2014 Chevrolet Volt Sees A $5,000 Price Cut

Very iiiinteresting....

Sweet, that is what I am talking about.

I mentioned this to my coworker that bought a Volt in June. He thinks it's a good thing, should lead to more sales. He's still happy he bought the 2013 rather than wait on the '14, partially because the color he got isn't available on the '14.

All I can say for people for who bought a plug-in hybrid is that these cars do not make economic sense without the $7500 in federal tax credit and up to $6000 in state subsidies (eg. California) -- and sometimes not even then.

That's $13,500 of hard earned tax payer dollars and/or increase in the national debt. If it works for you after the subsidies, well... good for you! But, bad for the tax payer, bad for me, bad for the economy and bad for energy independence.

I have no problems with misguided "global warming" coolaid drinkers wanting to feel good about themselves and cut carbon emissions. But, I do have a problem with them doing it with my money.

I agree with Dwight. Plus it makes everyone who has already purchased one look like a fool, and resale value will plummet. All around bad deal.

This is the wrong thread to persist in this discussion, but I want to emphasis that I have absolutely no qualms with people who feel good about driving a car that gets them 70 mpg or 100 mpg -- nevermind the economics -- just like I have no problems with people wanting to drive cars that go from 0-60 mph in 3.8 secs but doesn't have rear seats. If hyper-miling makes you happy, all the power to you!

My quarrel is with the public policy of using tax payer money to subsidized such behavior, especially when the reasoning behind such policy is based on an environmental hypothesis that is totally bogus, founded on fraudulent data and propagated through bullying voices of proper science into silence.

The taxpayer subsidies to ExxonMobile are much greater than any subsidy the public gets via the Volt or Leaf. So spread your outrage around proportionally please.

  On 8/7/2013 at 12:42 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

The taxpayer subsidies to ExxonMobile are much greater than any subsidy the public gets via the Volt or Leaf. So spread your outrage around proportionally please.

That's untrue on so many levels...

The Federal government does not subsidize Exxon Mobil per say, they provide tax credits for certain energy production activities. And in fact, a lot of the so called subsidizes are not subsidies at all.

Every year, we spend about $75 billion on such activities. Of these only about half ($38 billion) goes to fossil fuel producers. The remaining half goes to Alcohol incorporation, renewable electric production and Ethanol production.

Of the 37 billion or so that goes to fossil fuel production, most ARE NOT subsidies at all...

About $16 billion is foreign tax credits -- credits company receive on US taxes for taxes they already paid to foreign governments. It's like if you worked in Russia and paid 12% (Russia as a 12% flat tax) of your income in Russian income taxes, you get to take that 12% as a deduction on your US income taxes because you didn't actually earn that money -- it was lost to foreign taxation. This applies to you, to any company and to oil companies! Why shouldn't it?

About 14 billion goes to credit for producing unconventional fuels. Most of the time, it is for producing fuels the oil companies don't want to produce or cannot make a profit on, but is mandated by the government. Again, I hardly call that a subsidy, more like a compensation for compelled activity. It's like you don't want to ride a bicycle to work, but the government say you must. You claim that this results in 2.5 hours a day of lost productivity and lost wages because of increased commute time and increased tiredness. The government says, OK, we'll pay you 2.5 hours of wages, but you ride that bicycle.

The rest, about 8 billion goes to credit for expenses incurred in oil, gas and coal exploration. Again, why would anyone consider that a subsidy? That'll be like saying that if you buy a food truck and install the equipment so you can sell hotdogs, that you shouldn't get to deduct that on your business tax returns as an expense!

  Quote

The Federal government does not subsidize Exxon Mobil per say, they provide tax credits for certain energy production activities.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had stopped right there, for a rose by any other name....

  On 8/6/2013 at 5:15 PM, dwightlooi said:

All I can say for people for who bought a plug-in hybrid is that these cars do not make economic sense without the $7500 in federal tax credit and up to $6000 in state subsidies (eg. California) -- and sometimes not even then.

That's $13,500 of hard earned tax payer dollars and/or increase in the national debt. If it works for you after the subsidies, well... good for you! But, bad for the tax payer, bad for me, bad for the economy and bad for energy independence.

I have no problems with misguided "global warming" coolaid drinkers wanting to feel good about themselves and cut carbon emissions. But, I do have a problem with them doing it with my money.

Again this is about more then numbers. You thinking is always so narrow.

The last sentence sums it up for now.

The real picture here is to create a market for these cars and let them advance and grow to the point that they cost much less and get more efficient. This is like the space program. Shooting a chimp into space may not look like a big deal but it and satellites were the first steps to the moon.

This is where the real point comes in. The whole thing was not really landing on the moon the whole thing was about developing technology to do it. This is what propelled up into the future with electronics and other systems and medical things we never would have had. In fact we all would not be here now discussing this.

I understand why the government is doing what they are doing and why GM is investing so much into this. With out a market the suppliers can not and will not invest in the new and improved technology.

I can see a lot of good coming from improved Batteries and other electronics and not just cars. I am not a global warming guy and really have little interest on this end but I can see a cell phone battery that may need charged once a week. I see a smaller electric motor that may one day replace my heart and run the pump to keep me or someone in my family alive when no donor heart is available. It is endless.

The fact is the government squanders many more trillions than what they are doing here. The fact is they are not going to cut the pay outs to the voters as they have been buying votes for years. They will continue to increase our taxes too.

While this may not be as exciting as the space program I think we can reap similar rewards long term here. Lets face it since they axed much of the space program we are behind the 8 ball on technology growth. Today we need some kind of program to bring this new technology forward. The company who cracks the battery issue will become the new Microsoft or Apple.

Well, I will very much have preferred zero subsidizes for Ethanol, "Green" Energy and no gasohol blending mandates. But on the otherhand, there is no justification for double taxing oil companies when every other business and individual do not have to pay foreign taxes on top of US taxes with no deductions or for saying that capital expenses should not be deductible.

But, yes, philosophically I am of the persuasion that US government should be significantly smaller in size and scope.... that it should take less (in taxes) and do less (in services, entitlements and, yes, subsidies).

Well, saw that coming..hopefully more coming. I can agree with both sides, but Hyper hit it on the nose-we need to get the tech out there-

There will always be car people cars (maybe!), but for the person who shops for cars like a fridge and want to save money, the Volt could not be any more picture perfect....

We are getting there....

The new ELR I suspect will show some of the new second gen Volt technology. I see it will have around 55-56 more HP, Not sure how they figure it as electric or gas but it should be more fun to drive. The Volt is not really a slug to start with.

I am not a big spending guy and I would shut down most of the crazy government spending that is going on. They just toss it around like garbage. But the investment into this line of cars is the only way they will grow to the point people will like them and it will make them to the point where they may make a difference in your wallet.

Also the fall out from the investment into the electronics here will reap benefits elsewhere.

Now for the spending on all these other programs for the study of slugs and other many other issues I would axe in a heart beat. Too many people with their hands out expecting the government to do it all where they have no place being.

The Ethanol would get cut right away. It not only is damaging to cars but it also drives up grain prices some years to increase food cost. With the lesser MPG etc. I just do not see a need for these blends other to make a few companies happy and farmers.

At least with the Volt and other electric cars you have a choice if you want them and if not don't buy one. Later on even if you do not own one you will reap the benefits they have learned from the investments in you other cars in aero dynamics, tires and electronics. I think a lot of new ideas will be applied to even gas cars with lighter materials.

Gov spending on R&D for Space to the auto industry and High Tech is good for the country. We could easily get this out more if we just closed some of our 1082 military bases and 500 black op bases and spent that money at home. Just closing 25% would allow us to invest in the roads, Electrical Grid, Clean water and securing the borders along with pushing the VOLT technology into more GM cars.

I would have no problem giving each auto company even asian and europe company say 1 billion each as long as they deliver within 18 to 24 months a CUV or SUV Hybrid auto that uses a VOLT like power train. Helping companies to move to better technology that is over all good for the planet and for job creation is a good thing in my book.

I really HOPE GM will scale the VOLT technology and get it into full Size SUV's, Pickups and Vans. This is where we can really see benefits for fuel savings.

we do have to diversify vehicle propulsion beyond gasoline and its inevitable that electrification is part of it.

That said, right now, the whole appeal to me of electrification is the possibility of saving my own money on gas.

The govt will conspire to make electricity much more expensive over time and in the end will figure out how to get as much out of your pocketbook each month for electricity as they do for gas right now.

That is where the outrage should be directed. Electrification's main success in cars would be to allow multifuels and mainly to reduce driving costs overall. The government will look at it as an opportunity to tax the shi-t out of it and rob you of that potential benefit.

So the discussion of how much of the development of electric cars is subsidized to the point where economy of scale takes over it pointless and minor.

Or.. if you're in Florida... the power company raises your rates to pay for a new Nuke plant, collects $820 million from customers, then cancels the project without building the plant.

  On 8/7/2013 at 5:42 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Or.. if you're in Florida... the power company raises your rates to pay for a new Nuke plant, collects $820 million from customers, then cancels the project without building the plant.

More of an anti-nuclear tirade than tackling the real issue.

I'm indifferent to them building the plant or not, but if they don't build the plant, they should refund the customers their money.

Yea, would not want an electric car in Florida.

  On 8/7/2013 at 7:07 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm indifferent to them building the plant or not, but if they don't build the plant, they should refund the customers their money.

Totally agree with you. Back in the 80's washington state had a major Nuclear plant series being built. They stopped after 2 plants and scrapped the other 4 and were forced by the state to refund millions back to the citizens. Did not go over well with the power company but the people loved it and I agree that they should refund all of it.

  On 8/7/2013 at 7:07 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm indifferent to them building the plant or not, but if they don't build the plant, they should refund the customers their money.

Too early to say that.

  Quote

Duke plans to pursue the license and expects to receive it in 2016, spokesman Rick Rhodes said today. The company considers the project to be merely delayed, he added, with future construction there remaining likely. “Our philosophy at Duke is that you need a diversity of different types of fuel,” Rhodes said. “I think as a utility, and as a country, we have to have nuclear in our future.”

What I would be more concerned about the killing of coal with little to replace it. I am fine to replace coal but the fact is there are no real replacements for coal at this point. We are already short power in many areas and if the grid fails we will see a collapse like we did in 1993. A tree branch took out the grid that was already over loaded.

Where are most of the electric cars targeted? Places already short on power.

This talk of green energy has a long way to go before it can effetely and affordable replace coal. There are no wind mills and solar panels that can replace it no matter how much money you spend right now. It like the batteries for the Volt need more time and investment that is not wasted like so much already.

Brittan now has some people trying to remove fossil fuel vehicles buy 2040. Nice idea but if there is no real replacement what are they going to do? If they make it so they can not bail they are screwed.

Hyperv6, You are right about the power grid issues. The best thing to do is to upgrade and replace the grid, much of which dates back 30 or more years. Down here in FL, a lot of our electricity is generated from natural gas rather than oil or coal. That has led to lower electricity bills all around from my utility. We do need more natural gas and more nuclear energy just to get ourselves off of coal-generated power because coal is the least efficient hydrocarbon we have for power gereation. Green energy is nice, but it is probably not good enough (or cheap enough) for baseline power without subsidies.

As for the Volt, even their new prices are too damn high. Remember when the Prius first came out? It was actually affordable then, and it is largely under $30K now. If the Volt were priced to match the Prius or Leaf, sales would probably take off quickly.

CNG is being used to replace dirty coal as fast as possible. But even then we still need more power. Interesting is Washington State has huge wind farms and 25% of the time they are offline due to no room to store the power as we have an abundance of Hydro Power. We need storage farms that can hold the power generated by wind and solar and then transfer it to areas that need more power.

The key here is Coal is the cheapest and easiest fuel to find and use right not and the are cutting it off before we have a real alternative. CNG is cheap now but the price like oil can jump. The Oil line from Canada looks lost and that would be key to a steady cheap supply that will end up in China if we do not change the thinking. Not all of us are lucky to have damns for Hydro.

Nukes are behind in building and many we have now are old and having issues to the point of many closures.

Windmills just are not cutting it and solar is not cheap or practical in many places. Storage is not easy for the lack of better batteries.

I am ok with green energy development but do not take the cheapest and most abundant energy away till you have a real replacement. The plants are not dirty anymore and we are no choking to death here. If you want to clean the air talk to China.

Very true Hyperv6 as the filters coal power plants here must use actually are pretty darn clean. China needs to get with the rest of the world and start cleaning up their act.

  On 8/8/2013 at 8:59 PM, hyperv6 said:

The key here is Coal is the cheapest and easiest fuel to find and use right not and the are cutting it off before we have a real alternative. CNG is cheap now but the price like oil can jump. The Oil line from Canada looks lost and that would be key to a steady cheap supply that will end up in China if we do not change the thinking. Not all of us are lucky to have damns for Hydro.

Nukes are behind in building and many we have now are old and having issues to the point of many closures.

Windmills just are not cutting it and solar is not cheap or practical in many places. Storage is not easy for the lack of better batteries.

I am ok with green energy development but do not take the cheapest and most abundant energy away till you have a real replacement. The plants are not dirty anymore and we are no choking to death here. If you want to clean the air talk to China.

heard that my state was #4 in the percent of power from wind. there are silly mandates here, and also power here is also 30% more $$$$ than average as well.

that really does not bode well for electric vehicle industry in places where mandates drive up the cost or where overall electricity is monopolized by cities or conglomerates. why would one get an electric car if there are no competing forces to keep the cost of the electricity in check?

the price of the volt may drop 5k but take the bait and buy one and what's gonna happen in 15 months? Elec cost may go through the roof and your reps will vote in all sorts of new taxes and fees to replace the lack of gas tax you wouldnt pay with elec.

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

True, the cheapest is not always the best but neither is the most expensive, we need to find better ways to share the power that is cheaply produced in other parts with those areas that do not have an abundance of power. Reason I think we need some sort of large power storage center so that places that do have sun or wind and can produce crazy amounts can actually feed the system rather than turn them off due to no room to take the power produced.

  On 8/9/2013 at 1:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

We can agree there are no absolutes.

I Just spoke to a guy who has a Volt for a company car. He is glad the company is supplementing his electric bill as It has raised his bill more than expected. He loves the car but voice a concern that if the removal of coal for generating power is removed how much will it increase the cost of electric power and the cost to operate any electric car. He feels if the cost of electric energy goes up it may hinder any move to electric cars if gas remains stable in price.

I thought this interesting observation.

  On 8/9/2013 at 1:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

who pays for it, when do you run out of money, it don't grow on trees, except for when you can print it yourself.

  On 8/9/2013 at 9:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

  On 8/9/2013 at 1:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

We can agree there are no absolutes.

I Just spoke to a guy who has a Volt for a company car. He is glad the company is supplementing his electric bill as It has raised his bill more than expected. He loves the car but voice a concern that if the removal of coal for generating power is removed how much will it increase the cost of electric power and the cost to operate any electric car. He feels if the cost of electric energy goes up it may hinder any move to electric cars if gas remains stable in price.

I thought this interesting observation.

that's the natural observation. at some point when they have you by the nuts and the need is confirmed, someone (the govt or the energy providers) are going to stick to you to your threshold of pain.

Minneapolis city has had some ridiculous idea of trying to turn power into municipal only and takeover from excel energy. what we need is a system of more competition for energy so there is not 'one source to buy' from for all the energy. having the ability to say 'eff you your rates are too high' would be nice.

If you lived off the grid and created all your own power on site with some sort of system, at some point they would figure out how to tax the equipment you have because someone was not getting their cut.

  On 8/9/2013 at 10:52 PM, regfootball said:

  On 8/9/2013 at 1:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

who pays for it, when do you run out of money, it don't grow on trees, except for when you can print it yourself.

  On 8/9/2013 at 9:00 PM, hyperv6 said:

>

  On 8/9/2013 at 1:31 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Can we all agree here that doing the cheapest thing is not always doing the smartest thing?

We can agree there are no absolutes.

I Just spoke to a guy who has a Volt for a company car. He is glad the company is supplementing his electric bill as It has raised his bill more than expected. He loves the car but voice a concern that if the removal of coal for generating power is removed how much will it increase the cost of electric power and the cost to operate any electric car. He feels if the cost of electric energy goes up it may hinder any move to electric cars if gas remains stable in price.

I thought this interesting observation.

that's the natural observation. at some point when they have you by the nuts and the need is confirmed, someone (the govt or the energy providers) are going to stick to you to your threshold of pain.

Minneapolis city has had some ridiculous idea of trying to turn power into municipal only and takeover from excel energy. what we need is a system of more competition for energy so there is not 'one source to buy' from for all the energy. having the ability to say 'eff you your rates are too high' would be nice.

If you lived off the grid and created all your own power on site with some sort of system, at some point they would figure out how to tax the equipment you have because someone was not getting their cut.

We all pay for it. Doing the right thing just costs a little more initially but pays for itself in the long run. We've spent $3.7 trillion, and counting, on the wars in middle east... and that isn't even counting the first Gulf war. We could have, instead, spent half of that on Wind, half that on Solar, and had quintuple redundancy for our energy needs... we would be an exporter of electricity to Mexico and Canada and 57,614 fewer of our soldiers would be dead or wounded.

That Volt guy is a concern troll. The Volt cost per mile is less than 1/3 that of a gasoline powered car and the statement "if gas prices remain stable" is absurd. Wind is dropping in $/mwh to the point where it is now less costly than building a new "scrubbed" coal fired plant.

We are living on borrowed time for many/most of our current coal fired plants. They will need to be replaced relatively soon. One of the reasons electricity is so cheap is because we're continuing to burn coal in facilities that were paid off decades ago. Once those facilities need to be replaced, electricity isn't going to remain cheap for anyone because the replacements, no matter what the fuel, are expensive to build.

So grab your ankles for coal or grab your ankles for wind. Either way, you're grabbing your ankles.

Drew he is not a troll as he loves the car but he is glad he is not paying to charge it.

The dollars spent on green programs are not returning much back. At least with programs like NASA there was over site and fear of failure as it cost lives. The green companies get the money run and fail regularly.
As for wind Europe invested in them long before we did and they are now looking for alternatives.

Many coal plants do not need replaced as many had t be replaced or heavily modified and reconditioned to meet the new standards.

Now on the other hand you have nukes like San Luis Obispo sitting silent because it is in need of replacement.

As of now there is not any way we can replace coal with wind or Solar unless you are willing to become Amish.

I have no issue cleaning things up if there is a real plan but there are so many lies out there that try to sell us on these programs and they cost us billions and the companies fail and take the money. They even fool the president as he brags them up and they close up soon after. Gives me faith in the Government. I have one side pushing wind and solar with that will not do it at this point and then I have the other side pushing grain fuels that drive up fuel prices and harm older cars. Neither one as a solid solution.

As for the gulf it is to the point anymore oil over there matters little. The fact that we have radicals willing to come here and kill people will keep us in the deal. Like it or not we are on one planet and we can not isolate our selves from it. They tired in WW1 and WW2 but in the end these are now global issues and this one is based on radicals now.

A for Coal we are increasing our production cost here by eliminating it while the Third world and China thumb their nose and continue to burn it unfiltered. We will never be on a economic level to compete.

If there was an easy answer to all of this we would already have it. The fact is it will take all of the tools we have combined to make it into the future. To eliminate anyone would be a major mistake. All options need to remain on the table.

You are simply wrong about wind power. GE would not be putting huge R&D numbers at it otherwise.

There have been a number of recent developments in wind power that change the financial and generation landscape of wind entirely. Turbines that run on 1/3 the wind needed to run the currently deployed models, turbines that store energy for later use, interconnected turbines that prep themselves for changes in the wind well before it reaches them.

The American mid-west is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. With a properly upgraded grid and these modern upgraded turbines, it could be the dominant power source in the U.S.

If that guy's Volt is a company car, the reason he is "concerned" about it is because he likely wouldn't be paying for fuel in a gasoline car, the company would be. The cost of electricity in the US could triple and it would still cost less per mile to fuel a Volt than it would to run a Cruze. While we're throwing around anecdotes, a friend of mine has a Volt and he now only buys gasoline every 4 months down from every week from an old Pathfinder, his electric bill has increased $30 a month.

So, he went from spending $280 a month (assumption: 20 gallon tank at $3.50 a gallon) to $40 a month (monthly electric, plus 1/4 tank of gas). He picked up a lease when GM was running specials on the Volt so his lease payment plus running costs on a brand new Volt are less than just the fuel costs of a paid off Pathfinder.

The price of electricity could increase by over 9 times in this case and it would still be less expensive to run the Volt.

Put more simply: Concern troll is concerned.

I can run the numbers again for a Cruze if you like, but I promise you the cost per mile to fuel a Volt is still far less than a Cruze Eco. (2 cents per mile for the Volt, 9 cents per mile for the Cruze Eco highway mpg)

that volt sale was subsidized. once the parties that be get their hooks into buying more electrics en masse, all it does is it gives them license to jack up taxes for electric cars and rates on electricity.

  On 8/10/2013 at 2:55 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

You are simply wrong about wind power. GE would not be putting huge R&D numbers at it otherwise.

There have been a number of recent developments in wind power that change the financial and generation landscape of wind entirely. Turbines that run on 1/3 the wind needed to run the currently deployed models, turbines that store energy for later use, interconnected turbines that prep themselves for changes in the wind well before it reaches them.

The American mid-west is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. With a properly upgraded grid and these modern upgraded turbines, it could be the dominant power source in the U.S.

If that guy's Volt is a company car, the reason he is "concerned" about it is because he likely wouldn't be paying for fuel in a gasoline car, the company would be. The cost of electricity in the US could triple and it would still cost less per mile to fuel a Volt than it would to run a Cruze. While we're throwing around anecdotes, a friend of mine has a Volt and he now only buys gasoline every 4 months down from every week from an old Pathfinder, his electric bill has increased $30 a month.

So, he went from spending $280 a month (assumption: 20 gallon tank at $3.50 a gallon) to $40 a month (monthly electric, plus 1/4 tank of gas). He picked up a lease when GM was running specials on the Volt so his lease payment plus running costs on a brand new Volt are less than just the fuel costs of a paid off Pathfinder.

The price of electricity could increase by over 9 times in this case and it would still be less expensive to run the Volt.

Put more simply: Concern troll is concerned.

I can run the numbers again for a Cruze if you like, but I promise you the cost per mile to fuel a Volt is still far less than a Cruze Eco. (2 cents per mile for the Volt, 9 cents per mile for the Cruze Eco highway mpg)

I hope that Kool Aide is Cherry.

Wind is like the EV car and it will supplemental but it is in no position to replace the main systems we have any time soon.

I also like how you know so much about the guy in the Volt since you had never met him. talk about prejudging. You do not know how much he drives, how much electric he uses and how much the car is on gas. Buddy you had better get al the facts before you prejudge someone. You of all people here should know more than that.

Keep in mind he in a day uses all the electric and does use gas. He also likes the car. I just had a conversation with him and he said the electric bill made a large jump and he looked at the cost it would have been over the car he had before and there is no great savings.

Also the fact is there is a great concern that if the coal plants are forced off line the charge for power will increase. This is a legitimate concern by many.

Sorry the guy has an informed opinion and is driving the car and has a right to it. I am merely passing along what was told to me by someone who drives one daily.

There are a few possible scenarios regarding his "concern" for his electricity usage of the Volt:

1. He is exaggerating the increase.

2. He can't do math.

3. He has no idea what the actual increase is (i.e. his wife always paid the bill and she said "Honey, it jumped a lot")

4. There has been a large increase in energy usage at his house but he is blaming 100% of that on the Volt when in fact some of it is coming from something else.

I don't need to pre-judge. I can do math. The highest average electricity rate in the lower 48 is in Connecticut at 16.35 cents per kWh. Add another 10 cents per kWh for delivery which is typical for most states. The Volt has a 16kw battery but only 10.4kw of that is usable. A complete charge of a Volt in Connecticut will cost $2.74 per day. If he drives entirely in EV mode for 40 miles a day every day, his electricity bill will increase by $82.29.

Let's buy him a Pruis. Driving in that same pattern of 40 miles a day every day and averaging 1 gallon of gasoline each day. At the $3.94 a gallon average gas price in Connecticut, his fuel bill comes out to $118.20. The Volt is a $35 a month savings over a Prius in this scenario. If he's driving a more typical car that averages 25mpg, he is using 1.6 gallons per day making the Volt a $106 a month savings.

But maybe gas prices in Connecticut are too high, so he decides to move to Oklahoma where he can pick up gasoline at $3.17 a gallon, close to the nation's lowest gas prices. Happily, electricity rates in Oklahoma are the 10th lowest in the nation as well at 7.8 cents per kWh plus 10 cents/kWh transmission charge. He still drives his 40 miles a day. In a Volt, it will cost him $55.59 per month, in a Prius it will cost $95.10 a month, in a Camry LE it will cost him $152.16 a month, making the Volt a $39.51 savings per month over a Prius and a $96.57 a month savings over a Camry LE.

Let's make an even more unlikely scenario: He buys his electricity in Connecticut and his gasoline in Oklahoma. EVEN THEN the Volt will save him $11.35 a month over a Prius and $68.30 over a Camry LE in fuel.

I don't know what you think you're trying to prove here. It doesn't matter if he runs the Volt a million miles as an EV, his net fuel costs per mile will still be lower than any non-plug-in car out there. As an EV, the Volt costs less than 1/3 the price per mile to run than even a Prius. Electricity rates could triple and that would still be the case... and there is proof of that. Even at Hawaii's absurd 27 cents/kWh, running a Volt still beats a Prius by $15.84 a month at that state's $4.38 average gas price. (Hawaii is an oddball for energy and electricity prices will always track oil prices there because they use petroleum for over 70% of their generation)

If he is so concerned about his electric bill, why was he not concerned about his gasoline bill? Surely it was higher than any increase in his electric bill.

It would be interesting how my electric bill ($450-550/month average June-Sept) would change w/ a Volt charging at night.. IIRC, the electricity here in the Valley of $h! is nuclear generated (Palo Verde plant west of Phoenix).

What is your kwh charge including transmission? What is your daily commute? Should be easy to figure out the cost increase.

  On 8/11/2013 at 1:00 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

There are a few possible scenarios regarding his "concern" for his electricity usage of the Volt:

1. He is exaggerating the increase.

2. He can't do math.

3. He has no idea what the actual increase is (i.e. his wife always paid the bill and she said "Honey, it jumped a lot")

4. There has been a large increase in energy usage at his house but he is blaming 100% of that on the Volt when in fact some of it is coming from something else.

I don't need to pre-judge. I can do math. The highest average electricity rate in the lower 48 is in Connecticut at 16.35 cents per kWh. Add another 10 cents per kWh for delivery which is typical for most states. The Volt has a 16kw battery but only 10.4kw of that is usable. A complete charge of a Volt in Connecticut will cost $2.74 per day. If he drives entirely in EV mode for 40 miles a day every day, his electricity bill will increase by $82.29.

Let's buy him a Pruis. Driving in that same pattern of 40 miles a day every day and averaging 1 gallon of gasoline each day. At the $3.94 a gallon average gas price in Connecticut, his fuel bill comes out to $118.20. The Volt is a $35 a month savings over a Prius in this scenario. If he's driving a more typical car that averages 25mpg, he is using 1.6 gallons per day making the Volt a $106 a month savings.

But maybe gas prices in Connecticut are too high, so he decides to move to Oklahoma where he can pick up gasoline at $3.17 a gallon, close to the nation's lowest gas prices. Happily, electricity rates in Oklahoma are the 10th lowest in the nation as well at 7.8 cents per kWh plus 10 cents/kWh transmission charge. He still drives his 40 miles a day. In a Volt, it will cost him $55.59 per month, in a Prius it will cost $95.10 a month, in a Camry LE it will cost him $152.16 a month, making the Volt a $39.51 savings per month over a Prius and a $96.57 a month savings over a Camry LE.

Let's make an even more unlikely scenario: He buys his electricity in Connecticut and his gasoline in Oklahoma. EVEN THEN the Volt will save him $11.35 a month over a Prius and $68.30 over a Camry LE in fuel.

I don't know what you think you're trying to prove here. It doesn't matter if he runs the Volt a million miles as an EV, his net fuel costs per mile will still be lower than any non-plug-in car out there. As an EV, the Volt costs less than 1/3 the price per mile to run than even a Prius. Electricity rates could triple and that would still be the case... and there is proof of that. Even at Hawaii's absurd 27 cents/kWh, running a Volt still beats a Prius by $15.84 a month at that state's $4.38 average gas price. (Hawaii is an oddball for energy and electricity prices will always track oil prices there because they use petroleum for over 70% of their generation)

If he is so concerned about his electric bill, why was he not concerned about his gasoline bill? Surely it was higher than any increase in his electric bill.

Chill out dude you are acting like some of the wacko's that pop in once in a while.

First off you do not even know what his last car was because I don't even know. It was a casual conversation with a mutual friend and it was his own personal observation.

Have you even considered that he may not have just not used much gas with the last car and he may have a all natural gas house with a low electric bill. Hell he may not have AC for all you know. If is bill was only $80 a month and it may have increase it $80 month. To you and I that may not be much but to him that is double. Who are you to judge for him?

Second don't get pissy with me on this as I like the Volt and love the concept. It is the only electric Vehicle I would consider buying on the market. My only point of the statement is that someone who really drives one and charges one that likes the car saw a large jump in the electric bill no more no less these were his words, his personal observation and his statement. If you like I can call and see if I can get a number for you to call him and bitch to him about it. I am not going to argue with you as I don't really care so pick a fight with someone that cares.

Why? Because even if my $90 a month electric bill doubled, the total bill will still be less than half what I spend on gasoline right now. Percent doesn't matter, absolute value does.

A $10,000 premium over a Prius so you can spend $35 less in fuel costs a month = 24 years to break even on the investment. Nobody expects a 24 year lifespan to the battery pack, so it actually never ever pays itself back. Same thing can be said of a Volt vs a Cruze. $77 savings a month on fuel costs for a $16,000 investment in the propulsion system. 17 years to break even -- again, never going to actually happen with Lithium-Ion batteries.

You don't buy Hybrids to save money, you buy it to "feel" good about helping out with reducing a non-pollutant called Carbon Dioxide and make an imaginary dent in a non-existent problem called Global Warming. I have no problems with people wanting to do that for the same reason I have no economics justification for driving a 470hp car with 15/21 mpg and being happy about it. I just have a problem with paying higher taxes so my "wealth" can be transfered to people who make that choice in terms of tax credits or government "green" subsidies.