Two members of EV Club leadership team to participate in a panel organized by Save the Sound

There is a panel (free registration) scheduled for Friday, May 21st at 12:00 PM, lasting for about an hour. The subjects being discussed are three key pieces of legislation that are still pending before the legislature. Club president, Barry Kresch, and leadership team member, Larry Thompson will be participants. Our friends at Save the Sound have organized this.

Katie Dykes – Chair of CT DEEP will discuss SB 931, which would evaluate whether to apply California emission requirements for medium and heavy-duty vehicles to CT.

Barry Kresch – President of EV Club CT will discuss SB 127, which would allow EV exclusive manufacturers to open stores in CT.

Kai Addae – Bradley Street Bicycle Co-op, will discuss SB 884, the Transportation Climate Initiative cap and invest program for carbon emissions.

Larry Thompson is the panel moderator.

This is a virtual panel. The registration link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZItc–vqjIuE9ycEWdybT_Rx98iEyg8fU82

A new report by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis—which acknowledges in its opening sentence that it was commissioned by the Connecticut Auto Dealers Association (CARA)—paints a gloomy picture for the state’s economy if legislation allowing the direct sales of electric vehicles in the state is passed into law—arguing that the bill “increases risks” to existing dealers, and that “those risks would threaten” 40k jobs and $3.9 billion in GDP.

These numbers are unbelievable for a reason: They aren’t based on legitimate assumptions or any factual evidence. The study uses vague language to paper over its disingenuous premise, ultimately harming the public policy debate in Connecticut. The study’s conclusions should be disregarded for the following reasons:

• This study is an attempt to counter the actual evidence from data provided by the National Auto Dealers Association showing that states which are open for direct sales have outperformed states that do not allow direct sales in dealership revenue and employment by a significant margin.
• The report’s topline numbers are based on an impossible scenario due to the contractual and legal provisions protecting Connecticut’s franchise dealerships.
• The report does not account for the benefits of direct sales—which include cost savings for consumers, bolstered consumer protections, job growth, and open-market competition.
• The report’s findings are based on a logical fallacy: It points to the jobs and economic benefits provided by dealer locations and argues that SB 127 would undermine these benefits, yet the purpose of SB 127 is to enable new, EV-only manufacturers to build dealerships in the state.

SB 127 is a straightforward fix to state law that enables EV-only manufacturers like Tesla and Rivian to build retail locations in Connecticut. To understand direct sales and SB 127, click here.

More detail on these flaws in the study below.

This study is an attempt to counter the actual evidence from data provided by the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) showing that states which are open for direct sales have outperformed states that do not allow direct sales in dealership revenue and employment by a significant margin.

Since Tesla pioneered the direct sales business model in 2012, it is clear from a review of NADA’s state-level data on sales and employment that states, where traditional dealerships coexist alongside Tesla’s manufacturer-owned dealerships have outperformed the national average. Meanwhile, states like Connecticut that are closed to direct sales underperformed open states by nearly 30 points in sales revenue, and by 9 points in employment growth.

Connecticut is no exception—seeing sales and employment growth rates that are far below the national average. Connecticut’s auto dealers have not benefited from the healthy competition allowed by open markets.

The report’s topline numbers are based on an impossible scenario due to the contractual and legal provisions protecting Connecticut’s franchise dealerships.

The report makes the following claim about SB 127: “If passed, it would at present apply only to a handful of stand-alone global companies manufacturing exclusively EVs, they could then market in Connecticut. Yet, established manufacturers are trending towards manufacturing exclusively EVs, most notably Volvo and General Motors (GM) by 2035. While those legacy manufacturers who move to just EV production are unlikely to terminate contracts with all current dealers in Connecticut, legally they could.”

This is an utter falsehood. The author is correct that traditional auto manufacturers are unlikely to terminate their franchise contracts—but legally they are prohibited by Connecticut law from canceling or even failing to renew a franchise without “good cause” by this section (Sec. 42-133l.) of the statute.

“Good cause” is defined very specifically in this section, and only applies to insolvency, closing for business, conviction of a felony, fraud, or revocation/suspension of license. Dealerships and traditional automakers are aware of these protections: for example, Cadillac recently had to offer buyouts to franchisees who didn’t want to sell EVs. Dealers are entitled to renewal of their franchise contracts in perpetuity by state law as long as they meet these conditions.

The report does not account for the benefits of direct sales—which include cost-savings for consumers, bolstered consumer protections, and open-market competition.

In addition to being based on an incorrect legal premise, the report’s conclusions are based on an extremely rudimentary analysis: It establishes a best-case-scenario snapshot of the economic contributions from Connecticut’s franchised dealerships, and assumes this industry is zeroed-out in 2040.

As noted above, this scenario is not possible legally due to franchise protection laws. However, it also paints a picture of a stagnant economy where market segments stack like Legos, and removing the traditional-dealership brick leaves a void that cannot be filled. By this logic, the state of Connecticut would have never recovered from the decline of its arms manufacturing and shipbuilding legacy from the 1800s.

Connecticut’s economy will not recover through protectionism, but instead by enabling new businesses to enter the state and existing businesses to evolve. Direct sales will contribute to Connecticut’s economy in the following ways:

• By stimulating the electric vehicle market in Connecticut and prompting the installation of charging stations—both in public and in people’s homes.
• By enabling American manufacturers to invest in the state and build retail locations.
• By allowing Connecticut’s architects, mechanics, electrical engineers, construction workers, attorneys, salespeople, administrative staff, and other professionals with opportunities for 21^st-Century jobs with new electric vehicle manufacturers.
• By creating greater flexibility for electric vehicle buyers and saving them the time and cost to travel out of state to purchase an electric vehicle.
• By protecting consumers by requiring manufacturer-owned dealerships to be regulated by existing Connecticut law; and by providing an alternative for customers who are dissatisfied with the current franchise dealer system.

The study considers none of these factors when assessing the impact on Connecticut’s economy from a legally impossible scenario, in which no new cars are sold in the state after 2035, which brings us to our final point:

The report’s author conflates direct sales with online EV sales, and the findings are based on a logical fallacy: It points to the jobs and economic benefits provided by dealer locations and argues that SB 127 would undermine these benefits, yet the purpose of SB 127 is to enable new, EV-only manufacturers to build dealerships in the state.

The sales activities that would be permitted by SB 127 are unrelated to online vehicle sales. EV buyers in all 50 states are already able to buy electric vehicles online due to the interstate commerce clause. The purpose of SB 127 and direct sales is to enable auto manufacturers to build retail locations in Connecticut.

The study defines its dire scenario as one “where dealers are displaced by out-of-state commerce facilitated by Bill 127.” Ironically, this is the current situation for the manufacturers that are urging to be allowed to sell their vehicles in the state of Connecticut. These companies are currently forced into online-only out-of-state commerce…enabling them to invest in Connecticut will result in more in-person auto retail, more jobs, and more economic growth.

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

Rebates Spike in March, but Program Still Underspent

Rebates awarded under the state EV purchase-incentive program spiked to 151 in March, double that of the (slightly restated) number of 75 for February. This was part of the standard monthly update by DEEP.

There were increases across the board, which could be reflective of the economic recovery, but certainly, something to watch.

The most rebates again went to the Toyota Prius Prime with 33, up from 22 in February. This was followed by the Tesla Model 3 with 31, up from 2. The Model 3, as we’ve seen before, is volatile since only the base trim level is eligible. The only other vehicle to hit at least 20 was the Chevy Bolt at exactly that number. Most of them were the 2020 Bolts which GM has been heavily discounting.

The other vehicles in double digits were the Toyota RAV4 Prime (18), Hyundai Kona (15), Nissan Leaf Plus (11), Tesla Model Y (10). The Leaf Plus is the longer-range Leaf. The appearance of the Model Y is ephemeral as the standard range option is no longer being made available by Tesla. That may change, but we have no information on whether that will definitively happen or what the timing may be.

There is still no word on the implementation of the new CHEAPR program with higher rebate levels and new, income-limited incentives. We have been advised that the board has not been able to sync schedules for a meeting to review the new material, nor do we know if the consultant has finished with the software development. We asked DEEP if they could give us a rough estimate, but have not received a response.

Spend Level Remains Low

It has been our expectation that the program would underspend again in 2021 and that was when we expected the new program might be live by early April. After 1 quarter, the spend is $310,500 against a statutory pace budget of $750,000, and an actual pace budget (including the rollover of unspent 2020 funds) of $1,300,000.

Some Stellar Performers; Many Also-Rans

We obtained an updated dataset of CHEAPR rebates by individual dealerships from the program’s inception through the end of 2020. It is all pasted below, but a couple of observations first.

There are a small number of dealers that really do great work. Unfortunately, they are not representative. If great work is defined as 100 or more rebates over this duration, these are the 6 companies that have achieved that level.

• A-1 Toyota – 167
• Richard Chevrolet – 126
• Honda of Westport – 126
• Karl Chevrolet – 122
• Lynch Toyota – 117
• Ingersoll Auto of Danbury – 101

This project originally began due to member complaints about poor dealership experiences, followed by a request: Please make a recommendation. I had anecdotal reports of dealerships that do a good job, but nothing systematic or statewide. This approach uses CHEAPR data as a proxy for EV-friendliness.

There are a few considerations to bear in mind. Not all dealers sell CHEAPR-eligible cars. The parameters of the CHEAPR program have changed over the course of the program’s life. In particular, the lowering of the MSRP cap in October 2019 causes the exclusion of some vehicles, for example, from BMW and Volvo, that were formerly eligible. The offerings of manufacturers have changed over time. The cancellation of the Chevy Volt caused a slowdown in the number of Chevrolet rebates. Hyundai has become more aggressive recently about introducing EVs. The Honda Clarity got off to a good start when it was introduced, but Honda then stopped sending it to the state (which may be changing). The new Toyota RAV4 Prime is showing some early promise.

It is for that reason that I have displayed the rebates sorted highest to lowest within make. That way, for example, it can be seen that Danbury Hyundai has a strong record with a make that was barely selling EVs before 2019.

The file that was provided did not have the specific vehicle model for which a given rebate applied. There are some dealerships that sell multiple makes that have CHEAPR-eligible vehicles. I made a judgment and assigned the dealer to the brand with the most rebates. Note to self – work on getting that next time around. Also, in a couple of cases, there may be more than one line for a dealership because the file did not have a consistent naming convention. I cleaned it but may have missed a couple.

This is all of it (except Tesla). If a dealership had zero rebates, it will not appear in the tables below.

It would be best, of course, if DEEP were to publish this information as part of its regular CHEAPR reporting. It is done in other states and would remove the burden for both of us of going through the Freedom of Information Act process.

Finally, this has relevance for the EV Freedom Bill. One of the arguments for the bill is that the conventional dealership model is antithetical to selling EVs, that EVs come into tension with the legacy ICE business. There is more nuance to it than that, but the data largely illustrate this point. It seems like it is a lot harder for a dealership to embrace EVs or more of them would have effectively done so and there wouldn’t be such large differences between the top performers and the laggards.

For those dealerships that are making an effort to sell EVs, if SB 127 passes, they’ll be fine. For the others, it will be a shot across the bow to wake up or risk being left behind.

A poll released by the Electric Vehicle (EV) Club of Connecticut shows that a significant majority of Connecticut residents support direct sales from Electric Vehicle companies. 83% of respondents support direct sales of electric vehicles to consumers, and only 17% oppose it.  Support for direct sales is bipartisan, broad, and deep across many different demographics and all sections of Connecticut.

Support for direct sales is growing throughout the state of Connecticut and nationwide. Last week, two letters were released—one from a broad coalition of 27 interest groups representing environmental, free-market, pro-innovation, labor, and consumer protection;  another from 75 leading academics—both urging state governments to remove restrictions on direct sales and service of electric vehicles. Among the academic signers of the letter were 7 former chief economists of the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, and one Nobel Laureate.

Transportation Committee Chair Senator Will Haskell stated, “This poll is astounding. It turns out that the Connecticut State Capitol is the only place where selling Electric Vehicles directly to consumers is controversial. It’s time for the legislature to listen to the will of the public, pave the way for 21rst Century jobs, and give consumers a choice as to where they buy their next car.”

Barry Kresch, President of the EV Club of Connecticut noted, “These results, while overwhelmingly favorable, are not a surprise. This is exactly what I hear all the time on a more informal basis. It is reflected in the fact that everyone who testified at the public hearings who was not associated with a dealership was in favor of the bill. I get asked all the time why we force people to go out of state to buy the EV of their choice. It’s time we listen to consumers, accelerate EV adoption, and embrace innovation.”

“The poll conducted by GQR is proof positive that Connecticut consumers believe in the freedom to choose how they wish to purchase their vehicles,” said James Chen, Vice President of Public Policy at Rivian Automotive. “Senate Bill 127, which would allow the direct sales of electric vehicles in the state of Connecticut would be an obvious win-win for Connecticut drivers, the free-market, and the state’s environmental goals.”

GQR conducted a survey of 500 likely 2022 general election voters in Connecticut from April 16-18, 2021. The survey was conducted via cell phones using a text-to-web platform. The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval; the margin of error is higher among subgroups. Electric Vehicle (EV) manufacturers Lucid Motors, Rivian, and Tesla sponsored the poll.

This is the question wording: “As you may know, the Connecticut General Assembly is considering a bill to change existing laws related to vehicle sales. This bill will allow electric-vehicle manufacturers such as Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid to open their own brick-and-mortar stores in the state, where they can sell vehicles directly to consumers rather than going through traditional car dealerships. Do you support or oppose this bill to allow direct sales from electric-vehicle manufacturers in Connecticut?”

About GQR: “For almost four decades, we have used innovative polling and opinion research to help leading candidates, parties, government leaders, corporations, and advocacy groups across the United States and around the world.”

Join the EV Club for our next Zoom meeting on April 15th at 6:45 when U.S. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut’s fourth congressional district will speak to us about what we can expect for EV policy as the Biden Administration pushes major infrastructure legislation. The Congressman was first elected to his current position in 2008 and has been a supporter of progressive environmental policies.

We have only a limited amount of time with him, 30 minutes, and I am looking to have questions teed up for him because it will be too much to try and traffic cop in that limited time. Some of the things that are pending are modification of the federal EV purchase incentive, an updated cash for clunkers, EVSE infrastructure, EVs in the federal fleet, changes to CAFE, MHD standards, and other possible policy levers.

Registration required:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMlf-6hqzIrHtSyDlPHR4Cht011A0wdRhZn

If anyone would like to suggest a question, please do so in the comments or via the contact form.