Why are EV’s so polarizing? (Pun intended)

EV proponents point to zero tailpipe emissions, ever-increasing range capability, reduced lifecycle carbon production, reduced operating costs and a pathway to a zero fossil fuel future. EV detractors point to lack of available charging, extended “fill” times, limited range/range anxiety and dirty mining and power generation. Both are correct, so let’s lift the hood on this topic and poke around.

As fleet operators we owe our organizations every due diligence in evaluating new technologies, sorting through their capabilities and trying to visualize a possible fit in our operations. EV’s are getting more capable all the time but are not currently a one-size-fits-all solution. EV’s do some things very well; they have lower routine maintenance requirements, snappy acceleration (outright fast in some cases!), quiet operation and easy depot charging logistics (if you can support the chargers; a topic for another article). The operator can just hook them up to “fuel” at end of their shift, walk away and they’re charged by tomorrow AM. But the limited portfolio of available EV’s still makes the technology a tough fit in many commercial applications.

Product & Service Availability

One of the preemptive criteria of conscientious fleet procurement is that you must be able to support whatever you buy. This means if you buy an EV, you need to buy a product that has an established national sales and service network; or if you run a regional fleet, at least an EV which has good dealership saturation in your local market. This narrows down your available products dramatically and produces mostly passenger vehicles and light trucks. Not that EV’s aren’t being developed in specialty-equipment and limited big-truck sectors, but those efforts are currently just that: specialty and limited.  

And why is this? Automotive manufacturing is not an altruistic pursuit. While boardroom leadership can choose to support ideology over profit-margins (I said, “can”, not “does”), the reality of the situation is that manufacturers must be able to forecast enough market to develop the product, then have it generate enough revenue to pay for development and production costs while still showing earnings. That modeling currently pivots around high-end sedans, SUV’s and (what I would call) Sunday-go-to-meetin’ trucks. The reason is simple; the retail market tends to adopt new technology sooner and buy higher-level trim packages more quickly than the work market does, and it is easier to hide the EV upcharge in a more optioned vehicle. 

Purchasing Considerations

Understand, it is not that fleets are backward-thinking or technology adverse but having financial restrictions can have huge impact on procurement decisions. Let’s say you need to buy 100 half-ton trucks and the EV equivalent costs $15K more per unit/purchase that the ICE unit; that amounts to an effective $1.5M increase across that purchase. That additional $1.5M could have bought a whole lot of additional conventional vehicles (30-35 more when considering a basic fleet pickup).

Workforce perception impacts best intent too. Everyone wants the latest and greatest, so if you have 500 of a certain vehicle type and you re-spec that category, you either replace them all at once or manage expectations. I recall back when A/C was still an option checkbox in order guides (yes, A/C was once an actual option!), an option which my company at that time didn’t typically buy. But when my management made the decision to put A/C into our new service trucks we were only on the second annual purchase of a new truck model. Consequently, we were asked to refit A/C into the 35 units from the prior purchase (for continuity). Fortunately, the workforce gave us grace to defer the rest until scheduled unit replacement. They’d seen us actively changing equipment after a long hiatus and trusted us to do more. 

Operating expenses:

No one should deny that “fueling” a passenger EV costs less per mile than fueling a similar conventional vehicle (at least when charging with off-peak electrical rates). There are also economies to be found in preventative maintenance. Gone are the traditional PMs (Lube/Oil/Filters), emissions inspections and daily fluids checks. However routine systems (brakes, tires, steering, etc) must still be checked routinely. In fact, the price and frequency of brake and tire replacement will go up; the components are larger, more expensive and replaced more frequently due to vehicle weight.

I would consider this a financial wash but then consider the inevitable collision repairs. Currently any collision repair on an EV carries a significant premium (time and money) over a similar ICE vehicle; even worse if the damage gets into the HV electrical-drive system. Don’t believe me? Call State Farm, Shelter, Nationwide, or any other insurer and price EV insurance (if they still even offer it!). Better yet, talk to any of the private owners who’ve recently had their EV insurance cancelled without cause. Insurers are now distancing themselves from EV’s due to inversion of their profit/loss ratio by paying higher EV repair rates. 

Environmental impact:

One of the more touted arguments against EV’s is that dirty (carbon intensive) lithium production processes and power generation will offset any carbon reduction the EV may produce. Well? Sort of. EV’s do offer operational carbon reduction over ICE vehicles (even when charging in coal-country), but they also create more carbon in manufacturing processes as well. In effect, this defers any overall carbon reduction until later in lifecycle  and forces the fleet operator to view it as environmental depreciation.

Let’s say that your inventory only averages 5K miles per unit/per year and you’re replacing inventory every 5 years (to maximize resale value). Don’t be bragging at the local bar that your company’s EVs are reducing global carbon footprint over an ICE solution, because they’re not. It would take more than 25K/mi total service-life before reduced operating carbon offset the additional manufacturing carbon.

But if your inventory averages 15K miles per unit/per year and you rotate inventory every 7 years, you will indeed reduce your corporate carbon footprint over the unit’s life.

Remember, all else being equal battery size regulates the carbon produced in lithium-cell manufacturing. Mining and manufacturing keep getting cleaner, but it is still a “dirty” process. Depending on which source you cite, you will see a mileage accrual of 40-60K miles as the reasonable EV carbon-output tip-over point (assuming a standard 60-86 kWh battery vehicle). Your mileage may vary. 

Market acceptance:

Remember, in the early 1900’s EV’s were already a big thing in the automotive world (read up on Electrobat, Riker and Electric Vehicle Company, for just a few). ICE powered vehicles only started to own the market as they became cheaper, engines became more dependable, ran longer distances and were easier to fuel. EV’s were all but dead by the mid 1910’s due to higher cost, limited range and poor charging infrastructure. Ironic that those same issues plague the same technology 110 years later. 

Synopsis:

EV’s can offer significant advantages if you respect and work within their limitations. But as things stand today, EV’s are only a partial solution to the bigger problem; decarbonization of all transportation and manufacturing. Likely (as history has often proven) no single technology will prove itself a complete solution, but we will end up with a potpourri of different ideas as the fossil-fuel market declines. Those technologies will see categorical winners and losers eventually, but the votes will be cast with wallets, not at ballot boxes. 

Stay tuned! I need to jump into my Bolt EV for a meeting across town. …Hope I remembered to plug it in to charge last night…