The Equivalent Of 52% of EVs Added To The File in 2020 Turned Over

EV registrations in Connecticut increase 18.2% in 2020, a not great number in a very difficult year. However, as difficult as the year may have been, CT can be its own worst enemy with no direct sales and an underperforming purchase-incentive program. The chart below breaks this into the first vs second half of the year, clearly showing the effect of the lockdown followed by a modest recovery.

In January 2020, there were 11,677 EVs registered in the state. 4408 vehicles were added to the file over the course of the year. But we ended the year at 13,800. In other words, there were 2285 EVs that left the file. The numbers varied considerably by brand. Tesla had the lowest percentage of the major brands with the equivalent of 33% of the incoming vehicles turning over. Honda had the highest percentage, and off-the-charts 462%. Which makes sense, since Honda basically stopped selling its one plug-in model, the PHEV Clarity, in 2019. (We hear it is coming back.) As cars were sold or leases expired, no replacements were entering the fleet. This table lists the top makes, ranked by the number of EVs registered on January 1, 2021.

The same data drives the chart at the top of the post. Each of the components is its own bar. The table and the bar chart come from the EV Dashboard, where they have full interactivity and slicers.

The obvious question is why the differences. We can try to infer. Some of it may have to do with leasing. A dealer on the CHEAPR board meetings reports that leasing is 50% of his new car business. That is higher than the national norms we’ve seen in Statista and other sources, but there is no doubt that leasing is big. Tesla came late to leasing and has yet to offer a buy-out option. And their cars have longevity. It is quite possible that a higher percentage of buyers equates to lower turnover.

One comment mentioned by a dealer during a CHEAPR board meeting bears repeating. This person said that a significant portion of EV leasing customers coming to the end of their lease return to ICE in order to save money, especially given that they cannot get another CHEAPR incentive due to the program’s once per lifetime limit. His suggestion: allow leasing customers to get the incentive twice but cut it by 50%. It’s a thoughtful suggestion and would also have the benefit of lowering the program’s burn rate for 2-3 years until it normalizes.

Aside from leasing, there is sales volume. Chevrolet and Ford, which are the largest brands with net negative registrations (i.e. turnover in excess of 100%) similarly suffer from a variation of what is happening with Honda, namely cancellation of nameplates coupled with a lack of other sales volume to replace the departing vehicles. In the case of Chevy, the near-term recovery plan is a redesigned and lower-priced Bolt and a reasonably priced EUV Bolt variation. We’ll know at the end of the year how these will have fared. Ford, on the other hand, has what may be a significant win with the Mach-E, the EV crossover Mustang. There is a limited production run in 2021, which has been reportedly sold out (with dealers tacking on extra markup as reported in Carbuzz.com).

Similarly, the 99% BMW turnover and the 84% Nissan turnover indicate stasis. On the flip side, low turnover from Hyundai, Porsche, Volvo, and Audi could indicate some renewed vigor. Sales volume for the Audi is currently very low, but an ultra-premium brand like Porsche, placing in 9th position, indicates some success in a niche market. However, there are a lot of cars vying for this small segment, with the new Tesla Model S Plaid, for which it is too soon to have registration data,  the presumptive early favorite.

CHEAPR Rebates Continue at Low Rate

January has generally been a slow month in our tracking of EV purchase incentives, and it continues in the same vein with 68 rebates, per the latest data release from DEEP. The arrow on the above chart indicates when the program parameters were last changed.

With only the base trim level Tesla Model 3 eligible, it nonetheless had the highest number of rebates with 24. This was followed by the Toyota Prius Prime at 11 and the Toyota RAV4 Prime with 10. These were the only vehicles in double digits.

The Reappearing Honda Clarity?

There were 2 rebates for the Honda Clarity, a PHEV that was introduced in 2018 and sold fairly well out of the gate, but which had disappeared off the charts, reportedly due to Honda no longer bringing the car into the state. Net registrations for this model have been declining for the past two years as vehicles are sold or have leases expire and new ones don’t replace them. We had a member send us a copy of his correspondence with a Honda dealer who said that they could not get one for him and suggested buying an Accord (conventional) hybrid instead. Recently, we were alerted by a social media post that this may be changing, so perhaps this is an early indicator.

All January rebates for each model are listed below:

UPDATE: We corresponded with Honda of Westport and it seems the car is indeed returning, backed with a renewed push from Honda.

Higher Incentive Levels, Low MSRP Cap, New Income-Limited Incentives

Note: This page is updated to note that the new incentive levels have been implemented as of June 7, 2021. The CHEAPR home page has been updated but we think the explanation below is clearer. If you do look at the CHEAPR page, please ignore the $9500 incentive headline. Nobody will get that level of incentive. It would only apply to an income-limited individual buying a fuel-cell vehicle this year, which is ridiculous since there aren’t any fuel-cell vehicles for sale in the state, and how would an income-limited individual afford an expensive fuel-cell vehicle.

An updated set of rules was adopted by a 6-3 vote of the CHEAPR board that supersedes the last rule change made in October 2019. Here are the most relevant changes:

BEV = Battery Electric Vehicle, PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, MSRP = retail price

Major Changes

• No difference in incentive levels based upon EV range.
• Higher incentive levels for the remainder of 2021.
• New income-limited incentive for used EVs
• New income limited supplemental incentive for new EVs
• Likely effective date is on or about April 1.

There is no longer a difference in the size of the incentive as it relates to the range of any given BEV. Incentives are higher across the board. The MSRP cap was left unchanged at $42,000. There are new income-limited incentives for used EVs and a supplemental incentive for new EVs. The supplemental gets added to the base incentive for qualifying income-limited individuals buying a new BEV or PHEV. There is no MSRP cap for a used EV.

The CHEAPR incentive limit has been increased to twice per driver per lifetime. And the clock resets as of June. If you already received a CHEAPR rebate before then, you are entitled to two more. (It is different than the federal tax credit which can be used each time someone buys or leases a new EV.)

Other CHEAPR Program Details

There is still a fuel cell incentive and the MSRP cap for an FCEV is still $60,000, though there is none of that type of vehicle being brought into the state presently.

Dealers receive an incentive of up to $125. This, once upon a time, was higher. DEEP, in its analysis for its EV Roadmap, questioned whether the dealer incentive accomplished its objective because most of the time it was not being passed along to the salesperson, which was the basic idea. However, it remains in this reduced form.

Income-Limited Incentives and Eligibility

The incentive for a used EV applies to purchases from a licensed dealer. This applies to any dealer of used cars, not just new car dealers that also sell used vehicles. It does not apply to private sales.

An individual’s eligibility for the income-limited incentive is determined by whether that person is already participating in certain assistance programs. Administratively, this is simpler than performing an income verification, but it still takes a few steps and involves a lag in receiving the money. These are the programs that are determinative:

Unlike the way the primary part of the program works, where it can be cash on the hood, the buyer completes an application to confirm eligibility based on one of these programs. DEEP estimates that it will take about a month to process the paperwork at which point a rebate check will be issued. This process can be done online (desktop or mobile) or via postal mail. This is the workflow:

Since nobody wants an applicant to get a surprise denial, DEEP promises outreach and education so that buyers understand what is involved and whether they qualify before filling out the application.

Incentive Structure

As noted in the table at the top of the page, someone buying a new BEV will receive a $2250 incentive. However, the way it is actually structured is that the base incentive of $1500 from the current program is actually retained and a “stimulus increase” of 50% is added to it. This additional stimulus is earmarked for calendar 2021, funds permitting. It will be tracked and reviewed regularly. This is why you get that odd $1125 number for a used PHEV. The base is a more neatly rounded $750. Each incentive size will then revert to its base level in 2022. We will update our information as it gets confirmed closer to the end of the year.

Start Date

The changes take effect as of June 7th, 2021. The income limited used and supplemental incentives are now ongoing, but the higher incentive levels may revert to the old levels at the end of 2021.

Our Take

The Connecticut EV Coalition made a proposal to the board that would have raised the stimulus to $2500 for BEVs and the MSRP cap to $50,000. The incentive including the stimulus adder is close to our proposal but the MSRP cap remains at a level that excludes too many vehicles. According to Cox Automotive, the average cost of an EV is $55,600. MSRP caps exist in other states but at much higher levels: MA – $50,000, NJ – $55,000, NY – $60,000. Given that the program was about 70% underspent in 2020, we expect it will underperform in 2021, though to a lesser degree.

We like the introduction of the equity aspect of the program, particularly the used EV incentive, as this market is not well-developed.

This structure of an incentive plus a stimulus adder is not the most consumer-friendly formulation. This allows the incentive to revert to a lower level after this year without making a formal change to the program. It is administratively convenient, but it has the potential to be confusing. To the consumer, it will still be a change. We think the incentive should be the incentive and if it needs to be changed, it needs to be changed.

The fuel cell incentive is there because the state is trying to be supportive of this industry. We are not sure if there will be a compelling and cost-effective case for hydrogen in light-duty vehicles, especially green hydrogen. Be that as it may, our main issue with this is the way it has consistently been used as a misleading headline. It has now been made even more misleading.

CHEAPR Rebate Data Released for December 2020

The EV purchase incentive program awarded 74 rebates in December. This is slightly higher than the 40 from November, but of a piece with what we have been seeing over the past 14 months since the program changes. There is typically a jump in December as federal tax-credit eligible vehicles are acquired before the year-end. That bump is a bit smaller nowadays since it is no longer applicable for Tesla or General Motors.

The October 2019 program changes were a lowering of the vehicle eligibility MSRP cap from $50 to $42 thousand and a lowering of incentive levels.

The monthly numbers rise and fall mostly driven by the number of rebates for the Tesla Model 3, despite the fact only the most basic trim level is eligible. Actually, that has been true ever since the Model 3 began ramping deliveries, which predates the 10/19 program changes. This may be less the case going forward as reports are that the Model Y is outselling the Model 3. The Y will qualify for CHEAPR if it is the base model with zero changes, and so it is not expected to push that many rebates. There have been zero to date.

The Model 3 accounted for 29 rebates in December. There was only one other model in double digits, the Toyota RAV 4 Prime (PHEV) with 13. We do not know if this is a supply constrained car, but there are early signs that it could be a successful model.

Final Totals for 2020

There were a total of 663 rebates handed out in 2020. This compares to 1605 in 2019. However, the better comparison is arguably the 12 months ending September 2019 to look at the impact pre and post program change. If we look at Q4 2018 through Q3 2019, there were 1832 rebates.

Since both the quantity and size of rebates were reduced, the program only spent $708,500 (plus admin and dealer incentive costs) against a budget of $3 million.

DEEP has advised that unspent funds will be rolled over. That is better than losing them but not as good as getting more EVs on the road sooner.

Below is a chart of rebates by vehicle model by month since the program’s inception through 2020. The light blue line across the top is the total monthly number of rebates, the same number as in the chart at the top of the post, and the drop-off beginning in late 2019 is readily apparent. The other lines are individual vehicle models.

The dark blue line that spikes in 2018 and 2019 is the Model 3.

The yellow line that spiked briefly in late 2018 is the Honda Clarity PHEV, which is an interesting case. The car was well-received, customers were buying, and then it seems to have done a vanishing act off dealer lots in CT. There was reporting that Honda had pulled back and was using it as a compliance car. We received this communication from a recent EV shopper, a flavor of the switch pitch that is unfortunately so common. The note from the dealer indicates lack of availability, but the CHEAPR rebate graph clearly shows a dearth of sales (there were zero rebates in Q4, 2020). Translation: Honda isn’t bringing these vehicles into the state.

When the program changes were made in late 2019, the Model 3 numbers dropped (along with some other, smaller volume vehicles losing eligibility altogether, e.g. the BMW i3).

CHEAPR Directionless

For over a year, there has been a notice on the CHEAPR website that a new set of program revisions will be forthcoming. This hasn’t happened. A newly authorized board met in January 2020, then monthly meetings from July through December, but no meetings since and none posted. DEEP indicated that it may have the board vote offline. We then heard there was a vote, which as far as we know was 2 or 3 weeks ago, but no word has been forthcoming. There were as many scenarios as there are board members, so consensus may still be elusive. The scenarios include an income-limited used EV incentive and a similarly income-limited supplemental incentive. The board has been divided about the MSRP cap and incentive levels, which is what we assume is delaying matters. Hopefully, it will get sorted soon as the program is severely under-performing.

At the very least, there should be some communication. We assume that the as yet unreleased January data will be as low-performing as the past year plus.

It is the position of the EV Club that previous incentive levels should be restored (or something similar), the MSRP cap should be restored to $50,000, and the used and supplemental incentives should be included. The fact that there is roughly $5.2 million in funds for 2021 should cover it, and it will provide valuable data going forward for future program modeling.

We Suggest a Website Improvement

The CHEAPR website was clearly not designed with a consumer in mind. To actually learn about the rules, one has to comb through the FAQs. There is no front door that has the basics of the program: incentive levels, MSRP restrictions, once per driver per lifetime, and other pertinent rules. DEEP could accomplish this with something as simple as adding another element to the left nav, preferably near the top, called program basics (or similar) that links to a page with this top-level information.

We have tried to partly compensate with an incentives page on this website. And, oh yeah, that phantom $5000 incentive should go behind the curtain.

CHEAPR Remains in a Limbo Which Might End Soon

The combination of the 2019 legislation authorizing a modest, but steady funding stream, along with new program elements, and changes made by DEEP to the program in October 2019 that were more financially conservative have left the program in limbo. There has been a notice that “CHEAPR is EVolving” on its website for a year that there will be revisions but these have not been finalized.

The immediate impact of the October 2019 changes has been a dramatic underspending relative to the budget. Through November, the program awarded 589 rebates with a value of $629,500 against a budget of $3 million. The program incurs some other costs aside from consumer rebates, namely dealer incentives and admin charges paid to the program administrator, the Center for Sustainable Energy. DEEP has projected a final underspending of $2.2 million. Fortunately, these funds will roll over into 2021.

Program Parameter Changes and COVID-19

The downturn in rebates was made even more severe by the pandemic and recessionary economy, and this perfect storm led to the extremely low numbers we have been seeing through all reported data for 2020. November continued the pattern with only 40 rebates awarded. This chart of rebates by quarter for 2019 and 2020 illustrates this clearly. The downturn began in Q4, 2019 (the changes were made mid-October of that year), declined further in Q1, 2020, when the economy was still strong for the first 10 weeks, and then really tanked in Q2, 2020 during the lockdown. There has been a modest recovery since then (keep in mind that Q4, 2020 includes only 2 months of data).

New CHEAPR Structure and Forthcoming Vote

Responsibility for CHEAPR transitioned from DEEP to a board that was authorized by the legislation and had a quorum by the beginning of the year. DEEP still retains a presence on the board and administratively the board lives within DEEP. The board has been divided and no fewer than 9 scenarios have been modeled and recently presented to the board. These represent different levels of incentives, where to place the MSRP cap, the newly authorized income-limited incentives for used EVs, and a supplemental incentive for new EVs, as well as a possible temporary increase in incentive levels as a stimulus.

We expect a vote to occur sometime in the next few weeks.

This is the position of the EV Club of CT and the broader CT EV Coalition:

• Raise the MSRP cap and incentive levels to where they were before being lowered in October 2019.
• Implement an income-limited used EV incentive.
• Implement an income-limited supplemental incentive.

We feel the finances, especially given the rollover funds, are adequate to support this model in 2021. The EV Coalition plans to seek additional funding for the program for 2022. There is the possibility that funds may be forthcoming from the Transportation Climate Initiative beginning in 2023. Finally, we want to thank everyone who submitted public comments when they were solicited by DEEP over the summer.

At such time as the program revisions are finalized, the updates will be posted to the incentives page on this website.

48% Month Over Month Drop in October Rebates

Newly released data, updated with transactions through October 31, show a decline from September to October from 97 to 59 rebates. (The September number was restated and is slightly higher than the initial reporting.) The expenditure for consumer rebates for the 10 months of the year to date is $587,000. The annual budget (including admin and dealer incentives) is $3 million. (The consolation is that the unspent funds will be rolled over into 2021.) There have been 62% fewer rebates issued year over year, Jan. through Oct. (546 vs 1435).

The Tesla Model 3 (15 rebates) and the Toyota Prius Prime (13) were the only vehicles in double digits for the month.

2020 has been a lost year in many ways that are more important than CHEAPR. But in our EV world, this incentive program has been in need of revamping and it hasn’t happened. We will discuss our take on why in a moment.

In another 6 -8 weeks or, we expect we’ll have the data to see if this was a lost year for EVs in general in CT.

We have blogged in the past about how we feel that CHEAPR has been a meaningful program, having given out over 6,000 rebates since inception. But rebate numbers, which had been steadily building, have reversed course since the changes in October 2019 that lowered the incentive levels and the MSRP cap, which was then further exacerbated by the recession.

Revisions to the program that were promised for 2020 are still pending. The most recent board meeting was on October 9th. There is no meeting posted on its website as of this writing. The CHEAPR board apparently remains divided as we await a vote on revised parameters. (This is our reading of the situation. The EV Club is not represented on the board, something we have requested.)

The legislation passed in May 2019 authorized a used EV incentive. A revised program plan was submitted to the board in July that included an income-limited used EV incentive and an income-limited supplemental incentive for new EVs. There has also been discussion of a time-limited “stimulus” incentive adder.

From our perspective, the impasse stems from whether to restore the base incentive and MSRP cap to the levels of before Oct 2019. (The used and supplemental incentives haven’t been areas of controversy.) DEEP is concerned that doing that and adding the new incentives risks depleting funds that could result in a temporary interruption in the program. They rely on modeling from their program consultant to assess this. (Though there was another round of modeling requested in October that has not been publicly disclosed to this point).

There was a second reason articulated by DEEP, which is that for the more expensive vehicles, consumers will buy them anyway, rebate or no. We don’t see it that way but won’t get further into that here.

Time to Restore the Prior Incentive Levels

The EV Club, along with the broader CT EV Coalition, believes there is a strong case for restoring the pre-October 2019 incentive levels and MSRP cap, along with introducing the used and supplemental incentives.

• The program is clearly failing this year.
• As of the most recently published EV registration data by the DMV in July, the state is losing ground relative to the commitments made in the Multi-state Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan.
• There will be $4.9 million in available funds in 2021 due to this year’s underspending and some unused bridge funds from 2019, a 63% increase relative to budget.
• The recessionary economy is likely to persist for another 6 months. Let’s hope it is only that long. (It also makes for a difficult environment in which to model.)
• Due to the income-limitation aspect of the used and supplemental incentives, software development is required for implementation. They are thus unlikely to be ready for launch on January 1.
• The take rate for the used EV incentive is likely to be low in the short-term.
  • The incentive is income-limited.
  • The dealership representation on the board stated that the current market for used EVs is small. Our analysis of DMV registration files is consistent with this perspective.
  • As noted, the start date is unknown at this time.
  • There is still a shortage of charging infrastructure in the urban communities that this is intended to most benefit. This applies to the supplemental incentive as well. Over time, this will improve, but it will still be an issue in 2021.
• For BEVs, which, as noted in DEEP’s EV Roadmap, have a greater impact in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, there just aren’t a lot of them available under the current $42,000 cap. As EV introductions move more toward larger battery packs, EUVs, crossovers, and other popular (and larger) form-factors, this is likely to be even more the case.
• Even at the old (higher) levels, the CT plan is less generous than what is offered in other, nearby states.
• Finally, the EV Coalition intends to lobby for a larger share of the clean-air fee to be devoted to CHEAPR. If successful, the budget issue will be ameliorated. If not, there will be plenty of runway to make adjustments, not to mention empirical data as a basis on which to do so.

This will be the last CHEAPR post prior to the CHEAPR board meeting on Thursday, September 10.

Stats Update

The July stats have been published and rebate levels increased slightly over the desultory levels where they have been. There were 57 rebates in July, up from 46 in June. The numbers last year were 179 and 142 for June and July, respectively.

CHEAPR has spent $362,500 through July, plus another $40K or so on dealership incentives, out of an annual budget of $3 million.

9/10 Board Meeting

The published agenda does not include a vote. At least that’s what it says. Some key points:

• Despite DEEP’s not soliciting public comments on the MSRP cap and base rebate levels, many spoke up about them. The CSE was asked to scenario model and are expected to present their work. It is hard to think of a more difficult modeling environment than the present. The big question, of course, is that while the program has underperformed ever since the levels were changed in October 2019, there is an unknown with respect to the take rate for the supplemental LMI and used EV incentives that are likely to be adopted.
• DEEP’s position was that e-bikes cannot be statutorily defined as vehicles for the purposes of inclusion in CHEAPR. However, there is an agenda item about e-bike rebates.
• During the July meeting, there was a gap of roughly $800K between funds spent on rebates and available funding. A more detailed report on the CHEAPR budget is due. If any preliminary information has been released, we have not seen it.

An E-bike Pilot

Among the suggestions offered by members of the new CHEAPR board has been a pilot project for e-bike rebates.[1] This is most strongly advocated by those who are focused on lower-income households, which are often clustered in the state’s largest cities.

E-bikes are an emission-free mode of transportation and could provide another transportation modality option for people who can’t afford a car. Or it could be a cost-effective replacement for a second car.

E-bike Proposal Receives Divided Reception

An e-bike incentive has received a divided reception. If I were to characterize the opinions expressed during the public meetings and in the public comments submitted to DEEP, there seems to be support for an e-bike incentive, but with many opposed to its inclusion in CHEAPR.

The opposition to e-bikes being part of CHEAPR comes from two places. First, DEEP’s reading of the statutory language concludes that CHEAPR can only be used for vehicles and that e-bikes cannot be considered vehicles, or more specifically, ‘battery electric vehicles’ based on the language. That interpretation has been disputed,[2] but from DEEP’s perspective, this seems to be an end to the discussion.

The second reason is that a group that supports an e-bike purchase incentive feels that it should be done outside of CHEAPR with a separate pot of money to avoid being dilutive to getting EVs on the road.

The EV Club supports e-bike rebates. It would be preferable to have a new funding stream for them. Several people have pointed out that CHEAPR, which is funded by clean-air fees[3],  receives less than half of those fees, with the rest going to the general fund. We would like to see more of those funds diverted to supporting clean transportation, which could be where to source e-bike funding.

Proposal for E-bike Pilot

There is also the situation we are faced with this year. It is almost certain that CHEAPR will not spend its budget. The amount of money spent on rebates and dealership incentives in the first half of the year is only equal to about 22% of the $3 million budget on an annualized basis. No matter what changes are made to the program, it will be next to impossible to use these funds. The under-spending is due to the changes made to the program in October 2019 and exacerbated by the recession.

So, here’s our proposal. Create a carve-out and conduct an e-bike pilot in 2020 and into 2021. Allocate some reasonable budget, say in the range of $150,000 – $250,000, that would be a cap. We think this should be an LMI[4]-limited proposal, as the intent is not to subsidize e-bike purchase among affluent folks whose main interest is recreation. There would then be the opportunity to collect data. We could find out who is buying them, what they are being used for, and how effective the incentive is for motivating purchase and reducing emissions.

Rethinking the Cityscape

The broader context is that during our pandemic-induced lockdown, the clean-air benefits of having fewer cars on the road became palpable. That, coupled with fears about virus transmission while using mass transit, inspired many cities to think about what a more people-friendly, less polluted urban landscape/streetscape might look like. Cities and town centers have been closing streets to vehicular traffic and adding protected bike and pedestrian lanes. Parallel parking spaces have been converted to outdoor dining areas. Some of this is temporary and responsive because everything happened so fast. But it could be permanent, and we would all be better off for it.

The City of Hartford has a city-wide bicycle network plan approved, a Complete Streets ordinance, and a goal to reach 10% bicycle mode share by 2035 (in the Plan of Conservation and Development). Plans like this have not only environmental and lifestyle benefits, but they would reduce overall crash fatalities, especially for people walking and biking.

E-bike incentives are an idea worth exploring[5] and we have an opportunity to learn something about how such a program would work with funds that would otherwise remain unspent.

[1] Index of e-bike rebate support letters

[2] People for Bikes, 8/12/2020 – CT CHEAPR public comment and e-bicycle as vehicle legal analysis

[3] Total proceeds from the motor vehicle greenhouse gas reduction fee were estimated to be $8 million per year based on these two Office of Legislative Research reports, here and here.  Only $3 million per year from that fee revenue was dedicated to the CT CHEAPR EV incentives.

[4] Low to Moderate Income Household

[5] How E-Bike Incentive Programs are Used to Expand the Market, 2019

Data from the Center for Sustainable Energy Helps Us Identify EV-friendly Dealers

We regularly field inquiries from club members and others asking for dealer recommendations. Usually, it follows a negative interaction with a dealership, when they walked in mistakenly thinking their inquiry about purchasing an EV would be well received. Not so fast!

It has been well documented, in the NY Times, in 2 Sierra Club shopper studies, and other reporting, that many dealers are indifferent or even hostile to EVs. But there are some dealerships that make an effort to sell EVs. To help guide consumers interested in non-Tesla EVs, we obtained from the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), the consultant that manages the CHEAPR incentive program for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the number of rebates by dealership from the program’s inception in 2015 through August 11, 2020.

I am using rebates as a rough proxy for sales/EV-friendliness. It’s the best we can do. You won’t find retailers of expensive vehicles, for example, a Jag or an Audi, on this list because the cost of the vehicles exceeds the MSRP eligibility cap. Consumers are eligible for one rebate lifetime, so repeat customers are not included. Some dealers may end up on our list in spite of themselves. But we can still use this directionally. Tesla is not included since it doesn’t have dealers.

We are covering a 5+ year period and understand that EV models come and go. Some manufacturers got out of the gate quickly (Tesla, GM, Nissan), while others came later to the party. The Chevy Volt, once the most widely registered EV in the state, has been discontinued. A couple of years ago, Honda introduced a PHEV Clarity that generated a fair number of sales. Since then, it has greatly slowed, reportedly due to distribution having been curtailed. There have also been 5 changes made during this period made by DEEP to rebate size and the MSRP price cap that determines eligibility. Finally, some dealers have multiple stores that were not separated in this dataset.

One-Third of Dealerships have not Awarded a Single Rebate

There are 270 franchised auto dealerships, according to their trade association (Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association) in CT. 185 of them have made a sale or lease associated with one or more rebates. Less than half, specifically 104, have disbursed 10 or more rebates and only 28, or about 10%, have awarded 50 or more rebates. (The denominator is somewhat inflated due to some dealers that don’t retail eligible plug-ins.)

The Top EV Dealers

These are the 5 dealers that have awarded more than 100 rebates.

• A-1 Toyota (New Haven)
• Honda of Westport (Westport)
• Richard Chevrolet (Cheshire)
• Karl Chevrolet (New Canaan)
• Lynch Toyota (Manchester)

Below are other top dealers for different makes that had between 50 and 100 rebates. Some makes haven’t had any dealer exceed 50 rebates.

GM – Ingersoll Auto (Danbury), O’Neill’s Chevrolet/Buick (Avon), H&L Chevrolet (Darien), Maritime Chevrolet (Fairfield), Grossman Chevrolet/Nissan (Old Saybrook), Chevrolet of Milford (Milford), Partyka Chevrolet (Hamden).

Toyota – Hoffman Toyota (West Simsbury), New Country Toyota of Westport (Westport), Middletown Toyota (Middletown), Hartford Toyota Superstore (Hartford), Westbrook Toyota (Westbrook)

Ford – Steven’s Ford (Milford), Stamford Ford/Lincoln (Stamford), Crowley Ford/Lincoln (Plainville)

Nissan – Grossman Chevrolet Nissan (Old Saybrook), Harte Nissan (West Haven), Crowley Nissan (Bristol)

BMW – BMW of Ridgefield (Ridgefield), BMW of Bridgeport (Bridgeport)

Finally, 2 stores that handle numerous brands:

Valenti Auto Sales (multiple locations) – Audi, VW, Porsche, Maserati, Fiat, Volvo, Alpha Romeo, Jaguar. (We presume most of the rebates come from VW.)

MJ Sullivan Automotive Corner (New London) – Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Hyundai, Genesis

It should be acknowledged that this is a changing landscape. We are relying on the past as prologue to predict EV-friendliness and we hope it proves useful. As the EV landscape evolves and new models are introduced, we will update the data to the extent that it is available. We anticipate it will be. Going forward, the CSE has advised they will be making more granular data available with their normal releases of CHEAPR data.

The used car market, in general, is more than double that for new vehicles. That does not appear to be the case for EVs to this point.

CHEAPR Likely to Implement Used EV Incentive in 2021

CHEAPR, the CT state EV purchase incentive program, is considering offering incentives for purchases of used EVs. This incentive would be limited to lower and middle-income individuals/families. There are a number of changes being considered by CHEAPR, but with respect to used EVs, the legislature specifically authorized this incentive, the proposal was well received by the board, and the public comments were favorable. It seems a lock to happen, though there are below the line development tasks that will cause it to not be available until next year.

What is the State of the Used EV Market

We don’t have access to the data that would enable us to definitively answer this. But we have some information that may be useful for drawing inferences.

During the CHEAPR board meeting of July 17th, there was a presentation by the auto-dealership representatives on the board. They stated that there are few used EVs in the marketplace and the prices were low, creating an unvirtuous circle. They support the incentive and think that that it promises to sufficiently stimulate consumer demand so that dealers will be willing to bid more aggressively at auctions to augment the supply in the state.

The used EV incentive will differ from the new car incentive in that it will also apply to independent used car dealers. Used car dealers do not have to be affiliated with a manufacturer. A Google search for “used EVs for sale in CT” brought up a results page consisting of only independent dealers, mainly large ones like Carvana, Iseecars, and CarGurus. Those companies had both paid and organic listings on this first page of the search results. A search for “used Teslas for sale” brought up a largely similar set of sites, except that Tesla itself appeared, as it is in the business of retailing its own used vehicles. There is another company specializing in used Teslas called OnlyUsedTesla.com.

I suspect that the board members who represent the dealerships are not factoring Tesla into their thinking. For them, EVs are still a niche product and many of the non-Tesla EVs in the used marketplace are the first generation (read: low range) models. (We may be at a point where this is beginning to change as later model EVs are now coming off-lease.) And the dealers, based on the search results and their own words, aren’t making a serious effort to source and sell them. The fact that the independents are spending money on sponsored links indicates that there is at least a minimally viable business. Search is highly targeted and can yield a positive return on a small campaign.

Quantify Used EVs from the DMV File

To get some kind of quantification of used EVs relative to new, I went back to the file we recently got from the DMV of all registered EVs in the state as of July 1, just to get an idea of what was entering the market. My proxy for used EVs was vehicles added to the file between January and July with a model year earlier than 2019. This is a rough measure and is reflected in the chart at the top of the post. Each bar represents vehicles added to the file in the first half of the year sorted by make, with the orange portion being those that are categorized as used by our proxy measure. 22% of the EVs added to the file could be characterized as used based on this definition. 47% of the vehicles added are Tesla, but only 10% of those fit this definition of used.

• This, coupled with the information from the dealers, indicates a small used EV market at this point.
• Even though it is small, there is a used EV business.
• The fact that there is no franchise requirement begs the question of whether Tesla could sell used EVs in Milford (or elsewhere in the state) using the same rationale that led to their being able to lease. In the case of new vehicle leasing, customers still have to go out of state to pick up the vehicle. Would that be a requirement if they could sell used?
• The EV Club is supportive of a used CHEAPR EV incentive, but based on this information, along with the LMI restriction, we don’t expect that it will be disbursing large sums in 2021.
• It is important, as used and possibly other incentives, are incorporated into CHEAPR, that the stats page be updated to track them separately.

The CSE, DEEP’s consultant for CHEAPR, has been sent back to model new scenarios and we will see what they forecast.