Encouraging EVs - Rebates or Destination Chargers

[PhilBa]

Paid Workplace charging is consider the best solution to the apartment dweller/condo problem by many policy makers, and I agree. Where else do people spend 8 to 10 hours a day almost every day, and have an established relationship that could ensure access and ease of payment? Even level one charging could be fine in many cases.

Unfortunately with current non Tesla vehicles, this workplace charging idea only works for relatively short commutes (25 miles RT in Leaf/ 20 miles RT in Volt) but that is the commute of just over 50% of people!

For example, My Volt commute is 70 miles RT so I need to charge at home overnight and again at work to stay gas free. But if my commute was half that, say 35 miles, I could charge just at work and never plug in at home - and then drive to the occasional public charging station on the weekend, if needing a few extra miles. That seems like a much simpler model than the other co-housing charging ones I have seen.

Workplace is a component of a solution and it may well be simpler but having a home EVSE is far far better. Not everyone who lives in apartments is employed (retirees, house wife/husband, students, ...). Also, not every employee has an actual workplace to go to. Lots of self-employed types, too. So you see, a focus on workplace charging is missing a big chunk of apartment/condo/co-op dwellers. Simpler, sure but also quite incomplete. You make it sound like going to a public charging station, even a "quick" one is OK. Having to wait more than a half hour for a charge isn't going to be acceptable to the majority of users. Not to mention that presumes sufficient EVSE capacity. If I had to do that more than once a week, I'd drop my EV. Home charging is a far better solution. Any effort that ignores apartment/condo/co-op charging is a huge miss, in my mind.

 

[richkae]

Paid Workplace charging is consider the best solution to the apartment dweller/condo problem by many policy makers, and I agree. Where else do people spend 8 to 10 hours a day almost every day, and have an established relationship that could ensure access and ease of payment? Even level one charging could be fine in many cases.

I don't think it is a good solution. I think very few people will be willing to make a vehicle purchase that ties them to their current place of employment.

Encouraging apartments to add charging is a far better solution IMO.
When considering an EV, you evaluate your options in apartments and buy one if there is sufficient selection with home charging ( so that when you move, you have other choices ) - but I think you would want to limit your apartment choices instead of your employment choices.
If you can't find enough apartment choices with EV charging - then do not buy one.

Apartment dwellers will be behind homeowners on the EV adoption bandwagon, but when charging is available in some critical fraction of apartment complexes, then it will be practical.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Paid Workplace charging is consider the best solution to the apartment dweller/condo problem by many policy makers, and I agree. Where else do people spend 8 to 10 hours a day almost every day, and have an established relationship that could ensure access and ease of payment? Even level one charging could be fine in many cases.

Unfortunately with current non Tesla vehicles, this workplace charging idea only works for relatively short commutes (25 miles RT in Leaf/ 20 miles RT in Volt) but that is the commute of just over 50% of people!

For example, My Volt commute is 70 miles RT so I need to charge at home overnight and again at work to stay gas free. But if my commute was half that, say 35 miles, I could charge just at work and never plug in at home - and then drive to the occasional public charging station on the weekend, if needing a few extra miles. That seems like a much simpler model than the other co-housing charging ones I have seen.

I think you're coming from a PHEV perspective where you can burn gas on weekends. Workplace charging doesn't work for BEV because charging contention issues means you can't have people depending heavily on public charging. And, in my opinion, if it doesn't work for BEV, it doesn't work.

As I've often written, I think that the push for workplace charging is misguided and is trading away long-term benefits for short-term gains in sales. If PEV is going to work, the apartment-dweller problem will solve itself and the on-street parking problem will easily be solved by government.

 

[David99]

When I am visiting somewhere, I want destination chargers at tourist locations:
hotels, parks, museums, restaurants, convention centers, theatres, concert venues.

Those are all excellent examples as you spend a good amount of time there so plugging in actually makes sense.

 

[RDoc]

I'm still wondering if encouraging destination chargers or high current DC chargers is the best use of government incentives. I'm pretty convinced that price reduction isn't the best as I doubt that very many people will switch from an ICE to an EV based on a small price reduction alone. Range anxiety is a far greater issue in my experience.

The issue I see with destination chargers is that it would take thousands of private ones to equal a few level 3 stations. Consider vacation accommodations alone, hotels, motels, inns, rental cabins, etc. While the cost of an individual level 2 installation might only be $5K - $10K, how many would have to be installed to give pretty much universal coverage and how could government convince all those individual owners to install them? Even then, those chargers would only be useful for people staying overnight, they wouldn't help at all for day trippers or travelers. Most of them would be used only very rarely, so owners would see a non-trivial investment sitting idle practically all the time which wouldn't encourage them to evangelize.

Compare that to multi-bay level 3 DC charger stations which might be $500K - $1M each, but which could handle 100-200 cars per day and be available to everyone staying in the area or just passing through. This seems like the kind of project that government funding could help with a lot and would benefit the general economy more universally than individual destination chargers.

The other consideration is visibility to give potential purchasers confidence in the infrastructure. I'm not sure which would be better, a scattering of level 2 chargers or a few major installations of level 3 chargers, but until the general public perceives of EV charging as widely available and convenient, I'm doubtful that EV's will have a large market penetration. I see this as a larger issue than price currently.

 

[PhilBa]

To me the priority order should be
0) high profile signage to let non-EVers know there is an EVSE nearby
1) getting laws passed and incentives crafted for apartment charging
2) destination and route charging in tourism areas
3) workplace charging
4) non-tourism destination charging (like malls, theaters, ...)

Priority 0 is a cheap way to increase the mind share in non EV owners that they could be charging right now. I'm thinking of the gas-food-lodging signs you see near freeway exits as well as the brown "local attraction" signs that are all over the place. There are some but not enough. Let's drum charger locations into people's heads. As I've said before, the primary benefit of public chargers is to mitigate the range anxiety issue in prospective EV buyers. Let's milk it.

1 and 2 actually can proceed in parallel since they are likely to rely on different groups/resources. Solving the "co-housing" problem is a long lead time issue, especially if you need to convince lawmakers to do something. So, let's get on it asap.

Tourism charging is actually a pretty good use of the money because it helps to increase revenue in tourism areas and has a relatively high profile which serves to increase mind share for EVs. ICE vacationers will see this and file it away for when they are considering an EV. An example: Plug-In North Central Washington is a non-profit group that has put in quite a few High Amp L2 chargers in a major tourism area of Washington, an area that includes the North Cascades National Park. Because of PI-NCW's efforts, the city of Chelan (in the same area) has decided on putting even more HA L2 chargers in, on their own nickle. Local hotel owners mention it on their web pages. There has been promotion of the electrified "cascade loop". Owners of LEAFs and other short range EVs can now drive from Seattle to central Washington for a vacation. Since hydro power is a large percentage of the electric mix here, it's a very low carbon approach to tourism. All in, I would guess the total cost of this was around $50K, via private donations. L3 chargers would be better but the lack of standards and significantly higher cost make it a nonstarter, at least for now. Getting some grant money would certainly help.

Personally, I remain skeptical of non-tourism destinations (i.e. close to home) as the benefit of charging is pretty minimal. Sure people will use free charging but I doubt it causes many to go there just because they can get a charge. I just don't see it as a primary decision factor. And, paid charging will likely continue to be more expensive than home charging. Build it and they will not come.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Tourism charging is actually a pretty good use of the money because it helps to increase revenue in tourism areas and has a relatively high profile which serves to increase mind share for EVs. ICE vacationers will see this and file it away for when they are considering an EV. An example: Plug-In North Central Washington is a non-profit group that has put in quite a few High Amp L2 chargers in a major tourism area of Washington, an area that includes the North Cascades National Park. Because of PI-NCW's efforts, the city of Chelan (in the same area) has decided on putting even more HA L2 chargers in, on their own nickle. Local hotel owners mention it on their web pages. There has been promotion of the electrified "cascade loop". Owners of LEAFs and other short range EVs can now drive from Seattle to central Washington for a vacation. Since hydro power is a large percentage of the electric mix here, it's a very low carbon approach to tourism. All in, I would guess the total cost of this was around $50K, via private donations. L3 chargers would be better but the lack of standards and significantly higher cost make it a nonstarter, at least for now. Getting some grant money would certainly help.

I'd narrow the tourism charging principle to "day-trip charging". With broad ownership, hotels would be a natural place for chargers. When visiting family there is more likely to be charging. What's missing is handling day trips where you would travel a significant distance to special destinations where you park for several hours. Destination day-trip charging would be important because it would relieve contention at the DC charging network.

 

[GSP]

I'm still wondering if encouraging destination chargers or high current DC chargers is the best use of government incentives. I'm pretty convinced that price reduction isn't the best as I doubt that very many people will switch from an ICE to an EV based on a small price reduction alone. Range anxiety is a far greater issue in my experience.

The issue I see with destination chargers is that it would take thousands of private ones to equal a few level 3 stations. Consider vacation accommodations alone, hotels, motels, inns, rental cabins, etc. While the cost of an individual level 2 installation might only be $5K - $10K, how many would have to be installed to give pretty much universal coverage and how could government convince all those individual owners to install them? Even then, those chargers would only be useful for people staying overnight, they wouldn't help at all for day trippers or travelers. Most of them would be used only very rarely, so owners would see a non-trivial investment sitting idle practically all the time which wouldn't encourage them to evangelize.

Compare that to multi-bay level 3 DC charger stations which might be $500K - $1M each, but which could handle 100-200 cars per day and be available to everyone staying in the area or just passing through. This seems like the kind of project that government funding could help with a lot and would benefit the general economy more universally than individual destination chargers.

The other consideration is visibility to give potential purchasers confidence in the infrastructure. I'm not sure which would be better, a scattering of level 2 chargers or a few major installations of level 3 chargers, but until the general public perceives of EV charging as widely available and convenient, I'm doubtful that EV's will have a large market penetration. I see this as a larger issue than price currently.

I think you hit the nail on the head. L3 fast chargers can be installed in a few locations and be effective for many, many, destinations. These locations could have good signage to advertise to prospective EV owners and be located near coffee shops and restaurants to provide a comfortable place to wait 20-60 minutes.

L2 charging at work and some destinations is also helpful, but it will be a long time before every destination and workplace has L2 charging within walking distance. A few L3 chargers can enable all destinations at once.

Home charging is #1, of course, so getting L2 or even L1 charging where people park at night is even higher priority.

GSP

 

[Cottonwood]

I'm still wondering if encouraging destination chargers or high current DC chargers is the best use of government incentives. I'm pretty convinced that price reduction isn't the best as I doubt that very many people will switch from an ICE to an EV based on a small price reduction alone. Range anxiety is a far greater issue in my experience.

The issue I see with destination chargers is that it would take thousands of private ones to equal a few level 3 stations. Consider vacation accommodations alone, hotels, motels, inns, rental cabins, etc. While the cost of an individual level 2 installation might only be $5K - $10K, how many would have to be installed to give pretty much universal coverage and how could government convince all those individual owners to install them? Even then, those chargers would only be useful for people staying overnight, they wouldn't help at all for day trippers or travelers. Most of them would be used only very rarely, so owners would see a non-trivial investment sitting idle practically all the time which wouldn't encourage them to evangelize.

Compare that to multi-bay level 3 DC charger stations which might be $500K - $1M each, but which could handle 100-200 cars per day and be available to everyone staying in the area or just passing through. This seems like the kind of project that government funding could help with a lot and would benefit the general economy more universally than individual destination chargers.

The other consideration is visibility to give potential purchasers confidence in the infrastructure. I'm not sure which would be better, a scattering of level 2 chargers or a few major installations of level 3 chargers, but until the general public perceives of EV charging as widely available and convenient, I'm doubtful that EV's will have a large market penetration. I see this as a larger issue than price currently.

Don't forget about the connivence factor. The reason that home charging is so wonderful is that it takes almost no time; 15 seconds to plug in and 15 seconds to unplug is typical. This is why destination charging at hotels is so great. It may take a little longer than home, but I would much rather talk to the valet or find the EVSE in 5 minutes or less than to drive 10-20 minutes round trip and then have to wait 30-120 minutes at a L3 charger while the car charges.

Hotels with L2 charging available will get my business!

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The issue I see with destination chargers is that it would take thousands of private ones to equal a few level 3 stations. Consider vacation accommodations alone, hotels, motels, inns, rental cabins, etc. While the cost of an individual level 2 installation might only be $5K - $10K, how many would have to be installed to give pretty much universal coverage and how could government convince all those individual owners to install them? Even then, those chargers would only be useful for people staying overnight, they wouldn't help at all for day trippers or travelers. Most of them would be used only very rarely, so owners would see a non-trivial investment sitting idle practically all the time which wouldn't encourage them to evangelize.

Hotels are home away from home. Every tripper that charges at their hotel reduces the need for fast charging.

 

[cpa]

This is a tricky area for the lower 48. I live in Central California, so I am quite familiar with destinations and vacation spots out here. I have absolutely no understanding of the patterns and preferences for the residents of the Upper Plains, Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast, etc. Many destinations out here are thousands of miles apart through the Great Basin, the deserts of California and Arizona, and the mountainous regions of the west coast. Doubtless other areas of the country have different, but nonetheless challenging aspects of travel.

The California Energy Commission recently issued a press release stating that $5,000,000 has been allocated to install public charging stations. However, these locations are planned to be from San Luis Obispo down the coast towards Los Angeles (focusing on the South Bay) and also in and around Riverside. No mention was made whether these were going to be 30A/level 2 or higher amperage L2, or DC fast charging.

While I applaud the State for taking the initiative in promoting public charging, they seem to be ignoring the remaining 90% of the geography of the state. And if they are content in installing 30A or even Level 1 chargers, then this is really window dressing and does not encourage the purchase or increased usage of BEVs (or ZEVs), whether Teslas or Leafs or whatever else will be coming down the pike.

 

[PhilBa]

This is a tricky area for the lower 48. I live in Central California, so I am quite familiar with destinations and vacation spots out here. I have absolutely no understanding of the patterns and preferences for the residents of the Upper Plains, Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast, etc. Many destinations out here are thousands of miles apart through the Great Basin, the deserts of California and Arizona, and the mountainous regions of the west coast. Doubtless other areas of the country have different, but nonetheless challenging aspects of travel.

The California Energy Commission recently issued a press release stating that $5,000,000 has been allocated to install public charging stations. However, these locations are planned to be from San Luis Obispo down the coast towards Los Angeles (focusing on the South Bay) and also in and around Riverside. No mention was made whether these were going to be 30A/level 2 or higher amperage L2, or DC fast charging.

While I applaud the State for taking the initiative in promoting public charging, they seem to be ignoring the remaining 90% of the geography of the state. And if they are content in installing 30A or even Level 1 chargers, then this is really window dressing and does not encourage the purchase or increased usage of BEVs (or ZEVs), whether Teslas or Leafs or whatever else will be coming down the pike.

That $5M is for something like 30 grants to towns and companies for mostly L2 chargers in places that simply won't make much of a difference. A couple are for "fast" chargers, though. It's pretty much being being thrown away. But the bureaucrats can claim they are helping solve the problem. Just don't ask what the problem is, you will get vague generalities or pure nonsense..

 

[miimura]

That $5M is for something like 30 grants to towns and companies for mostly L2 chargers in places that simply won't make much of a difference. A couple are for "fast" chargers, though. It's pretty much being being thrown away. But the bureaucrats can claim they are helping solve the problem. Just don't ask what the problem is, you will get vague generalities or pure nonsense..

I don't know if it's the same grants, but there is a list detailed in this PDF which contains the details of "Projects Proposed for Funding" from the California Energy Commission.

The I-5 corridor proposed by the US Green Vehicle Council is pretty well placed. Starting from an existing CHAdeMO at a Walgreens near Downtown San Jose, here are the distances and locations:
72 miles to Santa Nella Villiage (near 152/I-5)
74 miles to Coalinga (@ 198/I-5)
56 miles to Lost Hills (@ 46/I-5)
61 miles to Wheeler Ridge (across I-5 from Tejon Ranch Tesla Supercharger)
48 miles to Valencia

Of course, a DCFC at Gilroy would make going over 152 easier too. The highway 99 corridor in the same proposal looks good too with Stockton, Merced, Fresno, Tulare. The 70+ mile segments will not be easy for a Leaf, but this is a good start to linking the Bay Area and the LA Basin with quick chargers.

 

[PhilBa]

Yeah, that's one. I went through it line by line and was pretty disappointed. It's just the same old thing.

 

[miimura]

Yeah, that's one. I went through it line by line and was pretty disappointed. It's just the same old thing.

I agree that 90%+ is fluff that is not worthy of State money. I mean really, workplace charging gets grants purely based on the benefit of gasoline offset? The I-5 and Hwy 99 corridor CHAdeMOs I listed are the only things that I think are worthwhile because they enable travel that is otherwise completely impractical or impossible. I wish they would also make some attempt to complete the West Coat Electric Highway stretch from Sacramento to the Oregon border. Hwy 101 from San Jose to Santa Barbara would also be nice. Of course, all of these routes are already covered by SuperChargers. Well, there is a hole at the "coming soon" location around Manteca.

I would really like to see an organized effort to put chargers at true destinations like the following:
San Francisco Zoo
Oakland Zoo
Six Flags Discovery Kingdom
Six Flags Magic Mountain
Yosemite
etc.

 

[PhilBa]

I agree that 90%+ is fluff that is not worthy of State money. I mean really, workplace charging gets grants purely based on the benefit of gasoline offset? The I-5 and Hwy 99 corridor CHAdeMOs I listed are the only things that I think are worthwhile because they enable travel that is otherwise completely impractical or impossible. I wish they would also make some attempt to complete the West Coat Electric Highway stretch from Sacramento to the Oregon border. Hwy 101 from San Jose to Santa Barbara would also be nice. Of course, all of these routes are already covered by SuperChargers. Well, there is a hole at the "coming soon" location around Manteca.

I would really like to see an organized effort to put chargers at true destinations like the following:
San Francisco Zoo
Oakland Zoo
Six Flags Discovery Kingdom
Six Flags Magic Mountain
Yosemite
etc.

Take a look at what Plug-In North Central Washington has done. Via private money, they have gotten a lot of 70A L2 chargers put in. They've basically electrified the cascade loop which allows LEAFs to make the trip. While these aren't super fast, they work well enough and are placed at diners, hotels, resorts and such. They all have at least one restaurant nearby and several are close to multiple. They did this by getting people to sponsor the chargers and businesses to pay for the power. PI-NCW also advocates EV support to a number of organizations. For example they got the City of Chelan to put in several additional HA L2 chargers. I suggest getting some people together to make it happen in your area. A non-profit organization can apply for grants (like the CEC ones) and there is money to be had. PI-NCW got a lot of money just from people on this forum. Pushing for government entities to do the right thing will only result in disappointment - take control and get it done. Lead by example.

 

[miimura]

Yeah, that's one. I went through it line by line and was pretty disappointed. It's just the same old thing.

The "Revised Notice of Proposed Award" was posted today. The grant solicitation proposed $6M of available funding with "the right to increase or reduce the amount of funds available". A total of $15.58M of funding requests were received and the Revised Notice posted today shows that there is $13.6M of "Total Funding Recommended".

Funding of proposed projects resulting from this solicitation is contingent upon the approval of these projects at a publicly noticed Energy Commission Business Meeting and execution of a grant agreement.

So, I suppose that the final amount could be lower, but it looks like the initial $6M will be exceeded by a large margin.

 

[cpa]

I see where several of the proposals will be installing DC fast chargers. I would assume, then, that these will be CHADEMO-types for Leaf drivers, and leave Tesla owners and others SOL. Can anyone confirm or deny this? And, it is curious to note that they make no mention of whether the L2 chargers will be 70+ amps or the usual 30A versions.

 

[miimura]

I see where several of the proposals will be installing DC fast chargers. I would assume, then, that these will be CHADEMO-types for Leaf drivers, and leave Tesla owners and others SOL. Can anyone confirm or deny this? And, it is curious to note that they make no mention of whether the L2 chargers will be 70+ amps or the usual 30A versions.

They only specify DCFC, without any detail for which standard or multi-standard. I assume all L2 stations are 30A only. A significant fraction are said to be "dual-port L2" which likely means that they split 30A between two cars when they are both actively charging, else one can take all 30A.

Like we said above, most of these are not "high value" additions. The grant is supported by the California Energy Commission, which seems to be satisfied with the simple GHG reduction of displacing gasoline use with PHEV or BEVs, which these charging stations allegedly support. There are surprisingly few Multi-Unit Development (MUD) applications, which to me is one of the two categories that needs real attention - the other being corridor DCFC.