Ontario EV incentives upped to $14K... and decreased to $3k for Tesla

[mknox]

Wow-So no paranoid delusions...change to EVIP is part of much larger attack on TESLA.

Having some inside information on what is happening in Ontario, I can assure you there is no deeper conspiracy going on here. None of the automakers, including GM, saw this coming.

The issue has to do with the government's perception (possibly backed up with some weak data) that owners of $75k + cars do not need the incentive in order to purchase the car (it is an incentive program, not a reward program after all). Aside from this view that incentives are not required to drive sales in this category, the government is also very sensitive to the optics of providing a handout to someone who can afford to drop $75k + on a car.

Personally, I think this is misguided on the government's behalf. The incentive should be towards switching from fossil fuels to clean electricity and it shouldn't matter what car you choose to do that in. My view would be to simply base the incentive on the car's battery capacity (possibly with some cap that applies to all) since the larger the battery, the more of an offset there will be. I do believe plug-in hybrids should qualify because the partial electric use is still a benefit. Their smaller batteries would limit the amount of the rebate they would get. All of this could be brand-agnostic and, IMHO, serve the greater good.

 

[Peter_M]

Agreed.

Another point we can make is that Teslas are contributing the most to GHG reductions in Canada. Here's an interesting calculation: look at the current fleet of EVs in Canada (Electric Vehicle Sales in Canada: 2015 Final Numbers) and the battery capacities (Cars are EVolving except that I took the BMW i3 number from their website), and calculate the total kWh of the fleet on the road today in Canada.

1. Tesla Model S: 3590 vehicles * average 80 kWh = 287,200 kWh
2. Chevy Volt: 6088 * 17 = 103,496 kWh
3. Nissan Leaf: 3709 * 24 = 89,016 kWh
4. Smart fortwo: 1105 * 17.6 = 19,448 kWh
5. Mitsubishi iMIEV: 627 * 17 = 10,032 kWh
6. Kia Soul EV: 357 * 27 = 9639 kWh
7. BMW i3 REX: 355 * 19 = 6745 kWh
8. Tesla Roadster: 106 * 53 = 5618 kWh
9. Ford Focus EV: 244 * 23 = 5612 kWh
10. Ford C-Max: 564 * 7.6 = 4286 kWh
11. BMW i3 (BEV): 218 * 19 = 4142 kWh

That's not all the cars, but the rest add up to about another 15,000 kWh, so the total fleet battery capacity is about 560 MWh and Tesla Model S is more than half of that.

Battery size isn't a direct correlation to GHG reduction (for example, you might have a Model S and just drive to the grocery store once a week), but it's the best indicator we have. These numbers show that Model S gives owners the biggest opportunity to shift driving from gas to electric, by a long shot.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

Having some inside information on what is happening in Ontario, I can assure you there is no deeper conspiracy going on here. None of the automakers, including GM, saw this coming.

You sound confident. I'm still skeptical-looks very similar to what's happening in MA:

 

[mknox]

Battery size isn't a direct correlation to GHG reduction (for example, you might have a Model S and just drive to the grocery store once a week), but it's the best indicator we have. These numbers show that Model S gives owners the biggest opportunity to shift driving from gas to electric, by a long shot.

Yes, and I believe this is where we should focus the discussion. If we keep carrying on about conspiracies to "attack" Tesla, or even about "unfairness" compared to other cars, we will get nowhere. With the current program based on cars, brand by brand, the government is never going to see their way clear to providing the same incentive for "the rich" as they might for "Joe Average". If we take the actual car out of the picture and focus simply on the fuel switching, with incentives based on how much you switch, we might get somewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

You sound confident. I'm still skeptical-looks very similar to what's happening in MA:

Remember that @bonnie has put her special spin on this. (No insult intended: everyone see things through their own filters, including me). I have been involved with Ministry staff, some industry insiders as well as some NGOs and it is my understanding that what was claimed to have happened in MA did not happen in ON. For better or worse, it appears to have been more "knee-jerk" here.

 

[Peter_M]

Not to sound like a broken record, but this brings me back to a super-off-peak electricity rate at night. What about proposing that EV owners (anyone who qualified for any Ontario EV incentive) can get a reduced electricity rate at night? I was originally thinking it would be simpler to offer a super-off-peak rate to anyone, since any demand shifting helps the electricity system, but maybe politically it would actually be good to tie it to EV use. Then later on, they could tie it to other specific demand-shifting methods, like in-house energy storage, or just open it up to anyone.

One benefit of this approach is that it doesn't force the government to admit they were wrong and change the EV incentive program, but Tesla owners would benefit more from it than other EVs, as they should, since anyone would benefit in proportion to how much driving they shift to electric.

 

[mknox]

Not to sound like a broken record, but this brings me back to a super-off-peak electricity rate at night. What about proposing that EV owners (anyone who qualified for any Ontario EV incentive) can get a reduced electricity rate at night? I was originally thinking it would be simpler to offer a super-off-peak rate to anyone, since any demand shifting helps the electricity system, but maybe politically it would actually be good to tie it to EV use.

From a regulator's point of view, an EV-specific rate might be problematic. It would also entail the need for separate utility metering to track the EV usage, similar to an installation for rooftop solar under the current microFIT program. That would be expensive.

I do wholeheartedly support the concept of a super off peak rate, but for anyone who can take advantage of it. Better yet, I think Ontario could benefit from additional rate tariff options that would allow one to select the best price plan based on their usage patterns. For example, PowerStream (utility north of Toronto) is running a pilot with just an On and Off Peak rate, but there is a greater spread between the two.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

it is my understanding that what was claimed to have happened in MA did not happen in ON.

And if it did, someone would for sure own up to it?

Curious: How does transport minister trump enviro minister (and ec develop minister reportedly) on enviro policy?

Not trying to be counterproductive-still not sitting well with me. Especially when this is happening South of the border:

'GM authored' anti-Tesla legislation moves forward in Indiana | LeftLaneNews

 

[sandpiper]

Having some inside information on what is happening in Ontario, I can assure you there is no deeper conspiracy going on here. None of the automakers, including GM, saw this coming.

The issue has to do with the government's perception (possibly backed up with some weak data) that owners of $75k + cars do not need the incentive in order to purchase the car (it is an incentive program, not a reward program after all). Aside from this view that incentives are not required to drive sales in this category, the government is also very sensitive to the optics of providing a handout to someone who can afford to drop $75k + on a car.

I would believe this. To conceive and execute a conspiracy would require far greater intellectual capacity than this government has demonstrated itself to possess. I suspect each new policy is filtered through nothing more complex than a "get more votes / not get more votes" screen. People who have built the capacity to afford a 75+K car are not generally going to vote for the current regime under any circumstances, and so don't factor into the calculations.

or... "don't look for conspiracies when incompetence alone is sufficient cause"

 

[Peter_M]

From a regulator's point of view, an EV-specific rate might be problematic. It would also entail the need for separate utility metering to track the EV usage, similar to an installation for rooftop solar under the current microFIT program. That would be expensive.

I do wholeheartedly support the concept of a super off peak rate, but for anyone who can take advantage of it. Better yet, I think Ontario could benefit from additional rate tariff options that would allow one to select the best price plan based on their usage patterns. For example, PowerStream (utility north of Toronto) is running a pilot with just an On and Off Peak rate, but there is a greater spread between the two.

OK, I don't know much about the regulatory constraints, but I wasn't thinking of metering the EV usage separately - just that you need to own an EV to qualify for the rate. That keeps costs down, but it also opens loopholes, like buying a cheap EV, never driving it (or selling it for that matter) and then enjoying the lower rate. But I don't see many people bothering unless they can actually shift demand to the night, and that mostly means actual EV drivers.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

"don't look for conspiracies when incompetence alone is sufficient cause"

Or... "Dumb Like a Fox"

These guys are connected with the auto industry. They know exactly what's up.

 

[mknox]

OK, I don't know much about the regulatory constraints, but I wasn't thinking of metering the EV usage separately - just that you need to own an EV to qualify for the rate. That keeps costs down, but it also opens loopholes, like buying a cheap EV, never driving it (or selling it for that matter) and then enjoying the lower rate. But I don't see many people bothering unless they can actually shift demand to the night, and that mostly means actual EV drivers.

The regulator (Ontario Energy Board, which also regulates the natural gas industry) would never let anyone "enjoy" a rate :biggrin: But seriously,the OEB is going to concern itself with cost recovery and any new super low rate period would have to be offset by some other mechanism... likely higher Mid and/or On Peak rates. But that's okay in my mind. It has long been argued that the differential in current rates hasn't been enough to encourage demand shifting anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

And if it did, someone would for sure own up to it?

Curious: How does transport minister trump enviro minister (and ec develop minister reportedly) on enviro policy?

Not trying to be counterproductive-still not sitting well with me.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not thrilled with the implementation either. Just trying to relay the facts as I understand them.

I do know that the Ministries of Finance, Energy, Environment/Climate Change and Transportation have been involved in some of the EV working groups that I have been, but no idea as to how this ended up coming out of Transportation. At a Plug 'n Drive EV day at Queen's Park last fall, Glen Murray took the podium and spoke passionately about EVs. I have no way of knowing, but it could simply be that Transportation was tasked with taking the lead for simple reasons of logistics. That Ministry would be the one responsible for vehicle registrations and such.

 

[Destiny1701]

Ever consider what what typical buyers of 75k+ cars purchase as ICE vehicles? V8's, supercharged, 400-600hp, sport, performance, pure luxury. Fascinating that the opportunity cost of 'not' incentivizing those same purchasers to move to EV's would probably yield a much more damaging ICE vehicle on the road than the likes of a 4cyl 25-45k ice car. Luxury vehicles with luxury combustion and performance are perhaps the most environmentally damaging of passenger vehicles today. Amazing how our govnt completely ignored that one aspect in their new program rates. So now Mr. 90-150k decides he'd rather purchase a Porsche panemera, merc AMG, Bmw M...performance with style. The list goes on. Tesla managed to wrap it all in one complete package.
What a shame the new policy cherry picks incentives instead of being equitable for all who reduce another ice vehicle on the road..regardless of which EV. Sad indeed.

Or... "Dumb Like a Fox"

These guys are connected with the auto industry. They know exactly what's up.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

The regulator (Ontario Energy Board, which also regulates the natural gas industry) would never let anyone "enjoy" a rate :biggrin: But seriously,the OEB is going to concern itself with cost recovery and any new super low rate period would have to be offset by some other mechanism... likely higher Mid and/or On Peak rates. But that's okay in my mind. It has long been argued that the differential in current rates hasn't been enough to encourage demand shifting anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't get me wrong... I'm not thrilled with the implementation either. Just trying to relay the facts as I understand them.

I do know that the Ministries of Finance, Energy, Environment/Climate Change and Transportation have been involved in some of the EV working groups that I have been, but no idea as to how this ended up coming out of Transportation. At a Plug 'n Drive EV day at Queen's Park last fall, Glen Murray took the podium and spoke passionately about EVs. I have no way of knowing, but it could simply be that Transportation was tasked with taking the lead for simple reasons of logistics. That Ministry would be the one responsible for vehicle registrations and such.

It makes no sense. Duguid and Del Duca know exactly what's up. There's no way this is an "oversight", if it was it would have been fixed with one phone call-same day.

Something I've learned the hard way in life: If something doesn't make sense, no matter how many ways you analyze it...you're probably getting F'd.

 

[Breezy]

Battery size isn't a direct correlation to GHG reduction (for example, you might have a Model S and just drive to the grocery store once a week), but it's the best indicator we have. These numbers show that Model S gives owners the biggest opportunity to shift driving from gas to electric, by a long shot.

The first kWh contributes the most to GHG reduction, with each subsequent kWh contributing progressively less. This is a reflection of the fact that most vehicles spend most of their time near their home base, as a fleet average.

Certainly, the Model S makes a large contribution, but I would hesitate to suggest it contributes the most using fleet MWh as a basis.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

Ever consider what what typical buyers of 75k+ cars purchase as ICE vehicles? V8's, supercharged, 400-600hp, sport, performance, pure luxury. Fascinating that the opportunity cost of 'not' incentivizing those same purchasers to move to EV's would probably yield a much more damaging ICE vehicle on the road than the likes of a 4cyl 25-45k ice car. Luxury vehicles with luxury combustion and performance are perhaps the most environmentally damaging of passenger vehicles today. Amazing how our govnt completely ignored that one aspect in their new program rates. So now Mr. 90-150k decides he'd rather purchase a Porsche panemera, merc AMG, Bmw M...performance with style. The list goes on. Tesla managed to wrap it all in one complete package.
What a shame the new policy cherry picks incentives instead of being equitable for all who reduce another ice vehicle on the road..regardless of which EV. Sad indeed.

Nailed it...thank-you!

 

[SmartElectric]

the Model S makes a large contribution, but I would hesitate to suggest it contributes the most using fleet MWh as a basis.

We've driven 17000 km in 6 months in our Tesla, and 15000 km in 2.5 years in my Smart ED. The Tesla has already saved 4x more CO2 than the Smart, and the Tesla replaced an SUV which was 11L/100km while the Smart replaced a compact car that was 9L/100km, so the CO2 savings is even more pronounced.

Meanwhile, the Smart qualifies for 3x the rebate the Tesla does...makes no sense to me as an environmental rebate in these terms.

That said, I am not against reducing the rebate for luxury vehicles (of which our Tesla is one) as I truly believe that incentives that cause more EV's on the road is the right thing to do, and if that means to provide less incentives for high priced cars, and increase incentives for lower priced cars, then so be it.

Ignoring the politics, let's just at least acknowledge Ontario is leading it's direct competition in the US northern states by a WIDE margin on efforts to combat environmental and climate challenges.

 

[Paul Carter]

It makes no sense. Duguid and Del Duca know exactly what's up. There's no way this is an "oversight", if it was it would have been fixed with one phone call-same day.

Something I've learned the hard way in life: If something doesn't make sense, no matter how many ways you analyze it...you're probably getting F'd.

Ever consider what what typical buyers of 75k+ cars purchase as ICE vehicles? V8's, supercharged, 400-600hp, sport, performance, pure luxury. Fascinating that the opportunity cost of 'not' incentivizing those same purchasers to move to EV's would probably yield a much more damaging ICE vehicle on the road than the likes of a 4cyl 25-45k ice car. Luxury vehicles with luxury combustion and performance are perhaps the most environmentally damaging of passenger vehicles today. Amazing how our govnt completely ignored that one aspect in their new program rates. So now Mr. 90-150k decides he'd rather purchase a Porsche panemera, merc AMG, Bmw M...performance with style. The list goes on. Tesla managed to wrap it all in one complete package.
What a shame the new policy cherry picks incentives instead of being equitable for all who reduce another ice vehicle on the road..regardless of which EV. Sad indeed.

Nailed it...thank-you!

+1. There are a few facets and I really like how this highlights the bigger picture.

 

[mknox]

Ever consider what what typical buyers of 75k+ cars purchase as ICE vehicles? V8's, supercharged, 400-600hp, sport, performance, pure luxury. Fascinating that the opportunity cost of 'not' incentivizing those same purchasers to move to EV's would probably yield a much more damaging ICE vehicle on the road than the likes of a 4cyl 25-45k ice car. Luxury vehicles with luxury combustion and performance are perhaps the most environmentally damaging of passenger vehicles today. Amazing how our govnt completely ignored that one aspect in their new program rates. So now Mr. 90-150k decides he'd rather purchase a Porsche panemera, merc AMG, Bmw M...performance with style. The list goes on. Tesla managed to wrap it all in one complete package.
What a shame the new policy cherry picks incentives instead of being equitable for all who reduce another ice vehicle on the road..regardless of which EV. Sad indeed.

But this is not relevant to how the Ontario incentive program was designed. The Ministry feels that there is no need to incentivise the Tesla purchaser because he or she is going to make the decision to purchase it with or without the incentive. I realize that is not always the case; there are always going to be exceptions. If there is evidence (and not just anecdotal) that shoppers in the $75k + bracket would buy the Tesla with the incentive but would buy the ICE without it, please share. Remember the point of the program is to incent customers to buy EVs who otherwise wouldn't, not reward those who do so regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

We've driven 17000 km in 6 months in our Tesla, and 15000 km in 2.5 years in my Smart ED. The Tesla has already saved 4x more CO2 than the Smart, and the Tesla replaced an SUV which was 11L/100km while the Smart replaced a compact car that was 9L/100km, so the CO2 savings is even more pronounced.

Exactly. That is why I feel the program should be vehicle brand agnostic and be reflective of the actual intent: to reduce CO2 emissions. Make it about CO2 reduction. Battery capacity is probably a good proxy, but there may be other better metrics.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

Ignoring the politics, let's just at least acknowledge Ontario is leading it's direct competition in the US northern states by a WIDE margin on efforts to combat environmental and climate challenges.

EVIP "enhancements" cannot be ignored...this is politics at it's worst, imo.

I'm with you 100% that Ontario *had* wonderfully progressive EV incentives relative to most of the world. Behind, but with potential to challenge leadership in Norway, California, etc.

Truth is, we don't have time for corrupt politics. 97% of scientists agree, climate change is real. If you have kids/grandkids, it's time to fight. That's what COP21 was all about. The line has been drawn...

 

[Cebe]

But this is not relevant to how the Ontario incentive program was designed. The Ministry feels that there is no need to incentivise the Tesla purchaser because he or she is going to make the decision to purchase it with or without the incentive. I realize that is not always the case; there are always going to be exceptions. If there is evidence (and not just anecdotal) that shoppers in the $75k + bracket would buy the Tesla with the incentive but would buy the ICE without it, please share. Remember the point of the program is to incent customers to buy EVs who otherwise wouldn't, not reward those who do so regardless.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. That is why I feel the program should be vehicle brand agnostic and be reflective of the actual intent: to reduce CO2 emissions. Make it about CO2 reduction. Battery capacity is probably a good proxy, but there may be other better metrics.

They (the policy makers) are not thinking far enough ahead. Those "rich people" that don't care about ~$11k when they're buying a new Tesla are going to eventually sell it, probably after three years, if they're that rich, and the asking price is now going to be ~$8k higher than if they did get the full rebate. Which is going to stop somebody else, not in the rich category, from getting that used Tesla.

It just takes a bit of thinking.

If you really want to be smart, and impact more people, fine, limit it for cars above certain price, but make it progressive, and introduce a rebate on the sales tax on the private sales of those same vehicles. So, when somebody sells their $150k Tesla five years later for $60k, that buyer can enjoy the benefit as well.

One can dream...