EV Incidence and Political Party Registrations by City

As this is being written on Election Day, and with an enormous chasm between the environmental/climate change plans of the two presidential candidates, we thought it a good time to look at how EVs fit into the CT political landscape based on voter registration in Connecticut.

I do not have data at the individual person level. I am working with counts at the city level – of EVs, median household income, and voter registration.

The most highly-correlated factor with respect to EVs is income. With Tesla the dominant, and pricey, make, EVs still carrying a higher cost than ICE generally, and limited supply of affordable used EVs, that isn’t surprising. Also, there is still a significant lack of access to charging in our more urban areas with many people living in multiple unit dwellings. For that reason, in the charts below, I have filtered out the roughly one-third of cities with a median household income of <$75K in order to obtain a sharper focus on the political registrations.

The chart at the top shows EV incidence and voter registration counts by party by city. The bars are all the same size because they total back to 100%. The variations in proportions by each color are driven by the proportion of voter registrations, which come from CT.gov, by party. Red and blue are obvious. The gold represents both independents and minor party registrations. Minor parties are a very small part of that grouping. The line shows EVs as a percentage of all vehicles within each city.

This screengrab is an excerpt. The full chart has been added to the EV Dashboard.

Bipartisan presence of EVs

There is not a significant correlation between voter registration profile and EV incidence. The two top EV cities, Westport and Weston, are Democratic redoubts. The next two cities are New Canaan, where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by 2:1, and Greenwich which also has a Republican skew. This is followed by Wilton, which is evenly divided, and then Darien, which has a similar profile to New Canaan. We regard this bipartisan profile to be encouraging and feel that this, and the environment in general, shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

2016 Election Profile

CT is a blue state and voted for Clinton in 2016. The two charts below filter the chart by which cities voted for Clinton vs. Trump.  The hypothesis was that the profiles might be more extreme than overall registration, and that turns out to be the case. (The income filter remains in these two charts.)

Looking at the data this way, as presumably, Trump won the most conservative cities, a clear difference emerges with much higher EV incidence in Clinton cities, including Republican-dominant cities that voted for Clinton.

Clinton Cities 2016

Trump Cities 2016

Looking at the data this way, as presumably, Trump won the most conservative cities, a clear difference emerges with much higher EV incidence in Clinton cities, including Republican-dominant cities that voted for Clinton.

Upcoming Meeting to Feature a Speaker From FreeWire

There is a virtual club meeting via Zoom scheduled for October 27th. John Erdman, Head of Strategic Accounts for FreeWire, will be speaking to us about their latest charging solutions. John joined FreeWire this past August after having spent 9 years with ChargePoint.

One of the new mousetraps developed by FreeWire is a level 3 charger with a self-contained 160 kW battery that continuously draws power at the rate of 20kW per hour. This avoids the power consumption spikes typical of level 3 chargers, which are what cause facility owners to be subject to utility demand charges. We have seen first-hand in CT how that has become a major obstacle to expanding EVSE infrastructure.

We will also be providing an update on the latest information regarding proposed changes to the CHEAPR EV purchase-incentive program. Some of the proposed changes, which we have blogged about numerous times, such as here and here, are controversial and, as of this writing, have still not been resolved. It is possible they will be by the 27th.

If you are interested in joining us and do not receive the club emails, please fill out the website contact form.

We look forward to virtually seeing many of you.

Numerous EV Models Appear in Parade

30 EVs participated in this parade, a joint effort between the EV Club of CT and the Sustainable Fairfield Task Force. Parade participation was capped at this number to avoid being overly disruptive to local traffic

There was one novelty vehicle, a 1903 Baker replica. In its day, the Baker was quite the speedster, topping at about 48 MPH. It is a reminder that electricity was the dominant mode of energizing cars around the turn of the previous century.

The parade followed a roughly 25-mile route, beginning at the Westport Metro-North Depot, where the proceedings were kicked off by Westport First Selectman Jim Marpe. The route headed north up Imperial Avenue, jagged over Jesup to then proceed up Main Street, looping around Avery and Myrtle, and taking a left onto the Post Rd. heading East. There it stayed until hitting downtown Fairfield, where it veered off to Old Town Hall and concluded with  a second brief ceremony with Fairfield officials.

Throughout the event, masking was required and social distancing was observed.

Escorting the parade was the Westport Police Tesla Model 3 that has been fully outfitted as a police cruiser.

Deliveries of the newest Tesla Model, the “Y”, have been coming into CT, and this was one of 4 appearing in the parade.

This Toyota Prius Prime, a plug-in hybrid, is one of four plug-in vehicles currently in use by the Westport Police and it was the rear bookend of the parade.

Few CHEAPR Rebates Given in August

Another tepid, desultory, underwhelming (I’m running out of adjectives – feel free to help in the comments) month for the CHEAPR program with only 40 rebates given out and a total dollar amount of $28,000. This is the second-lowest month of the year and continues the dispiriting (another adjective!) trend we have seen since November 2019. One interesting item: there were 9 rebates for the new Toyota RAV4 Prime plug-in hybrid. Between the RAV4 Prime and the Prius Prime, Toyota vehicles dominated the rebate activity. The reporting has been that the plug-in RAV4 Prime is a severely supply-constrained vehicle at present and there was some doubt that any would make it out of California, but apparently, they have.

Note: CHEAPR often restates the prior month when issuing new data. In this case, July has increased from 57 to 62 rebates and it is incorporated into the title graph.

Decision Time

The next CHEAPR meeting is scheduled for October 9 at 11:00 AM.

The Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) presented a set of proposals for program revisions in July. The agenda includes a vote on the new program. The meeting is scheduled for only one hour, so we don’t expect much discussion. We do not know if this will be an up or down vote on the package or if the items will be considered individually. We know that despite 3 meetings and public comments, there isn’t a consensus on all the items.

This is what we know to the best of our information.

The package that will likely be presented to the board in October will have no differences relative to what was proposed in July.

• No e-bike incentive or even a pilot test. Ix-nay on this from the DEEP attorneys.
• A used-EV income-limited (lower/middle income, or LMI) incentive (non-controversial).
• A supplemental LMI EV incentive (non-controversial).
• No changes to base incentive levels or to the MSRP cap.
• No changes to the much higher fuel-cell vehicle incentive, which stands at $5000 with an MSRP cap of $60,000.

UPDATES as of 10/25/20

Modeling scenarios include:

• Maintaining the current (since 10/19) MSRP cap of $42K or raising it to $50K.
• Base BEV incentives of $2500 or $1500.
• A possible temporary “stimulus” additional sample of $1750 for BEVs and FCEVs, and $500 for PHEVs.
• $500 increase to $2500 for the LMI incentive.
• Possible inclusion of scenarios with base-level incentives less than $1500.

Incentive Levels and MSRP Cap

Much commentary, from board members, public attendees, and public comments, was in favor of raising the base incentives and the MSRP cap to at least where they were before DEEP lowered them in October 2019. These currently stand well below comparable incentive programs in nearby states. The CSE was tasked with modeling scenarios and they forecasted that there was a possibility that demand would exceed available funds, thus risking disruption. This blog doesn’t buy that line of argument for several reasons.

• A pandemic and recession of unknown duration make for a difficult environment in which to model. There is a lot of guesswork here, exacerbated by the fact that there are no empirical data on the take-rates for the new LMI incentives. A disruption would likely only occur if the economy roars back and the participation rates are at the high end of estimates.
• The dealership contingent spoke out for a higher MSRP cap. They argued that leases have grown in popularity to about half of all new car sales, and people can manage a lease payment on a vehicle they can’t afford to buy. Also, we are soon to see a wave of crossover and SUV EV launches, and these popular form factors are more expensive than sedans.
• Based on our analysis, and comments from the dealers, there isn’t much of a used EV market at this time. The incentive will help, but it will take some time for auction bids to be influenced such that inventory can build. Also, used Teslas are probably too expensive for an LMI limited buyer (and we don’t know how the rules will work for them – they may not qualify – something we will seek to find out).
• At the July meeting, when CSE proposed this incentive regime, they advised that the LMI system development would cause it not to be available until Q1 2021. We don’t know if they have been able to work on it during this period when the program isn’t finalized, but there could potentially be a delay.
• There is more money available – DEEP has indicated that the unspent funds from 2020 (they have only given out $398,000 in consumer rebates), as well as unspent bridge financing from 2019, will be rolled over into 2021. This will yield approximately $4.9 million in available funds (compared to the $3 million budget).
• The CHEAPR mission seems to be increasingly skewed towards the equity part of the mission. This blog supports the LMI incentives (and e-bikes, for that matter), but also sees the mission as just getting more EVs on the road. The program has fallen seriously short of that in the past year.

For these reasons, we think the best course is to raise the incentives and collect data. There will be plenty of time to course-correct if necessary. CHEAPR has an important role to play in moving people to drive electric. This is attested to by consumers, dealers, and our data. Let’s allow it to fulfill its potential.

Closing Pet Peeve

The $5000 fuel-cell rebate has never been given out in the 5+ years of the program’s existence, and there is no sign it will be anytime soon. You can’t buy one of these vehicles at present, and there is only 1 public hydrogen refueling station in the state. And yet, DEEP continues to use this as its headline incentive. It is misleading. It can be seen in the first sentence of the first paragraph on the CHEAPR home page. It was spoken out loud by Tracy Babbidge during the Sustainable Fairfield Webinar on September 28th. It was said by Victoria Hackett when she spoke at the Tesla leasing kickoff in February. Those are the occasions we are aware of but this is clearly not inadvertent. They are not helping themselves.

Editors Note: The October 9th meeting did not yield a resolution. A letter from the EV Coalition was debated that proposed a different structure. No vote was taken.

Meeting Details

We encourage members of the public to listen in! This is the Zoom info:

Webinar Information:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://ctdeep.zoom.us/j/99938032925

Meeting ID: 999 3803 2925

One tap mobile

+16468769923,,99938032925# US (New York)

Meeting ID: 999 3803 2925

Find your local number: https://ctdeep.zoom.us/u/adlDH6PJuC

EV Parade to be Part of Green Wheels Expo

The EV Club and Sustainable Fairfield Task Force have partnered for National Drive Electric Week events, including an EV Parade. (The parade is currently fully subscribed.)

Parade Details:

Date: Sunday, September 27th

Time: Check-in is at 9:30 AM. The parade begins at 10:00 AM. It will last for approximately 1 hour.

Route: It begins at the Westport Metro-North Depot, New Haven-bound side. The route goes north through downtown Westport, then east on the Post Road, and ends at Old Town Hall in Fairfield.

We wish to thank all of the public officials who are supporting this event. Westport First Selectman Jim Marpe will give remarks pre-rally at the train station. Fairfield Selectwoman Nancy Lefkowitz will speak at the parade terminus at Old Town Hall. Westport Chief of Police, Foti Koskinas, will provide the parade escort in the Tesla Model 3 police cruiser. Two other WPD cars, a BMW i3 and a Toyota Prius Prime, will also be along for the ride. WPD and the Fairfield PD have worked together to coordinate.

There will also be virtual events, including an interview with EVangelist Jay Leno (yes, that Jay Leno!).

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

Turnover Analysis of EV Makes Driving Adoption

When we build our semi-annual EV dashboard with data sourced from the DMV, we, of course, look at trends by vehicle make. The analysis in this post is intended to give a more focused look at the recent impact of the various EV makes by isolating the vehicles that departed between January and July 2020 and comparing that turnover to the new vehicles added in the most recent July file.

The chart above shows that Tesla has low turnover, coupled with a high number of new vehicles added. That is not a surprising result. When analyzing EV adoption data, the answer to almost every question is “Tesla.” But the impact is seen more starkly in this view compared to the “trends by make” or “waterfall” charts in the dashboard. Since the outsized presence of Tesla tends to overwhelm everything else, it makes it hard to visualize any movement that may exist elsewhere. The answer: show the data without Tesla.

What pops on this chart is the contribution increase from Hyundai. This may be an early signal of a serious EV push, followed this past week by the announcement that Hyundai is spinning off its Ioniq marque into a dedicated EV sub-brand (like Volvo with Polestar) and plans 3 new EV model introductions over the next several years, beginning with a mid-sized crossover in 2021.

Toyota, which has occupied a distant number 2 position over the past couple of years with its Prius Prime PHEV, showed a smaller increase on a lower base.

Ford is going in the opposite direction, with more EV turnover than additions. They have an eagerly anticipated launch in 2021 of the Mach-E, a crossover that bears the iconic Mustang logo.

Audi, Land Rover, and Subaru also spiked, but the numbers were low. Audi showed 9 departures and 34 adds for its new e-Tron. Land Rover, just entering the plug-in world (and separate from the Jaguar iPace), went from having 0 EVs to 16. Subaru had one departure and 19 adds.

The CHEAPR board virtually convened for their first meeting since late January to consider what the program should look like going forward.

To briefly recap recent history, changes were made to the rebate parameters on Oct. 15, 2019, which lowered the MSRP cap and the rebate amounts. The number of rebates immediately dropped precipitously. As CHEAPR morphed into its new administrative structure as of January 2020, these rebate levels were held over on an interim basis, which continues to this day. The board received a proposal for a revised rebate structure from the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), as well as a proposal for a used EV rebate, along with requests for an e-bike rebate. These are described below, but no final decision was taken. DEEP is setting up a mechanism to receive public comments for a 3-week period. The board will meet again in 4 weeks for the next steps, which presumably could mean a vote.

New EV purchase rebate proposal:

As you can see, the proposal leaves the lower rebate for new vehicles in place and adds a supplemental LMI (lower-middle income) incentive. We do not endorse leaving the existing rebates and MSRP cap at these low levels that were established in October. There were a number of attendees from the public who also spoke in support of this position.

For the 4 months prior to the October change, there were 616 rebates awarded. The corresponding post-change period, November through February, saw 272 rebates. And this was before COVID. As a result of the changes, plus the recession, CHEAPR is 81% underspent through May (the latest available data at the time of this writing).

This is the proposal for used EVs:

The supplemental LMI and used EV LMI proposed rebates are generous, and we accept the analysis that this is what is needed to make the program work. The definition of LMI is an AGI of $50,000 for a single person and $75,000 for a family. There is a proposed mechanism to verify this through federal income tax returns.

For either LMI incentive, the consumer, upon income verification, would be given a voucher that they would then bring to the dealer. This would apply to both franchised dealerships and independent pre-owned car dealers. (The rebate for FCEVs in this context is ludicrous, but more on that later.) The two dealer representatives (Jim Fleming of the CT Automotive Retailers Association – CARA, and Brad Hoffman of Hoffman Automotive Group – both organizations are represented on the CHEAPR Board) who were on the Zoom both said that there are few used EVs available and that it will be a couple of years until there is a critical mass of inventory. They said the rebate would induce dealers to bid on used EVs that become available via an auction, which would speed the accumulation of inventory in the state. They also cautioned that the incentive has to be structured in a way that prevents “flipping.”

The supplemental LMI and used EV rebates will not come online until the first quarter of 2021. The backend architecture still has to be developed.

The request for e-bike rebates met with a mixed response.

E-bikes were not part of the CSE proposal. Many on the Zoom felt that e-bikes have the potential to be a valuable component of an emission-free transportation mix, especially in the larger urban centers. A petition was submitted to DEEP to formally make this request. Here is a link to the letters. DEEP raised the question of whether it is statutorily permissible to incorporate e-bikes into CHEAPR (they will research that further). Some others felt that an e-bike rebate is a good idea, but that it shouldn’t be part of CHEAPR.

Dealer Incentive

The proposal modifies the dealer incentives to be either $125 or $75, depending on the level of rebate. When CHEAPR was first begun, they were as high as $300.

Fuel Cell Vehicles

Several participants voiced skepticism about the inclusion of a fuel cell rebate, especially considering that no vehicles of this type are currently sold in the state. DEEP briefly explained (there really wasn’t time to get into it) that it had to do with the multistate ZEV and CARB arrangements that CT participates in.

The CHEAPR board

While CHEAPR had a quorum to hold this meeting, over a year after the enabling legislation was passed, and 7 months into its first year, there are still unfilled positions. As far as we know, that number is 2. The board does not include any representation from an EV Advocacy organization (ahem, the EV Club), nor are there any persons of color. (The CHEAPR board itself doesn’t appoint members, though they may have influence.)

Where are the Funds?

CHEAPR is funded to a level of $3MM for 2020. Through May, the program paid $242,000 in rebates. We estimate that payments to dealers amounted to approximately $29,000 (adjusting for Teslas). The presentation from the CSE listed an amount of $1.9MM remaining. So how was the other $829,000 spent?

These are the club’s positions:

• Raise the incentives back to the pre-October, 2019 levels. Given that CHEAPR is so underspent and the supplemental LMI and used incentives will not happen this year, there is virtually no financial risk. The data can be re-evaluated later in the year, along with updated modeling for the LMI and used incentives, to determine the plan for 2021. And even in 2021, based on the dealer POV, there won’t be that many used EV rebates.
• We support the LMI and used EV incentives.
• We support e-bike incentives. There is enough money in 2020 to support a pilot. We are concerned that the wrangling will indefinitely delay action on this.
• Dispense with dealer incentives. They aren’t having a noticeable impact. In the DEEP EV Roadmap, it was reported that incentives were often not being passed along by the dealerships to the salespeople, which is who they were intended for. And the landscape has changed. This is the concluding sentence on the subject: “The auto dealer incentive may have been necessary during CHEAPR’s earliest years, but the availability of greater numbers, models, and types of EVs and the need to maximize available funding for EV deployment may necessitate the discontinuation of the auto dealer incentive.”
• We have nothing against fuel cell vehicles but see no point in keeping this incentive. At least, we would like to hear a more convincing rationale. We don’t see how credits earned from an out of state sale have anything to do with a local incentive.

This is what we think. Whatever your point of view, make it known to DEEP/CHEAPR. The information about how to do that will be provided when it becomes available.

CHEAPR Rebates Continue to Crawl – Revised Guidelines Needed

UPDATE: CHEAPR Board Meeting Scheduled for July 17th.

CHEAPR recently published updated stats through May 30. The recent trend continues. May rebates totaled 25. The breakdown is 14 BEV, 11 PHEV, and 0 Fuel Cell.

With the publication of the May dataset, CHEAPR restated its data for April. For those who saw the blog post regarding the April data, the 13 rebates have been revised to 17. It is not unusual that minor adjustments are made a little after the fact.

CHEAPR has been pacing severely under budget as defined by total rebate dollars awarded relative to a straight line pacing of the $3MM annual budget (i.e. $250K monthly). Any month where rebates are under $250K will cause this underage to widen. The amount rebated in May was $26,500 and the expended funds are now 81% under the pace number.

The most rebated vehicles were the Tesla Model 3 with 8 rebates and the Toyota Prius Prime, also with 8 rebates.

CHEAPR publishes stats on its website and makes an Excel download available, which is what we work from. There are two date columns and we use the application submission date rather than the sale date as that is what CHEAPR bases its own reporting on.

We have reached out to CHEAPR to request the names of the dealers associated with each rebate (for non-Teslas, obviously). Our request has been “escalated to management.” It is common for our club to get asked for dealer recommendations by people in the market for an EV. By the time they contact us, they have usually already visited one or two dealers and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. We have names of some dealerships that have been recommended by members, but this would be hard data and we think it will help, especially in areas of the state where we don’t have a lot of members. We also understand its limitations and will act accordingly. Dealership-level info is published in some other states, NY for example.

The CHEAPR board is supposed to meet in July. We have not heard about a confirmed date. According to the website, the program will have some revisions for 2020 and we eagerly await to hear what they are. We feel the current structure is not working and have offered our input, which has been described in prior blog posts, such as this recent post from June 1.