Is the Bolt a compliance car?

https://electrek.co/2016/11/18/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-nationwide-launch-cancel/

One day after seeing the Bolt in person at the CT Auto Show and liking it, I read this disappointing news. Well, I guess you can't blame somebody for not wanting to sell affordable EVs at a loss. Here's hoping the article is wrong.

The article makes it sound like this is news, but from my reading at least, it isn't really. I haven't heard Chevy talking about a nationwide rollout for the Bolt in 2016, at least not since I've been following this. Maybe somebody else knows better but it seems to me the company's been saying California and Oregon in late 2016, with introduction into other states in 2017, since the beginning of last month at least.

The Bolt will be sold in all 50 states, and therefore is not a "Compliance Car". The original definition of compliance car was one sold only in ZEV states to garner ZEV credits. It's now used as a derogatory term towards any EV that is not a Tesla. The criteria can be anything to "low volume" to "has compromises like skinny tires to increase range (i3)".
Telsa fans decry the Bolts 30K in the first year (low end estimate), but seem to ignore that the Model S has never sold 30K in a year (US sales).

As to the article, GM never said that it would be available in all 50 states immediately. A phased rollout is common, and Tesla will do the same with the Model 3. They will only make the highly optioned cars at first (no $35K base models), then ship them to current Tesla owners (who have priority) on the West Coast. They will then expand from West to East, then outside the US. No word on when they will add in reservation holders that don't currently own a Tesla, or when they will phase in the lower cost cars.

If the demand is high for the Bolt, the availability nationwide might be "slower", but that will translate into higher sales numbers overall. Much is going to depend on how aggressive they are with their lease program out of the gate. If the lease payments are $400+ on a base Bolt, my order will be cancelled (postponed until an attractive lease is offered). This is likely the case with a fair number of pre-orders in CA and OR.

Strictly speaking, the Bolt has a battery pack beyond the minimum 24kWh (to qualify for the full $7500 tax credit), and GM has promised to offer it in all 50 states. For those reasons, it isn't a compliance car.

With that said, an argument can be made that Bolt is also a compliance car. The Bolt fills the need to comply with CARB regulations as a zero emissions vehicle, and for GM comply with corporate average fuel economy numbers. I hope GM sells a lot of them, and in all 50 states - regardless of their need to collect ZEV credits from this vehicle.

I don't understand why the term has such a negative connotation, and why it evokes such emotion in the EV community. Without compliance to regulations, Mercedes wouldn't have built the car I love to drive. Without compliance, GM wouldn't have had a reason to design and build the Volt, Spark, or Bolt. If that's what it takes to move the technology forward, and put more EV's on the road, I'm fine with it.

I'm pretty new to this EV stuff but I believe the negative connotation comes down to, "nobody would be building them but for the federal regulations." Which presently is probably true. What I think we are about to find out is whether GM or anybody else can afford to manufacture and sell EVs profitably without the leverage of the CARB credits and the incentive of the CAFE standards. It isn't clear if the former can be sustained without federal mandates, which are almost certainly are going away, and the latter relaxed. The tax credits were due to phase out anyway, but we can only hope they aren't withdrawn prematurely.

Tesla can probably be considered a compliance car under a loose definition since they have barely managed to avoid bankruptcy and were substantially aided by collecting and reselling ZEV credits which allowed other car companies to then sell more ICE cars.

I thought Gary (DucRider) stated things very well.

JeffN said:

Tesla can probably be considered a compliance car under a loose definition since they have barely managed to avoid bankruptcy and were substantially aided by collecting and reselling ZEV credits which allowed other car companies to then sell more ICE cars.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that Tesla is / was "substantially aided" selling credits, though the credits aren't as juicy for Tesla as they once were.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/musk-tears-into-california-board-over-emission-credits-standards

Tesla seems to have no problem raising cash from investors regardless how much they burn through. It's sunshine and lollipops as long as the company continues to forecast and deliver on big growth:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/tesla-projects-fast-growth-to-maybe-90-000-deliveries-in-2016

roundpeg said:

I'm pretty new to this EV stuff but I believe the negative connotation comes down to, "nobody would be building them but for the federal regulations." Which presently is probably true. What I think we are about to find out is whether GM or anybody else can afford to manufacture and sell EVs profitably without the leverage of the CARB credits and the incentive of the CAFE standards. It isn't clear if the former can be sustained without federal mandates, which are almost certainly are going away, and the latter relaxed. The tax credits were due to phase out anyway, but we can only hope they aren't withdrawn prematurely.

Click to expand...

Federal mandates have nothing to do with CARB credits and as such the Fed has no say in the matter. They can (and likely will) relax the CAFE standards even further than Obama did from when originally drafted by Bush.
Even CARB is backing off on their goals - primarily due to the car to SUV/Pickup ratio. When they drafted their standards, they assumed a 67/33 mix, and it's much closer to 50/50.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. California is a non-attainment state for federal air quality standards (at least in part). I'm pretty sure the CARB program is part of the compliance program. Also, the EPA now allows California to do its own thing in achieving or exceeding federal air quality standards. That was not always the case, and that could change too.

LG stands by its recent plans to to produce over 30,000 Bolt battery/chassis. They would not plan that size of a rampup without serious commitment to the car.

Duc Rider and Oilerlord put it very well when describing how the "true believers" characterize and deride "compliance cars"

In effect, anything not made by Tesla is a "compliance car" in true-believer viewpoint. Another way of expressing this might be that anything made by a company that also produces ICE cars is a compliance and and therefore trash.

I3 is a compliance care due to skinny tires. Leaf is a compliance car because it looks like a Versa. Focus is a compliance car because it is based on a Focus and Magna designed the power system. RAV-4 is a compliance car because it's a RAV (never mind that its 130+ mile range put it in a class of its own for many years). Bolt is a compliance car because I had a 1973 Buick and it was trashy.

As far as I'm concerned, I love compliance cars. They are EVs that would not have been on the road otherwise. That the manufacturer adapted an existing, successful design rather than starting ground-up is simply an engineering choice.

When I first posted this question, I didn't realize "compliance car" was such a loaded term. I'm just a guy who sat in a Bolt at an auto show, really liked it a lot, and wanted to buy one soon in CT. Then I immediately read some new stories that made me wonder if I was ever going to get to buy a Bolt in CT. Here's the quote from the WSJ that really made me wonder if I'd ever see a Bolt in the state of CT. The particular phrase that had me wondering about this was "slow flow". It sure sounds like a euphemism for "dude, you're not going to ever see one".

Here's hoping I'm way off base and totally wrong - after sitting in the Bolt and watching the CR video review, I'd buy one tomorrow.

Quote:

GM has said its $30,000 Bolt will be on sale in the 2016 calendar year, a target that qualifies the car for certain product awards and allows the company to say its car hits the market well in advance of a rival product being developed by Tesla Motors Inc. GM spokeswoman Michelle Malcho said Thursday the car is expected to meet high interest, but will be offered in limited quantities in 2017.

“We are focusing on this year getting the cars ready for customers…and doing it the right way,” Ms. Malcho said. GM has seen highest demand for its Volt plug-in hybrid car in California since it went on sale in 2010, with 40% of all Volt sales coming from that state.

Deliveries to other markets will be at a “slow flow” pace, she said.

Read the WSJ article yourself at...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gms-chevy-bolt-ev-not-widely-available-until-spring-1479413234

FWIW, I reached out to Ingersoll in Danbury, CT, and got this email in reply:

...
Thank you for selecting Ingersoll Auto of Danbury for your next vehicle purchase.

To clarify, you are interested in the Chevy Bolt, is this correct?

We are all anxiously awaiting the arrival of the vehicle!

The expected delivery is late 2016. No exact date has been set.
...

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter why they're being built just as long as they're being built at least the end result is a positive

ScooterCT said:

Here's hoping I'm way off base and totally wrong - after sitting in the Bolt and watching the CR video review, I'd buy one tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Then buy one tomorrow. There's nothing stopping you from ordering one from a dealer on the west coast, and having them put it on a truck (at your expense) to your local Chevy dealership. You live in a CARB state, and your money is just as green as any Bolt buyer that lives in Oregon.

I don't understand why it would be a disappointment if it was a compliance vehicle. Obviously it was part of a business plan to generate sales. Chevy felt the general public wanted a lower cost longer range option and if that also adhered to government legislation bonus or vise versa

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2016/11/30/gm-zev/94660092/

ScooterCT said:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2016/11/30/gm-zev/94660092/

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see where they got that $9K figure from - thin air? No source was credited other than

The Bolt’s anticipated per-sale loss of roughly $8,000 to $9,000 is an estimate based on a sticker price of $37,500, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Click to expand...

Click Bait

Yeah, I personally doubt that they are losing any money at all on a per-unit basis. This figure probably includes the NRE amortized over some number of vehicles sold (maybe 30k/year for 5 years?).

We know that GM is paying LG Chem about $150/kWh. Even if the battery is actually 70kWh capacity, that's $10,500 for the cells. The average selling price will probably be around $40k. So to lose $9k/sale, it would have to cost them $39k to assemble the packs and build the rest of the car? No way.

I hope GM priced the car to gain a good profit margin for themselves. That only encourages them to sell as many as possible to make up for that NRE even faster.

GetOffYourGas said:

We know that GM is paying LG Chem about $150/kWh. Even if the battery is actually 70kWh capacity, that's $10,500 for the cells. The average selling price will probably be around $40k. So to lose $9k/sale, it would have to cost them $39k to assemble the packs and build the rest of the car? No way.

Click to expand...

There's more to EV unit cost than just the battery. Adding the motor, drivetrain, onboard charger, inverter, and battery heating/cooling/management could easily account for 50% (or more) of the car's retail price - and you still have to build the rest of the car. By comparison, an ICE and drivetrain costs very little. I don't know what ZEV credits and CAFE is worth when put into the mix but based on cost of goods sold, I think a $9K loss per car sounds about right. Only GM knows for sure.