Next up: GM

Okay, as I’ve laid out in the past, Tesla seems poised to defer selling #200,000 until July.  We’re now only 2 weeks away and it seems almost certain that if they have in fact crossed that milestone, they would have announced it.  And if they haven’t crossed it yet, it would be incredibly silly to do so in these final 2 weeks.

Okay, so let’s move on to the next manufacturer getting ready to cross that boundary:  GM

Originally when I laid out my forecast, it looked like Tesla would cross at the beginning of 2Q and GM sometime in 3Q.

We all know that Tesla continued to experience delays and shifted into the very beginning of 3Q.  This would have essentially put them on par with GM vis a vis the federal tax credit with them both starting to phase out in 3Q.

But whereas the BoltEV started to be really taking off at the end of last year (perhaps buoyed by a uncertainty about the fate federal tax credit at the end of 2017), it had a poor start to 2018, eventually peaking at 1,774 sales in March and has been in a steep decline ever since.  Fortunately the Volt has picked up some of that slack.  While I anticipate that Bolt sales will recover in the second half of the year, this decline has pushed out my estimate for GM crossing the 200K barrier into 4Q.  I am currently estimating that they will exit 3Q with 193,271 sales, and 4Q with 202,873.  This will put them one quarter behind Tesla in terms of tax credit available.

So you may think:  That’s less than 3,000 vehicles, which represents only about 2-3 weeks of sales if we assume last year’s December results.  Could GM do the same as Tesla is doing this quarter and simply defer sales to 1Q19?  Certainly there would be a price tailwind condition set up vis a vis Tesla that they could take advantage of to potentially sell more Bolts, but the situation with GM differs from that of Tesla in several ways:

  1. I’m actually not even sure that GM cares about winning Model 3 customers away from Tesla.  They certainly don’t act like it with their marketing efforts to date.
  2. While lost revenue of the Bolt and Volt as we near the end of 2018 might not be all that noticeable on the GM balance sheet, nonetheless they will still want to have a good year end showing and their corporate culture is not so much about “doing the right thing”, especially for EV buyers, which I think they’d prefer not to help out.
  3. Unlike Tesla that has direct control over their sales and delivery channels, GM vehicles are sold to customers by independent dealers that each and every month (and certainly at the end of quarters and years) will go to great lengths to meet sales quotas, regardless of whether it’s a Bolt or a Silverado.  While I suppose GM could technically put a do-not-sell order out there to hold off on selling Bolts & Volts, this would be an extreme measure and not a popular one with their dealer network.  The only real control GM has over sales is their dealer allocations, and that too would be an extreme measure to let the inventory dry up across the whole country, particularly at the beginning of the new model year.  This would really be a disaster for GM and not likely to ever occur.

So GM’s strategy will simply be to keep selling Bolts & Volts as best they can and let the eggs fall where they may.  And if my estimates prove to be just a little optimistic, that may in fact be in 1Q19, but as of right now, I am predicting that they will cross the milestone in early December 2018.

Charging Station Infrastructure

Let’s change gears for a bit…

If you’ve ever discussed EVs with someone who’s never driven one, one  of the reasons you’ve heard about why they have not considered an EV is because there are not enough charging stations out there.

Of course they have no idea how many charging stations are actually out there because they are looking for something that looks like a gas station.  Usually a view of the Plugshare map on my phone elicits a bit of a jaw drop, but technically speaking, unless we are talking about Manhattan, the number of public charging stations compared to gas stations is really very small.

But that’s okay for a couple of reasons:

  1. The number of EVs on the road today is pretty tiny, so not as many charging stations are needed.
  2. For most people, the vast majority (if not all) of charging takes place at home, not at a public charging station.

On the other hand:

  1. The range of EVs is still relatively low compared to gas cars, so they would need to charge more often.
  2. An EV needs to sit at a charging station much longer than a gas car has to sit at a gas pump.
  3. One gas station might have anywhere between 4 and 20 (or more!) gas pumps, whereas many charging station sites have 1 or 2 (Tesla Supercharger sites obviously excepted).
  4. The number of EVs on the road is poised to increase greatly.
  5. More EV owners will live in apartments or condos that don’t have ready access to charging stations today.

So what is the right amount of public charging we need?

Well I have no doubt that as the number of EVs start to proliferate, the charging station infrastructure will keep up, even if it lags behind and creates a bit of frustration during the ramp up. However, I recently took a different view of why we need more charging infrastructure NOW.

L2 charging stations are one thing.  They are generally pretty reliable and relatively plentiful, and while I myself have had to rely upon them, at the end of the day if one is broken, or in use, or ICEd, it is probably not the end of the world.  There is likely one at least relatively near by, or the driver may have to find a quick charge station somewhere while en route.

But quick charge stations, especially those on travel routes, are a different story.  Even counting Tesla Superchargers, quick charge stations provide a vital link on travel corridors, and in many instances if the quick charge station you need is down or in use, you may be in a world of hurt while on a trip.  For this reason, it is advisable that there always be at least a pair of quick chargers located in near proximity of each other.  If I were going on a trip and there were a single quick charger at a critical spot, I would be extremely nervous about relying upon it.

Now this is nothing new.  I’ve said for years that we should have at least pairs of quick chargers.  But an analysis of the situation here in my state of North Carolina, and particularly along the travel routes between Raleigh and Charlotte that I have successfully navigated in my LEAF, has given me some new insight.

Here is  a map of that travel corridor showing quick chargers compatible with the LEAF.  In the upper right is the Raleigh/Durham area with plenty of options.  Actually I should be embarrassed by the apparent number of charging stations:  a year after I bought my first LEAF there weren’t any in the whole state!  The Charlotte area is in the lower right and again, there are plenty of options.

The primary corridor between these two cities is along I-85 and I-40 and is about 150 miles.  Definitely outside the range of my LEAF, so at least one stop is required.  Now I say at least one stop, because if there were a charging station right in the middle (at High Point), it would be quite doable.  There is even a Nissan dealer right off the highway there, but alas, there is no quick charger.  So the alternative is to stop twice, once at the charger in Burlington (partially obscured) and then at the charger in Salisbury (partially obscured).  The distance between these two chargers is actually a stretch…I barely made it to Burlington from Salisbury one time, and if the charger in Burlington had been down it would have been a long wait at the Nissan dealer’s L2 charger to get enough charge to make it to Durham.

Now the alternate route is through Asheboro along US-64.  In this case, it violates my rule of relying on a single charger, and in this case it’s even more of an issue because there aren’t even any good L2 backups in the area.  I did risk it one time, successfully, but I was very nervous about it the whole way.  And, as you can see in the map, the charger is currently down.

The Asheboro charger is at a Nissan dealer, as is the one in Burlington, Salisbury, and one of the ones in Greensboro.  Sometimes you get Nissan dealers that actually care about keeping their quick chargers up and running, but I’ve found that most of the time they simply don’t care.  This is the case with Asheboro and Greensboro, and to a certain extent, Burlington.  The last known successful charge in Asheboro was 9 months ago, and the dealer seems totally uninterested in getting it fixed.

So let’s talk about the Greensboro option, which is related to my latest insight.  There are two chargers in Greensboro which, like Salisbury, is ideal because if one breaks, you have the other as a backup.  The problem with the Greensboro chargers, however, is that they are at least 15-20 minutes off route (even more if you have to go to the western one, which is the dealer, as a backup).  On the plus side, the eastern one is downtown with a few L2 stations nearby as a backup, and there are restaurants nearby.  Plus it’s nearly at the halfway point, so you could almost (but not quite) make the trip in one stop.

Here’s the problem:

The western charger (at the Nissan dealer) is working now, but it had a similar story to Asheboro.  For at least 7 months last year, the charging station was offline and the dealer seemed to have a disinterest in fixing it.  It’s up now, but it’s hard to build up that trust.

But that’s only a backup anyway.  How about the other charger in downtown Greensboro?  This one one is managed by Greenlots (a reputable network), but owned by a NC company that initially set out to put in charging stations across the state, but now it appears they have moved on to other interests and maintaining their installations is not a priority.  So this particular station is now down with no indication that it will be fixed.  And to add insult to injury, the two nearby L2 stations have been problematic as well (broken screens) that the city does not appear interested in fixing.

So it was after reading the various plugshare comments of all these charging stations that led me to my latest insight:

Even if we don’t need excessive charging infrastructure, we need excessive charging infrastructure if only to provide a critical mass of owners, operators, repair people and parts suppliers whose primary jobs are to maintain and keep the network up and running and actually care about their network.  I’m disappointed enough that quick chargers are as unreliable as they are, but to see these stations sit for months without anyone caring about fixing them is disheartening.  There needs to be a level of service whereby a down station can be brought back up within hours, not months.  Even the level of service at evGO stations in my area, which is exceptional compared to these other anecdotes is that it may take several days to repair a broken station.  But at least they seem to care and it seems like there it’s probably an issue of getting parts and manpower to a spread out network.

I realize that the quick charging business is a tough one.  Expensive chargers, demand charges for electricity, a customer set used to charging at home and paying relatively cheap prices for electricity and not willing to pay what it’s going to cost to have a well maintained network of quick chargers and allow the companies that run those networks to actually make a profit.  But unfortunately that’s what it’s going to take.  A cheap quick charger solution that is unreliable is not going to be sustainable.  You may as well not even waste your time.

P.S. to Nissan:  the dealer model is not working.  Nobody wants to spend time at a dealer charging their car.  The dealers don’t really want you there using their rest rooms and waiting room while using their electricity and causing them to spend thousands of dollars on maintaining the charging stations.  You are far better off spending your money on partnering with convenience stores and installing your charging stations there.  I do appreciate at least the effort to establish a charging network, but yours is completely broken.  Please take a cue from Tesla on how to create a workable charging network.

IMO, it is all but assured that Tesla will defer 200K until 3Q

As we are now in the second half the 2Q, the consensus opinion is very quickly becoming that Tesla is attempting to push delivery of car #200K out until 3Q, thus prolonging the full US tax credit until December 31, 2018.  It’s not a unanimous opinion for sure, but every day it’s looking more and more likely.  The most contrarian opinion is that of TMC and Model 3 Owner’s Club poster Troy who thinks it’s likely that Tesla has already crossed 200K (or will any day now):  https://model3ownersclub.com/threads/tesla%E2%80%99s-progress-to-200k-us-deliveries-federal-tax-credit-phaseout-op-updated-5-7-18.5437/page-21#post-104512

In the quoted post he believes it is 90% certain that they will cross (or have already) 200K in May, and 99% certain they will cross by the end of June.

Now on the one hand it’s hard to argue numbers with Troy.  His Model 3 Delivery estimator is renowned for being “spot on” and he tracks every last tweet and tidbit of data he can get about Tesla and crunches the numbers.  He probably has a better handle than most on Tesla’s numbers.  But in my opinion, he sometimes gets lost in the details and can’t see the forest for the trees.  And his delivery estimator accuracy is nothing more than a parlor trick:  what he is able to correctly infer, based on your reservation time, your place in line as compared to all other reservation holders, and when you are at the beginning of the queue for those that haven’t received an invite yet, your turn is likely up next, and lo and behold, once the invite comes in, it turns out his estimate is deadly accurate.  But so is your file download dialog accurate when it says you have 1 second to go.  The estimate it gave you 3 minutes ago wasn’t quite as accurate, and the same is true with the estimator.  For those further out dates, every time there is a new piece of data revealed, his model jumps around significantly, sometimes months at a time.

Unless you are truly in the know at Tesla and have actual production numbers, trying to create a super-precise model using data that is inherently imprecise is going to result in predictions that have a lot of precision, but aren’t terribly accurate (unless you get lucky every now and then).  Therefore I prefer a simpler model that is periodically calibrated to fit the data that comes in, but never try to fit a model that incorporates ALL data that is flooding in.

At any rate, I digress.  For some reason when Troy adds up his numbers for Tesla’s sales to date, he estimates it between 198K-202K as of May 24.  I really don’t know where he is getting that figure.  I suspect he may be confusing production and delivery.  Now I admit that I put a lot (let’s even say 100%) of faith in InsideEVs estimates.  But let’s face it, they have access to better data than others do, and an excellent track record.  And they have gone back to adjust their numbers when needed.  Now when I add up InsideEVs estimates, along with my own estimates for the month of May (and predictions for June), I have Tesla at right around 192K as of today (I’ll explain my numbers shortly).  And actually I recently revised my figures down by 1,900 after re-reading the federal tax credit notice that states that it only applies to vehicles built after December 31, 2009, so the 1,900 Roadsters I had taken into account don’t even count!

So where do I get my figures?  Well as I mentioned, I take InsideEVs at their word through the end of April.  And that brings Tesla to a total of 183,795 at the end of April.

Now looking forward into May and June:

First of all, I assume a fairly typical Model S & X delivery schedule of 1836 & 2754 Model S deliveries and 1326 and 1989 Model X deliveries respectively.  Now, there have been some indications that Tesla would shift some S & X deliveries abroad.  This would be a great strategy to help defer 200K to 3Q.  But for now, let’s go with these numbers.

As for Model 3, I am trying to separate production from delivery.  For purposes of the tax credit, only delivery counts.  So when we read reports of the Model 3 line producing 2,250 vehicles in a week, it’s important to note that those vehicles still need to be shipped, prepped and delivered.  In the case of remote east cost points of delivery, that might be up to 5 weeks later due to the various delays in shipping cars across the country.  So I have built into my model a lag factor that follows the typical Tesla pattern of designating vehicles for east coast points earlier in the quarter, and west coast points later in the quarter (although this is typically done to boost end of quarter deliveries, which is certainly not the goal if they want to defer deliveries, but it doesn’t really change the numbers).

So my delivery numbers for the week ending May 5, for example, really represents what was produced at the factory the week ending Mar 31, and so on down to the deliveries for week ending Jun 30, representing cars built week ending Jun 16 (and delivered close to the factory).

Also keep in mind that we are dealing with two factory shutdowns:  one during the week ending April 21, and one week ending June 2.  I assumed 500 vehicles produced in each of those weeks.  I used the real numbers we had for the last week of March and the first two weeks of April, and the rest I assumed a ramp towards 6000 (probably conservative: Elon only promised 5000) for the last week of June.  Interestingly, Elon recently said in an e-mail that the factory achieved a daily rate that would extrapolate to 3,500 a week, and sure enough, my estimate for the week ending May 26 is 3,500!

So back to what this means for the Tesla total shipments.  If Tesla took no evasive action, my model predicts that they cross 200K on around May 31 (less than a week away), and 225K delivered by the end of the quarter.  So really I’m not too much in disagreement with Troy here.

BUT!  I think Troy’s mistake is that he gets too focused on the numbers and doesn’t consider what else is actually going on and the solid reasons why Tesla would want to push 200K into 3Q.

Consider the following actions and behavior of Tesla recently:

  1. Tesla opened up invites to Canadians in March.  Now it took awhile, but they have finally started receiving their cars.  It’s unclear exactly how many cars will be delivered to Canada (it is thought that many will wait for AWD), but from news reports of sightings of a thousand or more vehicles in Toronto, it does appear to be a fairly sizable number (Tesla in particular prioritized Ontario due to the pending removal of a significant tax credit).  Deliveries to Canada will provide a way for Tesla to realize sales without ticking up the counter in the US.  So I have built into my model a total deferral of 10K vehicles to Canada between this week and the end of the quarter.
  2. Next, and despite back-to-back batches of record invites on 4/13 and 4/18, there has not been a new batch of invites sent out by Tesla for over 5 weeks (since 4/25-26).  This is highly unusual and indicates to me anyway that they are flushing the delivery pipeline.  And any new invites received from here on out would not be delivered until July anyway (although there may not be a huge invite batch sent out even now due to the fact that they are opening up orders for AWD and P models).
  3. Most telling of all is the infamous “delivery delay” e-mails that were sent out.  Tellingly enough, orders placed on 4/18 or earlier stated their deliveries were delayed until June, and orders placed 4/18 or later were delayed until July.  The interesting split somewhere during the day of 4/18 tells me that Tesla believes that the 200K’th car was ordered sometime during that day and they were intentionally slipping out car #200K or later into July.  Now, some “July” orders have been getting VINs assigned and delivery dates scheduled, some as soon as May, so Tesla may be sharpening their pencils somewhat and/or finding ways to defer more vehicles abroad to give even the “July” folks a 2Q delivery, but I think that specific behavior indicates to me the deferral intent.

As I mentioned, diverting Model 3 deliveries to Canada (10K total) shifts my 200K crossover to June 8, and puts us at 212,527 by the end of the quarter.  So more action is needed.

Let’s assume that just an additional 20% of S&X deliveries are diverted abroad.  Well, at this point, S&X deliveries are only a fraction of Model 3 deliveries, so this doesn’t have a tremendous effect.  But it does help.  It brings us down to 211,609, and the crossover point to about June 10.

What this means is that Tesla would have to stockpile about 12,000 Model 3’s (give them a small safety margin) between now and then.  It doesn’t mean that they have to completely shut down deliveries on June 10, they just have to slow down deliveries to a relative “crawl”, which really is not even so much of a crawl…it just means they can deliver at the same rate they do today (around 2000-2500/week if my estimates are correct) with the surplus going to “stockpile”.

By stockpiling those 12,000 vehicles, they can defer crossing 200K until 3Q, deferring the revenue until then as well, which will certainly help their 3Q numbers, almost certainly pushing them to a profitable 3Q (writing off the resultant poor 2Q numbers).

Now 12,000 vehicles sounds like it would need a huge parking lot.  Well yes, if they were all stored in one location.  But why would they do that?  There would be no reason not to pre-ship these cars to be close to their eventual delivery centers.  Because Tesla has not sent out any invites since the end of April, they pretty much know exactly where these vehicles are heading (and perhaps some of the “July delay” folks happen to be getting their deliveries at under-represented delivery centers), so they could be distributing these vehicles to their target centers for delivery ASAP at the beginning of July.  There are around 100 delivery centers across the US, meaning on average, each delivery center would have to accommodate 120 vehicles.  Well that is still a pretty big number for some smaller delivery centers, but that’s only an average.  The Charlotte, NC delivery center, located in an old auto dealership, could likely hold 300 vehicles if they needed to.  And if need be, smaller delivery centers could find local storage options for the month of June and early July.

I really think it is all but assured that Tesla is making a play to defer 200K into July, which would have the tremendous benefit of maximizing the number of buyers eligible for the full credit, not only by getting an extra 12,000 deliveries early in July, but they can take advantage of the full ramp to 5,000 vehicles per week (or more) for the entire two quarters the credit is still at 100%.

 

 

The case for Tesla deferring 200K until July

So I have long been arguing that Tesla would cross the 200K US vehicles barrier in 2Q18, despite optimistic estimates that they would cross it in the first quarter.  Some enthusiasts even thought they would cross it in the final few weeks of 2017!  With the latest news from Tesla, I don’t think anyone believes it will occur in the first quarter any more.

With the latest news from Tesla, there are now some people speculating that Tesla may be able to defer hitting 200K until the third quarter (July 1).  Initially I was definitely not in that camp.  In fact in my post two days ago, I specifically thought that Tesla would hit the 200K mark in late April and there was no way they would defer.

However, between new speculation on what it means that some Canadians are getting earlier delivery estimates for AWD models that even those of us in the US, combined with news that a key Ontario EV tax credit is expiring in June, and a fellow forum member who kindly reminded me that there is a lag between an increase in production at the Gigafactory and actual sales, I have revised my thinking and run the numbers.  The results indicate that it is at least plausible that Tesla may try to do this.

Here is what that would mean:

  1. As was the assumption before (prior to the extended production delays) it will be necessary to divert additional Model S and X overseas above and beyond what Tesla would normally do.  I am assuming a 20% figure.  This will be somewhat hard to swallow for US buyers due to the extremely low inventory of Model S/X already, so build times might climb past 8 weeks from order to delivery.
  2. I am assuming that a best case scenario for the new equipment to be installed and running at the Gigafactory is the end of March.  This will allow the battery module production rate to spike to 2,500 per week, but because the cars using those modules still need to be built, sent to a distribution center, prepped and actually delivered, I am assuming a four week lag before we start seeing the sales ramp hit 2,500 per week.  So I effectively moved my step-wise ramp to the right by 4 weeks.
  3. Finally the key aspect of this plan would be to divert a significant number of Model 3s to Canada.  For simplicity I assumed that up to 2,000 per week (subject to actual production rate) would be diverted to Canada, starting in April through the end of the second quarter (June 30).  This adds up to a total of 23,000 vehicles that otherwise would have been destined to the US, and effectively meaning there would be a 10 week pause in US deliveries before significant numbers were seen again.  During the second quarter, only 9,500 deliveries would be made in the US.  Of course Tesla wouldn’t have to follow this exact plan, but the effectively the numbers would have to work out roughly this way.

With those assumptions, I have Tesla selling a total of 200,246 vehicles as of June 30th, so with only a day or two of halted selling, they could defer selling #200,000 until July 1st.

This is what the ramp I’ve described looks like visually:

The drop in Model 3 sales in April and May represents the diversion to Canada.  The increase in late June represents the factory throughput kicking into high gear, not an end to the diversion to Canada.  After the end of the quarter, this rate would further increase to the full 5,000 per week (6,000 across the whole product range).

The cumulative sales look like this:

The slowdown in sales to the US is noticeable, but not tremendously so.  Of course the impact will surely be felt by those with April to June delivery estimates!

I’m certainly not at the point where I’d be willing to say this is how Tesla will play this, but there are certainly some indications that it may go this way.  As usual it will be very interested to see February sales estimates, any indication of the Model 3 ramp, and probably most importantly if and when Canadians start to get more specific delivery estimates and even invites to configure.  Certainly if we don’t see any of that happening by late March, this plan will not be put into play.  But until then, it’s something to think about.

 

 

How does the Tesla earnings report and subsequent delivery slip affect the tax credit?

Tesla released their 4Q17 earnings report yesterday and subsequently changed the delivery estimates for reservation holders.  How does this affect deliveries and Tesla’s progress towards the EV tax credit phaseout?

Let’s start by taking a look at the delivery estimate shift.  A few days ago, a few reservation holders that had Nov ’17-Jan ’18 delivery estimate windows noticed that their windows had slipped to Feb-Apr ’18.  In and of itself this was not surprising since January had already passed and they still did not have vehicles in their driveways!  In fact, the only surprising thing was that they hadn’t done this shift in early January.  With an approximately 4 week time from order to delivery, if they hadn’t configured by the first week of January, it wasn’t likely they would hit their window anyway.  The community on the various Tesla forums had already pretty much considered the delivery estimate windows to mean not delivery, but invitation to configure, with the invitation itself coming during the last few days of the window.  This caused many reservation holders to mentally add one month to the end of their window for the earliest possible delivery of their vehicle.

Also recall that delivery estimates were generally shifted by a month after the 3Q earnings call.  The single month slip was surprising because at the time they had announced a 3 month delay in their initial ramp estimates.    At the time I noted the discrepancy, but technically with a 3 month window, they could potentially absorb a 4 month delay.  When Tesla further announced another 3 month slip to the ramp, holding the one month delayed delivery windows seemed impossible, but hope was held out that Tesla was sandbagging on their ramp estimates and they would be able to bring production back into the windows.

The net is, given the fact that the delivery estimates were clearly not going to be hit, it really should not come as any big surprise that the windows were reset.  Taking into account the original one month slip and the current three month slip, we are now at a four month delay compared to original estimates.  And with a three month window, we are at least in the neighborhood of Tesla’s estimated six month slip in production ramp.  Hopefully this means we can go back to treating the delivery window as a delivery window and not an invite window.

So for example, my delivery estimates are shown above.  Before yesterday, the First Production estimate read Dec 2017 – Feb 2018, Standard Battery Mid 2018 and Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive had a specific Aug – Oct 2018.  It may have appeared that First Production moved out three months, but at this point the best I was hoping for was an invite on February 28th.  I knew my car would not arrive until late March at the earliest, and probably later than that based on my position in line.

It remains to be seen whether people in the Mar – May window start getting invites in March, but I think they will.  This would confirm that really nothing has changed, but rather that they just reset the delivery windows to more realistic values.  At least for First Production.  The SR and AWD options have apparently moved out more significantly, and this is troubling for those that were waiting for those options as it may mean it will not arrive in time for the full tax credit to be in effect.

So that brings us around to what Tesla said in their earnings report.  Basically they re-affirmed their production estimates of 2,500 vehicles per week by the end of March, and 5,000 vehicles per week by the end of June.  And they gave a specific timeline and explanation of the solution to the bottleneck at the Gigafactory.  The issue, they say, is in moving product between the Zone 1 and Zone 2 stations in the battery module assembly area.  They have built an automatic system at the Tesla Grohmann subsidiary in Germany that is up and running well.  It now has to be taken apart, shipped, re-assembled and brought up to speed at the Gigafactory.  Tesla offered a timeline of late March for this activity to conclude, and this will bring them to the 2,500 vehicle per week level.  Hopefully this is a conservative estimate on Tesla’s part, because that is a significant amount of work to do, and I’m sure there will be hurdles along the way.

After that point, they will start the climb to 5,000 vehicles per week.  The bottleneck then becomes the parts conveyance system at the Fremont factory–basically the machinery that brings all the parts to the assembly line to be added to the car.

This should produce a ramp that looks somewhat like the following:

I believe they have probably gotten to peak throughput using the semi-automatic method described at the Gigafactory, so we are likely to see a fixed limit of about 1,000 vehicles per week until the new equipment from Germany arrives.  Then the rate should shoot up to 2,500 and be more or less fixed until improvements to the conveyance system in Fremont are worked out, at which time we will see a few more steps on the way to 5,000 vehicles per week.

While the total number of vehicles built is somewhat lower than most estimates, it only makes a difference of about 2,000 vehicles (or less than half a week) by the end of June.  So I don’t think this is really the huge deal that the news is making it out to be.

What is significant, however, is Tesla’s apparent decision to prioritize AWD over the Standard Range battery.  I know that there are probably a lot of reservation holders out there that reserved based on the opportunity to get a $35,000 base model vehicle.  However, I think that the feedback Tesla has received so far from reservation holders that are deferring is that the AWD option is actually even more in demand.  So it would appear that they are moving availability of that option up at the expense of the SR option.

 

Post-January sales update

So it has been quite awhile since my last update.  Unfortunately I had some personal matters that came up and I was not able to post a year-end summary.

At any rate, 2017 went out with a bang.  Total US sales across all manufacturers totaled 26,107 which broke the record of 24,785 set last December.  I’m sure the threat of losing the EV tax credit didn’t hurt, although buyers who want an “instant return” on their EV tax credit would normally buy in December anyway.  The end of year is also traditionally a time for sales pushes as well.

Of note, the Chevy BoltEV sold 3227 copies, and the Model S and X had great a great month with 4,975 and 3,300 estimated sales respectively.

On the Model 3 ramp, the news could have been better.  Remember that Elon Musk initially predicted 5,000 Model 3s per week by year end.  Well, the reality turned out to be significantly less than that (which I don’t think surprised anyone).

Tesla did try their best to spin the disappointing news with marketing statements (that seemed like they had the desired effect, as many took the bait) such as their manufacturing lines reached a rate that extrapolated to over 1,000 units per week during the last few days of 2017.  The reality is that the actual production during the last week of 2017 was 793 units, not the 1,000 that most people quickly reading the statement assumed.

At the end of the month, however, only 1060 Model 3s were sold, with 860 “in transit”.  Considering there were also probably a few “in transit” at the beginning of the month, we can estimate that there were probably only 1600 or so Model 3s actually produced in December.  If 793 of those were produced in the last 7 days alone (and that was probably an all out push to generate good news), it doesn’t speak so much for the volume during the rest of the month.

Nonetheless, the news is at least positive that they were able to improve the production rate so dramatically.

This puts the total US sales for Tesla at the end of 2017 at about 161,571.

So how did the January numbers turn out?  As is the case every January, the big push at the end of the year, combined with lousy weather that is typical in January and post-Christmas bills, sales were down.  Way down.  Across the board.

Sales of the Chevy BoltEV plummeted to 1,177, just over a third of what they were the month prior.

Tesla Model S and X sales were estimated to be 800 and 700 respectively, slightly below what they were last January.  Model 3 deliveries were estimated to be 1,875.  Better than December for sure, but still nowhere near the milestone of 1,000 per week.  Rumors are that the factory was shut down for the first week in January, partly to give workers some well deserved R&R after the big December push, but also to perform routine maintenance on the assembly line machinery.  But still, even if you assume 3 weeks in January, and assume the same level of vehicles “in transit”, you’re still only talking an average of 625 vehicles per week.  Still a long way to go.

I actually feel that the number of vehicles “in transit” might be higher.  The reason is that Tesla is having to build out its delivery infrastructure as well.  The first Model 3s were delivered to relatively big delivery centers in California.  Now that vehicles are being distributed across the country, not only does the transit time itself increase, but you have to ship cars to many smaller stores and delivery centers that may not have the throughput that the ones in Fremont and LA have.  However, that excuse only works once.  Now that the pipe is full, we should expect to see more consistent deliveries.

So that puts us at around 165,000 vehicles from Tesla with only 8 weeks left in the quarter.  Even if Tesla were able to produce 4,375 vehicles per week today, they wouldn’t hit 200,000 before the end of the quarter.  I think we can safely put to rest any fear that they will hit 200K this quarter.

But do we need to consider the possibility of Tesla delaying all the way until July 1 to cross that barrier?

I don’t think so.  Assuming a ramp that gets them to 2.5K/week at the end of 1Q18 and 5K/week at the end of 2Q18, I predict they will hit #200,000 around April 25.  This is far too early in the quarter to talk about deferring until 3Q.  So I put the likelihood that they will hit it in 2Q extremely high.

As for other manufacturers, I think we really need to see where sales wind up after looking at February and March.  January’s sales were just too depressed to make any meaningful predictions at this time.  In particular, will Bolt sales end up picking up where they left off?  And what about the Nissan LEAF 2.0?  How well will that sell in the US market?

Stay tuned!

Where are we on the Model 3 ramp?

The biggest question in the EV industry right now is where are we on the Tesla Model 3 ramp?

Prior to the initial handover event at the end of July, Elon Musk tweeted his prediction about the Model 3 ramp, indicating that in the first three months it would grow from 30 to 100 to “above 1500” in September.  He also went on to say that he expected to hit 5,000 per week by the end of the year.  Yes, that is exponential growth!

But like all things Elon says, you do need to take it with a grain of salt.  Clearly this is one optimistic fellow!

So how have things played out with the ramp?

Well July was in fact 30 (actually more were produced for validation purposes, but not sold).  But by the end of September, only a grand total of 260 were produced (220 of which were sold).  Well below the 1630 Elon had predicted.

Well how about October?  Did the expoential growth curve kick in last month?

Well, we can never really know for sure because Tesla does not release monthly sales figures (we will only get a fourth quarter total on or about January 2), but it seems like the answer is no.  InsideEVs predicted only 145 Model 3’s sold.  And the vast army of Tesla watchers that are in Fremont and other locales looking for VIN numbers of cars parked at the Tesla factory and car carriers being loaded (and unloaded) would tend to back that up.  We are not seeing hundreds of vehicles on the roads yet.

Do We Know Anything?

Well yes, there are a few data points we can look at.

Tesla had its third quarter earnings call on November 1, and you better believe the subject of the ramp came up.  Tesla management explained that the reason for the slower than expected ramp was due to bottlenecks in the battery pack production line at the Gigafactory in Nevada, and most specifically in “Zone 1 and Zone 2”, but particularly “Zone 2” of the pack assembly process.  Apparently there are 4 assembly zones that assemble Model 3 battery packs.  It’s a largely automated process and the packs awaiting assembly go through these 4 zones where robots work on them before proceeding to the next zone.  It turns out that zone 2 was not operating correctly, or at least not up to speed.  And since the assembly line is only as fast as its slowest step, it holds up the entire process.  To make matters worse, it’s completely automated so it’s not as simple as diverting more manpower to that step.

Now Tesla told us that they understand the issue.  They have basically had to redesign or at least rewrite the software that runs those zones.  They assure us that they would be able to bring these zones up to speed very soon, and once that happens the rest of the line is ready to ramp up quickly.  On this point I’m still a bit skeptical because I don’t believe the rest of the line has been adequately tested at full speed yet.  Fixing this issue will likely expose a new critical step that they will then have to address.  But things should continue to improve in steps.

As part of the earnings call, Tesla stated two important pieces of information:  they have revised their estimate of when they will reach the 5,000 vehicles per week from the end of 2017 to the end of first quarter 2018; and that they will postpone deciding when to add additional manufacturing capacity to bring their total run rate to 10,000 vehicles per week until they see where they are at on the existing line.  The ever optimistic Musk thinks that the existing line will be able to beat 5,000, perhaps by a significant amount, meaning they may not have to invest as much in expansion.  Let’s put that idea in our next bag of salt for now.

So management indicated what would appear to be a 3 month delay in the ramp.

Tesla reservation holders got a bit different update.  We received an email explaining that there were production issues that were delaying the expected ramp, and that while Tesla understood and was addressing the problem, our expected delivery dates would be updating and we could check our delivery estimators to get an update on our delivery.

Now my estimator previously estimated Nov ’17 – Jan ’18.  This is already an incredibly large window, and my thought was that if anything it would be at the very end of that window anyway.  I am not a Tesla, SpaceX or SolarCity employee, I am not a current Tesla owner, and I’m not on the US west coast, so I don’t get to skip any lines.  I did reserve pre-reveal, however, so that does help.  But a November estimate, even with Elon’s wildly aggressive initial prediction would have indicated I’d probably be in the first 10,000-15,000 and that deliveries would very quickly spread to the east coast.  I always thought January was a safer estimate.

But after the earnings call, my new delivery estimator only slid one month, to Dec ’17 – Feb ’18.  Now in all honesty, this could just as well been a slip from Nov ’17 to Feb ’18, or a four month slide.  But I do actually think that it represents only a single month slide in their estimate, perhaps two.

So was management just being overly cautious with their 3 month delay?  Could it be only a one month delay as indicated by the delivery estimator?

My Take

Well I am going to throw out the idea that it’s only a one month delay.  If it were only one month, we would have seen 1,000-1,500 cars produced in October.  We are simply not seeing evidence of that.

So what about November?  Can we reach any conclusions there?  Certainly until this past week there was not an elevated level of activity.  But that appears to have changed.  First there were reports of car carriers loaded with Model 3’s headed to Los Angeles.  And within the past two days there have been reports from a parking deck in Playa Vista, CA of what appears to be a staging area of Model 3s, first with “several”, then with 20, then 30, and now 50.  Again, I’ll probably take these reports with a small grain of salt simply because the person  reporting 50 stated it was “guess” and “gave up trying to count”, despite the fact that there is incredibly intense interest in the subject, and in particular collecting VIN numbers, take away some of the credibility of the report.

Nonetheless, there have been SOME pictures of VINs, one of which is #1096, and picture of a large number of Model 3s.  Now all this could simply be that they staged a big shipment to Hawthorne for SpaceX employees, explaining the recent lack of activity, and may not be an indication of an increased production rate.  However, it does seem encouraging.  And while there is evidence that VINs are not being delivered close to sequentially, the appearance of a large number of higher numbered VINs does indicate progress.

I feel this development, in addition to sightings in areas outside CA (such as Wisconsin, Atlanta, etc.), in only the middle of the month does seem to indicate the production rate has increased.  Do I feel that November will be the September that Elon envisioned?  Well, I think Tesla will have produced 1,000 cars by the end of the month.  They will probably not deliver them all.  These cars in particular are probably being staged for delivery to a sales/service center where they will be cleaned and prepped for delivery to their eventual owners.  It will probably take them some time to get through this relatively small backlog of deliveries.  So I expect sales to be in the 500-750 range.

I think that puts Tesla just over 2 months behind their ramp.  Big picture wise, hardly significant.  But I also think there will be some additional bumps in the road.  Hopefully Tesla used some of the time whereby these packs were being assembled slowly to really check out the speed of the remaining steps in the line, but at the end of the day there is no substitution for actually running the line at full speed in production.  And I expect they will move from this bottleneck limiting production to 40 cars/week to another one that may limit to 100, and then another that may limit to 400, and so on.  They will get that ramp eventually, but it’s going to be quite as steep as originally predicted.

I do think that eventually management guidance is going to prove correct in the end with a total 3 month delay.  Delivery estimator windows that already had 3 month slack in them and have since pushed out another month could still be met, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some move out another month.

And while at the end of the month we won’t have official numbers from Tesla to go on, I do feel that we will have some better news than we did at the end of October.  I will also say that I think within another month (mid-December) non-employees will finally start to get their invitations to configure their vehicles (which for the time being will be limited to selecting their wheels and exterior color).

What are your thoughts?

October 2017 US EV Sales Update

So we come into November with the news that President Trump’s new tax plan (at least the version put forth by the House) seeks to eliminate the US Federal EV Tax Credit, possibly rendering this entire discussion moot.  The Senate version, on the other hand, retains the tax credit.  We can only hope that either the bill is reconciled favoring the Senate version, or that the whole proposal gets caught in the usual Washington quagmire and simply goes nowhere before the end of the year.  But I digress…

The October sales figures are in and there are a few high (and low)-lights to note.

The Chevy BoltEV set a second consecutive monthly sales record with 2781 Bolts hitting the road in October.  Even with this result, it doesn’t break GM’s record of 4290 EVs sold in December of 2016, thanks in large part to the 3691 Volts sold that month.  But watch this space!

On the other side of the coin was the fact that Nissan only sold 213 LEAFs, it’s lowest month since February of 2011, in only the third month of its being available in the US when 67 copies were sold.  While one may be tempted to say that this is simply due to the fact that everyone is waiting for the 2018 LEAF 2.0 to appear, it’s probably more true that even if you wanted one you probably couldn’t find one.  The outgoing fleet is being sold off and there were fewer than 300 to be had nationwide at the end of October, and fewer than 200 as of this writing.

The Tesla Model 3 was also a disappointment as well.  Production bottlenecks continue to push back the anticipated ramp of Model 3 production.  While actual figures are not known, InsideEVs estimates that only 145 Model 3s were sold in October (although I believe this is poised to change in November–stay tuned).

Back to the highlights side, the Chrysler Pacifica PHEV sold 1175 units this month, establishing October as a record for FCA of 1485 vehicles.

Outlook

So what do things look like in the final 2 months of the year and heading forward?

Tesla

I’m still estimating 2400 Model S and 1860-1880 Model X for the remainder of the year.  Based on October’s estimate of 1120 and 850 respectively this may seem optimistic, but it will probably come out in the wash since December will likely be a strong month for Tesla (unless they decide to start diverting even more of those vehicles overseas).  In fact, that is the stated reason for the lack of sales–they are apparently stockpiling vehicles to send abroad in December in hopes of finishing the quarter off strong.  For the Model 3 it is starting to appear that the Gigafactory bottleneck that has been the cause of the slow start is finally starting to ease.  Recent VIN spottings and sightings of car carriers loaded with Model 3s indicate that there may be around 1000 Model 3s on the road as of mid-November.  Given the lag in these reports, this would indicate to me that we are probably going to see in the neighborhood of 1000 Model 3 sales in November, which basically puts us 2 months behind Elon’s initial ramp estimate.  The company themselves indicated that it’s perhaps a 3 month delay.  Either way this will certainly seem like an insignificant blip by next year.  I am going to maintain by estimate of 1000 Model 3s in November and 2000 in December, although this could be pessimistic.

Altogether this brings Tesla to 160,222 by year end.  I think it’s very clear at this point that they will not cross 200,000 anytime soon in 1Q18, and therefore I figure they will position themselves to cross that line in April of next year.

However, based on my assumptions for the ramp and expected Model S and X sales in 1Q18 (2000 per week in January, 2500 climbing to 3500 per week in February and 4000 climbing to 5000 per week in March), and a continuation of Model S and X sales, I estimate that Tesla would cross 200,000 just before March 15.  They will therefore have to take some kind of action to cross the line in 2Q18.  With the assumption that they divert an additional 5% Model S & X overseas (above and beyond what they normally do), and either stockpile 1000 Model 3s a week, or basically stop selling for the final 2.5 weeks of March, effectively creating a stockpile of 12,000 Model 3s ready to go on April 1.  With these actions, I estimate they will be at 199,248 on March 31, right where they want to be.

GM

I have revised my BoltEV assumptions to 3000 per month for November and December.  Uncertainty around the fate of the US federal tax credit, and a typically strong December for the car industry and EVs in particular will likely translate to record sales for the Bolt.  With these assumptions, I have GM leading Tesla at year end with 167,486 US sales.  Furthermore, this puts them on a run rate of around 4500 vehicles per month.

Extrapolating that into next year (with a few tweaks), I estimate that GM will exit 2Q18 at about 192,400 vehicles.  If they want to game the system, they too could delay hitting 200,000 until 4Q18, but at this point it’s probably too soon to tell just how far BoltEV sales will go.  If they continue their upward trend, then GM may find themselves beginning the phaseout period next July, only one quarter behind Tesla.  For now I will consider this the most likely scenario.

Nissan

I project Nissan will exit 2017 with 115,690 US sales.  The thought is that LEAF 2.0 will revitalize Nissan’s sales figures, although it remains to be seen how the market will accept the slightly shorter range, but significantly cheaper vehicle.  Even if we assume 5,000 vehicles per month, they will easily cruise into 2019 with their tax credit intact (assuming the politicians don’t get in the way).

Ford

I estimate Ford to be at 104,731 US sales at the end of the year, which is a surprising figure given their sole BEV, the Ford Focus Electric, has only had lukewarm sales, tallying a total of only 8780 sales between its introduction in 2013 and my 2017 year end estimate.  Most of Ford’s sales come in the form of strong PHEV sales.  But still there is a long way to go and it will be well into 2019 before we can start to seriously look at Ford’s 200,000 aspirations.

Others

Despite a lot of talk and on-again off-again plans, the European automakers–BMW, VW, Daimler–sit at 55,203, 26,510 and 13,176 respectively.  Supposedly 2020 will be the year when we really start to see massive numbers of EVs from those makes, but until then, there is no danger of them getting near 200,000.

Toyota has a respectable 67,326 (estimated) and is showing good strength with their plug-in Prius.  But until they start to get really serious about battery electrics (again, supposedly in 2020), we’re still a few years away from seeing them cross the line.

Fiat-Chrysler is actually estimated to be at 29,155 by year-end, thanks to the success of the Fiat 500e and more recently the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid.  While obviously a long way off, it will be interesting to see how that minivan does in the market.  It may just turn out to be a winner if they market it.

Hyundai/Kia is estimted at 12,903, but with they are poised to come on strong with their Ioniq lineup.

 

September 2017 Sales Update

It’s November 1 today and here I am posting a September sales update!

Well the reason is that I want to get the September sales baseline on the record before updating my numbers to reflect October sales (which are not finalized yet).

The purpose of these updates is to track progress towards, and my estimates of, when various manufacturers will cross the 200,000 US vehicle sold mark and start the clock ticking for the phaseout of the US $7500 federal tax credit for EVs.  The phaseout works like this:

Up until a manfuacturer sells its 200,000th car in the US, the buyer of that manufacturer’s car is eligible to receive a $7500 federal tax credit, subject to them having sufficient tax liability.  Once a manufacturer sells it’s 200,000th car, cars sold in that current calendar quarter and the following quarter are still eligible for the full tax credit.  For the following two quarters, the credit is cut in half to $3750, and for the two quarters following that, the credit is again cut in half to $1875.  After those two quarters are up, the tax credit for that manufacturer expires.  Note that each manufacturer has its own timetable unrelated to other manufacturers.  That means that Tesla may lose its credit while Chrysler may continue to get the full credit for several years!  (Note, I am strongly opposed to this structure as I think it motivates manufacturers to sit back and let others do the hard work and burn through their credits).

The following illustrates how this would work:

US Federal Tax Credit Illustration. Example only, not real data.

Under the system, it would be most advantageous to the consumer if the manufacturer sold car #200,000 on the first day of a new quarter.  This would give the manufacturer practically two full quarters of the full tax credit before it starts to phase out (green shading).  If, on the other hand, car #200,000 was sold on the last day of the quarter, the full tax credit would only be available for another 3 months, vs. 6 months if they had waited one extra day.

So, as the third quarter ends, two manufacturers in particular are getting close to hitting car #200,000:  Tesla and GM.  So all eyes are on these two manufacturers and their US sales figures to determine exact when the phaseout clock starts ticking.  Particularly in the case of Tesla, which looks like it will cross that line first.  There are a few people that say that it will cross the line in December 2017 (unlikely if only for the reason that they will likely wait until the beginning of a new quarter before crossing that mark), and I would say that the consensus opinion is that they will cross the line in 1Q18.  A minority (including myself) think it will be 2Q18, meaning the full tax credit should be available until the end of September 2018, and not phase out completely until September 30, 2019.

Now I get most of my data from InsideEVs Monthly Plug-in Sales Scorecard.  It’s not the authoritative source of information, but the official source of information, the IRS IRC 30D – Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit Quarterly Sales page, which incidentally is periodically updated, strangely includes only data for Ford, BMW and Mercedes, so we really don’t know about all the other manufacturers.  But InsideEVs tracks these numbers very closely based on actual sales reports from the manufacturers, so they are reasonably trustworthy.  Now I will point out that while InsideEVs and I update our numbers monthly as automakers release their monthly sales figures, Tesla only reports sales quarterly, so for the non-quarter-ending months, it’s a little bit of a guessing game, but InsideEVs does have a good track record and does go back and adjust the numbers to fit the reported data at the end of the quarter.

So without further ado, I present my figures as of September 2017:

US EV Sales summary as of Sep ’17

This shows that through the end of 2016, Tesla had sold 111,949 vehicles in the US.  Through September, they had sold 35,140, bringing the total sold to date (not shown) to 147.089.  I am projecting that by year-end 2017, they will have sold 62,717, bringing their total by year-end 2017 to 174,666, well short of 200,000.  And even though Elon Musk has “promised” us 5,000 Model 3’s per week by the end of December, that still puts us well into 1Q18 before they hit #200,000, which is why I think they will delay selling #200,000 until April 2018.  After all, Elon Musk tweeted that Tesla would do the right thing to maximize the number of people that got the credit, even if it meant taking a hit on quarterly sales.  This means to me that Tesla would divert Model S and X sales outside the US, and stockpile Model 3’s until the beginning of the new quarter.  Not only would this allow them to immediately sell a larger number of Model 3’s at the full credit amount, but it would extend the full tax credit to the timeframe when the dual-motor version of the Model 3 will be available (which will make a LOT of Model 3 reservation holders very happy).  It will also shorten the time period that the Model 3’s nearest competitor (the Chevy BoltEV) would have a tax credit advantage over the Model 3 to one quarter (possibly even zero).  And since those who hold Model 3 reservations are already given a three month delivery window, they could easily shift deliveries up to nearly a quarter without anyone being the wiser.

I will get into more stats and details in coming months, but as one closing comment for this post, let me describe my assumptions for Tesla and GM sales going forward.

For Tesla, I am assuming Model S growth of 15%, or between 2500 and 2600 sales per month (this tracks a 15.83% actual growth rate), and also 15% growth for Model X (although its growth rate has been larger), assuming between 1950 and 2000 sales per month.  For Model 3, it’s a bit trickier.  Elon Musk said 30 in July, 100 in August, 1500 in September, and climbing to 5000 a week by the end of December.  By now we know that they missed the mark by quite a bit in September, and we’re not really sure when they will recover, or even if it’s just a delay in the ramp up, or something they will make back up.  What we do know is that the numbers were more like 75 in August and only 115 in September.  I have revised my estimates for October-December to be 2000 in October, 4000 in November, and 8000 in December, but I feel those are very optimistic best-case scenario type numbers.  But for purposes of this kind of analysis, we do want to think conservatively (in hindsight, I DEFINITELY know those are optimistic)!

For GM I am assuming moderate 6% growth for the Volt (3% actual) and a flat 2500 units per month for the BoltEV.

That’s it for the time being.  I’ll be back shortly with the update for October!

Welcome to my EV blog!

Welcome to the NOGA$4ME EV blog!

Years ago I used to maintain a blog describing my experience with my 2012 Nissan LEAF.  I am not sure what happened to it, but it apparently has disappeared from the site that hosted it.  So I have started a new one!

A lot has changed in my EV life since that original blog.  We got a second (2013) Nissan LEAF, which was subsequently traded for a Chevy Bolt.  I put down a reservation for a Tesla Model 3, and then finally decided to trade in my aging 2012 LEAF for a new 30kWh 2016 LEAF, despite the fact that the Model 3 will likely be available to order very soon (initially the plan was to replace the Chevy Volt–off lease in Jan 2019–with the Model 3, but since it appears that Tesla is going to be hitting volume production about a year of where I thought they would, those plans have changed.  At any rate, the incentives on the new LEAF were just too great to pass up, so there we are.

One of the things I’d like to cover in this blog is the road to the end of the US EV federal tax credit as a few manufacturers are within a year of starting their phase out period.  I’ve been keeping tally of sales figures for quite some time now and have been estimating when the tax credit will start to phase out (particularly for Tesla vehicles) and the impacts of approaching that milestone.

I’d also like to cover other developments in the EV world and how that relates to what I call the coming inflection in EV sales.  We are rapidly approaching a point in time where the sticker price (not total cost of ownership–we have already reached that point) of a given EV is going to be less than its ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) equivalent.  Once that happens, I cannot really see consumers opting for the more expensive option and it is at that point where EV sales will take a dramatic turn.  It will be interesting to watch that play out.

The various bans on diesel and gas vehicles in various cities and countries is great, but I think the economic reasons will probably be the true drivers of getting ICE vehicles off the road.  The proposed bans only serve to wake up automakers and let them know that they better be ready for the EVolution!