Sorry, I hadn’t seen the link. There’s certainly many more areas not achieving 99% there than there are, which fits with my experiences. The data might make an interesting read though.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The Public Charge Point Regulations 2023 (UK)
- Thread starter NewbieT
- Start date
Sorry, I hadn’t seen the link. There’s certainly many more areas not achieving 99% there than there are, which fits with my experiences. The data might make an interesting read though.
Back to my original post if CPS can achieve an average of 97.6% (Sept) with no control over maintenance then other networks should be able to reach 99% quite easily.
It's a per network measure not per charger. For every 100 chargers you can have one faulty for a whole year and still reach your target.
Tesla managed 99.95% in 2022.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
4 hours a year - have I done my maths right? and that is the average downtime per stall?
... and allows for things like the North London Site being out of action for months after being hit by a Range Rover at 140 MPH ...
Sean.
Active Member
So Tesla can have ~11 bays out of action at any time for the entire year.
I can’t accept that they only had 5/6 last year. I’ve found more than that myself and I hardly use them.
I guess want you start including a yes but not this, this and this then you may get there.
Do you exclude Abington because it’s supposedly a power supply failure and not an issue with the chargers?
Do you exclude the Newark site when it had all its cables cut?
Do you exclude the 4 chargers in Newark that didn’t work for the first six months?
What about those Ionity chargers with broken power modules so they only output 30kw? Yes they are ‘working’ but are they really working…?
I guess the best way to claim 99% uptime is to find an excuse not to count the stalls which are broken. ‘Sorry sir, the Abington site isn’t broken, it is closed.’
Sean.
Active Member
…and that’s the point. You’d completely expect that ANY external damage by third parties or external factors such as DNO supply faults would be carved out of any availability calculation
It depends on how they're measuring that.
99.95% uptime across europe, on a site basis.. not as hard as per charger.
Under the new rules they can't measure like that and can't make up exceptions to massage the figures.
"(3) A rapid charge point is considered to be reliable for the purposes of calculating compliance with the reliability requirement where it is either—
(a)working, indicated by an EVSE object status of—
(i)available;
(ii)charging; or
(iii)reserved; or
(b)ineligible for measurement, indicated by an EVSE object status of—
(i)unknown; or
(ii)blocked."
I suppose they could try to claim 'unknown' for some but once they know what the problem is it isn't that.. it does give them an out for the time between a fault being reported and diagnosed, which they could abuse though - wilfully not finding out what the problem is.
99.95% uptime across europe, on a site basis.. not as hard as per charger.
Under the new rules they can't measure like that and can't make up exceptions to massage the figures.
"(3) A rapid charge point is considered to be reliable for the purposes of calculating compliance with the reliability requirement where it is either—
(a)working, indicated by an EVSE object status of—
(i)available;
(ii)charging; or
(iii)reserved; or
(b)ineligible for measurement, indicated by an EVSE object status of—
(i)unknown; or
(ii)blocked."
I suppose they could try to claim 'unknown' for some but once they know what the problem is it isn't that.. it does give them an out for the time between a fault being reported and diagnosed, which they could abuse though - wilfully not finding out what the problem is.
Last edited:
“The enforcement authority may not require a person to pay a civil penalty if the authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a reasonable excuse for the non-compliance or the breach.”
Likely anything outside of a CPO’s control.
There is also the ability to prevent a CPO from installing new chargers.
Likely anything outside of a CPO’s control.
There is also the ability to prevent a CPO from installing new chargers.
Which is fine, but it’s not strictly 99% uptime as there are huge carve outs. That said, in reality the reliability of stalls becomes less relevant when there is 16-32 in any one location in 2023. It’s problematic when it’s only 1 or 2 and there aren’t any others in the immediate vicinity.
The other consideration is who is the enforcement authority and do they actually have any staff and are they actually funded to do the work?
The latter is the classic ecotricty and BP modus operandi. Below is pretty much a summary of how the conversation goes when you called them about a broken charger.
Charge network:
‘We are sorry, we didn’t know the charger wasn’t working, it’s not communicating it’s status to us’
Customer:
‘it’s been broken for days….have you considered that the reason it’s not communicating it’s status is because it’s broken….?’
Charge network:
‘….. tough luck, find another charger’.
Typical of legislation in general. No matter how well intentioned if it is too onerous the result can be to deter that which they are hoping to promote -- meaning it could discourage the rollout of additional charge points. 99% uptime seems a pretty high bar and does it really need to be that high?
3.65 hours per year. But many chargers operate at 100%.
Going back to CPS, since they provide data, there's a charger in Fife that was available for only 24% of September, but Fife managed to achieve 97.77% across their network. Obviously the more charger you have - like Tesla, the smaller the impact an errant charger will have.
You'd like to think that an operator wouldn't be penalised by actions of a 3rd party. If they were then they'd just go around cutting each others cables
Similar threads
- Article
