installation, so we assume for now that the $500 applies to both hardware and installation. Installation costs can vary considerably depending on how far your panel is from your garage. It could be as much as $1,000.
  • There are similar incentives offered for multi-unit dwellings (MUD), workplace chargers, and make-ready. The incentive is 50% of the cost of the charger subject to a cap for the site and a minimum number of charging ports. Note that this is ports, not chargers. There are dual-port charging units. There are higher site caps for MUDs, public level 2, and DCFC charging in underserved communities.
  • There is a 100% make-ready incentive, which means the EDC will pay to bring the power to where the chargers will be installed. This is a big deal.
  • Finally, there is a subsidy of 50% for the installation of a DCFC charger, which is short for DC current fast charger, also known as a level 3 charger. These are commercial, high voltage units that can quickly charge an EV capable of accepting a fast charge, which applies to most battery electric vehicles.
  • There will be a list of specific approved charging equipment. This is necessary for the utilities to be sure they are able to get the information they need from the charger. This list will be finalized later in the year.

Residential Incentives for Electricity Usage

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.

  • Basic incentive. In this program, a consumer will be notified of an upcoming demand response event (i.e. when the EDC is expecting there to be a high demand for electricity and they need to take measures to avoid brownouts or blackouts). The consumer has the option to decline participation. However, the default setting is opt-in. Incentives are awarded for participation. The particulars are still being developed, but there is a cap of $200 per year, which will be sent as a direct payment to the consumer.
  • Advanced (direct load control). The consumer will set charging sessions (via app, web portal, email or text) and the EDC has the right to throttle the rate of charge. The particulars of the incentive are still under development. Your participation level will influence the size of your incentive. We hope this is not too burdensome a level of admin for the consumer.
  • The Authority has directed the EDCs to submit recommendations for EV rates for MUDs, which could involve sub-metering.

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

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.

Outreach

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!




CT Electric Vehicle Registrations Grow 36%

Post by Barry Kresch

17,217 electric vehicles are now registered in Connecticut

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.)

Fuel Type

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.

Electric Vehicles by Fuel Type

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.

Top EV Makes

Tesla continues to lead all EV Marques by a mile.

Count of EVs by Top Makes

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.

Count of EVs for Top Models

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.

Some New Brands

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

 




CHEAPR Data Through May 2021 and New Program Takes Effect

Toyota Dominates May Rebates

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.CHEAPR spend vs budget

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:

May 2021 Rebates

 




Tesla Police Vehicle Saves Westport Tens of Thousands of Dollars

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 is how the extra load is handled. (The HD alternator is included in the base purchase price of the Ford.)

Customization Costs No Detail

 

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.

Ford vs Tesla Fuel and Maintenance Cost Comparison

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.

Categories 4 Yrs Cash Basis

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 Cost by Vehicle Cash Basis

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.

Categories 4 yrs amort basis

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.

 

Total Cost by Vehicle Amort

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.

Savings Tesla Pilot vs Ford Explorer Cash and Amortization

Savings for Tesla Next Cash and Amort

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