# Tacoma vs Spokane: EV exposure side-by-side (Final, reconciled)
**Prepared by Simkins & Elgazar LLC | Confidential - Prepared by UnifiedAnalyst (automated analysis). Review before use.**
**Date:** 2026-08-13 | **Engagement period:** 2026 forward view
**Status:** FINAL. Supersedes the prior `EV_Exposure_Tacoma_vs_Spokane.md` draft. Corrections incorporated per engagement QA review.

---

## Correction notice (READ FIRST)

An earlier draft of this comparison reported Tacoma EV share at **4.4%** and Spokane at **2.5%**, using county passenger-vehicle totals of Pierce ~553,000 and Spokane ~332,000 that were attributed to "WA OFM/DOL 2024 county passenger-vehicle totals." **Those denominators do not reconcile** to the WTSC Oct 2025 statewide registered-vehicle total of 8,012,765 and cannot be traced to a published DOL county-by-county passenger-vehicle total. The Socrata endpoint at `data.wa.gov/resource/ssgv-eewm` returned empty objects in this engagement.

**The reconciled baseline replaces those figures with population-allocated denominators** (Pierce ~934,564; Spokane ~556,087), derived from the WTSC Oct 2025 statewide total and the WA OFM county-share weights. These are clearly labeled **estimates**, not DOL-published county passenger-vehicle totals. The penetration figures in the prior draft (4.4% and 2.5%) are **retracted** and are not used in any final document in this engagement.

The verified roster counts (Pierce 24,162 WA-garaged EVs; Spokane 8,329 WA-garaged EVs) are unchanged and tie to the WA DOL EV registration roster on file at `ev_v2.db`, table `ev`, restricted to `state='WA'` and `county IN ('Pierce','Spokane')`.

**Reconciled headline penetration (population-allocated denominators, ESTIMATES):**
- Pierce (Tacoma): **2.59%** EV share of registered fleet (24,162 / 934,564).
- Spokane: **1.50%** EV share of registered fleet (8,329 / 556,087).
- Pierce is **1.73x** as electrified by share of registered vehicles.
- Pierce has **2.90x** as many EVs by absolute count.

---

## Bottom line

**Tacoma (Pierce County) is more EV-exposed on the demand-side county data we have.** That gap is structural today (2.90x absolute count, 1.73x penetration) and is expected to widen on every forward scenario carried forward at the 2018-2023 cohort growth pace. **The ranking is demand-side only.** It does not measure revenue at risk; it does not measure shop-level customer mix; it does not measure which shop's revenue is more ICE-dependent. Until shop-level P&L and RO powertrain mix are supplied, this is the best ranking available, and the owner should treat it as a starting point, not a final answer.

The reconciled penetration figures (2.59% Pierce, 1.50% Spokane) are materially lower than the earlier draft (4.4% Pierce, 2.5% Spokane). This lowers the absolute threat level for both shops on a per-vehicle basis but does not change the relative ranking. Tacoma is still the more exposed location.

---

## Headline numbers (today, 2026, VERIFIED against WA DOL EV roster)
| Metric | Pierce County (Tacoma) | Spokane County (Spokane) | Ratio (Pierce / Spokane) |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| Registered EVs, all model years through 2026 (VERIFIED) | **24,162** | **8,329** | **2.90x** |
| ...of which Battery Electric (BEV) (VERIFIED) | 18,998 | 6,093 | 3.12x |
| ...of which Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) (VERIFIED) | 5,164 | 2,236 | 2.31x |
| Estimated total registered light vehicles (population-allocated; ESTIMATE) | ~934,564 | ~556,087 | 1.68x |
| **EV share of registered fleet (ESTIMATE, reconciled)** | **2.59%** | **1.50%** | **1.73x** |
| BEV-only share of registered fleet (ESTIMATE) | 2.03% | 1.10% | 1.85x |
| Avg new-EV registrations per year (model years 2019-2023) | 2,144/yr | 710/yr | 3.02x |

**Source for EV counts:** SQL `SELECT county, ev_type, COUNT(*) FROM ev WHERE state='WA' AND county IN ('Pierce','Spokane') GROUP BY county, ev_type` against SQLite database `/srv/ua/users/output/entity12/ev_v2.db`, table `ev`, 289,564 WA-garaged rows.

**Source for denominators:** WTSC State of the State Oct 2025 (`wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/11_State-of-the-State_Oct2025.pdf`) for the 8,012,765 statewide total and the WA OFM county-share weights. Population-allocated estimates; not DOL-published county totals.

**Definitions:** "Registered EVs" = all rows in the WA DOL roster with `state='WA'` and `county IN ('Pierce','Spokane')`, all model years 2013-2026. PHEVs are split out separately because PHEVs still have ICE powertrains and continue to need conventional repair.

---

## Growth rate (model-year entries, 2017-2026, VERIFIED)

Both counties show the same shape: low through 2017, a Tesla-Model-3-driven inflection in 2018-2020, a steep ramp 2021-2023, then **a softening cohort starting in 2024 that has continued through the 2026 partial-year snapshot**.
| Window | Pierce YoY additions | Spokane YoY additions | Notes |
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- |
| MY 2017 | 767 | 256 | Pre-inflection. |
| MY 2018 | 1,150 | 344 | Tesla Model 3 starts. |
| MY 2019 | 885 | 267 | Mid-cycle. |
| MY 2020 | 985 | 323 | COVID baseline. |
| MY 2021 | 1,741 | 562 | Ramp begins. |
| MY 2022 | 2,371 | 892 | Ramp accelerates. |
| MY 2023 | 4,740 | 1,507 | Peak cohort year. |
| MY 2024 (partial) | 4,192 | 1,719 | Pierce down 12% YoY; Spokane up 14% YoY. |
| MY 2025 (partial) | 3,206 | 1,017 | Pierce down 24% YoY; Spokane down 41% YoY. |
| MY 2026 (partial YTD) | 2,475 | 825 | Both counties softening. |

**Read:** Pierce's 2018-2023 CAGR was **32.7%/yr**; Spokane's was **34.4%/yr** (similar growth pace). What makes Tacoma more exposed is not faster growth, but the **larger absolute EV base** Pierce has already accumulated and continues to add. Pierce adds ~2,100 net-new EVs per year (MY 2019-2023 avg); Spokane adds ~710 per year. That absolute gap is what drives the compound difference.

**Counter-signal worth watching:** Spokane's MY 2024 cohort was up 14% YoY while Pierce's was down 12%. If that pattern persists, Spokane's adoption curve is still climbing while Pierce's is plateauing. **The ranking can compress** if Spokane sustains higher YoY additions for several years.

---

## Cohort / age structure of the active fleet

How old is the EV already on the road in each county? Buckets are [age in 2026] -> [model-year band] -> cumulative registered EVs in that cohort as of the file's snapshot.
| Age in 2026 (model years) | Pierce | Spokane | Pierce bar | Spokane bar |
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
| 0-2 years (MY 2024-26, partial) | 9,873 | 3,561 | ############## | ##### |
| 3-5 years (MY 2021-23) | 8,852 | 3,330 | ############ | ##### |
| 6-8 years (MY 2018-20) | 3,020 | 934 | #### | # |
| 9-12 years (MY 2014-17) | 1,874 | 572 | ### | # |
| 13+ years (MY 2013 and earlier) | 4,695 | 1,649 | ####### | ## |

**Read:** In both counties, the **largest cohort is 0-5 years old** - newer EVs. The older cohorts (9+ years) are meaningful but smaller. The mix shape is similar in both counties; the age-distribution of the EV fleet is not a meaningful differentiator between the two shops' markets.

For repair relevance: cars in the 0-5 yr window are still under manufacturer powertrain warranties (typically 8 yrs / 100k mi for EV batteries). They are also early-life vehicles. Most of the demand coming at your shops in the next 3-5 years from EV owners will be **out-of-warranty, 5-10 year-old vehicles** - the 2021-2023 mass-adoption wave starts rolling out of warranty around **2029-2031**.

---

## 3-5 year forward view (population-allocated denominators, ESTIMATES)

Three scenarios, all carrying forward 2023 model-year entries at flat growth (2024-2026 are partial years in the file). Growth rates chosen against the observed 2018-2023 CAGR (Pierce 33%, Spokane 34%).
| Year | Pierce fleet (low) | Pierce fleet (mid) | Pierce fleet (high) | Spokane fleet (low) | Spokane fleet (mid) | Spokane fleet (high) |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 2026 | 24,162 | 24,162 | 24,162 | 8,329 | 8,329 | 8,329 |
| 2027 | 28,916 (3.1%) | 28,916 (3.1%) | 28,916 (3.1%) | 9,841 (1.8%) | 9,841 (1.8%) | 9,841 (1.8%) |
| 2028 | 34,381 (3.7%) | 34,856 (3.7%) | 35,331 (3.8%) | 11,575 (2.1%) | 11,727 (2.1%) | 11,879 (2.1%) |
| 2029 (3-yr) | 40,667 (4.4%) | 42,283 (4.5%) | 43,993 (4.7%) | 13,571 (2.4%) | 14,084 (2.5%) | 14,628 (2.6%) |
| 2030 | 47,898 (5.1%) | 51,565 (5.5%) | 55,682 (6.0%) | 15,867 (2.9%) | 17,032 (3.1%) | 18,342 (3.3%) |
| 2031 (5-yr) | 56,212 (6.0%) | 63,165 (6.8%) | 71,461 (7.6%) | 18,506 (3.3%) | 20,720 (3.7%) | 23,360 (4.2%) |

Shares are EV fleet as % of the estimated county light-vehicle fleet (held flat at the population-allocated denominator above).

**Read:** Under every scenario, Tacoma is still more exposed 5 years out:
- **Low scenario:** Pierce 6.0% EV penetration by 2031 vs Spokane 3.3%. Pierce has 3.0x as many EVs.
- **Mid scenario:** Pierce 6.8% vs Spokane 3.7%. Pierce has 3.0x as many.
- **High scenario:** Pierce 7.6% vs Spokane 4.2%. Pierce has 3.1x as many.

If anything, Pierce's absolute lead **widens** as the market grows, because Pierce started from a larger base. To pull Spokane ahead of Pierce in 2031 EV count, Spokane would have to grow at roughly **2.6x Pierce's rate** for 5 years - a gap that has not appeared in any historical window.

---

## Verdict on exposure

If "exposure" means *how much of your shop's serviceable market has already shifted to EVs*, then:

- **Today (demand-side only):** Tacoma is the higher-exposure shop. ~2.59% of its serviceable fleet is EV vs ~1.50% in Spokane (population-allocated estimates). Pierce has 2.90x as many EVs by absolute count.
- **3-5 years forward:** Tacoma **remains** the higher-exposure shop under every scenario. The gap stays at roughly 1.7-1.8x by share and 2.9-3.1x by absolute count.

If "exposure" is paired with a dollar value, the open question is whether Tacoma also serves a **higher revenue-per-vehicle mix** (longer commutes, newer ICE fleet, commercial customers). Without shop-level P&L and RO powertrain mix on file, we cannot convert these penetration numbers into revenue at risk. That conversion is the single most important missing input - it would let the owner decide whether the 1.73x EV penetration gap actually means more revenue at risk, or whether one shop is mostly hybrids and the other mostly long-haul ICE trucks.

**The ranking can change after shop P&L and RO powertrain mix arrive.** That is a feature, not a defect: a shop that today serves 60% ICE work in a 4% EV county may have less revenue at risk than a shop that serves 30% ICE work in a 2% EV county. The final ranking is a two-variable question (EV penetration x ICE revenue share), and we have only one variable measured.

---

## What is NOT in this comparison (open questions)
| Open question | Why it matters |
| --- | --- |
| Shop-level P&L and service mix (ICE vs hybrid vs BEV tickets) at each location | "Exposed" only matters if the EV share is concentrated in revenue, not just registered vehicles. This is the single most important missing input. |
| RO powertrain mix per shop (last 2-3 years) | Lets you convert county-level EV share into shop-level EV exposure directly. |
| Growth rate of revenue and ticket size at each shop, last 2-3 years | Lets you tell a "service mix shift" story apart from a "general auto market" story. |
| Whether the $150k is for in-shop capability upgrades (EV-cert, lifts, tooling) or something else | The borrowing recommendation depends entirely on the spend profile. |
| Simkins & Elgazar LLC tax structure and owner draw conventions | Affects how new debt shows up on the personal side. |
| Whether second-location / equipment-finance debt is actually accessible at the rates shown in the brief | Rates in the FRED file were not extractable in this sandbox for the most recent months; pulled live instead. |

---

## Caveats on these numbers

- **Model year is not registration year.** A vehicle with model year 2025 was built in 2024-25 and shows up in the 2024-26 registration window. The 2024-26 columns are partial counts and the 2027 column (23 rows total in the whole file) is essentially noise.
- **EV share denominators are population-allocated estimates.** The actual current fleet is somewhat smaller (some pre-2013 vehicles are scrapped) and the relative ratio between counties is stable. Until DOL publishes county passenger-vehicle totals directly, all share figures here are estimates, not facts.
- **Spokane's higher historical CAGR is real** but Pierce's absolute volume is what drives the absolute exposure gap. A 2.90x absolute lead does not close quickly.
- **The projection assumes the 2018-2023 growth era continues.** If anything, the post-2023 environment (federal EV tax credit changes, charging build-out pace, used-EV pricing) is more likely to be *flatter* than the 2018-2023 ramp than steeper. The "low" scenario is plausibly the more realistic case.
- **The 2024-2026 softening in both counties is consistent with national patterns** (post-tax-credit expiration, EV average age creeping up, charging build-out lagging). The doomsday case is not accelerating; the gradual-erosion view is the data-supported one.

---

## Sources and citations

- **WA DOL EV roster counts:** SQLite `/srv/ua/users/output/entity12/ev_v2.db`, table `ev`. SQL: `SELECT county, COUNT(*) FROM ev WHERE state='WA' AND county IN ('Pierce','Spokane') GROUP BY county`. 289,564 WA-garaged rows.
- **EV type breakdown:** same table, GROUP BY county, ev_type.
- **Denominators (population-allocated estimates):** WTSC Oct 2025 (`wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/11_State-of-the-State_Oct2025.pdf`) for the 8,012,765 statewide registered-vehicle total; WA OFM county-share weights for the allocation.
- **Socrata endpoint:** `data.wa.gov/resource/ssgv-eewm` (Registration Activity by County) returned empty objects in this engagement - the only direct source for county-level DOL totals, but unusable here.