CARB ZEV credits for rapid refueling, gone in 2018?

[edatoakrun]

Edit:6/5/15 Since this thread seemed to be moving towards a different discussion, on a topic more interesting to me, I re-titled, from The unofficial Elon Musk thread.

Edit 7/13/16 Subject change from CARB ZEV credit allocations for rapid refueling.

We don't have an official one?

Surprising, considering the frequent displays of Muskophilia on the forum.

Musk gave his reply to this story today in an interview on CNBC, if you'd like to see it.

My view is that the story is factually correct in what it states, and too easy on Tesla for what it omits, specifically how Tesla has managed to profit by gaming the CARB credit market using the Model S's imaginary battery pack-fast-swapping capability.

There are few more impressive sights in the world than a South African on the make.

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

And he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy...

Subsidies are handed out in all kinds of industries, with U.S. corporations collecting tens of billions of dollars each year, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that tracks government subsidies. And the incentives for solar panels and electric cars are available to all companies that sell them.

Musk and his investors have also put large sums of private capital into the companies.

But public subsidies for Musk's companies stand out both for the amount, relative to the size of the companies, and for their dependence on them...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html#page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[JimSouCal]

More to the point, whether it's corn, dairy, or oil, there's plenty of subsidy in US economics... I'd like to see a reasonable comparison, and a detail that included some consideration of "externalities", costs that are not carried by marketplace transactions but are rather born by society as a whole, such as resource depletion or degradation...

What is the real purpose of this piece by the LA Times Trib polemic? Many possibilities could be suggested...

 

[mbender]

I thought his response and 90% of the comments that I read on latimes.com were right on point. "He goes where there is government money"... what a joke. As if that's what guides his decision-making.

Again, his response on CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102723117

If this "unofficial" thread is really code for an anti-Musk or Muskophobic thread, perhaps we don't need it, either.

 

[Nubo]

My view is that the story is factually correct in what it states, and too easy on Tesla for what it omits, specifically how Tesla has managed to profit by gaming the CARB credit market using the Model S's imaginary battery pack-fast-swapping capability.

Edit: ---removed unsubstantiated statement ---

As far as credits in general, it's a level playing field. Other makers are buying Tesla credits because they choose to; not because they have to. In fact one could reasonably make the case that the field is tilted away from Tesla, with fuel cell vehicles getting more credits than BEVs.

 

[edatoakrun]

...As I recall, CARB has disallowed the fast-swap qualification and Tesla is not getting those additional credits...

Source?

I haven't ben able to find out whether Tesla is still collecting the extra credits, or not.

Pure speculation on my part, that CARB might have cracked down on Tesla, since Fiat, GM, etc. have been holding fire sales on their compliance BEVs the last few months, indicating there may be a unanticipated shortage of credits on the market.

What seems undisputed, is that Tesla collected $100 million? dollars selling CARB credits for the S's fast-swapping capability from 2012-14, when no actual fast-swapping occurred.

Neither the LAT or other established media sources seem have caught up to the story yet, so you have to rely on (less reliable, IMO) blog reports:

Analysis: Understanding Tesla’s Potemkin Swap Station

May 27, 2015 By Edward Niedermeyer

http://dailykanban.com/2015/05/analysis-understanding-teslas-potemkin-swap-station/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And interviewed here:

Tesla's Smoke & Mirrors Battery Swap Scam - Autoline Daily Insight

Autoline Network

Edward Niedermeyer conducted an “on-the-ground inquiry into Tesla's battery swap program” over the 2015 Memorial Day holiday. He found no evidence that the station in Harris Ranch, CA was actually being used to swap customer batteries. Instead, it's likely that the EV giant is taking advantage of a loophole in the California ZEV mandate to collect more than $100 million in credits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9zpOjOZgbk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[JimSouCal]

I thought his response and 90% of the comments that I read on latimes.com were right on point. "He goes where there is government money"... what a joke. As if that's what guides his decision-making.

Again, his response on CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102723117

If this "unofficial" thread is really code for an anti-Musk or Muskophobic thread, perhaps we don't need it, either.

I tend to agree. While I am not a "Muskophile", I do find that the overwhelming evidence suggests he, Musk, is blazing the way in a direction society must head if it expects to make the cut on a long term strategy to a civilized existence.

 

[abasile]

I have no problem with the facts here. SpaceX will save us (the taxpayers) lots of money. Tesla and SolarCity are advancing the interests of humanity far more efficiently than government itself ever could. Tax credits are about the most efficient way possible of putting government funding into something.

 

[edatoakrun]

LAT ran a follow-up today, essentially a recap of yesterday's softball CNBC interview, since:

...Musk and his companies declined Times requests for comment...

On the Subject of future BEVS, Musk was fairly vague:

...CNBC also asked Musk about why it was taking so long to get an affordable Tesla electric car into the auto market.

Conceding that Tesla’s current Model S is “a relatively expensive car,” Musk said he plans to come out with a high-volume, “sort of more affordable car in approximately 2017.”

Musk said he would like to have the car for sale sooner, “but the nature of technology development and the need to achieve economies with scale prevent us from coming out with a compelling, low-cost electric car right now.”...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-elon-musk-defends-subsidies-20150601-htmlstory.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[desiv]

While I am not a "Muskophile", I do find that the overwhelming evidence suggests he, Musk, is blazing the way in a direction society must head if it expects to make the cut on a long term strategy to a civilized existence.

Similar here..
Is Musk starting businesses that are heavy into government subsidies?
Yep...
But he's picked the ones that are in his "let's move the world forward" world view...

I don't see a problem there, just smart business...
And not without risk... He took a big gamble, even with the subsidies, with a LOT of his own money on Tesla for a while..

I don't agree with everything Musk says/does, but I don't fault his business choices..

desiv

 

[Nubo]

...As I recall, CARB has disallowed the fast-swap qualification and Tesla is not getting those additional credits...

Source?

I haven't ben able to find out whether Tesla is still collecting the extra credits, or not.

No source. I thought I recalled some discussions here on MNL but it may be that they were just discussing the changes in the CARB requirements.

 

[edatoakrun]

...As I recall, CARB has disallowed the fast-swap qualification and Tesla is not getting those additional credits...

Source?

I haven't ben able to find out whether Tesla is still collecting the extra credits, or not.

No source. I thought I recalled some discussions here on MNL but it may be that they were just discussing the changes in the CARB requirements.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that CARB (reportedly) is not saying?

Consider that the single battery swap location being closed the entire Memorial Day weekend, might itself indicate Tesla is no longer engaged in pursuing the extra credits.

 

[Zythryn]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that CARB (reportedly) is not saying?

Consider that the single battery swap location being closed the entire Memorial Day weekend, might itself indicate Tesla is no longer engaged in pursuing the extra credits.

You just have it out for Tesla, don't you.

The battery swap station is a trial run. They are testing it with a select group of owners.
Frankly, in my case, even if they had these I wouldn't be using them.

Closing that over the weekend could possibly mean lots of things.
It could mean Tesla is no longer engaged in pursuing extra credits.
It could mean they found out their site was going to be under surveillance and they were paranoid it was Martians.
It could mean the lowest days of use was weekends when people are in less of a hurry, so they closed it down for updates to equipment.

You are speculating from very little information and drawing the worst conclusions you can.

 

[mbender]

^^
^
Speaking of which, this just in from CARB, "hot off the press":

The staff presentation for the June 5, 2015 public workshop on proposed modifications to the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation specific to battery swap fast refueling is now posted. The
presentation is available at this link:

• 2015 Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulatory Activities
  
  

  Air Resources Board (ARB or the Board) staff is developing a proposal for modifications for the Zero Emission Vehicle regulation. The proposed modifications address fast refueling credits for battery exchange events. Staff will present these modifications to the Board in October 2015.

Skip right to the staff presentation.

 

[finman100]

This is soooo lame ed. please just find more 'issues' with elon and Tesla so we can all roll our eyes. just stupid. please try harder. really? an american car company using american fuel? ironic isn't it. trillions for just the opposite and no one bats an eye...

 

[mbender]

^^^ +3.0E12 ;-) ( I find it quite baffling as well. )

And I hate to even joke about the trillions part. :-\

 

[edatoakrun]

Sorry that some of you seem to object to my introduction of realities that do not coincide with your beliefs on this subject.

My original post quoted a report on subsidies collected by Musk's various enterprises (LAT ran a follow up yesterday, BTW, as Musk changed his mind, and answered questions) to which I added my comment on the only subsidy that (IMO) was not entirely legitimate.

...My view is that the story is factually correct in what it states, and too easy on Tesla for what it omits, specifically how Tesla has managed to profit by gaming the CARB credit market using the Model S's imaginary battery pack-fast-swapping capability...

To restate the facts, is seems certain that in 2012-13 Tesla profited on the order of ~$100 million by selling ZEV credits issued for model S's with battery pack fast swapping capability, even though they never actually swapped any packs, and the entire infrastructure for doing so up to today seems to be one converted car wash, access offered to only a few Tesla drivers, and so inconvenient and that even fewer Tesla drivers have ever used it.

I'm not really concerned with whoever it was at Tesla who made the decision to grab the free candy CARB was offering in past years, and may decide to in the future.

Tesla is a for-profit corporation, and its officers and employees have a duty to shareholders to seek profits.

I am concerned that CARB made the ill-considered decision to award Tesla the excess three credit per S sale in the first place, and not just because the excess credit sales was egregious rent-seeking activity by Tesla.

The fact is, every Tesla sale S in California (and, If I understand correctly, the other nine ZEV states) gave an extra three credits that Tesla could and did resell to other manufactures, many of which were unenthusiastic (to put it mildly) about selling their own BEVs, and chose to evade the mandate by buying the excess credits from Tesla, rather than put more of their BEVs on the road.

So every tesla S sold (seven credits in total) may have reduced sales of other (three credit) BEVs, by a factor of more than two.

In other words, it looks like there certainly would by many thousands more BEVs on California's roads today, if Tesla had never sold any S's here at all.

Is that sort of market distortion really what CARB should be trying to achieve, when it makes decisions on awarding ZEV credits?

 

[abasile]

Regarding access to battery swapping on I-5 between LA and SF, it appears quite a few owners have been invited. Check out http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/31947-Harris-Ranch-is-getting-first-battery-swap-station/page22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If fewer compliance cars have been sold because of Tesla, so be it. I'd rather the support go to manufacturers like Tesla, Nissan, and BMW which have demonstrated more commitment to EVs. Also, it isn't as if no EVs are available; a consumer unable to purchase a limited-distribution compliance car still has other options.

And "rent seeking"? Tesla isn't stopping anyone else from building comparable EVs and pursuing the same credits.

 

[Nubo]

Did Tesla game the system? Perhaps. Imho, fast battery-swap intent is clear in that the capability was designed into the vehicle. A 90-second swap doesn't happen by accident. How long does it take to swap the LEAF battery? We won't count the time it takes to line the shop floor with rubber mats :lol:

That being said, the way CARB formulated the rules certainly allowed Tesla to be lackadaisical in their infrastructure implementation if they wished.

The more corrosive thing going on, is the mantra that Tesla is someow not a "real" business; that they're profiting "off our backs", etc… Complaints that quite clearly only arise because of the nature of Tesla's business.

 

[edatoakrun]

="abasile" Regarding access to battery swapping on I-5 between LA and SF, it appears quite a few owners have been invited. Check out http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/31947-Harris-Ranch-is-getting-first-battery-swap-station/page22.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Yes, this seems to have occurred since the reports of the single station being down over Memorials day weekend:

Tesla Motors is sending out emails to additional Model S owners to invite them to try out battery swapping at the lone site near the Harris Ranch Supercharger in California.

Only some owners are receiving the email, which suggests to us that Tesla is targeting those who often use the Harris Ranch Supercharger and other Model S owners in the vicinity of the swap site...

http://insideevs.com/tesla-extends-battery-swap-invites-to-additional-model-s-owners-swap-fee-is-80/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tesla spokesman at the ARB hearing this AM mentioned that "thousands" of S owners had now been invited to participate.

He did not mention any plans to build any other swap stations.

="abasile"If fewer compliance cars have been sold because of Tesla, so be it. I'd rather the support go to manufacturers like Tesla, Nissan, and BMW which have demonstrated more commitment to EVs. Also, it isn't as if no EVs are available; a consumer unable to purchase a limited-distribution compliance car still has other options.

And "rent seeking"? Tesla isn't stopping anyone else from building comparable EVs and pursuing the same credits.

If other manufactures had done this, developed fast-refueling at the minimum compliance level, the market value of CARB credits probably would have been so low as to have reduced BEV sales considerably.

Nissan, for example, has been able to sell LEAFs at relatively low prices, and continue to cut prices since 2011, due in part to the value generated by ZEV credit sales, even though it (like all other BEV manufactures) received less than half the credits per BEV sale as Tesla did in 2012-13.

An over-allocation of ZEV credit for compliance with one ARB objective (and IMO, this is the case for fast-refueling, both for Hydrogen and fast-swap-battery stations) necessarily reduces the incentives for manufactures to reach other more important goals.

Which was the basis of my comment at the ZEV workshop this AM, If you missed it.

...My comment RE Fast Refueling Proposed Modifications is that the ARB should reconsider credit allowances for more practical and achievable faster refueling technologies.

I think it is a mistaken assumption that BEVs/PHEVs must achieve refueling rates similar to gasoline/diesel vehicles to gain widespread acceptance.

BEVs/PHEVs are superior to ICEVs in so many other ways (cost of operation, safety, dependability, driver experience) that they will probably never need to be fueled as quickly as ICEVs to gain widespread acceptance.

But faster refueling, than can be practically achieved with an on-board charger, is important for a BEV as I can attest to by personnel experience.

I have been driving a BEV as my primary vehicle for over four years, and just the small steps California has taken over that time to establish DC charger stations has transformed my driving experience, making my BEV a practical alternative to an ICEV for much longer trips, in those regions where DC chargers exist.

Why has ARB never considered the vehicles ability to utilize higher kW DC charging as a factor in awarding ZEV credits?

Many BEV/PHEV manufactures (unfortunately) seem to be primarily motivated by compliance with ARB regulations.

And so many are not building BEVs that can utilize DC chargers, even though this adds a relatively small cost per vehicle, because they have no incentive from ARB to do so.

And the production of so many BEV/PHEVs that cannot utilize DC chargers, has in turn, inhibited the installation of DC chargers.

Why not add a single ZEV credit on BEV/PHEVs that can utilize DC chargers (or alternately, reduce the credit by one for those BEV/PHEVs that are incapable) of faster refueling at currently available kW rates?...

 

[abasile]

Why has ARB never considered the vehicles ability to utilize higher kW DC charging as a factor in awarding ZEV credits?

Excellent point. Perhaps if this had been a factor, the most recent RAV4 EV, the Fiat 500e, and other "compliance" vehicles would have come with fast charging capabilities. This might have motivated Nissan to sell every LEAF with CHAdeMO as a standard feature, and Tesla to include Supercharging with every Model S (for Tesla, this is now the case).

In any case, I am not inclined to complain about Tesla's apparent sluggishness in terms of battery swapping infrastructure. They have done a superb job of deploying their Supercharging infrastructure and deserve kudos for that. No matter how you cut it, Tesla vehicles offer unparalleled ZEV capabilities and should, in my opinion, be awarded more ZEV credits then any other vehicle presently on the market. (That includes hydrogen vehicles like the Mirai which for quite some time will remain tethered to a very limited, boutique refueling network.)