Everyday Coloradans are paying more so the wealthy can have EVs. CO House Dems further limit debate and yet again silence dissent. Lastly because it's Friday, shivaree.
Paying more so the wealthier folks can drive EV’s
Two looks at the same problem. I will post the op ed I wrote on this first. It’s a more layman’s terms, mathematically-friendly look.
Below that will be a fuller report with sources, methods, and etc.
My CoPo Op Ed:
Colorado's common man subsidizes the electric rides of our rich
The Connection Between EV's and Per Capita Income: What My Research Tells Me.
Abstract
By looking at car registration data vs. county and per capita income data vs. county, I find a decently-high correlation between EV registrations and per capita county income with a weaker one for hybrids (and a curiously negative and almost zero for internal combustion registrations and all car registrations).
If you look at the top and bottom 10 counties for EV registrations and Hybrid registrations next to the above, I believe that the picture is clear.
I believe current policy is taking from all of Colorado and benefiting a relative few in wealthier, Front Range communities.
I also believe that a better approach, which could reduce emissions and yet benefit more of us across the state equally, would be to stop focusing on EV's and start incentivizing Hybrids, cars which have shown a broader acceptance and affordability for the ENTIRE state.
Fuller Report
Is EV ownership a provenance of the wealthy? Are our state's subsidies (and Xcel's) taking from us to make it easier for rich folks to buy them?
If so, what is a better way to get less emissions without taking from me to give to someone who has more?
I will not tell you that I have definitive answers to my questions, but in looking at Colorado's data, I have peeled up the corners a little and have some definite thoughts about where we are now and where we should go.
Sources and Caveats
I contacted the State of Colorado and asked for a breakdown by county of vehicle registrations--EV's, Hybrids, and Internal Combustion Engines. This data is columns A - E on the first page of my spreadsheet linked below. Because the DMV shared their caveats on the data with me, I'm sharing with you as screenshot 1.
The second source of data comes from a federal spreadsheet (linked second and third below and excerpted into columns J - Q in my own spreadsheet). This gives the per-capita income by county in Colorado.
A quick note: the car registration data is from 2023, but the closest the feds could get me was 2022 on the per capita income. This is a mismatch, but I do not think it affects my data much. Being that 2022 is far away from COVID, I doubt there has been enough change in per capita income by county.
The percentage of EV registrations (and etc.) you see in columns F and G are pretty self explanatory, plus a click on any particular cell will give you the formulas.
Results
I wanted to look at both EV and Hybrid registrations against per capita income and that is the second tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet. The one labeled "EV/Hybrid vs. Income".
While I was at it, and as a check on some other hunches, I looked at ICE (internal combustion engine) registrations against per capita income and did the same for all car registrations against per capita income. Those are the other two tabs at bottom.
To get the income I simply copied over the alphabetical list of per capita incomes from 2022. I then copied the corresponding alphabetical (by county) percent-of-total.
I then ran correlation coefficients for them and made graphs. Those are screencaps 2 - 4.
Looking at screenshot 2, you can see that there is a relatively decent correlation between EV registrations and per capita income and a weaker one for Hybrids and per capita income: 0.69 and 0.59 respectively.
What does this mean? Recall that correlations tells you the likelihood that one thing will be found with another. It says how likely you are to find that if one thing increases the other will too.
Usually when the numbers get to 0.7 and above we say it's a strong correlation, meaning you're likely to find the two together. Below that to down near 0.3 or so, it's a (my term) middling correlation. Below 0.3 it's so weak as to not mean much.
So, you're likely to find EV's in places with high per capita income. It's likely (though less so) to find hybrids in those places.
You can also see this manifest in the graph by noting that the blue dots (EV's) are "tigher" and "flatter". That is, the dots tend to line up with each other and you find that the trend is to go up as you go to the right (albeit not too quickly).
Compare this to the orange dots (hybrids). See how they spread out more? They scatter more and you have high registration numbers even when the per capita income is less (they get higher even if you're more left).
It might be natural to think that this trend holds for any vehicle. After all, wouldn't we expect to see more cars in general where there's more money? It's worth looking into that to make sure what we see in EV's and Hybrids isn't just a specific example of that trend.
If you now look in at screenshots 3 and 4, you'll see graphs and correlations coefficients for ICE registrations vs. income and all car registrations vs. income.
The ICE graph has a negative association (albeit a mild one)! For all cars, you find a very weak (almost no) positive association between income and car registrations.
Discussion
This last result (the ICE and All Cars result) was quite striking. I don't know what to make of that mild negative association between ICE registrations and incomes. I'll leave that to someone that knows better.
As to the very mild (almost no) association between vehicle ownership and income, I think it points to two dynamics. None of the data I have differentiates by price. All over this state, people are driving a variety of cars. They drive what they can afford.
So, I don't expect much from vehicle ownership. Given that EV's tend to be expensive, and concentrated largely in certain counties (see screenshot 5 for the top 10 and bottom 10 counties for EV ownership as a percent--note that I had to go up quite a few rows to get to the first non zero ones), the disparity in correlations here is telling.
Correlation is not causation. There can be many reasons for this disparity. E.g. rural areas tend to have both lower incomes and likely more resistance to buying EV's (political, practical, and everything between).
What we see here is that taxpayer money (alongside ratepayer money from Xcel customers) is not spreading around the state. EV's are expensive and they're much more likely to be found (and bought) in wealthier counties. That's where our subsidy dollar is going right now. Look again at screenshot 5.
Boulder. Broomfield. Aspen. Denver. Douglas. Arapahoe.
Via Democrat policy, we have bought big on EV's, but it needn't be this way. Look at screen shot 6 attached. These are the same top and bottom 10 counties for Hybrids.
A lot of the same top 10's are there, but look at the bottom. I didn't have to scroll up a few rows to get above zero this time. Put that with the lower correlation between Hybrids and per capita income and it shows me that more Coloradans, from more disparate backgrounds are open to hybrids.
Maybe a more egalitarian (and sensible) approach, at least until EV performance and price come more in line with currently-available technology, would be to try and push Hybrids in lieu of such a dramatic effort to get EV's out there.
Maybe that way it wouldn't be the whole state transferring their money to wealthy counties so they can feel virtuous.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ouHgRVS-Gk1PZlUojgD_Wc-dJhk2k1z7/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105405937749106967542&rtpof=true&sd=true
https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/personal-income-county-metro-and-other-areas
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/lapi1123.xlsx
.
I read the article below with no small measure of distaste. Yet again, we find that the Democrats who run this state are working hard to silence those they disagree with.
Yet again we find this is a Colorado for all only if you agree with and support the politics of a demographically-large and politically progressive band of people living in a handful of zip codes near the capitol.
As the article has it, "on a fully partisan vote, the House approved a resolution that allows leaders to trigger end-of-session rules beginning on the 110th day of each 120-day regular session and throughout special sessions, rather than just with three days to go, which is current practice."
I.e. not a single Democrat voted against this.
I intend to see if and how I can, without being booted from committee hearings, make sure I mention things like this in any and all House and Senate testimony I give.
In the meantime, I wrote the open email below and urge you to follow with one of your own so that the House Dems understand that their silencing wide swaths of this state to grease their policy's path through the House is not okay.
My email is below if it's helpful, and underneath that I put the email of the governor and every House Democrat.
Speak up while you still have some ability to do so.
https://tsscolorado.com/new-colorado-house-rule-could-limit-debate-on-controversial-bills-at-end-of-session/
An open email to Governor Polis and every Democrat member of the Colorado House regarding their vote on 2/2 to further restrict the voices of Coloradans they disagree with.
Hello to all,
My name is Cory Gaines.
I am a resident of Colorado and recently read an article about how the Colorado House voted on the 2nd to further limit debate, going beyond what has already been done during both the 2022 Assembly session and the recent Special Session.
Is this to be, as Governor Polis has said, a Colorado for all, or is it to be a Colorado for those that agree with your policy?
I ask this because what I, and many thousands of other Coloradans with me, see is that your actions don't match your words. There is talk about bipartisanship. There is talk about finding solutions to Colorado's problems.
And all of this pretty rhetoric alongside shutting down debate, alongside silencing the people you don't agree with. You neither seek nor incorporate ideas from those you disagree with politically. Ideas which would better your policy and/or make it work in areas of this state that I daresay many of you could not find on a map. You quiet those who speak for people in this state who disagree with you. You shut down the microphones of those who say things you do not like in committees, or you berate them openly. You show little to no respect for local control. You flatly ignore the voices of the citizenry when, by popular vote, they express their will in plain terms to you.
I understand the nature of demographics in this state. I understand the nature of rules of our system of government.
I also understand when words do not match actions and what actions say. Despite your frequent mention of inclusion and bipartisanship, your actions and governor, your silence, say the opposite. They say that what matters most are the values of a large cluster of people living in a narrow band of the state matter more than anything else. That the voices of those you do not agree with politically mean nothing.
C
Governorpolis@state.co.us>,
judy.amabile.house@coleg.gov,
jennifer.bacon.house@coleg.gov,
shannon.bird.house@coleg.gov,
andrew.boesenecker.house@coleg.gov,
kyle.brown.house@coleg.gov,
chad.clifford.house@coleg.gov,
lindsey.daugherty.house@coleg.gov,
chris.kennedy.house@coleg.gov,
monica.duran.house@coleg.gov,
regina.english.house@coleg.gov,
elisabeth.epps.house@coleg.gov,
meg.froelich.house@coleg.gov,
lorena.garcia.house@coleg.gov,
eliza.hamrick.house@coleg.gov,
tim.hernandez.house@coleg.gov,
leslie.herod.house@coleg.gov,
Iman.Jodeh.house@coleg.gov,
junie.joseph.house@coleg.gov,
cathy.kipp.house@coleg.gov,
sheila.lieder.house@coleg.gov,
mandy.lindsay.house@coleg.gov,
william.lindstedt.house@coleg.gov,
meghan.lukens.house@coleg.gov,
javier.mabrey.house@coleg.gov,
bob.marshall.house@coleg.gov,
matthew.martinez.house@coleg.gov,
julia.marvin.house@coleg.gov,
tisha.mauro.house@coleg.gov,
Julie.Mccluskie.house@coleg.gov,
karen.mccormick.house@coleg.gov,
barbara.mclachlan.house@coleg.gov,
David.Ortiz.house@coleg.gov,
jennifer.parenti.house@coleg.gov,
Naquetta.Ricks.house@coleg.gov,
manny.rutinel.house@coleg.gov,
said.sharbini.house@coleg.gov,
emily.sirota.house@coleg.gov,
marc.snyder.house@coleg.gov,
tammy.story.house@coleg.gov,
brianna.titone.house@coleg.gov,
alex.valdez.house@coleg.gov,
elizabeth.velasco.house@coleg.gov,
stephanie.vigil.house@coleg.gov,
mike.weissman.house@coleg.gov,
jenny.willford.house@coleg.gov,
steven.woodrow.house@coleg.gov,
mary.young.house@coleg.gov
Related
I wrote this one up as an op ed in addition to posting my email here. If you like the op ed version better, it's linked below.
Same info, just different format.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/author/cory-gaines/
I didn't know the name shivaree, but I do remember my grandma telling me about this tradition.
It's that time of the week again. Last post til Sunday and thus something for fun, a curiosity, not related to politics.
I am not sure why it popped into my head, but I had a memory of something my grandma told me about when I was a kid the other day: she told me how it was the tradition when she was young to go around the house of a pair of newlyweds and banging pots and pans.
I don't remember now whether I asked her what the purpose was, or whether she said anything other than just what I wrote above.
Some form of hazing maybe? Celebration? White noise to cover up the sounds within?
I'm not sure I know. Sometimes with these traditions, the best you can do is shrug and say "because" in response to a question of "why?".
When I did some reading up on this to try and learn some history behind it, I found the blog post linked below, which, if it's to be believed, offers some instances of taking this tradition to a whole new level (e.g. shooting guns, breaking into the newlyweds' house)!
It also offers the term "shivaree" for this practice which is also news to me (grandma didn't give it a name).
I'll leave it to you to read up on the history of the practice listed, but will tease it by saying that shivaree wasn't always something done to celebrate a union.
At any rate, now you know a new word and/or tradition if you didn't. Have a good end to the week and see you on Sunday!
https://www.findmypast.com/blog/history/shivaree-when-the-whole-community-interrupted-your-wedding-night#:~:text=If%20your%20ancestors%20got%20married,entry%20into%20the%20matrimonial%20residence