You are on page 1of 75

Tesla Model 3: Does it signal an Electric

Car Revolution?
Implications for US Oil and Power Markets
May 2016

Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Electric Vehicles: the long road

1800s 1900s 1910s 1990s 2010s

Birth Golden Age Decline Revival Full Circle

Following the invention EV's would continue to Yet, the advent of Following the energy The unveiling of the
of the first electric show promising growth mass production, crises of the 1980s, the Model 3 by Tesla
motor in the early 19 th during the early 20th technological advances 1990s saw a represents the first step
century, EV's make up century as more of the and cheap fuel would resurgence of interest by a non-traditional
more than a third of all populace turned ultimately propel in fuel-efficient automotive player to
vehicles on US roads toward purchasing a gasoline powered vehicles. However, EV provide the public with
by 1900, competing personal vehicle. vehicles ahead of EV's sales remained low an alternative that rivals
with steam and in gaining mass public due to technological the performance of a
gasoline as alternative acceptance. and performance traditional Internal
methods of powering limitations. Combustion Engine (ICE)
2 automobile.
the Trusted commercial intelligence but at a competitive price.
www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric Vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

3 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
The Tesla Model 3 was unveiled on March 31, 2016, with initial production to
begin late 2017. With a range of 215 miles, a competitive price of $35,000 for a
base model, record low implied battery cost, expected battery life of 200k300k
miles, and supercharging capability, the promise of a mass market electric car
could be largely fulfilled if Tesla can deliver.

As of mid April, reservations approached an astounding 400,000, or ~30% of


the global EV fleet and almost equal to EVs in the US. Success is not certain
from these reservations as evidenced through cancellations that have already
Executive happened bringing this number down to ~370,000. But there are other positive
indicators like the market penetration of its predecessor the Model S, which is
now the dominant player in its segment in just a few years.
Summary
Yet, the impact of Model 3 on energy markets will not be in how many Model
3s are sold but what it could mean for the broader electric vehicle industry.
Chevrolets Bolt EV is an example of the broader trend, with deliveries to begin
late 2016 at a price and range similar to the Model 3. Others traditional and
even emerging companies are at different stages of introducing electric cars.

Based on our payback analysis, the Model 3 could make significant inroads into
the small luxury segment (BMW 3 series, Mercedes C Class etc.). While the
mid-sized segment will be more challenging, attractive paybacks mean that
Tesla could capture a non-trivial size of this market. Paybacks aside, electric
cars, as shown by prior Tesla and upcoming models from other manufacturers,
are increasingly looking attractive in terms of design and performance.

In summary, with the Model 3, Tesla is expected to expand from 100,000


annual car sales to some portion of a 3 million a year car market. This is still a
small fraction of 17 million light vehicles sold in the US every year. So, calling it
a mass market car is a stretch. But the Model 3 is an early indication of what
might be coming across different market segments.

4 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
In Wood Mackenzies H2 2015 view, electric vehicles (including PHEVs) reach
12% of new light vehicle sales in the US by 2035. If the Model 3 and new EVs
from other manufacturers spur wider electric car adoption then this could have
significant implications for US oil and power sectors, with the impact largely in
the 2025 - 2035 period.

We have US gasoline demand falling from 9.3 million b/d to 6.5 million b/d by
2035 in our base case, a decline of 30%. In our increased adoption scenarios,
we estimate that demand could fall by another 350,000 to 1 million b/d by 2035,
Executive a 5-15% reduction from the base case.

Summary This equates to 50 to 200 TWh of incremental power demand or 1 to 3 bcfde in


natural gas terms. In effect, this would add 2-4 years worth of electric demand
growth significant for a market that has seen no load growth in the past 7
years and looking for growth to return. Of course, this incremental load would
only materialize in the 2025 2035 time period.

We also considered an aggressive adoption case which assumes large scale


adoption of electric cars with EVs becoming the choice of almost all new car
sales by 2035, assuming a one-for-one replacement of their gasoline
counterparts. In this case, gasoline demand reduces by 0.5 million b/d within 8
years and 2 million b/d within 20 years. For power, this adds 8 years of new load
growth or 6.5 bcfd in gas equivalent terms.

Each of the cases include a time lag to accommodate real world constraints
(production, infrastructure, raw material) which are inherently uncertain at this
point. Removing all constraints, a theoretical maximum disruption (assuming
electrics becomes the choice for almost all new car sales by 2025) would be 4
million b/d of lower oil demand relative to our base case in 2035.

5 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
An often cited benefit for encouraging larger adoption is the significant savings
in carbon emissions that would accrue from such a switch -- especially relevant
in a post COP 21 world.

While it is well understood that average carbon intensity is much lower in most
power systems compared to gasoline, that may not necessarily be the case at
the margin. That is, for an incremental EV, emissions could potentially be more
in the power sector compared to the oil sector especially if gasoline car
efficiency improves.
Executive
While there are many nuances to this issue, electrifying transport as part of a
Summary wider strategy to increase renewables penetration within the power sector, is
arguably an effective means to reduce carbon emissions from transport .

California is a case study of this broader carbon mitigation strategy that


ultimately requires big data and the internet of things (IoT) to integrate diverse
sources of clean generation. Going down the rabbit hole, this creates a new
array of concerns around hacking, grid security that will likely need to be
resolved with time.

This insight will study in detail the implications of the unveiling of Tesla
Model 3 and broader implications for electric car saturation in the US
transport sector. The study will also look at implications for US power and
oil demand as well as emissions markets.

6 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

7 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Tesla Model 3: Specs
Announced for initial production in late 2017, the Model 3 has some key features that separate it from current all
battery electric (EV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) available to the market.
Cost:
The base version of the Model 3 will be produced at $35,000
Tesla later verified that the average Model 3 will cost closer to $42,000 (before incentives) with some of the
premium options selected, likely models equipped with bigger battery packs and better performance
features.
Performance:
The Model 3 will be able to go from 0-60 in less than 6 seconds in the base version.
Range
As demonstrated in previous models released by Tesla, the Model 3 aims to quell most of the "range
anxiety" associated with EV's by equipping the base model with a 50-60 kwh battery, capable of traveling at
least 215 miles per charge. Larger batteries that provide more range will be available for a premium.
Charging
The Model 3 will likely be equipped with hardware for supercharging (charging to near full capacity in 30
40 minutes) compared to multiple hours with other EVs. Supercharging capability at one of its currently
available supercharging stations will come at a fee. Regular charging of the battery can be finished in 5-6
hours from a home charger.
Technology
The Model 3 is pre-equipped with its auto-pilot hardware, allowing the car to be "self-autonomous" when
driving in certain situations. The hardware will be standard with each Model 3 base vehicle yet the software
to use this hardware will be an additional charge, likely similar to the premium paid for the Model S (~$3K)

8 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

9 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Model 3 alleviates many of traditional concerns but unanswered
questions remain
Limited Range per Concerns Can take up to eight
charge (30-100 miles hours
for current offerings) 30 40 minute super
215 mile range charging option

Likelihood of Limited
replacing battery infrastructure for
during life of the charging
vehicle

Are electric cars


Capacity degrades cleaner than
faster than conventional cars in
expected (Nissan terms of carbon
Leaf) emissions?

Image problem:
Costs are too high for
not cool looking
electric cars to be mass
cars
market

Risk of Material
Electric Cars need
costs inflation for
incentives to be competitive
batteries, which are
with gasoline cars . Limited
significant portion of
resale value?
total cost

10 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Current concerns: Will charging stations be a constraint?

Based on current charging patterns, most people program their cars to charge overnight
A longer range would mean charging will mostly be
done at night which would mitigate the need for
access to charging stations except for long distance
travel or exigencies. (See current charging patterns in
Typical Charging pattern of EV fleet in San Diego, CA
San Diego as shown on the chart.)
Peak
Access to charging infrastructure in remote areas 25.0%
around

Percentage of Daily Charging (%)


likely will be a concern.
Charging infrastructure in houses without a garage or 2:00 am
within apartment complexes will be a challenge. 20.0%
Most of the charging that would need to happen can
be done over night taking anywhere from 1-6 hours.
A recent study funded by the Department of 15.0%
Energy analyzed current EV owners charging
preference recognizing that around 85% of all
charging is done at home compared to away
10.0%
from home charging.
In addition, it was observed that if work places
offered charging options that EV owners would
take advantage, a potential benefit that could 5.0%
be offered by some companies.
The use of a Level 2 Electric Vehicle Supply
Equipment (EVSE) can allow for the battery to charge 0.0%
at double the rate of a normal plugin, but requires a 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM
retrofit to existing household plug-in infrastructure
(can range from $500-$2,000 extra depending on the Hour of Day
required amount of work needed). Source: Wood Mackenzie; Idaho National Laboratory
Part of this cost can be offset by an existing
Federal EVSE rebate (30% of total install cost
with cap up to $1,000, whichever is lesser)

11 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Current concerns- Charging Infrastructure: Will it follow higher EV
penetration ?
Although most observed charging is done currently Registered Electric Vehicles vs Charge Points by State
at home, a robust charging infrastructure is often
cited as a key to wider EV adoption. This further
helps to quell range anxiety and broaden the East South Central Middle Atlantic Mountain New England
number of potential customers. Pacific South Atlantic West North Central West South Central

Additionally, a robust infrastructure can help utilities 2014 Registered EVs


manage and shape hourly demand by spreading the
additional EV load across the day (rather than - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
concentrating it entirely at night when customers are 2,000
charging at home), as well as implementing

Total Charge Points


1,800
demand-side management features such as
1,600
demand response and time-of-use pricing at the
charge point. 1,400
In general, most states have built out a charging 1,200
infrastructure thats proportionate with the current 1,000
EV fleet. While much of todays charging 800
infrastructure has been privately funded, new laws
in states such as Washington and California now 600
allow regulated utilities to recover the cost of 400 - 75,000 150,000
infrastructure build-outs in their rates, thus hoping to 200 13,000
spur further investment in the infrastructure build
-
out.
With unprecedented adoption levels in the state due 6,500 California
to numerous incentives and a zero-emission vehicle
target, the California Energy Commission has gone
so far as to develop an equation to determine the
proper infrastructure build out to accommodate the -
incremental power demand. Source: Wood Mackenzie, NREL

12 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Tesla supercharger infrastructure validates the thesis: Infrastructure
build following expectation of higher market saturation
Located along common routes, enabling long-distance traveling for Tesla vehicles

The Superchargers enable long-distance


Current and under construction Superchargers (by the end of 2016)
traveling for all Tesla vehicles, allowing for
almost a full charge within 30 minutes, or
about 7 miles per minute.
Current supercharging capability works by
delivering high current DC electricity that will
charge the battery up to 80% of capacity
quite quickly. Incremental charging after this
is markedly slower in order to not damage
the battery.
Currently there are 209 Supercharging
stations across North America. Tesla is
expecting more the 400 stations to be
operational by the end of 2016, with each
station having on average 6 superchargers
All Model 3's will be equipped with
supercharging capability, yet the option to
use could be an incremental fee on top of the
base price of the vehicle.
Alternatively, Tesla could also implement a
pay per use fee, although it is not known fully
of their ultimate plans for the Model 3 yet.
All Model S and X owners are offered free Source: Wood Mackenzie; Tesla Motors
charging at its super chargers over the life
of the car

13 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Current concerns- Will Battery costs continue to decline ?

Battery Costs expectations


Lithium-Ion battery costs continue to surprise as
improving technologies and the scaling up of Battery Pack Cost Projections
production have lowered costs considerably.

1,200
EIA battery cost expectations from their High
1,100
Technology Case in 2012 are already being beat by a
big margin just four years later. Battery cost quotes 1,000
from leading EV auto manufacturers have fallen from 900

Costs ($/KWh)
$250 - $350/kWh to $190 -$200/kWh, and are
800
expecting them to continue to fall further, closer to the
$100/KWh threshold (industry assumption for mass 700
adoption of EVs) over the next decade 600
In addition, there are still different avenues for battery 500
costs to continue their decline
The optimal chemistries used currently in EV batteries
400
300
are still being developed and improved upon. Those
offering longer lifespans, increased energy densities 200
(driving range) or the need for less battery cells per
100
pack can all lead toward faster cost reductions than $100/KWh threshold
expected. 0

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Based on quotes from Tesla representatives, current
battery pack costs are already lower than $190/kWh EIA Reference case High Technology Battery case
for the Model S. The Model 3 battery pack is Tesla GM
expected to cost lower, although estimates are Nissan
Source: Wood Mackenzie; EIA; Manufacturer sources
speculative at best right now given current lack of
information on details around the Model 3 battery.

14 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Key factor to cost reductions in Model 3 and subsequent EVs: the
Gigafactory
The Gigafactory will be the single largest global producer of lithium-ion batteries once
completed in 2020, second to only China.
Global Battery Cell Production vs the Gigafactory

The Gigafactory will be able to produce 35 GWh of 90,000


battery cells needed for each of the battery packs
80,000
in its vehicles. Batteries will also be produced at
The Gigafactory will
this facility for its home power storage business. 70,000 more than double the

Global Battery Capacity (MWh)


By 2020, Tesla plans for the Gigafactory to be global capacity for
providing enough low cost batteries to ramp up the 60,000 manufacturing
total production to 500,000 EV's per year or roughly automotive batteries
50,000
50 GWh of battery pack storage capability
This is equal to almost 5 times the amount of 40,000
battery storage used in all EV's produced
globally in 2015. 30,000

The Gigafactory is expected to help lower the costs 20,000


of the battery packs by more than 30% according
to Tesla. 10,000
Current global auto battery cell manufacturing -
production stands at a little more than 1 million Fully Commissioned and Tesla Gigafactory
EVs annually, when including the Gigafactory Under Construction (MWh)
production (this is assuming batteries that are 60
ROW EU US Korea Japan China
kWh in size.) Yet, the amount of EVs produced
could potentially be higher with current capacity if
Source: Wood Mackenzie, Clean Energy Manufacturing Analysis Center (CEMAC)
the batteries are smaller.

15 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Current concerns: Risks to battery cost projections

Many factors at play that can influence where costs are headed
Upside (lowering of costs) Total Battery Cost Breakdown
Increasing cleaner policies (less carbon) across
the globe incenting a movement toward EVs
More manufacturing capacity coming online 1% 1%
(creating economies of scale)
Next generation technologies being developed 5%
Increasing competition from battery producers 7%

Ability to arbitrage stored energy into the power


Materials
market (selling back stored electricity to the local
utility). Yet, current Tesla models do not have the 12% Equipment

ability or are expected in the future to be able to sell Labor


back stored energy to the grid. Maintenance
74% Facilities
Downside (delaying cost reductions)
Energy
Lithium-Ion components are not commoditized-
they are very specific to each batteries design/use
Increasing competition for Lithium-Ion batteries from
other industries such as consumer electronics and
power storage (utility scale and DG)
Costs for the underlying materials increasing
(Lithium, Copper, Nickel, Graphite etc) Source: Wood Mackenzie; Clean Energy Manufacturing Analysis Center (CEMAC)
Allowing of EV subsidies to expire, although it is not
quite quantified how much these influence costs at
the manufacturer level
16 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Current concerns: Will lithium production constraints limit the
penetration of EVs? Global Lithium Production (excl. US)
40,000 2.9%

Annual Lithium Production (tons)


Why is lithium so important? CAGR
35,000 6.6%
Lithium is one of the key elements used in Lithium-Ion battery production, mostly CAGR
30,000
due to its lightness and ability to hold more storage in a smaller space. 9.4%
25,000 CAGR
This is key for electric vehicles as this maximizes the range while balancing
20,000
the total weight of the vehicle.
15,000
Lithium Ion batteries are of particular interest for EVs due to their very high specific
energy (ability for storage), lack of memory loss (no need to fully discharge battery 10,000
prior to recharging) and ability to be a low maintenance battery 5,000
What are the issues surrounding Lithium? 0
2000 2005 2010 2015
Due to the expectation of increased demand for batteries, it is still unknown whether
the current market can keep up with the expected ramp up in production that will be World Mine Production
Source: Wood Mackenzie, USGS
needed.
Most current supply is produced by 3 companies globally with most of the Global Lithium Identified Resources
current production of Lithium Carbonate (compound needed for battery Russia Serbia
Total identified
production) located in Chile, Australia, and Argentina. Congo 2.5% 2.5%
2.5% resources stand at
Spot prices have markedly increased over the last few years- indicating an 40 million tons
Canada
increasing tightening in supply/demand fundamentals. Yet, most current 2.5% US
established battery players are likely to have locked into more longer-term 16.4%
suppler agreements that are at lower prices compared to the indicative spot
Bolivia
price. 22.1%
Argentina
Current market dynamics suggest that new production will be needed in the near- Portugal 15.9%
future. As such, there are players globally that are in the process of developing new 0.1%
sites that will look to meet this expected lithium revolution
Zimbabwe China
Total identified resources stand at around 40 million tons, enough to make 1.6 0.1% 12.5% Australia
billion 85 kWh Tesla Model S batteries. Chile
4.2%
18.4%
Yet, if EVs take off faster than expected, other materials such as Nickel, Cobalt, Brazil
Manganese and Graphite could also prove to be important for battery production 0.4%
Source: Wood Mackenzie; USGS
and should be viewed as a potential constraint along with lithium.
17 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Current concerns: Do you need to replace a battery during ownership
of vehicle?
Model S batteries have been able to prove quite resilient
Early Model S batteries a guide?
Historical and Projected performance of Tesla Model S battery
Early Model S vehicles (2012-2013) used a 60 KWh battery option
(208 mile range), which is similar in size to the battery that is expected 250
in a Model 3 (likely a bit smaller with better range).
Although gradual capacity loss is expected from batteries, surveys
from owners of the early version Model S have shown that loss in
200
capacity has not led to a major deviation away from its rated
nameplate battery capacity.

Miles Per Charge


The Plug In America's Tesla Model S owner survey revealed that
150
the Tesla battery loses ~2.5% capacity for every 25,000 miles
driven or it would still maintain almost 90% capacity after
100,000 miles driven. A new battery would not be needed until at
least 200,000 miles driven, or when the battery would achieve 100
164 miles per charge
Tesla Model 3 battery implications Reaches 80% of capacity
(recommended to replace
All Model S and Model X owners are given a 8 year, infinite mile 50
battery at 70%)
warranty on the battery pack and drive unit (drive train etc). Although
loss of capacity through normal usage is acknowledged and not
covered under the warranty, any malfunction or defective batteries are 0
covered by Tesla during this timeframe. - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Teslas patented thermal management system helps the battery Total Miles Driven
prolong its overall capacity by controlling the temperature of the
Actual Data Extrapolated
battery as this can have adverse effects in pace of loss of capacity.
In comparison, some Nissan Leafs have had issues where extreme Source: Wood Mackenzie; Plug in America
temperatures have sped up the pace of battery degradation due to
insufficient temperature management of the battery. GM is designing
their own battery management system to better help with prolonging the
life of the battery in its upcoming Bolt.
18 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Tesla Model 3 Features and Traditional Concerns: Takeaways

Model 3 alleviates many traditional concerns but issues remain


Model 3 alleviates traditional concerns around range and cost.

Design, safety and make of the model (soft features) while speculative at this point --
seems increasingly main stream. Previous Tesla models have performed very well on
these counts within their segments according to consumer surveys.

Longer range, supercharging capability and the fact that most charging is done at home ---
mitigates traditional charging concerns around time it takes to charge and the availability
of charging infrastructure. Yet, as EV saturation increases, infrastructure build-out as seen
historically. But how quickly this can be done with large EV penetration remains a concern.

Battery costs should continue falling but risks remain.

Battery life likely to extend to 200K 300k miles, thus battery replacement costs less of a
concern over the lifetime ownership of the car but on road evidence limited to 50 85K
miles with isolated cases of 100K-150K miles. Again, lingering questions remain.

19 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

20 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Electric vs Oil: Cost Benefit analysis a function of many drivers

Price of
Electricity
Vehicle Cost Miles Travelled

Cost Benefit
Carbon policy Analysis Financial
and price Incentives
implications

Other: Battery Other: Home charging


Replacement, Battery Price of infrastructure,
Degradation Gasoline Maintainence costs

21 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Electric Car vs Gasoline Car: Calculating Payback
Payback Analysis entails a number of assumptions

Paybacks are a function of many factors and can range significantly across each state

In the following slides, we utilize Wood Mackenzies H2 2015 LTO from the NA Oils and the NA Power &
Renewables teams to show the impact of individual drivers and ultimately an analysis of payback and
competitiveness of the Tesla Model 3

Analysis of Drivers
Fuel Costs (Gasoline and electric)
Regional gasoline and electric costs
Impacts depend on different fuel costs
Driving Patterns (miles driven per capita)
Impacts depend on different driving patterns across the US
Federal and state financial incentives
Federal CAFE standards

Final payback analysis


Comparing the right cars is paramount for an accurate payback to gauge competitiveness

We also take examples of different US states to show the sensitivity to underlying drivers
22 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Analysis of Drivers: 1) Fuel Cost Savings = f (Gasoline costs,
electric costs, miles driven )
Variations in electric, gasoline and driving pattern create deviations in fuel cost savings

Increasing Electric Costs (2015 data) Increasing Gas Costs (2015 data)

Increasing Vehicle Miles Per Capita (2015 data)

23 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Gasoline prices and electric rates cause deviations in EV vs Gasoline
competitiveness
EVs maintain a significant fuel cost advantage under many scenarios going forward*
California South Carolina Oregon
(High gasoline prices and high electric rates) (Low gasoline prices and high electric rates) (High gasoline prices and low electric rates)

Cost per 100 miles (Electric) Cost per 100 miles (Electric) Cost per 100 miles (Electric)

18 Cost per 100 miles (Gasoline) 18 Cost per 100 miles (Gasoline) 18 Cost per 100 miles (Gasoline)
Real $/ 100 miles (Cost/ Savings)

16 16 16
14 14 14
12 12 12
Healthy cost advantage despite
10 rising electric rates and high gas 10 10 High gas prices and relatively low
prices electric rates keep EVs as a very
8 8 Healthy cost advantage despite 8 attractive option
rising electric rates
6 6 6
4 Flat oil prices and rising retail 4 4
rates could switch the savings by Flat oil prices and rising retail
2 2025 2 rates could switch the savings 2 Flat oil prices would not change
by 2030 savings directionally
0 0 0

Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie

A typical driver in CA saves $3 to $6 for A typical driver in SC saves $3 to $8 for A typical driver in OR saves $3 to $12 for
every 100 miles driven through 2035. If every 100 miles driven. If gasoline prices every 100 miles driven. If prices remained
gasoline prices remained at 2016 levels, remained at 2016 levels, cost savings at 2016 levels, cost savings would still
cost saving would still accrue until 2025 would still accrue until 2030 accrue through 2035+

*Numbers derived from Wood Mackenzie H2 2015 Oils, Power & Renewables Long-Term Outlooks
24 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Driving distances and patterns can significantly impact ultimate savings

Total cumulative cost savings in Wyoming is almost 50% more than Pennsylvania despite savings per mile in
Pennsylvania expected to be higher by 2-20% through 2035. Reason: Average miles driven in rural Wyoming is about
~16,000 miles per capita per year, while Pennsylvania drivers only drive ~8,000 miles a year on average.
Wyoming Pennsylvania
(Lower savings per mile but much higher miles driven per capita) (Higher savings per mile but much lower miles driven per capita)

Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie

25 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Analysis of Drivers : 2.a) Financial Incentives Federal Income Tax
Credit
Credit provided up until 200,000 car sales made by the manufacturer

Included as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the income tax credit,
unlike an incentive or rebate which reduces the cost of the vehicle at time of purchase, offers individuals a
credit of up to $7,500 that can be used to reduce taxes owed in the year of purchase.

Owners of all electric cars qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit but unused credits cannot be carried over to
subsequent years or refunded, and thus need to be used in the same year. Thus consumers with at least a
$7,500 tax bill will be able to utilize the full value of the credits.

The income tax credit is stipulated by manufacturer and is capped at a total production of 200,000, at which
point it is gradually phased down over a 12 month period -- to $3,750 and $1,875 at the beginning of the
second and fourth calendar quarter after reaching the threshold.

The way the current rule is stated, there is no limit to the amount of car sales that are capable of getting the
credit in this phase out period, as long as they occur during the phase out period after the 200,000 milestone
is hit.

Renewal of tax credit remains an uncertainty

26 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Analysis of Drivers : 2.b) Financial Incentives State Incentives

State level incentives drive regional divergence in EV growth

Through 2014, more than 95% of


all EV sales occurred in states
where there were incremental
incentives when purchasing an
7 new states added EV
related incentives in the
All States?
electric vehicle. last year
Currently, there are 33 states
across the US that offer 16 states have also
incentives for EV buyers directly, increased their
with 24 of those offering two or
more.
level of incentives 33 States
for EV buyers
Over the last few years, more - Incentives
states have started to offer more for EV
10 states ZEV program
EV related incentives to help spur mandates require 3.3
the EV market within their own million ZEVs to be sold by
buyers
state 2025
Several of the state-level
incentives range from one-time
up front cost savings to more
longer-term savings that help
reduce the costs of ownership
over the lifetime of the vehicle.
27 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Summary of State Incentives: Types and savings range ($)

Major Incentive Types $ Saving Range Examples

Income Tax Credit & Rebate (One Time) $250 $19,000 District of Columbia, Colorado, California

Voucher (One Time) $3,500 Texas

Charging Station Incentives (One Time) $75 $5,000 New York, Indiana, Louisiana

Sales Tax Exemption (One Time) $2,730 $2,940 New Jersey, Washington

HOV Lane Exemption (Long term) $7,543 Maryland, Tennessee, Florida

Vehicle Inspection Exemption (Long term) $422 Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri

Parking Exemption (Long term) $9,944 Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii

The incentive saving numbers are based on the States cap amount.
Sales tax exemption is based of the assumed average cost of Tesla Model 3 - $42,000.
Long-term savings are based on a 12 year ownership of vehicle.

28 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Total potential lifetime savings from all incentives but will all
incentives last at higher levels of market penetration ?
0 60% of costs of purchasing an electric car like Model 3 can be offset through federal
and tax incentives; these incentives come with multiple caveats and overall caps

Combining federal and state incentives, leading


the pack are states like California and Florida.
Both have lifetimes savings that could exceed
$25,000 with 40% upfront savings, with the rest
of the savings accruing over the life of the
vehicle.
States located around the West Coast, South
Atlantic and Northeast have attractive incentives.
At least 22 states provide adequate incentives to
offset roughly $10,000 in costs of going electric,
when including the Federal $7,500 income tax
credit. 17 states have incentives totaling greater
than $6,500 lifetime savings excluding the
Federal Income Tax Credit
In contrast, large parts of the upper Midwest,
Midwest and Great Plains have little or no
incentives at the state level.
Ultimate savings will depend on a host of
qualifications included within the fine print.
(namely but not limited to income levels, weight = $ 7,500 > $ 7500 > $ 9600 > $ 11900 > $ 14200 > $ 18800 > $ 25700
of the car, end use and ownership).
Incentives and savings may also be subject to
Source: Wood Mackenzie
overall spending caps etc.
29 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Analysis of Drivers : 3) Federal CAFE Standards

Federal policy targeting the manufacturer on achieving more fuel efficient vehicles is
driving more offerings of EV options but will likely raise the average cost of an ICE
Background on the CAFE standards
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have been gradually CAFE fuel efficiency targets (miles per gallon)
encouraging automakers at making more fuel efficient vehicles.
Dating back to 1975, the US first passed the CAFE standards that apply to 50
passenger and light truck vehicles, aiming to improve the fleet wide average fuel
economy, or the amount of gasoline consumed per mile traveled. 45

These regulations were further expanded in 2009 to include the regulation of 40


Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and aimed to provide a mechanism for
automakers to build toward a single national fleet of new vehicles that are in 35
compliance with requirements under both the Clean Air Act (CAA) and CAFE

Miles per Gallon


programs. 30
What are the targets? 25
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has set targets of 34.1 mpg and 250 g CO2 e/mile for 20
models produced in 2016, which effectively increase fuel efficiencies and reduce
GHG rate by 29% and 26% respectively from 2009 levels. 15
The actual "on-road" fuel economy target is equal to roughly 27 mpg or 10
20% lower than the official NHSTA standards. EPA admits that "real-
world" GHG rates will be 25% higher than actually stated goals but 5
understand there is a symbiotic relationship between fuels savings and
reduction of GHG emissions. 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Going forward, CAFE standards for model years 2017 through 2021 and
preliminary-standards for 2022-2025 steadily improve with the government
targeting in 2021 and 2025 of about 33 and 40 mpg respectively of "real-world"
Car Light Truck Actual Average Target
fuel efficiency targets.
Although the government has embarked on a mid-term evaluation of the 2022- Source: Wood Mackenzie,, NHSTA
2025 standards in summer 2018, the near-term standards for 2017-2021 are
binding and are driving a host of investment by automakers in order to get their
fleets to meet compliance.
30 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Federal CAFE Standards

What does this mean for the Model 3 sales?


Compliance pathways
Automakers will use technology, including advancements in the Internal Combustion Engine, use of weight-efficient materials as
well as air conditioning improvements to meet the near-term goals (2017-2021).
There are also outlays within the rule that allow for use of CO2 credits that will help with compliance strategies, where EV's
(along with other zero emitting and hybrid technologies) will be given "multiplier credits" that will help to reduce the target fuel
efficiency goals. This means all EV's sold during the 2017-2021 timeframe will be given a "production multiplier" where EV
sales count as more than one vehicle, helping to bring down the overall "target" efficiency goals.
By not complying with the standards, this will force a compliance penalty where the manufacturer must pay based on the
amount of vehicles sold and the difference in fleet efficiency vs target rates. That being said, there are various routes and
credits that can be created that will help offset non-compliance.
Depending on the manufacturer, EVs as well as the hybridization of the vehicles will likely be a piece of an overall compliance
plan.
What this means for overall EV sales?
EPA projects that the new technology needed to meet compliance with the 2025 goals will add ~$2,100 to the sticker price of a
new light duty vehicle, although this is less than the 2-3 times the projected savings from fuel costs.
The big question mark is whether Americans will be comfortable buying smaller, more efficient cars--- or if habits will inhibit the
penetration of more efficient vehicles.
Alsogiven lower fuel prices there might be less of an incentive to move to a newer, more efficient car given the savings in fuel
costs arent a significant driver to sway more people into a newer car.
But as the price of a new car increases at the same time EV prices decrease (lower battery costs), this further converges the
two technologies and makes the cost differentials lesser, but the gains in ICE fuel efficiency offsets some of the gains made
from fuel price differentials between electric and gasoline costs.

31 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
A comparison of Tesla Model 3 with main US competitors

Teslas mass market Model 3 targets a segment with US sales of 3 million cars p.a. while
the Model S market segment stands around 100,000 US sales p.a.
700 Midsize
Small Luxury
600
Total Range (miles per tank/charge)

500

400

300

200
Tesla Model 3 straddles
100
both segments
-
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

Average Cost of New Vehicle

-Nissan Altima -Honda Accord -Lexus IS -Mercedes C Class

-Chevrolet Malibu -Toyota Camry -BMW 3 Series -Audi A4

-Ford Fusion
Source: Wood Mackenzie, US News
32 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Final Cost Benefit Analysis: Payback Period Calculation Assumptions
Cost and features of the Tesla: Assumptions
The Tesla Model 3 sticker price (without incentives) is $35,000. According to Tesla, this includes:
A range of at least 215 miles on one single charge (we assume 215 miles in our analysis)
Performance of 0-60 miles in 6 seconds
5-star safety on multiple categories
Supercharger capable: This likely means that the car will still have the opportunity to use Teslas
superchargers but will not be provided free, a perk that only owners of the Model S or Model X enjoy
Auto-pilot hardware standard: likely will include only cruise control but not clear if software to use the
auto-pilot will be included in the base price or will be a premium

The Model 3 will have premium feature options available which could push the average cost from $35,000
to $42,000
All-wheel drive
Longer range battery pack
Better performance i.e. faster acceleration, sports suspension etc.
Auto-pilot with convenience: will likely include some subset of autonomous driving, self parking

These features are still uncertain and are based on press releases and reports, so we
calculate payback based on:
Base Model Cost: a sticker price of $35,000
Average cost with loaded features: $42,000
33 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Final Cost Benefit Analysis: Payback Period Calculation Assumptions
Comparing the right cars is paramount for an accurate payback to gauge competitiveness

We compare Tesla Model 3s payback against gasoline cars within 2 segments where Tesla will likely compete (as
highlighted in prior slides slide)
Small Luxury with market size of 600K cars per year: Highest selling car at the moment is the BMW 3
series
Base Model Cost: $37,150 (excluding delivery costs to dealership)
Average Loaded Model Cost: $40,357 (excluding delivery costs to dealership). Average loaded is the
price of the car on average - with premium features.
Midsize segment with market size of 2.4 mm cars per year: Highest selling car at the moment is the Toyota
Camry (V6 version used comparable to Tesla Model 3)
Base Model Cost: $28,353 with incentives and $30,353 without incentives (excluding delivery)
Average Loaded Cost:30,081 with incentives and $32,281 without incentives (excluding delivery)

Payback cases based on which cars are likely to be in direct competition


Case 1: Tesla Base Model 3 vs BMW 3 series Base Model
Case 2: Tesla Average Loaded Model vs BMW 3 series Average Loaded Model
Case 3: Tesla Base Model 3 vs Toyota Camry V6 Base Model
Case 4: Tesla Average Loaded Model vs Toyota Camry V6 Average Loaded Model
Case 5: Tesla Base Model 3 vs Toyota Camry V6 Average Loaded Model

34 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Final Cost Benefit Analysis: Payback Period Calculation Assumptions
Other assumptions and scenarios for each case
The payback period calculations is based on:
Gasoline costs, electric costs and cost savings leveraging Wood Mackenzie H2 2015 long term outlook
Variations in current driving distances by state
Wood Mackenzie database on state and federal EV financial incentives
Maintainence costs: EV Maintainence costs are assumed to be lower by $500 i.e. no oil changes, transmission fluids,
and other components like spark plugs, wires, mufflers. However we take conservative assumptions given potential
but uncertain gasoline advantages on insurance costs, salvage value (will likely be higher given very long term
mileage of EVs have not been proven yet)
Charging losses of 15% for electric
Cost of home electric charger installation/equipment
Not included: Premium pricing for unleaded gasoline, improved efficiencies of battery packs, potentially higher ICE
maintenance costs (compared to relatively conservative model assumption)
For each payback comparison, many scenarios are assumed:
1) Payback assuming Federal and State Incentives (for a car bought in 2018)
2) Payback assuming no incentives (for a car bought in 2018)
3) Assume reduction in battery costs to $150/kWh + higher CAFE efficiency based on 2025 on-road target (40
mpg) with associated increase in cost by $2,000 per EPA study (for a car bought in 2025)
4) Assume reduction in battery costs to $100/kWh + higher CAFE efficiency based on 2025 on-road target (40
mpg) with associated increase in cost by $2,000 per EPA study (for a car bought in 2025)
We assume battery replacements will not be required given historical data that proves these batteries will last with limited
degradation up to 50 85,000 miles and will likely have a lifetime of 200,000 300,000 miles given technological
advancements around Battery Management systems. Moreover, Tesla currently insures (for the Model S) batteries for up
to 8 years/unlimited mileage for the larger battery packs and up to 125,000 miles for the smaller battery packs.
35 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Final Cost Benefit Analysis: Payback Period Calculation Assumptions
What is an attractive payback ?

In the US, the average age of a car is 11-12 years.

Also, the average length of ownership of a new car is 5-7 years although it used to be as low
as 4 years before the 2008 recession.

The payback period is defined as the number of years it takes for an owner to recoup the
premium (if any) that an owner has to pay to purchase an electric car through savings (if any)
that would accrue from driving an electric car.

We define an attractive payback as 5-7 years or below since the purchase decision would
likely be based on this period, if at all. Salvage values are ignored and could play an
important factor as mentioned. This may not necessarily stem from a shorter lifespan of an
electric car given technological improvements, but rather the fact that the electric car still has
not been on road tested beyond 125,000 - 150,000 miles across a sizeable customer base.

Paybacks were done for US lower 48 states. In subsequent slides, we provide a min,
median, and max representing the distribution of paybacks across US states.
36 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Payback: Case 1 Tesla Base Model 3 vs BMW 3 series Base Model
Tesla Base Model cheaper than BMW 3 series base model from the outset: Net cash positive from the day
the car is purchased and driven.
Cost of Tesla Base Model: $35,000

Payback Tesla Model 3 Base vs BMW 3 Series Base


Cost of BMW 3 series Base Model: $37,150

Since the Tesla Base Model 3 is actually cheaper than the


BMW 3 series base model, savings exist from point of
purchase. As the consumer starts driving the car, electric
cost advantages start adding to the expected savings of the
car.

This advantage exists across all the scenarios. i.e. if you


purchase a car in 2018 with or without financial incentives.

Fast forward to 2025, reduction in battery costs along with


improved gasoline car efficiency (40 mpg) is not likely to
have an impact on the edge that the Model 3 will likely have
over the 3 series.

While battery cost replacement is not assumed as likely


given technological improvements, including replacement
costs will likely not push the paybacks beyond 5 years on
average. Source: Wood Mackenzie

37 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Payback: Case 2 Tesla Average Loaded Model vs BMW 3 Average Loaded Model
Tesla average Loaded Model 3 competitive with BMW 3 average loaded model across scenarios
Cost of Tesla Average loaded Model: $42,000

Cost of BMW 3 series average loaded model: $40,357


Payback Tesla Model 3 Loaded vs BMW 3 Series Loaded

With incentives, all lower 48 states have a payback of


less than 1 year. That is, a customer purchasing the Tesla
average loaded Model 3 in 2018 will be net cash positive
before the 1st year of ownership irrespective of which US
state they are in.

Without incentives, a US customer will be net cash


positive by the 3rd year of ownership, on average. At
worst, a customer in New York who pays high electric
rates and drives less, will recoup his or her costs by the
5th year of ownership.

By 2025, a $150/kWh battery costs, if achieved, along


with higher gasoline efficiency with associated costs, will
mean that customers in all states will be net cash positive
in the 1st year of ownership.

While battery cost replacement is not assumed as likely


given technological improvements, including replacement Source: Wood Mackenzie
costs will likely push paybacks in the 7-12 year range.
38 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Payback: Case 3 Tesla Base Model 3 vs Toyota Camry V6 Base Model
Incentives are necessary to keep Model 3 competitive with the Camry but will likely not be required if battery costs fall to $150/kWh levels
(30% reduction from current level)
Cost of Tesla Base Model: $35,000; Cost of Toyota Camry:
$28,353 (with incentives) and $30,353 (no incentives)

With incentives, all lower 48 states have a payback of less than Payback Tesla Model 3 Base vs Toyota Camry Base
1 year. That is, a customer purchasing the Tesla base Model 3 in
2018 will be net cash positive before the 1st year of ownership
irrespective of which US state they are in.

Without incentives, a US customer will be net cash positive by


the 8th year of ownership, on average. This is greater than the
average length of ownership of a new car and this makes the
Model 3 less attractive. At worst, a customer in California who
pays high electric rates, will recoup his or her costs in the 14th
year, beyond the lifetime of the car. Thus to keep the Model 3
competitive with the Camry Base Model, incentives are
necessary.

By 2025, a $150/kWh battery costs, if achieved, along with


higher gasoline efficiency with associated costs, will mean that
customers in all states will be net cash positive in the 2nd year
off ownership with no need for incentives. A $100/kWh price will
mean net cash positive in less than a year.

While battery cost replacement is not assumed given


technological improvements, if we were to include replacement Source: Wood Mackenzie
costs --- it would push paybacks longer than the actual lifetime
of the car making the Model 3 largely uncompetitive.
39 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Payback:Case 4 Tesla Average Loaded Model 3 vs Toyota Camry V6 Average Loaded Model
Incentives necessary to keep Tesla loaded model competitive with its gasoline counterpart
Cost of Tesla Average loaded Model: $42,000 ; Cost of Toyota
Camry: $30,081 (with incentives) and $32,281 (no incentives)

With incentives, customers on average will show a payback of Payback Tesla Model 3 Loaded vs Toyota Camry Loaded
6 years. That is, an average customer purchasing the Tesla
base Model 3 in 2018 will be net cash positive before they sell
the car.

Without incentives, a US customer will be net cash positive by


the 16th year of ownership, on average. This is greater than
the average length of ownership of a new car and this makes
the Model 3 uncompetitive to its gasoline counterpart. Thus to
keep the Loaded Model 3 competitive with the Camry Loaded
Model, incentives are necessary,.

By 2025, a $100 - $150/kWh battery costs, if achieved, along


with higher gasoline efficiency with associated costs, will still
keep the median cost above the 5-7 year threshold.

While battery cost replacement is not assumed given


technological improvements, if we were to include replacement
costs --- it would push paybacks longer than the actual
lifetime of the car making the Model 3 largely uncompetitive.

Source: Wood Mackenzie

40 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Payback:Case 5 Tesla Base Model 3 vs Toyota Camry V6 Average Loaded Model
Results would be different if the customer chose the base model over the Camry loaded model

Cost of Tesla Base Model: $35,000 Payback Tesla Model 3 Base vs Toyota Camry Loaded

Cost of Toyota Camry: $30,081 (with incentives) and


$32,281 (no incentives)

Average age of Cars in the US


Tesla historical models (Model S) have displayed an
ability to attract customers from lower priced
segments be it because of the underlying technology,
performance and look/feel of the car Average Length of Ownership of New Vehicle

Even if that is not the case, it is possible the base


model of the Tesla would be adequate to lure some
customers who would otherwise buy the loaded
Camry

In this case, the paybacks across multiple scenarios


would be attractive.

Source: Wood Mackenzie

41 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Payback Analysis: Takeaways

Model 3 prime to compete in the luxury segment and to a lesser extent the mid-sized segment

Payback drivers
EVs maintain a significant fuel cost advantage under many scenarios going forward. Taking examples of 3
states which display a range of electric and gasoline costs cost savings varied from $3 to $12 per 100 miles
driven
Total fuel cost savings can vary significantly depending on miles driven. Wyoming drivers could save double
over the life of the car than owners in Pennsylvania although savings per mile is more in Pennsylvania.
At current low oil prices, while savings are correspondingly lesser, fuels cost advantage is still largely favorable
to electric
0 60% of costs of purchasing an electric car like Model 3 can currently be offset through federal and tax
incentives depending on the state. Future of this credit remains uncertain.
Paybacks
As early as 2018, with attractive paybacks (without incentives), the Model 3 is prime for making significant
inroads into the 600,000 small luxury segment (BMW 3 series, Mercedes C Class etc.). If battery costs continue
falling, this advantage will get better.
While the 2.4 million mid-sized segment will likely be more challenging, attractive paybacks could mean Tesla
could capture significant market share. Incentives will likely be required until battery costs fall further.
In summary, with the Model 3, Tesla is expected to expand from 100,000 annual car sales to some portion of a 3
million a year car market. This is still a small fraction of 17 million light vehicles sold in the US every year. So,
calling it a mass market car is likely a stretch.

42 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

43 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Tesla Model S a preview of how Model 3 might disrupt the market?

Comparing of the Model S vs market US Large Luxury Market Share by vehicle


Since the Model S introduction to the market in
2012, it has increasingly picked up more 100%
market share within the large luxury market 100,000

Percent of Large Luxury Market (%)


90%

Total US Large Luxury sales per year


2015 marked the first year when the Model
S took over as the class leader. This was a 80%
80,000
title that has been claimed by the Mercedes
70%
Benz S class, which has been the dominant
vehicle sold in the large luxury class since 60%
60,000
2003.
50%
Sales in Q1 2016 indicate another strong
year for Model S sales when compared to 40% 40,000
sales of its main competitors within the
30%
segment.
Within the luxury segment, market leaders 20% 20,000
usually make up no more than 25-30% of
10%
market share. The Model S is already
displacing market share from the traditional 0% -
manufacturer leaders within this segment 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
(Mercedes, BMW and Audi). YTD *
est

Tesla Model S Rest of Large Luxury Market


Audi A8/A7 BMW 7-Series/ 6-Series
Mercedes-Benz S-Class/CLS-Class Total size of market (rhs)
Source: Wood Mackenzie; GoodCarBadCar.net

44 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
The Success of Tesla Model S: Rated positively on multiple consumer
preferences: Can the Tesla Model 3 replicate?
Performance Safety Reliability Interior Technology Customer Overall
Satisfaction

Tesla Model S 1 1 3 5 1 1 1

Mercedes-
Benz S-Class 1 2 4 1 4 3 2

BMW 7-Series
5 2 3 4 2 6 3

Audi A8 3 1 4 2 2 2 4

Jaguar XJ 4 2 5 6 4 5 6

Porsche 2 2 2 3 4 4 2
Panamera

Lexus LS 6 1 1 3 3 3 5

Source: Wood Mackenzie; Consumer Reports; US News; Various Auto Surveys

45 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
But there are other challenges to replicating Model S success: Will
all reservations be entitled to the full credit?
Reservations will likely put Tesla above the 200,000 cap before the Model 3 begins delivery
Implications on the Model 3
Tesla has sold more than 70,000 units across the US and have given 1,000,000
guidance of selling around ~85,000 units globally in 2016.

Tesla Annual Vehicle Production


By the time the Model 3 reaches production in late 2017, it is likely that Tesla 900,000
will be close to its manufacturer production limit and the phase down of the
credit could start to occur as the cars start to be delivered to customers in 800,000
Likely point when Federal
2018. Tax Credit will begin to
700,000
Using the Federal Income Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC) phase down
for renewables as a guide, one could conclude that the income tax credit for 600,000
EVs could be extended. Yet, second guessing the politics is speculative at
best 500,000
Wind/Solar subsidies were recently extended again out to 2019 after
being extended prior to the last two expiration dates. The wind PTC has 400,000
now been extended 7 times since 1992.
If the federal income tax credit is a big factor in the purchase decision, it could 300,000
lead to some of the reservations being cancelled beyond natural cancellation
rates. 200,000

After the unveiling of the Model 3 in late March, Elon Musk alluded to pushing 100,000
up Teslas annual production expectation by two years (500,000 in 2018 and
1,000,000 cars in 2020). -
Teslas revised ramp up is ambitious and recent Tesla production history 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
could suggest that these targets are likely to be missed. That being said, the
Outside of US US Q2 2016 Revised production expectation
push up of the targets could be more so a signal that Tesla is looking to line
Source: Wood Mackenzie
up potential suppliers of Model 3 in order to avoid delays caused by lack of
parts.
*2016 production is based on Tesla guidance of 80,000-90,000 sales.
The expedited ramp up in production of a new model is nothing unfamiliar to **2017-2020 production numbers are based on needed growth to hit 500,000 vehicles in
traditional automakers . The initial launch of the Ford Mustang in the mid 2020.
1960s produced 1 million cars in the first 18 months of production.
46 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com

What if the Model 3 replicates Model S success?

Model 3 market potential


The Model 3 will predominately straddle across two US market US Total Model 3 penetration
segments
1. Entry-level Luxury (612 K sales in 2015)
2,500,000 10%
2. Midsize Vehicles (2.4 million sales in 2015)

Model 3 percent of Total US car sales (2025)


Given the fact that the Model 3 will appeal to car buyers in both 9%

Cumulative US Model 3 Sales


segments, this gives a better idea of how much penetration the 2,000,000 8%
Model 3 will have in the US
With the Model 3 already getting 370K reservations globally, it 7%
has shown that there is a huge demand for the vehicle 1,500,000 6%
although cancellations are expected.
Scenarios 5%

Three scenarios have been developed to understand the 1,000,000 4%


implications of the Model 3 on the new vehicle fleet.
3%
Each case looks at how current participants perform in their
relative segment and what that could mean for Model 3 market 500,000 2%
potential.
1%
Given the fact that production will only ramp up to 500,000
vehicles by 2020 (and some of this production will be sold - 0%
outside the US), we pushed back the target US market share Low case Conservative Market leader
in each case to 2025. case
The Low Case assumes 5% and 5% of the entry-level 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
luxury and midsize vehicle market in 2025 respectively
The Conservative Case assumes 15% and 10% of the
entry-level luxury and midsize vehicle market in 2025 Source: Wood Mackenzie

The Market leader Case assumes 25% and 15% of the


entry-level luxury and midsize vehicle market in 2025
47 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
Model 3 impacts on US oil and power sectors: Minimal Impacts but
can Model 3 spur a larger EV revolution ?
Tesla Model 3 can be a catalyst to larger EV adoption

Tesla Model 3 impact on the oil and power sector is by itself largely irrelevant to the oil and power
sector demand. The models potential impacts on oil could be in the order of a reduction of 15,000
45,000 bpd by 2025 and an increase in power sector demand of 3 7 TWh, roughly equivalent to 2
months of US power sector demand growth.

But can Tesla Model 3 spur a larger EV revolution ?


Tesla Model 3 largely overcomes concerns that were stipulated as the primary limitations of larger EV
growth in the transport sector. That said, delivery on promises remains an uncertainty.
Tesla Model 3 is a cheaper version of the Tesla Model S, which became the leader in its segment in a
matter of a few years, albeit a much smaller customer segment of 100,000 cars
Large numbers of reservation is indicative of latent demand for cars like the Model 3.

But there are many unknowns especially, if EV saturation starts to increase -- from material costs,
uncertainty around long term performance (> 100,000 miles), etc.

48 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Tesla Model 3: The Catalyst to broader EV market saturation

With the Tesla Model 3, indications are that electric cars are or will be ready to compete
across multiple segments of the LDV market
US Light Duty Vehicle Sales in 2015
The total Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) fleet consists of
about 233 mm vehicles consuming a majority of 9.2
mm bpd of gasoline demand in the US
In 2015, new LDV sales was about 17.5 million
The Tesla Model S competes within the large luxury
Sedan market (based on price and performance)
which is about 16% of the Large Sedan market or
100,000 cars per year and as shown is a leader in
the market
The Tesla Model X competes within the SUV
segment
Other electric cars like Nissan Leaf already compete
in the Small Sedan market
The Tesla Model 3 mass market car competes in the
midsized sedan market which sells about 3 mm cars
per year
With electric cars already in multiple market
segments, the Tesla Model 3 is an early indicator
Source: Wood Mackenzie; GoodCarBadCar.net
that electric cars maybe ready for mainstream

49 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Is the larger EV Revolution already underway ? Many companies have
entered or will enter the fray arguably in response to Tesla successes

$30,000 (after tax credits) Chevrolet Bolt (GM) Daimler to spend $500 mm on electric car battery
facility (assembly). Unconfirmed reports of $2bn
will enter market in late 2016 with a 200 miles
investment into production of electric cars for the
range (Compact Luxury) compact / midsized / crossover SUV / large SUV
segments
BMW I-3 series (Compact): New Models
starting 2017 with advanced batteries, longer
ranges A slew of plans from Chinese manufacturers to
introduce premium electric cars targeting to hit the
market in the next few years including LeEco.
Ford planning to invest $4.5 bn over next four Companies like LeECo also a partnering with car
years to develop 12 new hybrid or electric cars. companies like Aston Martin to produce electric cars.
Collaborating to reduce electric car costs by
30%
Porsche planning to introduce premium all electric
Volvo sets a target to produce 1 million electric sports car before 2020 (Premium Sport)

cars by 2025
Significant investments being made in car and home
battery technologies

50 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Model 3 implications for broader electric car market saturation:
Takeaways
Teslas Model 3 could act as a catalyst for larger electric car adoption within transport

The Tesla Model S became the market leader in just a few years within its segment (100,000 cars) with attractive
consumer ratings on performance, safety, design, technology, among others.

With attractive paybacks, if the Model 3 could replicate the Model S success, it is perhaps indicative of significant
inroads the car can make into the transport sector. This is supported by significant consumer interest given 400,000
reservations as of the mid of April.

With Tesla facing phase out of tax incentives and likely cancellations, the success could be lesser than anticipated.
In a recent SEC filing, Tesla reported 373,000 Model 3 reservations accounting for 8,000 customer cancellations and
4,200 duplicate reservations.

Yet, the impact of Model 3 on the larger energy markets will not be in how many Model 3s are sold but what it has
arguably done to spur wider electric car production. Chevrolets Bolt EV is an example of the broader trend, with
deliveries to begin late 2016 at a price point and range similar to Teslas Model 3. Others traditional and even
emerging companies are at different stages of introducing electric cars. So movements towards producing more
models and brands of electric cars is already underway with market entry around 2020 timeframe.

51 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

52 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Electric Car saturation in the Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) market will
have unequal impacts on the oil and power sector
EV Efficiency implies downside for oil demand greater than upside for power demand

Due to the comparative efficiency of Base case sector demand impacts


EVs relative to ICEs, EV penetration
of the US auto fleet will have much 7%

greater negative impacts on US oil 6%


% Change in US Oil Demand
demand than positive impacts on US 5%
% Change in US Power Demand
power demand. This will be 4%
% EV Penetration
somewhat mitigated by charging
3%
losses (not accounted for on this
2%
chart)
1%
As such, EVs would likely become a
disruptive force in the oil industry 0%

before it does for the power industry, -1%

especially considering that much of -2%

the charging infrastructure is -3%


currently being built in areas suffering 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035

from renewable over generation that Source: Wood Mackenzie

would welcome the added demand.


53 Trusted commercial intelligence
www.woodmac.com
High Electric Vehicle Saturation: Impacts on power and oil markets

What if scenarios help quantify the potential impacts US gasoline and US power demand.
It is assumed all incremental demand displacement occurs between gasoline and power
ignoring other hybrid displacement
Increased Adoption - Low Increased Adoption - High

This case recognizes broader implications of This case recognizes broader implications of Model 3
Model 3 and increases adoption levels by and increases adoption levels by
Impact period is mostly post 2025 Impact period is mostly post 2025
Recognizes uncertainty around Recognizes uncertainty
adoption rates and constraints around adoption rates and
on ramping production lines constraints on ramping
production lines

EV SCENARIOS This case recognizes broader


This case recognizes broader
implications of Model 3 and
implications of Model 3 and
assumes EVs become
increases adoption levels by disruptive and become the
Impact period is mostly post 2025 predominant choice for new
Recognizes uncertainty around adoption rates and car sales by 2035 (except
constraints on ramping production lines pickup trucks)
Impact period is mostly 2020+ (early adoption) but still
bakes in production delays but less than other cases

Increased Adoption - Medium Disruptive (Aggressive Adoption)

54 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Scenario Detail
We look at different scenarios to our H2 Base Case where EV market saturation of vehicle stock
increases from 8% (base case) to ~11%, 16%, 21% and 37% by 2035.

Base case EV Penetration of Light Vehicle stock (000 vehicles)

Wood Mackenzies H2 2015 vintage base case that


assumes that the current EV (including PHEVs)
fleet of 430,000 grows to 16 mm by 2035 (12% of
new car sales in 2035)
Increased Adoption - Low
Current EV fleet of 430,000 grows to 30 mm by
2035 (20% of new car sales in 2035)
Increased Adoption - Medium
Current EV fleet of 430,000 grows to 45 mm by
2035 (30% of new car sales in 2035)
Increased Adoption High
Current EV fleet of 430,000 grows to 60 mm by
2035 (40% of new car sales in 2035)
Aggressive Adoption
Current EV fleet of 430,000 grows to 104 mm by
2035 (85% of new car sales in 2035). We do not
assume a 100% as we keep some segments like
pickup trucks still exclusive to gasoline cars.
Source: Wood Mackenzie

55 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
EV impact on US demand for gasoline: Impacts felt 2025 -2035
Relative to our H2 2015 Base case, by 2035, US Oil demand in the LDV market could fall 5-30%
(0.3 2 mm bpd) under the four scenarios.

EV impact on US oil demand (Total Gasoline Demand) EV impact on US oil demand (Delta impact from Base Case)

By 2035, reduction in gasoline demand could range


from 350,000 (5%) bpd to 1mm bpd (15%) relative to
our base case. Disruptive case reduced demand by ~
2 mm bpd

Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie

56 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
EV impact on US power demand: Impacts felt 2025 -2035
Relative to our H2 2015 Base case, by 2035, US power demand could increased by 2-7% (95 200 TWh) under the three
possible scenarios potentially more than 5 years of business as usual demand growth or 4 bcfde. If EV adoption is aggressive,
power demand could increase by 300 TWh or 6 bcfde equivalent by 2035

EV impact on US power demand (Total Electric Sales) EV impact on US power demand (Delta impact from Base Case)

Equal to 4-5 years of business as usual


demand growth or 4 bcfde of natural
gas demand equivalent

By 2035, increase in power


demand could range from 95 Equal to 2-3 years of
TWh (2%) to ~200 TWh (4%) business as usual demand
relative to our base case. growth or 2 bcfde of
Disruptive case reduced natural gas demand
demand by ~ 300 TWh
equivalent

Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie

57 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Can the power sector absorb the incremental demand ?
For each of the cases, Power Markets should be able to absorb incremental demand
from EVs barring local issue in pockets of high EV penetration

US Power Market Reserve Margins (current and expected)


Most power markets are currently overbuilt
with reserve margins (at or above reliability 70%
2016
targets). 2020 No Generic Capacity
60%
In fact, most markets are expected to remain 2025 No Generic Capacity

overbuilt or do not need new capacity until at 50%

Reserve Margin (%)


least 2020 40%

This gives planners adequate time to plan for 30%


any possible power system impacts if EV Range of Reliablity Targets
penetration was to increase in the 2020 20%

2030 timeframe, which is expected to only 10%


have an impact incrementally and somewhat 0%
gradually

SERC VACAR
SERC Central

ERCOT
WECC AZNMNV

WECC CA
WECC RMPA

SPP

MRO US
SERC Gateway
NPCC Maritimes
SERC Delta

RFC
WECC NWPP

FRCC

NPCC New York ISO


NPCC ISO New England

SERC Southeastern
That said, localized power system impacts
could, in theory, be a potential concern if
large parts of EV penetration in urban hubs
take place at fast pace. The distribution grid
might experience more of a challenge under
the high penetration scenarios

Source: Wood Mackenzie

58 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Perspective on the Market Disruption from EVs

Electric Cars a disruptive force in the 2025 2035 period but can be more disruptive in theory
The aggressive adoption case assumes 37% market share or 104 mm electric cars. It assumes that every car
excluding pick up trucks (85% of new car sales) sold in the US in 2035 is an electric. It is assumed that
adoption levels gradually rise to this level between 2025- 2035.

Each case gives due recognition for the need to increase infrastructure, material availability etc. by baking in a
time lag. But no separate study was done on each segment of the supply chain like cobalt, nickel, lithium etc.
Therefore, if these constraints are more binding, then the impact would be lesser. By contrast, if they turn out
to be less binding, electric cars can become more disruptive.

A theoretical maximum disruption could be about 4 mm bpd of lower oil demand relative to our base case in
2035 or 600 TWh increase in power demand or 12 bcfd equivalent in gas demand terms. That said, reaching
these levels is largely ruled out since this assumes 85% of all new car sales as early as 2025 and beyond is
electric. This assumes electric cars becomes the predominant choice and no constraints on production, raw
material or power supply exists.

Also, these scenarios assume new EV car sales will solely imply less gasoline car sales. This impact on oil
demand will likely be mitigated as some of EV market penetration, if it happens, will come at the cost of other
hybrids.

59 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Impact on Oil and Power Markets: Takeaways

Electric Cars could have a sizeable impact in the 2025-2035 period with potential for being a
disruptive force

We have US gasoline demand falling from 9.3 million b/d to 6.5 million b/d by 2035 in our base case, a decline of
30%. In our increased adoption scenarios, we estimate that demand could fall by another 350,000 to 1 million b/d
by 2035, a 5-15% reduction from the base case.

This equates to 50 to 200 TWh of incremental power demand or 1 to 3 bcfde in natural gas terms. In effect, this
would add 2-4 years worth of electric demand growth significant for a market that has seen no load growth in the
past 7 years and looking for growth to return. Of course, this incremental load would only materialize in the 2025
2035 time period.

We also considered an aggressive adoption case which assumes large scale adoption of electric cars with EVs
becoming the choice of almost all new car sales by 2035, assuming a one-for-one replacement of their gasoline
counterparts. In this case, gasoline demand reduces by 0.5 million b/d within 8 years and 2 million b/d within 20
years. For power, this adds 8 years of new load growth or 6.5 bcfd in gas equivalent terms.

Unconstrained from real world limitations, a theoretical maximum disruption would be 4 million b/d of lower oil
demand relative to our base case in 2035.

60 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

61 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
CO2 Emissions: At the surface, EVs seem to reduce carbon emissions
irrespective of where in the US EVs are sold but is that necessarily true?

Average fleet wide lbs CO2 per mile comparison: EVs vs Gasoline

Source: Wood Mackenzie

62 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
CO2 Emissions Revisited: EVs vs Gasoline emissions at the margin signals
real emissions advantage. For an incremental EV or gasoline car, how much
would emissions increase by? The Texas example
The impact on emissions is determined by the Marginal
CO2 Emissions in Texas (ERCOT)
emission rate comparison. i.e. for an incremental car, how much
do emissions increase if it was gasoline vs if it was electric
CAFE standards ensure new class fleets are more efficient thus
TX marginal Lbs CO2 per mile from EVs
produce less lbs. of CO2 1
Power markets have much lower carbon intensity but at the TX avg Lbs CO2 per mile from EVs
0.9
margin, generation could come from fossil fuels, and that too Conventional Gasoline Car
from coal (higher CO2 emissions) as it is increasingly pushed 0.8
on the margin by natural gas. TX Gas CC Lbs CO2 per mile
As an example, in Texas, coal is on the margin about 30% of the 0.7

Lbs CO2 per Mile


time such that marginal emission rates are significantly higher 0.6
than average emission rates. This divergence is caused by the
significant amount of wind generation that currently exists in the 0.5
market that reduce the average but may actually help increase
emissions at the margin. 0.4
By 2022, the marginal emission rate for electric actually exceeds 0.3
the marginal rate from conventional transport in Texas.
0.2
Historically, coal used to run base load and natural gas CCs Conventional car gains emissions
used to be on the margin. If incremental demand was still met by 0.1 advantage to electric
gas CCs, the emissions advantage in the electric sector would
still remain intact as shown in the chart. 0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Source: Wood Mackenzie

63 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
CO2 Emissions Revisited: EVs vs Gasoline emissions at the margin will
signal real emissions advantage. For an incremental EV or gasoline car,
how much would emissions increase by? The California example
Lbs per CO2 in California (CAISO)

CA marginal Lbs per CO2 from EVs


CA avg Lbs per CO2 from EVs
Conventional Gasoline Car
1
Unlike Texas, California has more or
0.9
less phased out coal and incremental
0.8
demand, which is increasingly being

Lbs CO2 per Mile


0.7
met by renewables and natural gas 0.6
In this case, even at the margin, the 0.5
electric car maintains its emissions 0.4
advantage 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Source: Wood Mackenzie

64 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Can moving to the electric sector prove disadvantageous from an
emissions reduction perspective Not necessarily true and
unfortunately no simple answer!!
Many markets like California, where generation is dominated by gas and renewables, marginal rates will be lower
(as shown in the previous slide)
Marginal emissions rate do not tell the whole picture. In the case of Texas, we showed that at the margin in 2022, a
new electric car could produce more carbon emissions than a conventional car
But if gas was not displacing coal (and reducing emissions in the process), the marginal emission rate in Texas
would have been much lower since gas would be on the margin rather than coal. So, while overall emissions would
have been much higher (because of coal running a lot more than gas).
CAFE standards are only firm until 2021 after which whether these goals can be met is questionable. CAFE
standards can be met by manufacturers through EVs, so a reduction of gasoline car efficiency may not actually be
required
Starting in 2022, the US has a carbon mandate in the power sector (Clean Power Plan) limiting emissions and
emission rates to pre-specified levels. If EV penetration were to increase such that overall emissions rose, the
market would be forced to install more renewables or gas at the margin. The plan as such is currently being
challenged in court. That said, carbon policy will also likely raise electric rates mitigating payback periods. For more
details read: Complying with the Clean Power Plan (CPP) What will it take?
Even without carbon policy, state regulations, technology, cost and regulatory trends are increasingly pointing
toward more renewables combined with emerging breakthrough technologies like storage. Moreover technologies
like solar can put renewable technologies on the margin.
At the end, this points to the need for a broad policy framework around carbon emissions. Electric cars can help to
maximize carbon emissions reduction within a broader policy framework as we transition to cleaner forms of
generation in the power sector.

65 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

66 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
California Executive Order B-30-15 signed April 29, 2015 mandates a reduction
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Meeting emissions target cannot be done through one single end use sector as shown. Transport will
need to heavily reduce emissions along with power and other sectors in order to meet these goals and
Electric Cars will need to play a role
California GHG targets
500
200% Transport
Power, 450 Power
180% 189%
400 Industrial
160%

GHG Levels (MMT)


% of Total Sector Emissions

Agriculture
350
140% Residential
300 Commercial
120% Power +
Industrial, 250
100% 97%
80% 200

60% 150

40% Power + 100


Industrial +
20% Transport, 50
54%
0% 0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
Source: Wood Mackenzie Source: Wood Mackenzie (Implied)

67 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
California: Effort to increase Electric Cars but part of a wider policy approach
Regulatory onslaught that aims to achieve GHG reduction target through cap and trade,
renewables as well as transport fuel reduction or conversion to zero emission vehicles like
electric cars in addition to integrating energy storage and demand response.

16,300
15,290
14,280
13,270
12,260
10,240
11,250
9,230
8,220
7,210
6,200
5,190
4,180
3,170
2,160
Energy efficiency standard GWh

Renewable portfolio standard 25%


27%
29%
31%
33%
35%
36%
38%
40%
42%
43%
45%
47%
48%
50%

GHG reduction targets 10%


15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%

316(b) OTC retirements Low/zero-emission Energy storage mandate


+ vehicle mandate +
San Onofre retirement + demand response
transport fuel reduction program

68 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
California Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Californias target of 1.5 million zero-


emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2025 serves
as one of many pillars in the states overall
carbon reduction targets.
Percent increase in power demand from EVs over BAU
While the target sounds aggressive (the
states is currently home to 24.5 million
registered automobiles), the state already
appears to be ahead of schedule. 1.40%
WM Base Case CEC Case
In order for California to hit its GHG
reduction goals by 2030, ZEV adoption 1.20%
must go far further than these goals as the
1.00%
states transport sector represents the
single largest emitter of GHG of any part of
0.80%
the economy.
The reductions required from the transport 0.60%
sector might be further complicated by
rapidly rising retail electric rates thanks to 0.40%
the states aggressive renewable portfolio
standard and other aggressive clean 0.20%
targets.
0.00%
This mandate is also a part of a more 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
broader ZEV plan that was agreed upon in
Source: Wood Mackenzie
2013 along with 7 other statesmaking up
29% of all new auto sales in US, targeting
all new car sales to be at least 15% ZEV by
2025, or the equivalent of 3.3 million cars.

* CEC = California Energy Commission

69 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
California: down the rabbit hole: A broad strategy to reduce emissions
California facing numerous technical and commercial challenges to integrating electric cars along with
demand response, renewables, distributed generation like solar rooftops --- These issues will be front
and center in order to reduce carbon but ensure system reliability is not adversely affected

Optimization
Electric GHG
Data
vehicles reductions
analytics

Ratepayer
Demand Smart
Reliability
grid Smart meters
Net metering
data platform
response

Real time
Storage Renewables
Automation
data

70 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
California: down the rabbit hole
The Internet of Things (IoT) will be the driver of integrating diverse sources and sinks of
generation which will likely lead to new age problems like security of integrated systems,
hacking risks etc.

Optimization Data
analytics

Ratepayer Smart grid Smart meters


data platform

Real time Automation


data

71 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Topics

Executive Summary

Tesla Model 3 Features

Traditional Concerns around Electric Cars: Model 3 implications

Cost Comparison and Payback: Electric vs Gasoline Cars

Model 3 market implications: What it means for overall US Electric Car Saturation ?

Potential Impacts on US gasoline demand and power demand

Are electric cars a solution to carbon reduction?

Electrifying transport to reduce CO2: Is California a peek into the future?

Conclusion

72 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Conclusion

Tesla Model 3 may usher in a new age where electric cars compete with gasoline cars across
different segments of the transport market but many lingering questions remain

While EV growth post Tesla Model 3 is likely, impact will likely be small in the next 10 years but
ultimately bearish for oil and bullish on power demand and potentially disruptive

Pace of disruption will naturally be controlled by long lead times of fleet turnover

Outside of commodity demand, the push toward electric cars as a carbon reduction strategy is not a
slam dunk. While the electric sector likely provides the best promise to reduce emissions through
large scale renewables, that is easier said than done.

Transition to cleaner energy utilizing electric cars will need larger amounts of renewable energy
including distributed applications which will in turn need other disruptive technologies like storage,
internet of things (IoT) and data sharing across these applications for the system to work reliably.
While California, an ongoing experiment, pursues this push toward a cleaner reality, many issues are
emerging and will likely be replaced by new ones like software and grid security not so much into the
distant future.

73 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Tesla Model 3- Does it Signal an Electric Car Revolution?

Joshua Castaneda Prajit Ghosh


Principal Analyst Research Director
Americas Power & Renewables Research Americas Power & Renewables Research
+1 713 470 1834 +1 713 470 1650
joshua.castaneda@woodmac.com prajit.ghosh@woodmac.com

Arebise Deng Linda Giesecke


Research Analyst Research Director
Americas Power & Renewables Research Americas Refining & Oil Product Markets
+1 713 425 5802 +1 781 869 6802
arebise.deng@woodmac.com linda.giesecke@woodmac.com

Chad Singleton
Principal Analyst
Americas Power & Renewables Research
+1 713 470 1835
chad.singleton@woodmac.com

74 Trusted commercial intelligence


www.woodmac.com
Europe +44 131 243 4400
Americas +1 713 470 1600
Asia Pacific +65 6518 0800
Email contactus@woodmac.com
Website www.woodmac.com

Wood Mackenzie, a Verisk Analytics business, is a trusted source of commercial intelligence for the world's
natural resources sector. We empower clients to make better strategic decisions, providing objective analysis
and advice on assets, companies and markets. For more information visit: www.woodmac.com
WOOD MACKENZIE is a trade mark of Wood Mackenzie Limited and is the subject of trade mark registrations and/or applications in
the European Community, the USA and other countries around the world.