10,000 California Charging Stations Funded

[dsm363]

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.

 

[dadaleus]

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.

 

[evchels]

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.

 

[Norbert]

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.”

 

[doug]

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"?

 

[GSP]

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

 

[Norbert]

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).

 

[Larry Chanin]

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

 

[Robert.Boston]

(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.

 

[vfx]

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.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Though less problematic this time since adapters are user friendly.

True. However, I know the term "fast" is relative, but even if Tesla eventually provides an adapter for CHAdeMo chances are it won't really be very fast using these low capacity fast chargers on a moderately depleted 85 kWh battery pack.

Larry

 

[jkirkebo]

True. However, I know the term "fast" is relative, but even if Tesla eventually provides an adapter for CHAdeMo chances are it won't really be very fast using these low capacity fast chargers on a moderately depleted 85 kWh battery pack.

Larry

50kWh in 1 hour is plenty fast for me. That is 3 hours of driving after a 1 hour break. For a day of driving that is 4 hours driving, 1 hour break then 3 hours driving. Shortening that break to 35 minutes does little for me, I usually prefer to sit down and have a better meal after 4 hours of driving anyway.

 

[Larry Chanin]

50kWh in 1 hour is plenty fast for me. That is 3 hours of driving after a 1 hour break. For a day of driving that is 4 hours driving, 1 hour break then 3 hours driving. Shortening that break to 35 minutes does little for me, I usually prefer to sit down and have a better meal after 4 hours of driving anyway.

I suppose I could have worded my remark a little better. :redface:

It is true that the eVgo DC faster charger's 160 miles of range per hour is pretty fast. It's just not as fast as the Tesla Supercharger's 300 miles of range per hour. :wink:

To drive 160 miles in 3 hours requires an average speed of 53 mph, which in most US major interstate highways, although perhaps legal, would be too slow for safety. Here in Florida, for better or worse, almost everyone travels 10 mph over the posted 70 mph speed limit. So realistically that 160 mile of range would be exhausted in closer to 2 hours for typical drivers. Traveling 2 hours, charging for an hour, repeat is not so appealing, nor is traveling at 53 mph on an interstate highway.

By the way, I believe my calculations are optimistic because they assume that the charge rate remains constant for a full hour. However, we know that to be not true because as the car charges the charge rate slows down. So even though the rate of 160 mph sounds pretty fast, in actual practice its not very practical for extended road trips on interstate highways, particularly for EVs with limited range.

Larry

 

[jerry33]

Traveling 2 hours, charging for an hour, repeat is not so appealing, nor is traveling at 53 mph on an interstate highway.

Perhaps that's the problem. I've found that traveling on the interstate highways is an unpleasant experience regardless of speed--and even if you are going 90, there is still always someone on your tail. State highways often parallel the interstate, are free of most traffic, and have more to see and do. I leave the interstates to the truckers and RVs. If you are going to drive between 500 and 700 miles--which is all I care to drive in a day--you've pretty much shot the day regardless of speed so you might as well slow down and enjoy it.

 

[ckessel]

If you are going to drive between 500 and 700 miles--which is all I care to drive in a day--you've pretty much shot the day regardless of speed so you might as well slow down and enjoy it.

While I can appreciate that mindset, the sheer volume of traffic on the main highways between towns would indicate that's not going to be a mindset that's applicable to most drivers.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Perhaps that's the problem. I've found that traveling on the interstate highways is an unpleasant experience regardless of speed--and even if you are going 90, there is still always someone on your tail. State highways often parallel the interstate, are free of most traffic, and have more to see and do. I leave the interstates to the truckers and RVs. If you are going to drive between 500 and 700 miles--which is all I care to drive in a day--you've pretty much shot the day regardless of speed so you might as well slow down and enjoy it.

Hi Jerry,

I agree and I probably will change my driving habits when I get my Model S. I'll probably drive more, take the slower more scenic routes more often than than I do now, and stop after about 200+ miles of highway driving at hotels that can accommodate an overnight charge.

Perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm under the impression that most of the eVgo DC fast chargers will be installed at locations adjacent to interstate highways. If so, my point is that these fast charges may not be as practical as we would like for protracted interstate highway driving.

Larry

 

[Robert.Boston]

Perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm under the impression that most of the eVgo DC fast chargers will be installed at locations adjacent to interstate highways. If so, my point is that these fast charges may not be as practical as we would like for protracted interstate highway driving.

Hi, Larry,

It's hard to say at this point because eVgo has been installing chargers exclusively within a metropolitan region, rather than between them. This is natural outgrowth of a user-base with <100mile batteries, I suppose, but doesn't bode well for relying on eVgo to build the waystations for long-distance travel -- at least, not until those waystations are themselves local markets, e.g. small towns that want a charger at the downtown coffee shop.

~Robert

 

[jkirkebo]

To drive 160 miles in 3 hours requires an average speed of 53 mph, which in most US major interstate highways, although perhaps legal, would be too slow for safety. Here in Florida, for better or worse, almost everyone travels 10 mph over the posted 70 mph speed limit. So realistically that 160 mile of range would be exhausted in closer to 2 hours for typical drivers. Traveling 2 hours, charging for an hour, repeat is not so appealing, nor is traveling at 53 mph on an interstate highway.

Over here, the big rigs are restricted (by speed limiter) to 56mph, so I can just go behind one of them. The max speed limit is 62mph anyways, and only on a select few roads. Mostly I have problems averaging over 45mph on long drives if keeping to the speed limit as the prevalent speed limits are 43mph and 50mph (70&80kph) with some 37mph here and there.

By the way, I believe my calculations are optimistic because they assume that the charge rate remains constant for a full hour. However, we know that to be not true because as the car charges the charge rate slows down. So even though the rate of 160 mph sounds pretty fast, in actual practice its not very practical for extended road trips on interstate highways, particularly for EVs with limited range.

The big 85kWh battery should be able to take 50kW until at least 80% full I think. So if you start the charge at ~20% and end at ~80% you will probably get close to 50kWh in an hour.

The Leaf starts to ramp down at 50-60% full, depending on temperature. But with a 24kWh battery that is a maximum of 2C charge rate, on the 85kWh Tesla battery 50kW is only 0,6C.

 

[GSP]

..... I've found that traveling on the interstate highways is an unpleasant experience regardless of speed--and even if you are going 90, there is still always someone on your tail. State highways often parallel the interstate, are free of most traffic, and have more to see and do. I leave the interstates to the truckers and RVs. If you are going to drive between 500 and 700 miles--which is all I care to drive in a day--you've pretty much shot the day regardless of speed so you might as well slow down and enjoy it.

+1

I find this a much better way to travel. Great for out of town, but in-state, trips in my Volt.

GSP

 

[GSP]

Over here, the big rigs are restricted (by speed limiter) to 56mph, so I can just go behind one of them. The max speed limit is 62mph anyways, and only on a select few roads. Mostly I have problems averaging over 45mph on long drives if keeping to the speed limit as the prevalent speed limits are 43mph and 50mph (70&80kph) with some 37mph here and there.....

Good idea. In the US, many trucking companies are setting the speed limiters on their tractors to 62 mph. Just stay behind one of them. With adaptive cruise, you could set it at 70 mph, and then just stay behind a 62 mph truck. Adjust the following distance to get a nice aerodynamic tow! With active lane keeping, you could just relax and read a book, or catch up on email and TeslaMotorsClub chatter! :tongue:

GSP