Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Ottawa-Gatineau

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

EVs are more expensive than the average new vehicle. But the average new vehicle in Canada costs over $45k. The average used vehicle price is over $25k. Hardly cheap.

We neither need, nor could manage an immediate jump to 90% penetration. Also, EVs already have a lower total cost of ownership compared to gas vehicles. And that difference is only going to grow with larger electrified vehicles like pickup trucks. The most attractive thing about the F-50 Lightning is going to be that it costs $10-24 to fill up (pricing depends on when charging is done at home) compared to $120 for the usual gas F150 fill. So really, the subsidies are about closing the purchase price gap enough to get buyers to seal the deal. That doesn't mean massive subsidies are needed. The price difference between a similar gas/diesel and electric vehicle is $10-15k depending on the model. The subsidy probably need to about half to two thirds of that difference to increase adoption. And that gap will go down over time, so the subsidy should too.


If we're spending $40B a year, there's a lot better ways to cut emissions than subsidizing people's cars.

Good points all. There is a huge entry level segment unserved by any electric vehicles. While predictions are costs will come down it is not always assured.

Purely on ton of carbon it might not be cost effective but the air pollution impacts would also be significant.

[Truenorth00]

Like I said, the difference between the ICEV and BEV versions of a given model are about $10-15k. So if we really wanted to boost adoption, total rebates (fed + prov.) probably don't need to exceed $10k.

Battery prices will keep declining in price. Fluctuations in commodity prices aside. So we'll see purchase price parity towards the end of the decade. So the rebate shouldn't be static. My personal proposal would be to rebate any BEV below $75k drive away price (not some base MSRP nonsense). $8k in 2022. Goes down $1k per year to $0 in 2030. I'd set the PHEV rebate at 50% of the BEV rebate. Maybe a minimum threshold range or battery capacity that goes up every year for PHEVs to qualify.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I said, the difference between the ICEV and BEV versions of a given model are about $10-15k. So if we really wanted to boost adoption, total rebates (fed + prov.) probably don't need to exceed $10k.

Battery prices will keep declining in price. Fluctuations in commodity prices aside. So we'll see purchase price parity towards the end of the decade. So the rebate shouldn't be static. My personal proposal would be to rebate any BEV below $75k drive away price (not some base MSRP nonsense). $8k in 2022. Goes down $1k per year to $0 in 2030. I'd set the PHEV rebate at 50% of the BEV rebate. Maybe a minimum threshold range or battery capacity that goes up every year for PHEVs to qualify.

Quebec is already at that. The model range and inventory limits some sales but for many especially in the higher end market an ICE Audi Q5 can do a lot an electric can't. Filling up in 2 minutes anywhere in North America doe starters. They need to be cheaper up front to get real penetration.

[Tesladom]

Those who look at "Cheaper Upfront" don't understand Maths.

My friend had a similar argument, I was encouraging him to look at the AWD ID4 for his next vehicle ($50MSRP - $5k Federal). He is looking a Kia Sorrento

The Math was something like $750/month for the AWD Mid trim Sorrento and $900/month for the ID4
If you account for fuel, the Sorrento will cost $200/month while ID4 around $50

Net monthly cost is exactly the same!

But, the EV will cost less in maintenance and have a higher resale value, better driving, more convenient etc etc...

There is no real cost gap

Even the Tesla Model 3 at $66,900 for the Dual Motor is right in line with a BMW 340i for example, even without gas savings, Model Y is in line with BMW X3 M40

50% of the market is comprise of vehicles over $40k ($50k+ comparative value for an EV due to cost savings)

[Tesladom]

My proposal for incentives has always been a net-zero cost solution, based around carbon/emissions pricing using the HST as the tool, where HST would vary based on vehicle, say from 0% to 20%

Quick math

Create a sliding tax scale for all passenger vehicles based on emissions (Cars light duty truck and SUVs)
HST tax rate would be based on L/100km or Annual Carbon emission (or similar)
The worse culprits, say Cadillac Escalade would pay 20% HST, then like a an F150, 18%, Honda Accord 4cyl 13%, Honda Civic 8%, Prius 5% and Full Battery EV 0%
The intent is that the program is cost neutral
If people get upset at 0% tax on EVs, make it for the first $60k (then 13%)

Every year, based on the market trends and taxation revenue, the rate would change

Simple program, cost neutral

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Quebec is already at that.

Quebec is. The rest of the country isn't. And there isn't much hope of most provincial governments doing much. So really, it's up to the feds to do a bit more to get adoption moving. Given the way prices are coming down though, I doubt they really need to have large rebates for a long period of time though. What they need are rebates that close the price gap and a deadline or scheme of diminishing rebates, that pressures industry to get moving on supply.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The model range and inventory limits some sales but for many especially in the higher end market an ICE Audi Q5 can do a lot an electric can't. Filling up in 2 minutes anywhere in North America doe starters. They need to be cheaper up front to get real penetration.

The models are coming. Over the next 24-36 months, we'll see competitive offerings hit the market in virtually every major category. They don't need to be cheaper than ICEV. Just reasonably close so that the premium to go electric is manageable for most buyers. You will never be able to convince that hypothetical Q5 buyer who wants 2 mins filling. Let them pay $1.7/L for premium. There's plenty of buyers to address well ahead of that marginal case.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Those who look at "Cheaper Upfront" don't understand Maths.

My friend had a similar argument, I was encouraging him to look at the AWD ID4 for his next vehicle ($50MSRP - $5k Federal). He is looking a Kia Sorrento

The Math was something like $750/month for the AWD Mid trim Sorrento and $900/month for the ID4
If you account for fuel, the Sorrento will cost $200/month while ID4 around $50

Net monthly cost is exactly the same!

But, the EV will cost less in maintenance and have a higher resale value, better driving, more convenient etc etc...

There is no real cost gap

I see this comparison often. But it is a bit disingenuous. A lot of financiers will still hold the higher borrowing against you. You may get easier credit from the financing arm of the OEM. But then you see credit access go down elsewhere (Line of Credit, mortgage, etc.). So for a lot of people, even if the sticker shock isn't there, access to capital is very much a consideration. This will get better with time, both as purchase prices come down, and as financiers get a better handle on total cost of ownership of BEVs (including what the residuals should be).

Originally Posted by Tesladom

50% of the market is comprise of vehicles over $40k ($50k+ comparative value for an EV due to cost savings)

Sure. But it's not like for like. A lot of the vehicles in the over $40k category are larger SUVs and pickup trucks. A lot of the BEVs in this category are still sedans and crossovers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Filling up in 2 minutes anywhere in North America doe starters.

That 2 minutes only applies if you have a gas pump in your driveway. To do an apples to apples comparison, you need to include all of the time spent driving to the gas station. Sometimes you might decide to pop in while you are driving by it anyway, but other times you need to make a larger detour (or even a special trip).

With an EV, it is easier to put charging at home or other places you are wanting to go to anyway, in a similar parking spot to the one that you would have used. In time, EV charging will be as ubiquitous (if not even more) as gas stations are today. The difference is they will be where people are wanting to park their cars.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They need to be cheaper up front to get real penetration.

It depends on the customer, but I do tend to agree. The owners of commercial vehicles tend to look at the total cost of ownership, not just the sticker price.

Up until now the reductions in battery prices per kWh have gone towards using larger batteries while keeping the vehicle price the same, not cheaper prices. With vehicles being produced that have ample range, they can switch to lowering prices.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It depends on the customer, but I do tend to agree. The owners of commercial vehicles tend to look at the total cost of ownership, not just the sticker price.

Up until now the reductions in battery prices per kWh have gone towards using larger batteries while keeping the vehicle price the same, not cheaper prices. With vehicles being produced that have ample range, they can switch to lowering prices.

Fleet owners are all going electric this decade. If they haven't already started the conversion process, they will be be compelled by competition to do so. The math is so favourable for most of them.

Consumers, however, are extraordinarily sensitive to purchase price unfortunately.

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Those who look at "Cheaper Upfront" don't understand Maths.

My friend had a similar argument, I was encouraging him to look at the AWD ID4 for his next vehicle ($50MSRP - $5k Federal). He is looking a Kia Sorrento

The Math was something like $750/month for the AWD Mid trim Sorrento and $900/month for the ID4
If you account for fuel, the Sorrento will cost $200/month while ID4 around $50

Net monthly cost is exactly the same!

But, the EV will cost less in maintenance and have a higher resale value, better driving, more convenient etc etc...

There is no real cost gap

Even the Tesla Model 3 at $66,900 for the Dual Motor is right in line with a BMW 340i for example, even without gas savings, Model Y is in line with BMW X3 M40

50% of the market is comprise of vehicles over $40k ($50k+ comparative value for an EV due to cost savings)

Isn't a Sorrento a 3 row vs. a 2 row? Very different use cases for those. What is the cost of a 3 row EV?

A base Kona $22,099, an electric Kona is $43,899 (38,899), saying there is no real cost gap is silly, regardless of the maintenance and fuel benefits.

Yes, EVs can definitely be cheaper than comparable ICEs and have a lot of benefits comparaed to ICEs. The reality is, whether we like it or not, people don't look at the long run with their purchases, they look at the now. Just like range and winter anxiety, whether or not its correct its there for most consumers atm.



I wish Canada would follow Europe's plan with fleet emissions, then OEMs would actually prioritize EV deliveries to Canada. Currently we get EVs (EV6 & Ioniq5 & ID4) so far after Europe gets them as European deliveries are prioritized to meet them. Hard to increase EV market share faster when we get so little.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure. But it's not like for like. A lot of the vehicles in the over $40k category are larger SUVs and pickup trucks. A lot of the BEVs in this category are still sedans and crossovers.

Let's face it, most people don't need these big honking vehicles either

There is no way to make a BEV pickup truck or full size SUV affordable and efficient.
Too heavy, bad aero, needs larger battery (which adds cost and even more weight), ....death spiral

Again, what's wrong with ID4 (apart from its limited availability)?

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

Isn't a Sorrento a 3 row vs. a 2 row? Very different use cases for those. What is the cost of a 3 row EV?

Comparing the Sorrento with friend since he currently drive one (5 passenger)
Let's face it, I would not want to sit in that 3rd row, if you need 3 rows get a minivan!
I doubt many people ever really use the 3rd rows on mid-size SUVs. We had it in our previous Santa Fe, it was horrible

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

A base Kona $22,099, an electric Kona is $43,899 (38,899), saying there is no real cost gap is silly, regardless of the maintenance and fuel benefits.

Sorry - if you are talking about EVs you need to talk about real purpose built EVs. The Kona is a crappy car to start and making EV does not improve it

New Ionic5 (and Kia EV6) are better examples of real EVs (other than Tesla of course). Already seen a few Ionic5's on the road. Nothing wrong with this car either:
https://www.hyundaicanada.com/en/shopping-tools/buildandprice/build?step=2&model=2022-ioniq-5

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

My proposal for incentives has always been a net-zero cost solution, based around carbon/emissions pricing using the HST as the tool, where HST would vary based on vehicle, say from 0% to 20%

Quick math

Create a sliding tax scale for all passenger vehicles based on emissions (Cars light duty truck and SUVs)
HST tax rate would be based on L/100km or Annual Carbon emission (or similar)
The worse culprits, say Cadillac Escalade would pay 20% HST, then like a an F150, 18%, Honda Accord 4cyl 13%, Honda Civic 8%, Prius 5% and Full Battery EV 0%
The intent is that the program is cost neutral
If people get upset at 0% tax on EVs, make it for the first $60k (then 13%)

Every year, based on the market trends and taxation revenue, the rate would change

Simple program, cost neutral

My biggest concern is that the "benefit" (reduced taxes) received by EV's would be proportional to the cost of the EV, but in many ways cheaper vehicles need more assistance to become affordable than expensive ones.

I also thought of having the "benefit" proportional to the battery size, but that would tilt the scale towards less efficient vehicles, so maybe the best option would be to make the subsidy proportional to the vehicle's range. The same formula could then be used for PHEVs (but using only the battery range).

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

My proposal for incentives has always been a net-zero cost solution, based around carbon/emissions pricing using the HST as the tool, where HST would vary based on vehicle, say from 0% to 20%

Quick math

Create a sliding tax scale for all passenger vehicles based on emissions (Cars light duty truck and SUVs)
HST tax rate would be based on L/100km or Annual Carbon emission (or similar)
The worse culprits, say Cadillac Escalade would pay 20% HST, then like a an F150, 18%, Honda Accord 4cyl 13%, Honda Civic 8%, Prius 5% and Full Battery EV 0%
The intent is that the program is cost neutral
If people get upset at 0% tax on EVs, make it for the first $60k (then 13%)

Every year, based on the market trends and taxation revenue, the rate would change

Simple program, cost neutral

I'd like to see something like this, dis-incentivizing people from buying cars rather than giving them money to buy a certain kind. Instead of giving out rebates for electric cars, they should be plowing that money into transit or helping car-share expand. Shifting everyone to personal EVs isn't fixing the underlying problems of our car-centric cities.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I also thought of having the "benefit" proportional to the battery size, but that would tilt the scale towards less efficient vehicles, so maybe the best option would be to make the subsidy proportional to the vehicle's range. The same formula could then be used for PHEVs (but using only the battery range).

I disagree with rating it to Battery size, the Model 3SR+ has 55kw battery and travels 430km. Most non-EV owners always get hung up on battery range, while it is important is not necessarily relevant to people who have access to home charging.
It's all about efficiency, why pay for extra batteries, and need to carry around that extra weight?
Common argument I hear from non-EV owners, along with the question (how long does it take to charge... to which I answer - how long do you sleep for?). people overprovision their charging capacity at home, then get screwed over with 200AMP panel upgrades etc. a Simple 30AMP dryer outlet (24AMp 240v) is even borderline overkill

Model 3SR+ is plenty good enough with 30AMP home charging

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I'd like to see something like this, dis-incentivizing people from buying cars rather than giving them money to buy a certain kind. Instead of giving out rebates for electric cars, they should be plowing that money into transit or helping car-share expand. Shifting everyone to personal EVs isn't fixing the underlying problems of our car-centric cities.

That's another argument, it's not like I'm going to start taking the bus any time soon (Sorry if I sound like an @ss but its the truth)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I'd like to see something like this, dis-incentivizing people from buying cars rather than giving them money to buy a certain kind. Instead of giving out rebates for electric cars, they should be plowing that money into transit or helping car-share expand. Shifting everyone to personal EVs isn't fixing the underlying problems of our car-centric cities.

You're right on principle. Unfortunately, we can't penalize gas consumption enough to give enough of a push. And there's a large segment of the population that would revolt against all climate policy if we didn't offer a way for them to convert to EVs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

A base Kona $22,099, an electric Kona is $43,899 (38,899), saying there is no real cost gap is silly, regardless of the maintenance and fuel benefits.

That isn't an apples to apples comparison though. If you look at the list of included features of the base model, you will notice that the EV is pimped out significantly more and part of what you are paying for is those extra features.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

That's another argument, it's not like I'm going to start taking the bus any time soon (Sorry if I sound like an @ss but its the truth)

It's more like make it possible to live without a car but still be able to get to the places you need to go. Not saying you can't have a car, but the government incentivizing car ownership should maybe be reconsidered.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by silvergate

It's more like make it possible to live without a car but still be able to get to the places you need to go. Not saying you can't have a car, but the government incentivizing car ownership should maybe be reconsidered.

The thing is there isn't a single, magic bullet that will get to net zero. It will need a combination of many actions. Increased use of transit certainly needs to be a major component, but for those who can't (or won't) use transit, I would rather see them using an EV than a ICEV. The subsidies aren't there to encourage people to buy cars, but to make it easier to buy an EV instead of an ICEV.