2014 YTD California/US Electric Drive Sales Data

New august figures are out
California Electric Vehicle Sales Zip Past 100,000

So if we do cumulative for 2012-2014 (not including 2010-2011 7857 but we don't have the break down)
43,411 BEVs, 51,175 PHEVs, 94,586 total (46% bev)
This works out to 42% of plug-ins sold in america.

For you national grid junkies if 42% charge on the california grid, with less than 10% coal, how can half of charging be coal? Now some will claim this will force california to burn more coal, but between 2010 and 2013 coal use dropped 22% (-3.7 Twh), while electricity production increased 2%. The big gain was in natural gas use to make up for the missing coal (choice), and nuclear (SCE bad maintenance), and lower hydro (drought). Wind increased by 6.5 Twh, solar by 3.2 Twh. 39% of plug-in owners by an old survey in california go solar.

 

The numbers are consistant, this report only included plug-ins though, not non plug-in hybrids. I am not sure where the erosion is.

The grid adapts to changes slowly. The figures I gave were from the california energy almanac, which comes from the california government.
Electricity Forecasts
More plug-ins should, in california create a higher amount of renewables and lower percentage of coal (per carb rules and ab32). Drilling down we have a lower ghg footprint in the bay area, than in southern california.

 

IMHO, that "30,000" figure is bogus on multiple counts:

• The depressed sales were Sept 2013 to March 2014
• After March 2014, sales recovered to pre-Sept 2013 levels, certainly by May 2014
• The "30,000" number comes from trolls and hybrid skeptics whose innumeracy is inversely proportional to their . . .

Bob Wilson

 

I've got to disagree here. The 30,000 number comes from hybrid cars dashboard or cobb's sources for hybrids yoy january to august.
August 2014 Dashboard - HybridCars.com
2014 - 325,484
2013 - 356,334
down 8.7%, while the auto sales increased 5%

Mitigating factors, these numbers are the rapid growth in hybrids, up 14% in 2013 and a whopping 63% in 2012. Let's face it the prius sales have a lot of seasonality to them, and they are on a 6.5 year cycle. We can't expect straightline upward sales in hybrids when the biggest seller (prius liftback) still commands 28% of the market. The liftback was down over 16%, and accounts for 17,591 in less sales than last year, most of the difference. The two other big laggards the c-max and prius v are down a combined 12.500. These are described as the crossover hybrids, but may not be crossover enough for the market, and the c-max's revisions down in mpg definitely hurt sales. Some of these customers moved to camry or fusion hybrids, but a lot probably moved to other crossovers. The Rav4 is up more than they are down.

Finally plug-ins are up 18,000, and continue rapid growth. Some of this canbalizes hybrids. Let's say 30%, then 5,400 missing hybrids probably bought plug-ins instead.

The drop in hybrid sales appears to be outside of california though, meaning low gas prices likely are part of the volitility. I filled up for $3.21 yeasterday, and that may push people to efficient ice cars.

 

• With September, 7,000 Prius move from 'this year' to 'last year' an absolute change of 14,000
• With October, nearly 8,000 Prius 'hop' the yearly boundary and wipes out the 30,000

So in about 60 days, I'm going to have fun with the trolls and hybrid skeptics!

'Wow! Did you see the hybrid sales take off? They completely wiped out the 30,000 deficit in just two months!'​

I'm a patient Prius owner and will enjoy it. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

All of the freeway lanes are clogged up around here anyway. In So Cal, we have the infamous, "El Toro 'Y' " where the south OC 405 & 5 freeways join . . . . IIRC 23 lanes across, including the 4 HOV lanes. At 4PM they're all going around 10mph. This is a weekend satellite shot ... but you can just imagine during a 4pm week-day evening drive:



don't even think of getting out of your broken down plugin and running to the shoulder

but I will say this . . . our HOV stickers come in handy, as there's a south bound 2 lane 'HOV-only' exit just 1 mile north of this mess ... and even tho I'm just 3 miles from home at that point ... it can easily save me 10 minutes getting out of this mess early.
.

 

Certainly my problem with the critics is they are looking at variablility on a 6.5 year cycle, but only using 8 months of data. The last 4 months of 2013 had a fall in sales, if we don't have a similar fall this year, hybrids will make up some ground. The thing is edmunds, the group pushing this discussion, is talking take rate, and vehicle sales are up 5%. The take rate is likely going to be down even if we have a boom at the end of the year. Hybrid (no plugs) peaked last year at 3.19%, we are at 2.92% year to date but last year we were at 3.36% at this point before the drop off.

I don't have a chrystal ball. If we check electrified (plug-ins + hybrids) the market can easily make up the 12,000 vehicles that is its behind last year. I expect electrified to have a bigger take rate in 2015 than in 2013, and this to accelerate in 2016.

If we are looking without a plug, hybrids grew rapidly from 2003-2007, then dropped through 2011, then rapid growth with new models in 2012 and 2013. Take rate increased in 2008 and 2009 as hybrids dropped less than the general auto market. We won't have significant new models untl the end of next year, and gasoline prices look stable, so I see falling take rates in 2014 and 2015 consolidating the gaines in 2012 and 2013, before a big bump in sales in 2016 and 2017. By that time we will have new models, and even if gas prices don't spike, the cost (hybrid premium) should drop.

Low gas prices make it difficult for hybrids without plugs to gain share. The other problem mentioned in forbes trying to be fair on this issue is lack of good offerings in CUV and trucks. I don't see Toyota or Ford bringing out good offerings here without plugs before 2018.

Tesls X in april and outlander phev at the end of next year should increase electrified sales more than losses in hybrids in this segment, but take rate will be very small in the segment. We have no date for a hybrid or plug-in pick up truck. We had hybrid trucks from gm that got it wrong, the hybrid system cost too much. We need these high hp awd systems to drop in cost.

 

It's called "lying with statistics". California has a clean at-home mix, but the bureaucrats conveniently do Not include the coal-generated electricity imported from neighboring Midwest states. It makes the bureaucrats & politicians look better. More liberal & green

 

The drop between 2010 and 2013 was mainly imports. California used to use about 8.5% coal, mainly imported, but this is dropping fast, and may be under 2% by 2025. The big coal imports From Nevada has closed 3 of 4 units, the last will be closed in 2017.
Nevada Votes To Close Coal Plant | Coal | ReWire | KCET
The big offender is LADPW which contracted coal from Arizona and Utah, but they say they will be off coal in 2025
LADWP to Eliminate Coal-fired Power from Energy Mix by 2025

If all these new plug-in cars were going to cause coal to be burned, then califorian would be importing more coal electricity not less. California's green imports from other states likely causes more brown and black burned there, but this is overwhelmingly going to be natural gas, not coal.

 

Understood.

 

IMHO, this is true but only half the story. My understanding is that most HOV lanes were implemented as part of various cities efforts to deal with air quality issues. Reducing the number of vehicles on the road, and reducing congestion on roadways have both been seen historically as "low hanging fruit" for reducing total vehicle sourced emissions. While allowing single drivers of low/no emissions vehicles to have HOV access might run contrary to the goal of reducing congestion and number of vehicles on the road, it is consistent with the original intent of reducing overall vehicle emissions. Letting people pay to drive their same old vehicle solo in HOV lanes is pure political BS as far as I can tell.

 

I would say that HOV lanes to reduce unhealthy pollution should be measured if that was a goal. I doubt it did anything positive here. Although hybrids do reduce tailpipe pollution, they don't really pollute more in the slower lanes. A better strategy to reduce pollution would be to give old cars hov stickers for 2 years (heavier polluters) then force the owners to sell. Those are the cars that polute more on the highway, and pollution is reduced if they went a more stable speed. Percent of hybrids sold in california has not been high enough to reduce tailpipe pollution in the most polluted areas. The average car in california is 11 years old.

HOV stickers did sell more hybrids than would have happened naturally, but other strategies would have reduced pollution in LA, Bakersfield, tec faster. A new car on average produces only 13% of the tailpipe pollution of a new car built in 2000. Remove more of the pre 2004 cars from the road, and the air would get cleaner.

 

"force" people to sell their old cars? That law would be struckdown by the Supreme Court which has ruled, repeatedly, that a person may not be deprived of property, or barred from traveling freely within the U.S. (whether with a horse-drawn carriage like our ancestors, or a horseless carriage).

 

We have numerous regulations that force cars out of the fleet. That is not depriving people on their property.

In the most polluted state in the nation, I would think it would be much cheaper to rid the fleet of the biggest polluters, and if people are responsible, they may be required to send them out of state or country. California instead is selling hov lanes, which deprives non-hov drivers of their property in terms of tax money. I no longer live in california, but it is clear from someone out of state how it would be less expensive to remove the bad, then force the zev.

The average new vehicle has less than 1/7 of the tailpipe pollution of the average light vehicle produced in 2000. The average age of a vehicle in the LA area is over 11 years old. It would seem that if starting in say 5 years, the worst 1%/year were forced out of the most polluted cities (LA, Long Beach, Bakersfield) that in 15 years tailpipe pollution would drop drastically, likely 90% from today's figures. This would have a much bigger effect than the zev mandates that CARB is now making. Or alternatively we can declare victory and say tailpipes are clean enough.