Implementing the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan

Robert.Boston · May 30, 2014

As you may have heard on the news, New York and four of the six New England states have signed on to the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan. (Boos and hisses to New Hampshire and Maine for not joining.)

At the heart of the plan are 11 key actions to be taken by all the partners and the elements needed to successfully complete those actions. The key actions cover three main areas:
Build the market

Promote the availability and effective marketing of ZEVs

Encourage private fleets to acquire ZEVs

Promote planning and investment in ZEV infrastructure

Increase the number of ZEVs in government vehicle fleets

Provide consistent rules and tracking

Remove barriers to charging station installation

Provide clear and uniform signage

Track and report progress toward the 3.3 million vehicle goal

Improve the experience

Promote workplace charging

Provide consumer incentives for the purchase of ZEVs

Remove barriers to retail sale of electricity as vehicle fuel

Promote access and compatibility for charging networks

We've got active TMC members in each of these states. My suggestion is that we should work on drafting a set of specific, realistic actions for these five northeastern states to implement these objectives. Our proposal would be informed by our daily experiences as EV drivers in the northeast--mostly drivers of long-range EVs, whose needs are different than PiP/Volt/Leaf/i3 drivers. My vision on this is that we start with a unified vision of what ought to be across the region and then develop specific actions for each state, depending upon the particular laws, regulations, etc. in the state.

I'm more of a "product" guy, less "process." Does anyone want to take the lead in organizing a process for us to work out such a statement?

GSP · May 30, 2014

Robert,

Thanks for posting.

The 11 key actions look very well thought out and are exactly where effort is best spent to promote EVs, IMO.

GSP

dsm363 · May 30, 2014

If only one issue could be pushed, easing rules for charger installation would be key. Also, mandating conduits be installed in X percentage of parking spots in apartment and condo buildings as well as office parking would be great.

cfava · May 30, 2014

After reading the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan I agree with many points except for the heavy-handed government regulation piece on types of charger equipment they recommend.

The charger equipment they recommend is still for small battery packs.

I believe we should promote high power (80 amp/ 208/240v) level two charging equipment for municipalities public garages using the J1772 connector; hence, this is the cheapest solution for all electric vehicles.

I do not believe municipalities should purchase level 3 charging equipment, I think Tesla and other EV makers should take care of that expense. Government should not be in the business of level 3 charging, they will slow innovation.

Robert.Boston · May 30, 2014

Here are some of the gaps I see in the document:

Promote availability and effective marketing of all plug-in electric vehicle models in our state.
- Eliminate legal barriers to direct-to-consumer sales of PEVs by manufacturers without a franchised dealership in the state. This would include not only Tesla, but companies like Lit Motors that may enter the market in the future
Provide consumers incentives to enhance the ZEV ownership experience
- Implement "EV" license plates, following Massachusett's example, to promote EV awareness and to assist law enforcement related to parking, HOV lane use, etc.
Lead by example through increasing ZEVs in state, municipal, and other public fleets
- Work with manufacturers to spec and build fleet vehicles appropriate for public use (e.g. maintenance vehicles at universities)
- Require public fleet managers to demonstrate that PEVs cannot be used before allowing purchase of other vehicles
Encourage private fleets to purchase, lease, or rent ZEVs
- Modify taxi regulations to encourage widespread adoption of PEV taxi fleets
- Facilitate workshops between commercial fleet operators (e.g. UPS, FedEx, USPS) and manufacturers to spec and build appropriate fleet vehicles
Promote workplace charging
Promote ZEV infrastructure planning and investment by public and private entities
- Make available locations at state-owned facilities (e.g. rest areas) for Level 3 charging
- Install EVSEs at publicly owned destinations, e.g. parks and beaches
Provide clear and accurate signage to direct ZEV users to charging and fueling stations and parking
Remove barriers to ZEV charging and fueling station installations
Promote access, compatibility, and interoperability of the plug-in EV charging network
- [concerns here about how Tesla's SC could be adversely affected]
- [concerns here about bogging down EVSE deployment because of ADA compliance issues]
Remove barriers to the retail sale of electricity and hydrogen as transportation fuels ad promote competitive plug-in electric vehicle charging rates
- Revise Standard Offer Service auctions to obtain separate pricing for on- and off-peak power, to support TOU rates for both wires and power charges
- [demand charges should only be assessed on peak-hour usage]
Track and report progress

Curt · May 30, 2014

cfava said:
I believe we should promote high power (80 amp/ 208/240v) level two charging equipment for municipalities public garages using the J1772 connector; hence, this is the cheapest solution for all electric vehicles.

I do not believe municipalities should purchase level 3 charging equipment, I think Tesla and other EV makers should take care of that expense. Government should not be in the business of level 3 charging, they will slow innovation.

+1

Level 2 charging should not be throttled by the currently-common 3.3 or 6.6 kWh chargers in the small-capacity EVs. 80 Amp (or higher) service should be the norm, and still doesn't preclude use by the short-range EVs.

mitch672 · May 30, 2014

Curt said:
+1

Level 2 charging should not be throttled by the currently-common 3.3 or 6.6 kWh chargers in the small-capacity EVs. 80 Amp (or higher) service should be the norm, and still doesn't preclude use by the short-range EVs.

Yes, the argument against it is, the available power/transformers and cost of the larger conduits/wire.
Proponents of 30A charging will say they can install twice as many as 30A L2 EVSEs (compared to 70A) because of power limitations and cost.

I think Tesla could step up here and offer municipalities free or heavily discounted EVSE's. They'll probably supply HPWCs, which may not be correct here.. Clipper Creek CS-90/100's would be better, since all EV's can utilize them. Perhaps Tesla can offer a modified HPWC, with a J-1772 head, that would be the most flexible.. The HPWC can already be set to work on circuits from 50A all the way to 100A.

Tesla should probably target destination charging locations in these states, such as hotels/resorts, movie theaters, anywhere people spend multiple hours.

TexasEV · May 30, 2014

cfava said:
After reading the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan I agree with many points except for the heavy-handed government regulation piece on types of charger equipment they recommend.

The charger equipment they recommend is still for small battery packs.

I believe we should promote high power (80 amp/ 208/240v) level two charging equipment for municipalities public garages using the J1772 connector; hence, this is the cheapest solution for all electric vehicles.

I do not believe municipalities should purchase level 3 charging equipment, I think Tesla and other EV makers should take care of that expense. Government should not be in the business of level 3 charging, they will slow innovation.

Where do you see they recommended specific charger equipment? I couldn't find it.
The document seems to ignore Tesla-- why do they limit the list of plug-in vehicles to "models currently available for less than $32,000"?

stopcrazypp · May 30, 2014

mitch672 said:
Yes, the argument against it is, the available power/transformers and cost of the larger conduits/wire.
Proponents of 30A charging will say they can install twice as many as 30A L2 EVSEs (compared to 70A) because of power limitations and cost.

What they should do are dual head chargers that use a similar idea to superchargers. Basically if there's only one car charging all 70A is available in one cable and if there's two then it is split. That's the best use of resources and I wonder why it hasn't been created yet.

Robert.Boston · May 30, 2014

TexasEV said:
Where do you see they recommended specific charger equipment? I couldn't find it.
The document seems to ignore Tesla-- why do they limit the list of plug-in vehicles to "models currently available for less than $32,000"?

Tesla's awards are mentioned early on. My view about the $32k cutoff is that the document's authors don't want EVs thought of as toys for the rich, so that they can build a stronger consensus for action.

On the amperage debate, I'm going to side with 40A as a middle ground. Very few cars (even few Model Ss) can use more. There are real costs as you move up the amperage. The best outcome would be to have something to allow "amperage sharing" (like the SCs): if you have four charge points that share 160A, the power can be distributed among the charge points rationally. If you have Volts charging on three of the points, the fourth can still charge at 80A.

mitch672 · May 30, 2014

Sure Robert, but that requires a new design for EVSE's, and I doubt anyone would step up to the plate. Tesla certainly could, but they are more likely to just offer discounted or free EVSE's, than come out with a whole new "shared resource" specialty EVSE. They are a little busy installing SuperChargers, manufacturing Model S, final design/production of Model X. Surely someone else such as ChargePoint can handle this task. OpenEVSE could handle this, using I2C communications or a master controller, but someone would have to form a company to execute it. On top of that, all of the charging cables and EVSE heads and wiring/contactors would have to be rated for the maximum current (70A), making it a costly EVSE.

santana338 · May 30, 2014

Robert.Boston said:
As you may have heard on the news, New York and four of the six New England states have signed on to the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan. (Boos and hisses to New Hampshire and Maine for not joining.)

Robert, do you know why NH did not join? I don't know the history of this whole thing or if it is public knowledge.

Galve2000 · May 30, 2014

Is there any mention of getting the rebate at point of sale? I skimmed through the document and only saw "extension" of the tax credit (presumably past the 250,000 EV threshold.)

A discount on sales tax in NY state perhaps? :wink:

RDoc · May 30, 2014

Not to be a TOTAL cynic, but is there any reason to believe the program will extend beyond the initial announcement?

Robert.Boston · May 30, 2014

santana338 said:
Robert, do you know why NH did not join? I don't know the history of this whole thing or if it is public knowledge.

If my answer was "Republicans", I'd have to move this post to the Politics thread. So my answer is "I don't know."

GSP · May 30, 2014

Robert.Boston said:
Tesla's awards are mentioned early on. My view about the $32k cutoff is that the document's authors don't want EVs thought of as toys for the rich, so that they can build a stronger consensus for action.

On the amperage debate, I'm going to side with 40A as a middle ground. Very few cars (even few Model Ss) can use more. There are real costs as you move up the amperage. The best outcome would be to have something to allow "amperage sharing" (like the SCs): if you have four charge points that share 160A, the power can be distributed among the charge points rationally. If you have Volts charging on three of the points, the fourth can still charge at 80A.

I like the idea to promote 40A public EVSEs, instead of 30A, for all of the reasons that you mentioned. This unit is only 30A, but it does share one circuit (40A breaker?) between two cars. It is encouraging that EVSE suppliers are already doing this and could extend this concept to sharing among more cars.

GSP

EvChargrs - CT4025 ChargePoint Dual Charger - Pedestal 23' Cable Option

"Power Sharing

Doubles the number of parking spaces served by allowing for two charging ports to share one single circuit
Reduces installation and incremental costs by allowing for greater charge spot capacity"

cfava · May 30, 2014

Clipper Creek has this new model....

HCS-60, 48A, 240V Charging, 25? Rubber Over-molded Cord | ClipperCreek | Clipper Creek Vehicle Charging Station

santana338 · May 31, 2014

Robert.Boston said:
If my answer was "Republicans", I'd have to move this post to the Politics thread. So my answer is "I don't know."

I was wondering if it was political. I just assume the Granite Stater's balked at the state providing financial incentives (given what I know about the state so far...)

rcc · May 31, 2014

Ok, I don't live in NE (now) but my advice for what it's worth.

On the charging front:

First, I'd push more for destination charging (especially at hotels and the big all-day tourist attractions).

Even in the Bay Area, while there's lot of L2 charging for people in the area, the situation is pretty grim if you're travelling to the area and staying a few days at a hotel. If the company you're visiting/working at doesn't have charging, you're in trouble because you don't have time to go to a shopping area and let your sit for hours to charge. And most of the big all-day tourist attractions don't have L2 charging. So again, you're in trouble if your hotel doesn't have charging. When I did a 7-day road trip to LA and San Diego, getting there wasn't a problem. Charging while I was driving around in the areas was the real challenge because most tourist attractions and hotels didn't have L2 charging.

Second, I would be very careful about pushing the 30 vs. 40 amp issue. I was part of the EV infrastructure evaluation/planning where I worked 2 years ago. 40 amp wasn't a serious option. I don't recall if it was because of the lack of charger support, the lack of vehicle need, increased difficulty, complexity or cost of the circuits or all of the above. Regardless, unless the situation has changed a lot, I suspect the odds of success here are low and you're better of focusing your efforts where you can win. So I suggest you look hard at this issue before you decide to push.

Third, I'd be careful about pushing for L3 charging to support long-distance driving. Except for Tesla, it's a niche need, even for EVs. The only reason to support L3 is if you want a specific corridor to be EV-friendly. But even then, be certain that people will use it or you're expending valuable energy and political capital for very little gain.

To use my SF to LA example, if I had tried to make that trip in a 100 mile-range EV instead of 250 mile EV, instead of stopping once for dinner and once for a 15 minute break, I'd have made at least 5 stops. No one but an EV fanatic is going to road-trip like that. It's just too painful. Most people would use an ICE even if the charging were there.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents and you're welcome to do what you will with it.

Good luck!

TexasEV · May 31, 2014

rcc said:
Second, I would be very careful about pushing the 30 vs. 40 amp issue. I was part of the EV infrastructure evaluation/planning where I worked 2 years ago. 40 amp wasn't a serious option. I don't recall if it was because of the lack of charger support, the lack of vehicle need, increased difficulty, complexity or cost of the circuits or all of the above. Regardless, unless the situation has changed a lot, I suspect the odds of success here are low and you're better of focusing your efforts where you can win. So I suggest you look hard at this issue before you decide to push.

A lot has changed in two years-- namely the success of the Model S. Before 2 years ago you were right, there was lack of vehicle need, as no car was being built in volume which would use 40A. Currently the problem is the two large charging networks, ChargePoint and Blink, have 30A at best and that's what people thinking of installing EV charging stations look at because of their marketing. It's not more expensive to buy or install a charging station of at least 40A, for example the Clipper Creek CS-60 puts out 48A and costs less than ChargePoints, but they're not networked so either the electricity has to be provided for free or a pay by cellphone/app could be implemented using the optional keypad. Probably most businesses looking to install charging stations never look beyond what the ChargePoint or Blink network salespeople have to offer.

Implementing the Multi-State ZEV Action Plan

Model S VIN P01536

Member

Roadster + Sig Model S

Member

Model S VIN P01536

Roadster Signature #55

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Model S VIN P01536

Active Member

Member

Active Member

2021 Prerefresh Model S

Model S VIN P01536

Member

Member

Member

Model S 85KW, VIN #2236

Well-Known Member

Similar threads