Guest essay by Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
In the past I’ve provided estimates of the money Tesla has made off this mysterious feature enabled by credits authorized by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These estimates were very simplistic: basically I multiplied their ZEV revenue by 0.35 or a similar number.
Now, I have something more precise with references to back it up.
Key data points:
- The 85 kWh version of the Tesla Model S, called simply “S85” from here on, was reclassified from a Type III zero-emissions vehicle to a Type V on October 12th 2012. The previous official document, dated June 15, showed it was a Type III vehicle. This reclassification increased the number of ZEV credits Tesla got per car from 4 to 7. Of course, there is the possibility that the car had already been earning these extra credits days or weeks before October 12, but there is no way to know. (I will call the original 4 “standard credits”, while the additional 1-3 will be “extra credits”).
- The 60kWh model, or “S60”, was reclassified on December 20. No sales took place in 2012, so for this version all units produced benefited from the battery swap.
- Therefore, Tesla started gaining ZEV credits thanks to the battery swap in 2012Q4.
- Tesla’s car deliveries and much more info can be seen here. I got the numbers from their letters to shareholders: 2012Q4, 2013Q1, 2013Q2, 2013Q3 and 2013Q4.
- ZEV credit revenue is available in the same Excel as their car sales. There are some small doubts about their 2012 revenue. This is a more in-depth look at their financials.
- Tesla’s sales in California can be seen in the same document. The data comes from Green Car Reports, which in turn got it from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA). I’ve been unable to obtain their numbers for 2012.
- As for its sales mix, Tesla has been vague. Although it’s well-known that the S85 sells more than the S60, I cannot find a definitive statement from them about the issue.
- There are 12 states with a ZEV mandate, but California dwarfs them all (1.7 million car sales last year). The difference is even more lopsided if we talk exclusively about Tesla sales, as in the period studied the state made up about half of all deliveries in the US. And California’s ZEV program is far more advanced than the others, having begun in 2006.
- From 2012Q4 to 2013Q3, Tesla sold 1,311.52 NMOG credits. For some reason CARB reports transfers in these terms, however, at the bottom of the page you can see that the denominator to convert these credits to ZEV is 0.035. Therefore 1,311.52 / 0.035 = 37,742.
- In the same link too, you can see that at the end of 2013Q3 Tesla still had 276.080 NMOG credits, or 7,888 ZEV credits.
- Only 250 Model S were sold in 2012Q3, and basically zero before that. Previously they had obtained credits through the Roadster, but only about 2,000 were sold worldwide and Tesla had already generated revenue from those in 2008-2011.
Key assumptions:
- For simplicity purposes, I assume all S85s sold in California since and including Q4 benefited from the ZEV reclassification. That is, they moved from 4 to 7 ZEV credits. I’m including 12 days’ worth of sales in 2012Q4, but they were still ramping up production then so it must be less than 10% of the quarter’s sales. In any case it does not affect the overall math.
- In 2012Q4, 1,500 Model S were sold in the state.
- 90% of Tesla ZEV revenue comes from California.
- In 2012Q4, ZEV revenue was $35 million. We know that for all of 2012 it was $40.5 million and it was concentrated in Q4 (they didn’t even mention it in the other quarters). We also know that the $40.5 million figure includes undisclosed but small revenue from GHG credits.
- Tesla had 0 ZEV credits as of October 1st, 2012. Very small room for mistake here, as they could have a tiny quantity left over from the Roadster or the few Model S deliveries earlier in 2012.
If you think some assumptions are unrealistic or whatever, fine. The Excel document is free for anybody to download and tinker with.
So how much is the battery swap worth?
There are two questions here: how many of those extra credits they have sold, and how many they have earned but not sold.
One can envision any number of scenarios, but as you’ll see, no matter how you square the numbers Tesla stands to make a lot of money off the battery swap.
· Assuming a 60% S85 mix, Tesla earned 51,029 ZEV credits from 2012Q4 to 2013Q3. Of these, 32,148 were standard and 18,881 were extra. Since Tesla transferred 37,742 credits to other manufacturers in the same period, the conclusion is that they sold their entire standard allotment, and then an extra 5,594 credits. So the extra ones made up 14.8% of their sales. With ZEV revenue in California at $148.3 million for the period, this would mean the company got $22 million it wouldn’t have gotten without the battery swap.
· Under the same 60% mix, Tesla would still have 13,287 credits in its balance at the end of 2013Q3, all of them extra. (CARB’s website says they had 7,888, which suggests they transferred credits to other states). When adding those they earned in 2013Q4, the number rises to 24,404, of which 17,772 were extra.
· So in this period they sold 37,742 credits for $148.3 million, which gives a per-credit price of $3,929. If Tesla just manages to get the same price it has gotten so far, their remaining extra credits will be worth $69.8 million.
Yeah. More than $90 million in total. And that’s only the ones they got before January 1st, 2014. With about 1,800 Model S sales in California, the value of their remaining credits grows by about $15 million – every quarter.
It happens that the fine for not meeting ZEV requirements is $5,000 per credit (see slide 93), so that’s about the maximum other carmakers are willing to pay for these things. Our $3,929 figure is therefore in the right ballpark, and it shows Tesla’s revenue from California ZEV credits couldn’t have been much lower than the figure I offered ($148.3 million).
In the Excel I’ve uploaded, I assumed a 60% mix. But you can just change the numbers to see what happens. Keep in mind that sales mix does not affect the number of standard credits they earn, because both the S60 and the S85 get 4 of those: it only affects the number of extra credits.
Even so, I offered an absurdly high estimate of Tesla’s California sales for 2012Q4 (2,400, which were in fact their global sales), so as to increase their standard credits. Assuming 80% of Model S sales were S85s, the results would be:
· 35,748 standard credits earned in 2012Q4-2013Q3, plus 24,196 extra ones
· So if they sold 37,742 credits, that means they sold their entire standard batch and 1,994 extra ones. In turn, that means 5.3% of their ZEV revenue was thanks to the battery swap.
· That’s “only” $7.9 million. But if they sold so few extra credits…
· …the result is they had 22,204 in balance at the end of 2013Q3. Remember CARB’s website says they had 7,888, so either they transferred massive amounts to other states or there’s something else I’m missing.
· Add in their numbers for 2013Q4 and they have 34,038 in the bank, of which 26,866 were extra.
· And which, at a selling price of $3,929, would be worth $105.6 million.
Yikes.
“But they won’t be able to sell so many credits! The market will get saturated!”
Really?
Here’s a reminder of how the ZEV mandate works. It requires every major manufacturer to sell a given percentage of zero-emission vehicles, and by 2025 it will reach 15% Even if the state as a whole passes that threshold (EV sales were 1% of the market last year), many manufacturers no doubt will fall below and will need to buy credits. And if history is any guide, the program will not be withdrawn in 2025. EV advocates will say the technology still hasn’t reached critical mass, whatever that means.
It’s true the market is oversupplied right now. But starting in January 2018, all credits will be allotted according to range alone, not refueling time – this will effectively close the battery swap loophole. More importantly, the number of credits per car will be drastically reduced, as 3 will be the maximum – no matter if your electric car goes 300 or 500 miles. See slide 66 of the previous document.
Get this: right now, Tesla gets about 6.5 ZEV credits every time it sells a car. The market cannot buy all those credits so they keep thousands in the bank and transfer thousands more to states other than California.
Then comes 2018, the ZEV requirements have gotten much stricter, and every car gets 3 credits at most. Meaning there will be no manufacturer with an excess of credits it can sell. And there will probably be many with a deficit. And Tesla will have a huge balance of credits from the good old battery swap days.
Tesla is playing the long game.
Oh, and the company may have the opportunity to stockpile even more credits before the supply gets tight, because Type V ZEVs will get 9 credits instead of 7 in the 2015-2017 period. It’s unclear whether regulators will allow this, as CARB has stated it intends to exclude battery swap from the fast-refueling category at the end of this year; that would bring Tesla back to 4 credits per car. Other carmakers are going to sell hydrogen vehicles in that period which also qualify for the 9 credits because of their range and refueling time, and they’re probably protesting the privileged treatment Tesla gets.
But if the loophole isn’t closed, the company will be getting an average of about 8 credits per vehicle: twice what they would get without the swap.
Even if you assume the price of these credits will crash, the sums are still substantial. For $1,000 per credit, in the 60% mix Tesla would get an additional $17.8 million for the extra credits it had in balance at the end of 2013 – plus the $22 million in extras it had already sold. Remember that’s only from those they had earned before 2014. So a price collapse will mean they’ll only get $39.8 million from this once-demoed-and-never-heard-of-again feature.
Let’s use the same price with the second scenario: 80% S85 mix and 2,400 California sales in 2012Q4. Their 26,866 extra credits are now worth $26.9 million, which combined with the $7.9 million they had already earned gives us $34.8 million. Again, that doesn’t include any credits they earn in 2014 and beyond.
And all of the above assumes there is a mega-crash in the price of ZEV credits – a 75% decline. Need I remind you that electric cars have never broken into the mainstream, and in theory every manufacturer must get 8% of its sales from these vehicles? And if they don’t reach that figure, their only way to avoid $5,000 fines is by buying those credits?
There is no question Tesla will sell all of its credits. The only question is for what price.
Final thoughts
Some will argue that the credits they have already sold aren’t worth that much – about $20 million. But that’s missing the point. Tesla faces no penalty for stockpiling these credits forever. Even if the regulation changes the minute this article is published, and the battery swap loophole is closed, Tesla will get to keep the credits it has in the bank.
No doubt they hope to wait and sell them when everybody has forgotten about the whole battery swap charade.
So don’t forget. Don’t let them get away with this. Spread the message, and next time the company comes up in a conversation, remember to politely direct the other speakers to this post. And this one, too.
Next time you hear about these guys, remember.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I were a betting man, I would wager that Red sage is either:
• a Tesla employee, or
• angling for a job there, or
• a shareholder
Or maybe more than one of those. His cheerleading is excessive.
Labeling the comments of many others here as “regurgitated tripe” indicates RS’s frustration that his rah-rah message is falling on deaf ears. I only posted a partial selection of those responses, which make it clear that people are getting very tired of the Big Government/Big Money conspiracy to make the average taxpayer pay any losses, while the conspirators collect the payoff if/when there is one.
Finally: if Tesla is such a wonderful invention and as amazing as RS says, then it is certainly a better mousetrap, and the public would flock to it without needing subsidies and special arrangements.
So explain for us why already hard-bitten taxpayers should subsidize yet another government/industry scheme, where said taxpayers do not get a cut of the winnings — but they must cover the losses if the project doesn’t sell enough cars to stay in business?
Take your time, and stay on topic. This should be good.
dbstealey ventured, “…I would wager that Red sage is either:”
I’m a guy who really likes science and technology. I am also really impatient. I like the Tesla Model S, but honestly don’t understand why it didn’t exist 25 years ago. I feel that today, rather than a marvel, it should be instead, to quote a co-worker from an Architectural firm I used to work at, “…an ordinary $#!+ car… Like a Chevy.” What I really want to see is flying cars with Mr. Fusion in the back. 2015 is only a year away, Doc Brown.
I’ve been writing and debating a variety of technological issues in various forums on the Internet since 1995. I do so because from my point of view, it is important to understand that others have other points of view. That is, just because we disagree with each other, doesn’t mean I don’t want to fully understand your position on the issue at hand.
I literally do not know everything. I know just enough to understand there is more to learn. I’m just smart enough to appreciate there are people in this world who are a whole lot smarter than I am.
In any case, like most people on the Internet, I have a strong tendency to state my opinions as fact. The quotes that you posted before, are opinions that differ from mine. I recognize that the people who said those things consider them factual… I disagree.
It’s a shame that you and I don’t seem to fully understand each other here. This is one of the pratfalls involved with attempting to communicate with people through a keyboard on the Internet. But even so, if you look at what was said between myself and Alberto Zaragosa last night, I finally developed some insight as to his intention in writing the original article. He is really just one solid piece of evidence away from proving all his suppositions absolutely sound.
“…people are getting very tired of the Big Government/Big Money conspiracy…”
My point, pretty much from the outset stands. The Tesla Model S is a really nice car. Even if there is some sort of conspiracy involved in its existence and profit/sales model (I really don’t think so), there are far more profitable ones out there, that are much more obvious, and more easily proven.
“…the public would flock to it without needing subsidies and special arrangements.”
I believe they will. The difference though, is that other auto manufacturers for decades said it was ‘impossible’. They all said it would ‘never happen’. Those statements never rang true for me. Not once. No, it won’t happen immediately, or overnight. But Tesla Motors will be fully weaned off all of these incentives, rebates, tax breaks, whatever… and will never need them again.
See, in the ‘long game’, the changes that have been introduced by Tesla Motors will appear to be ‘overnight’ to auto manufacturers such as the Big Three. Five years from now, electric vehicles with a Tesla badge will be as ubiquitous as compact cars from Toyota, Datsun/Nissan, and Honda were 30 years ago. Ten years from now, Tesla electric vehicles, and derivatives from other manufacturers, will be more than as popular as SUVs were in the early-mid 90s.
I understand your concerns. Many companies have made big promises and delivered nothing, time and again. Windows 95 was Microsoft’s attempt to match MacOS 89, which was Apple’s attempt to surpass AmigaOS 84… Times change at the speed of technology, but also at the rate of acceptance.
I… could be wrong. Elon Musk and the rest at Tesla Motors might just be building up a facade, so they can get everyone to go all-in before they pull the rug out from under Wall Street. But… I don’t think so. I believe this is pure, honest, actual change. And it’s beautiful to behold.
Now, where are my flying cars?
“So explain for us why already hard-bitten taxpayers should subsidize yet another government/industry scheme, where said taxpayers do not get a cut of the winnings — but they must cover the losses if the project doesn’t sell enough cars to stay in business?”
Ugh. Had you not noticed that I really don’t want to talk about this? This is chock full of assumption, supposition, and innuendo. It is the very essence of a leading, rhetorical question. What’s worse, is that I have probably already answered this somewhere above, or on another forum. This gets really tiring. Strange you want to call me out on this — AGAIN — but haven’t acknowledged the points I’ve already replied to completely on target with evidence to back them up. ~*SIGH*~
“So explain for us why…”
OK. What follows is what you have asked for: an explanation. It is NOT an excuse. Please, pay attention.
“…already hard-bitten taxpayers should subsidize yet another government/industry scheme…”
This assumes facts not in evidence. You say that it is a ‘scheme’. I say that it is a strategy. We fundamentally disagree on everything listed here. But to take a small nibble… Government and Business have worked together for AGES to develop technologies for the benefit of the populace. Once again, if not for CAFE, CARB, NHTSA, and the EPA instituting standards in testing and regulations for fuel consumption today’s regular Intenal Combustion Engines would not be as good as they are. They would be gas-guzzling death traps instead. The only reason the Tesla Model S does not match and surpass every one of its direct competitors on range is because the US government worked diligently to persuade auto manufacturers to lower fuel consumption. That has had a net benefit to all Americans, and people worldwide as a result. I contend that the same will happen with Electric Vehicles and other means of Alternative Fuel. That is WHY.
“…where said taxpayers do not get a cut of the winnings…”
Once again, as is the case with rhetorical questions, you assume I don’t have an answer while asking the question. So, I’ll say again, from a different stance… The American public benefited from the involvement of the US government to create superhighways. The American public benefited from the involvement of the US government to launch manned spaceflight. The American public benefited from the involvement of the US government to regulate auto manufacturers. The American public will also benefit from the continued involvement of the US government to promote the improvement of electric vehicles much sooner than was done with any of the others — because of Tesla Motors. That is WHY.
“…but they must cover the losses if the project doesn’t sell enough cars to stay in business…”
And this right here is just a total load of horse hockey. There is no guarantee whatsoever, anywhere, that states the United States of America and its taxpayers will buy out, or bail out, Tesla Motors, or their vehicles to save face. None. That is not a requirement of CARB, CAFE, NHTSA, or the EPA. In fact, the only entity that is currently pledged to guarantee Tesla Motors against failure is… ELON MUSK. He personally guarantees, on the strength of his own personal holdings, to buy back Tesla vehicles should ‘everything go wrong’.
Remember when you said, “Wake me when Billionaire Elon Musk pays out of his own deep pockets, instead of laying off risk onto the public, while cashing in on his no-risk scheme. That will be the day.”…?
Well, I responded. Did you read it? Here’s another chance, in case you missed it:
>>> Elon Musk is a billionaire, today, on Wall $treet Bucks —
>>> (C’mon, we all know that’s Monopoly Money) — not cold
>>> hard cash. He already has laid his own, cold hard cash
>>> on the barrelhead to support Tesla Motors. He was down
>>> to his own available funds and dropped around 80 million
>>> of his remaining 100 or so directly into Tesla’s coffers to
>>> keep the company afloat — long before the IPO and these
>>> ‘egregious’ offenses you have in mind. This was before the
>>> Roadster was officially launched ‘wide’. Before that, he made
>>> a similar move to support SpaceX, putting $100,000,000 of
>>> his own dough (from prior ventures, PayPal & zip2) at risk
>>> to send up what would have been the fourth, and final flight
>>> had the launch failed.
>>> Elon Musk puts his money, and his reputation, on the line
>>> for what he believes, every time it is required of him. He
>>> is at the very cusp of ‘risk’. Surprise! Each of those risks
>>> paid off for him. It will “be the day” when the CEOs of Chrysler,
>>> Ford, and General Motors similarly put it all on the line. That’s
>>> one you can sleep on, Brother.
And now… I’m waiting.
Red Sage says:
Ugh. Had you not noticed that I really don’t want to talk about this?
Sure you do. Your statement is as strange as your many other comments. I have 4 posts on this thread. You have 15. I would hate to see what happens if you did want to talk about this!
I asked that you stay on topic but as expected, you went off on several different directions. Your comments are emotion-based, that is easy to see because they’re very emotional. As always, it is extremely hard to have a rational discussion with an emo poster.
So good luck with promoting the Tesla. As a taxpayer, I will once again be forced to pay the freight along with my fellow taxpayers. I don’t like it. But special interest groups like Musk’s have co-opted the legislature, and they all compete with each other to shear the sheep.
If I can do my part to sidetrack the “carbon” scare, I figure that is about all one man can do. The rest of this EV nonsense feeds off that scare anyway.
One commenter here asked: “Has anyone done the math on what these credits cost the average car buyer of a small crossover vehicle like a strictly gasoline powered Ford Escape?”
That’s a good question, no? With harmless CO2 being no threat, and in fact, a net benefit, that’s a very good question. Isn’t it?
@Red Sage (various)
RE: Stephen Rasey 3/12 2:34 pm and other posts.
The issue here is that the staged battery swap performance is what allowed Tesla to earn 7 ZEV credits per S85 cars. You don’t have to swap the battery out in 90 seconds, but that is what they demonstrated under ( David Copperfield conditions, I might add). To earn 7 ZEV, you have to recharge/refuel or swap enough battery for 285 miles in 15 minutes.
At least, Tesla is not close to the requirement without a battery swap.
Here is a map of charging stations around the country (40 Amp and SuperChargers)
http://www.plugshare.com/
Show me a URL to a map of Tesla battery swap stations.
or Post for us the address of the station closest to you and it’s telephone number.
Until you can do either of these things, Tesla is earning 3 ZEV ( = 7 – 4) under false pretenses.
While waiting for these T-Haul stations to spring up around the country like tumbleweeds,….
Check out this Q&A from the Tesla Supercharger site, which has the map and plan. http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
I was looking the neighborhood for charging stations. It seems H.E.B. is putting them. A grocery stop is a good turn over time, especially for quick charge.
http://www.plugincars.com/ultimate-guide-electric-car-charging-networks-126530.html
Cost Per Charge: Blink fees are priced on an hourly basis. In its Blink Plus plan requiring a $30 annual fee (waived through 2013), charging is $1 per hour. Blink Basic, not requiring a fee, is charged at $1.50 per hour. Blink Guests pay $2 an hour. All of these rates are for Level 2 240-volt charging. Prices have not been established for DC Quick Charging on the Blink Network.
$2/hour. Some of that is electricity cost, the rest has to go to pay for the station and upkeep. That is when someone wants to plug in. It give a whole new meaning to Trickle-down economics.
I can pump $30/minute into may car. A pump at Costco can probably rack up $200/hr if used only 10% of the time and rack up more than $2/hr in profits.
Stephen, come on, man… I broke down your extended compound sentence section for section and addressed every single bit of it in its entirety — even though I didn’t want to. You ignored my responses to your lop-sided, convoluted, leading, rhetorical question, act as if I didn’t answer at all, then ask more of them.
At least you finally did get to the point:
1) You don’t want to pay taxes and don’t think tax dollars should be used for anything.
2) You especially don’t want to pay taxes when it comes to the notion of reducing CO2 emissions.
So now I know what you don’t want to do. What do you want to do?
@Red Sage 12:07 am
It is clear that you don’t want to tell us where anyone can drive up and get a S85 battery swap in under 15 minutes.