Here’s Why Tesla Model S Gets Hit With A $15,000 Carbon Emissions Surcharge In Singapore


Tesla Model S

Tesla Model S

Singapore’s Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) was recently explained on Channel NewsAsia, due to the controversy surrounding the case of the Tesla Model S.

The Model S was charged S$15,000 (U.S. $10,481) for exceeding the carbon emissions requirement. All the while, the owner, and anyone else that knows of the model, likely would have expected a rebate.

Revised CEVS in affect through June 30, 2017

Revised CEVS in affect through June 30, 2017

CEVS revised breakdown beginning July 1, 2015:

Under Singapore’s revised Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), all new cars and imported used cars registered from 1 July 2015 with low carbon emissions of less than or equal to 135g CO2/km qualify for rebates of between S$5,000 (US$3,614) and S$30,000 (US$21,681), which are offset against the vehicle’s Additional Registration Fee (ARF). Cars with high carbon emissions equal to or more than 186g CO2/km incur a registration surcharge of between S$5,000 and S$30,000.

When Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) tested the vehicle it was shown to consume 444 Wh/km of electric energy. This number is nearly double U.S. EPA’s estimates. The emissions produced from that use of energy, estimated through the CEVS equation, reached 222g CO2/km.

The Tesla was the first electric car not qualifying for the rebate in Singapore, according to the LTA.

U.S. examples show the same Tesla Model S P90D with emissions falling between (155g CO2/km) and (167g CO2/km). While these numbers show that the car would not receive any rebate, the Tesla should not have received a surcharge either.

Tesla released the following statement to InsideEVs on their interpretation/understanding of the emissions of the Model S:

The Model S that our customer imported into Singapore left our factory in 2014 with energy consumption rated at 181 Wh/km. As the Land Transport Authority has confirmed, this qualifies as the cleanest possible category of car in Singapore and entitles the owner to an incentive rather than a fine.

Model S achieves this result because CO2 emissions in gas-powered cars are far higher than in electric cars. In Singapore, electricity generation releases roughly 0.5kgCO2/kWh. Based on energy consumption in Model S of 181 Wh/km, this results in 90 g CO2/km. Driving an equivalent gas-powered car like the Mercedes S-Class S 500 results in emissions of approximately 200 gCO2/km. And because of oil extraction, distribution, and refining, approximately 25% more has to be added on top of that to calculate the real carbon footprint of gas-powered cars. That means an electric car like the Model S has almost three times lower CO2 per km than an equivalent gas-powered car. Moreover, as Singapore increases the percentage of grid power from solar and wind, the CO2 from electricity drops with each passing year. 

We are having cooperative discussions with the LTA to ensure a proper understanding of these issues and to make sure that they are correctly testing our customer’s Model S. Based on the positive nature of those discussions, we are confident that this situation will be resolved soon.

Source: Green Car Congress

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

39 Comments on "Here’s Why Tesla Model S Gets Hit With A $15,000 Carbon Emissions Surcharge In Singapore"

newest oldest most voted

Yes. .5kgCO2/kwh is roughly in line with an open cycle natural gas plant and your plot shows a majority of elecricity from NG.

I’m surprised that singapore is relatively clean with no coal in the mix.

A majority of countries in the world don’t use any coal for electricity generation.

I don’t know about the majority of countries, but the vast majority of global emissions from electricity and heat generation are from coal. No bout a doubt it!

This Washington Post link has GREAT global circle graphics to represent the following:

1) Total CO2 emissions by country for electricity and heat (E&H) generation,

2) CO2 emissions by country for coal vs. total CO2 emissions for E&H generation, and

3) CO2 emissions by country for natural gas vs. total CO2 emissions for E&H generation.

It’s a real eye opener!

Unfortunately even if it were true a mjaority of countries doesn’t in anyway correlate to a majority of people, or a majority of energy use.
Until the most populous and power hungrys countries sort their grids the coal will burn.
Luckily progress does finally appear to be being made!

According to Wikipedia, Singapore is down to 1% petroleum for power generation…almost totally natural gas with a little solar+other

So Tesla should be punished for Singapore’s fossil grid?

Naw. I think the world is punishing Singapore for its officials having bad math skills…

No. Tesla owners are being punished for driving around cars that are half the size of the country they live in.

The issue is very easy to resolve.Singapore is a third world country like mine , Spain.So the level of corruption in those countries is something totally normalized.The Sing goverment was waiting some cash from Tesla , but i supose that Tesla will not pay anything.So if you don’t give something to the mafia , the mafia fucks you.

I believe Singapore has one of the lowest levels of corruption

Spain and Singapore are first world countries. Third world for example is Ivory Coast in Africa.

Per capita income in Singapore is about three times that in Spain. Its residents are wealthier than the average American.

Describing Singapore as a corrupt country now…That’s a new low. I sometimes wonder what is the average EV enthusiast knowledge of the world around him.

“The issue is very easy to resolve.Singapore is a third world country like mine , Spain.So the level of corruption in those countries is something totally normalized.”

Another Tesla fan boy criticizing something that is off base..

Singapore is 8th least corrupt country in the world.

Spain is #36 and US is #16. Norway is #5.

Calling Singapore corrupt is just dumb…

What did they do? Have the climate control cranked up full blast while they slow-charged it for hours?

444 Wh/km is absolutely absurd.

Singapore’s LTA tested the Model S using UNECE R101 standards. See my comment below.

The article title is “Here’s why” but it doesn’t answer why at all, just puts together already known facts. The question is why did it measured 444 Wh/km and it seems nobody wants to dig into it.

Indeed. InsideEVs, I’m disappointed that you posted this blatant clickbait. Go find out why they assessed it at 444 Wh/km and THEN write an article about it. Perhaps even wait until Singapore eats their words and refunds the fee …

Right, I thought this cleared the air on the 444 Wh/km measurement, but all it does is compile already known facts.

For those that have brought up charging losses and vampire draw, the EPA test already takes that into account. The Singapore test was based on NEDC so it should have gotten even better numbers than the EPA test, not drastically worse.

The Singapore test was based on UNECE R101 standards, not NEDC standards. See my comment below.

I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not, UNECE R101 is NEDC:

zzzzzzzzzz said:
“The question is why did it measured 444 Wh/km and it seems nobody wants to dig into it.”

Ummm . . . the linked, source article on Green Car Congress answers this burning question (pun intended), but for some reason this info did not make it into the InsideEVs article above. The short and simple answer is that Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) “tested the Models S using United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 standards,” which resulted in a figure of 444 Wh/km for electric energy consumption.

Below is the relevant passage from the Green Car Congress article (emphasis added):

“As Channel NewsAsia determined Singapore’s Land Transport Authority (LTA), the agency responsible for planning, operating, and maintaining Singapore’s land transport infrastructure and systems, tested the Models S using United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 standards. The result was that the electric energy consumption of was 444 Wh/km. (This figure is approaching twice that of the US EPA’s estimate of 235.6 Wh/km (38 kWh/100 miles) for the Model S 90.)”

The question is, how, exactly, was the figure of 444 Wh/km arrived at? Was there some flaw in the procedure employed by LTA? Does that particular car have a problem that makes it very inefficient?

By my pre-coffee math 444 Wh/km is 1.399 mi/kWh, which is far worse than the approximately 3 mi/kWh that Tesla owners report as their real world consumption.

This just skirts the question of why the UN calculation would produce such a wildly different number than the EPA’s.

Based on other articles Tesla seems to believe that errors were made in calculating the UN number rather than the UN method itself causing the difference.

The first link below sheds some light on the difference. UNECE said that Singapore’s “Land Transport Authority (LTA) appears to have applied the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 correctly when assessing the carbon emission of a used Tesla Model S . . . However, Singapore’s LTA also appears to be the only national regulator to have included power grid emission into the evaluation of electric vehicles’ (EVs) carbon footprint. . . .” Since the Tesla owner claims he will be charging at home and not at a Supercharger, there appears to be a “double taxation issue at play,” since the Tesla owner is already “paying for any electrical distribution CO2 surcharge when [he] pay[s] [his] electricity bill every month.”

For reference, the link below is the source link for the Green Car Reports article my preceding comment.

That link is the same as this article and sheds no light on the differences. All it refers to is LTA’s usage of 0.5kgCO2/kWh as a grid adjustment factor. It does not address how they arrived at 444 Wh/km on the car side (which is the discrepancy; not the choice to use a grid adjustment factor).

The Model S gets 181 Wh/km on the UNECE R101 (NEDC) cycle both in the EU and Australia. What is unknown right now is how LTA did their test and if there is any errors they made. Either it is that or there is something wrong with the particular car (but the screenshot shown by the owner doesn’t show high consumption).

If I read correctly from LTA: The emphasis is not about different standards of testing in the US, Europe or Asia. If you factor everything in, you’ll get the same result. Thus, again, the much higher result was not due to different standardized testings. LTA blame on the fact that it was a “used” car. And with a “used” car, you wouldn’t know how much maintenance were done, and thanks to the test, without it, “LTA would not know how much the car’s condition might have deteriorated.” So, the answer for the discrepancy according to LTA is: 1) “used” old car. 2) “the car’s condition might have deteriorated.”” The problem with those reasons are not plausible because: 1) Low mileage: It had only less than 625 miles (1,000km.) 2) No deterioration/inefficiency found by the screenshot of 17″ Energy Consumption numbers (206 to 246 Wh/km.) So how does LTA solve this problem? 1) It fined the gross polluted car. 2) It will continue to test old Tesla when you first bring them inside Singapore. 3) It does not prohibit additional “used” Tesla cars after this incidence. 4) It does not and will not test “brand new” Tesla cars. 5) If… Read more »

Singapore does not challenge Tesla US test number of 181 Wh/km.

It does not fault the differences in US standard and its method.

It faults the “used”, unknown maintenance record of the 650 mile Tesla car:

“Tesla has informed LTA that based on the car’s original Certificate of Conformity, its energy consumption rating was 181 Wh/km when it left the Tesla factory on 28 June 2014. LTA confirms that a brand new Tesla Model S would thus have fallen into the CEVS A1 band, and enjoyed a rebate. However, Mr Nguyen did not bring in a new Tesla Model S, but a used car,”

This is a flawed logic: This incident happened because a Tesla was tested. It was tested because it was not “brand new.” If you got a “brand new” like what LTA boasted “brand new Peugeot Ion” then your’s not tested. Thus, because it’s brand new and not tested, it “enjoyed rebates in the CEVS A1 band.” Again, if that Tesla was new, it would never be tested. And it would automatically get the rebate. All other numbers and explanations are distractions so you don’t pay attention that unsound logic.

What LTA is saying is: See that guy over there who got tested? If you don’t want to be tested, then get a brand new car.

When LTA see a computer read out from that Model S that shows low energy consumption 206 to 246 Wh/km as shown in the picture below:

It would test you out and get a significantly higher number 444!

@Mart and everyone:

How do I post a picture please?

Your ok like that. Just drop the link, it’ll auto fill/embed into a picture in time (usually within a half hour)…provided it fits (ie – no larger than 750 pcx wide)

Thanks Jay!

In Australia, no rebates no matter how clean you car is!

The LTA must have had a $#!%load of fun driving that Model S to get 444 kWh / mile.

Places like Singapore and Japan have to look at the difficulty to produce electricity which requires import of fossil fuels to accomplish for them. In the USA, we are affluent and resource-endowed enough to afford to make extra electricity for EV’s. In the USA, we are looking to create jobs and manufacturing leadership in the Plug-in sector. It is not necessarily as good of a fit for Singapore.

That’s a fair assessment of the infrastructure.

However, that doesn’t explain how after Tesla take in those dirty infrastructure factors and still arrives a much lower number of 90 g CO2/km than what Singapore can calculate 222g CO2/km.

Tesla said: “We believe the test was likely not properly conducted, and we are working cooperatively with the LTA to test the car again.”

He real reason is that Singapore is a tiny island with a large population, and they sorely want to dedicate more real estate to things that aren’t roads and parking lots. They will find any excuse to slap more charges on every car to inflate it’s price out of the reach of most people.