Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 107

Thread: 10,000 California Charging Stations Funded

  1. #21
    Roadster #1144 + Sig 114 dsm363's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,474
    Are they all going to be the low powered 30A J1772 or CHAdeMO DC fast chargers? There is also the SAE DC fast charging standard coming at some point. I know only Tesla can accept J1772 at any significant rage currently but it would make sense to put in the fastest level 2 chargers possible. This would ideally be in places where it's too expensive to currently put a DC fast charger.

    I agree. SAE should just adopt Tesla's Supercharger as standard and move on.

  2. #22
    4GETOIL SS70, XS4, xR913 dadaleus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Solana Beach, California, United States
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by Norbert View Post
    I guess we don't know if what they are planning for CA is similar to their Texas plans.
    Straight from NRG with regard to the California settlement: "The price of the monthly subscriptions has not yet been set, but the pay-as-you-go price will be between $10 and $15 per use, an NRG spokesman said." From California to gain new EV charging stations under NRG settlement - latimes.com

    Re CHAdeMO, I think the more places I could grab a charge if I'm going long distance the better. Sure, it would be great if everyone used the same standard, but my more realistic wish would be for Tesla to offer an adapter like they do for J1772. Sure, I seek out a Tesla HPC (or HPC converted to J1772 because that's still 70 amps) rather than a standard 30 amp J1772 when I'm road tripping in the Roadster. Superchargers vs. CHAdeMO would be just the same if there was an adapter, but where there is no Supercharger it would still be great to be able to use a CHAdeMO or other DC quick charger.

  3. #23
    Senior Member evchels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert.Boston View Post
    If you read the settlement carefully, a big chunk of the money is going to pre-wire 1,000 locations for up to 10,000 EVSE/chargers. That's infrastructure spend that NRG is making with no guarantee that their EVGo network will be chosen to do the EVSE/charger installation afterwards.
    Actually, according to this article, NRG/EVGo gets exclusive access to those customers for 18 months.

    As has been mentioned, I just can't see how this is a great deal for ratepayers or EV drivers in CA. NRG has basically been handed an exclusive $100m non-competitive contract to develop their own privatized network with what was supposed to be a ratepayer settlement. If they were donating that infrastructure to the state with no strings attached, there might be a stronger argument for this being a win. But to get this absolute gift of business territory from the state, as well as the right to charge whatever they want for use to use the infrastructure we paid for? This reeks of a corrupt arrangement and misuse of public funds.

    I highly doubt that the only other alternative would have been to settle only for $20m in cash, but that still would have been preferable to a deal and infrastructure that reflects negatively on EV technology and the industry.

  4. #24
    TSLA will win Norbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    4,278
    Lots more details about the deal with NRG, in this article:

    California Utility Commission Defends $100 Million EV Charging Deal | KQED QUEST

    For example:

    For the first five years after installing a station, NRG can’t require EV drivers to pay a monthly subscription fee, as it does with its eVgo Network in Texas. Instead, the public will have open access on a pay-as-you-go basis. Fees for fast charging are capped at $10 per session during off-peak hours, and $15 during peak hours.

    NRG can put stations where it likes, but within constraints: 55 stations in the Bay Area, and 110 stations in and around Los Angeles. The rest will be divided between San Diego County and San Joaquin Valley.

    Approximately $40 million must be spent on preparing workplaces, multi-family dwellings and other locations allowing people without garages to gain access to EV charging. These so-called “make readies” lay groundwork—such as conduits, power upgrades, and stubs—for equipment installation to occur later. Property owners, not NRG, will own the locations. NRG has the exclusive right for 18 months to sell equipment and related services to the property owners, after which those locations are open to competition.
    CPUC acknowledges that it will receive some criticism for allowing NRG to earn a profit. However, the agency insists the settlement is consistent with CPUC policy. “If NRG puts charging stations where people use them, and drivers are willing to pay to use them, then we’re getting value for ratepayers,” said CPUC's Ryan. “We’re building a network to make it attractive and appealing to buy and drive electric vehicles.”
    Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...

  5. #25
    Head Moderator / Administrator doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stanford, California
    Posts
    11,056
    Blog Entries
    10
    Fees for fast charging are capped at $10 per session during off-peak hours, and $15 during peak hours.

    How much time or kWh do you get per "session"?

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,133
    It looks like the ratepayers did get $20M in cash ("assistance," probably for low income households) as well as $100M worth of infrastructure. This doesn't seem like a bad deal.

    Does anyone have an estimate of how much the ratepayers lost due to outages and exorbitant prices durring Enron's and Dynegy's unforgivable shenigans? This would be needed in order to know if this settlement is adequate compensation or not.

    Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005) - IMDb

    GSP
    Last edited by GSP; 03-31-2012 at 03:51 AM.

  7. #27
    TSLA will win Norbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by GSP View Post
    It looks like the ratepayers did get $20M in cash ("assistance," probably for low income households) as well as $100M worth of infrastructure. This doesn't seem like a bad deal.

    Does anyone have an estimate of how much the ratepayers lost due to outages and exorbitant prices durring Enron's and Dynegy's unforgivable shenigans? This would be needed in order to know if this settlement is adequate compensation or not.
    (Unfortunately) it also depends on how much success they could have expected from tedious legal action. (Within the lifetime of those hurt, sort of.) (and NRG bought Dynegy, but not necessarily those responsible, and they surely didn't get that money).
    Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...

  8. #28
    Model S Perf Sig 1232 Larry Chanin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    2,515
    Electric car fast charging controversy clouded by California's new plans

    Which leads us to our controversy. Unfortunately the automobile industry does not agree on a single fast charging standard. The SAE J1772 committee, the group in charge of electric vehicle charging standards, has refused to adopt simply CHADEMO for SAE's DC Level 2 charging. Instead the SAE committee, led by Gery Kissel of General Motors, has a preference for only one charging port on electric cars, and CHADEMO would require two charging ports. Reports indicate the committee is unlikely to select CHADEMO but instead choose a modification to the current J1772 connector to support extra pins for DC Fast Charge. A vote is expected in July or August 2012, that may result in the rejection of CHADEMO. Additionally the fast charging territory is even more complex, because Tesla Motors (bless them) have gone and designed their own proprietary fast charging system that's incompatible with both CHADEMO and the system favored by the SAE committee.
    Obviously fast charging availability will make electric vehicles more attractive, and on that level California's decision to endorse building a network of fast charging stations is a good thing. But it means California is endorsing CHADEMO in a big way, putting California at risk of having made the wrong decision. At the same time the delays by the SAE J1772 committee have hindered adoption of todays electric vehicles, because the lack of fast charge stations is less attractive to electric car buyers.
    Larry

  9. #29
    Model S VIN P01536 Robert.Boston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Boston MA, USA
    Posts
    5,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Norbert View Post
    (Unfortunately) it also depends on how much success they could have expected from tedious legal action. (Within the lifetime of those hurt, sort of.) (and NRG bought Dynegy, but not necessarily those responsible, and they surely didn't get that money).
    This settlement is as to a long-term contract signed in 2001 and has little to do with actions that allegedly manipulated power markets in the 2000/2001 period. The claim was that Dynegy used the power shortage to get unreasonably high prices in its contract. California's claim on this point was extremely shaky--it's hard to claim that the professionals whom California hired to negotiate the contract, including the head of LADWP, were naive and taken advantage of, especially when the governor issued a press statement praising Dynegy for agreeing to help California out. There was lots of litigation risk on both sides, however, so settlement was a reasonable way to put this behind and move forward.

  10. #30
    ERIC VFX vfx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    CA CA
    Posts
    14,796
    Tesla Motors has taken a proprietary go-it-alone approach. The charger connector on the Tesla Roadster, Model S and Model X is incompatible with even J1772. Tesla's on-board charger on the Model S and X supports either 10 or 20 kilowatt charging rates, even faster than the 6.6 KW rate touted by Ford and Coda. Additionally Tesla's system supports what that company calls a "Supercharger," a fast charging system incompatible with both the CHADEMO design and whatever will come out of the SAE J1772 committee. Tesla apparently plans to begin installing a network of Supercharger stations beginning this summer.
    In short there is a huge mismatch between the automakers on fast charging methods. In the previous era of electric car adoption, one hindrance was the disagreement between charging technologies. That debate was between inductive and conductive charging ports. It meant every charging station location had both kinds of station installed, inconveniencing everyone. It will be much better for everyone if there were one standard for DC Fast Charge.
    Though less problematic this time since adapters are user friendly.
    The world loves to be deceived.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pricing for EV Charging Stations
    By Robert.Boston in forum Charging Standards and Infrastructure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-04-2012, 03:46 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 05:53 PM
  3. Trouble with charging at Dutch charging stations
    By widodh in forum Roadster: Technical
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 07:30 AM
  4. Public charging stations
    By mattjs33 in forum Electric Vehicles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-2011, 03:43 PM
  5. Where are the charging stations?
    By pninen in forum Roadster
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 05-17-2009, 08:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •