All Blink installs on hold because of LADWP???

[thankyouOB]

My interpretation is that instead of having to pay any cost over the $1200 and then apply for the $2k rebate, Ecotality will cover up to a $3200 install (now including the EVSE TOU as well).

As much as I'd like to agree with that interpretation, every time I read the email from ECOtality, I have trouble coming to that conclusion:

This agreement will assign the LADWP $2000 rebate to Ecotality. (This will prevent the qualified participant customer from having to pay up front, unless their installation costs are more than $1200. In the second case, installation costs over $1200 must be paid that day.)

Why does every communication have to be so damned cryptic. This should be easier.

For those who may be considering adding a TOU meter for their EV after the charger has been installed, such as might be the case for those who installed prior to the L.A. Pluginev project inception, here is the word from the LADWP:


For those with solar, the issue is Whole House TOU.
I can see where there is a charge for a second meter, but Ladwp switched me to whole house TOU at no cost to me. It replaced the old meter.
I think Ladwp switches the meter for free.

Good Morning,

The Charge Up LA! rebate would not cover installation of a TOU meter after your charger has been installed. I am currently inquiring if any exceptions are being considered, but have not yet received an answer. As soon as I do I’ll let you know.

Regards,

Raymond Harper
LADWP
Customer Contact Center
866-484-0433

 

[TomT]

Yes, if a single whole house TOU meter works for you, they will do that meter swap for free. In my case, it does not and would result in a net increase in my bill.


>>> In can see where there is a charge for a second meter, but Ladwp swit he'd me to whole house TOU at no cost to me. It replaced the old meter.
I think Ladwp switches the meter for free.

 

[91040]

This agreement will assign the LADWP $2000 rebate to Ecotality. (This will prevent the qualified participant customer from having to pay up front, unless their installation costs are more than $1200. In the second case, installation costs over $1200 must be paid that day.)

Agree that this is problematic and my interpretation may have been wishful thinking. Guess we have to wait for the new agreement to find out.

 

[LALeaf]

So, with the change to the requirement of the second meter, I highly doubt that I will stay in the EV Project. My service is on my detached garage and running the new power line will require digging a 25 ft ditch and going cutting through my patio for about 15 ft. None of which is necessary without the second meter, as my original assessment reflects. So, if I drop out, does any know how they handle the $700 L-3 charger port? Does Ecotality just bill you separately or what?

 

[dlich18]

Received revised participation agreement on Friday evening. It has special provisions at the bottom concerning LADWP customers. Participant assigns the LADWP rebate to ECOtality. Of important note is the following provision:

The EV Project will apply rebate received from LADWP to the cost of installation of the Participant's EVSE. Installation costs in excess of the LADWP rebate will be the responsibility of the Partcipant. Participant hereby assigns all rebates available through LADWP to ECOtality and agrees to cooperate with ECOtality in its application for such rebate.

Thus, the participant is apparently responsible for installation costs in excess of $2,000. What happened to the original ECOtality allowance of $1,200 for installation costs???
Looks like, instead of the $2,000 LADWP rebate being added to the $1,200 ECOtality contribution, ECOtality is grabbing the entire LADWP rebate and now providing none of the originally committed $1,200.

 

[91040]

Received revised participation agreement on Friday evening. It has special provisions at the bottom concerning LADWP customers. Participant assigns the LADWP rebate to ECOtality.

Would you post the entire agreement (or the changes if most of it is the same as the original)? I haven't received one yet and would like to get a head start reviewing it.
Whatever they are up to, I am very constrained by the turn around time using L1 charging. It has been over a month since the originally scheduled install and having my car.

 

[dlich18]

Would you post the entire agreement (or the changes if most of it is the same as the original)?

The changes appear to be the following additions at the end of the agreement respecting LADWP customers:

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Customers
These additional terms shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until December 31, 2012.
1. ECOtality shall provide you with a DC Fast Charge Inlet factory installed on your Nissan LEAF™.
2. To participate in the EV Project, your LEAF must have the DC Fast Charge Inlet.
3. Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) EVSE Use Rate
The EV Project is cooperating with LADWP in evaluating its Time of Use (TOU) rate for Electric Vehicles. LADWP will contact each EV Project participant for which it is the electricity supplier directly to explain its TOU rate schedule and how charging at specific times of day can help save money. For additional information, you can Visit LADWP's Electric Vehicle Program website, http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp000801.jsp, to learn more about LADWP and Plug-In Electric Vehicles. Participants in the EV Project are required to use the TOU rate for electricity supplied for charging their vehicle. This requires that a second electric meter be installed in accordance with LADWP standards.
4. LADWP EVSE Rebate Program
LADWP has announced a residential EVSE rebate program that will provide a rebate of up to $2000. The EV Project will apply rebates received from LADWP to the cost of installation of the Participant's EVSE. Installation costs in excess of the LADWP rebate will be the responsibility of the Participant. Participant hereby assigns all rebates available through LADWP to ECOtality and agrees to cooperate with ECOtality in its application for such rebates.

 

[91040]

The changes appear to be the following additions at the end of the agreement respecting LADWP customers:

Thank you for posting this information. Interesting that it has taken so long for Ecotality and LADWP to work things out.
Have you been contacting Ecotality or did the agreement show up without complaint? I haven't heard anything.

 

[rpmdk]

What happened to the original ECOtality allowance of $1,200 for installation costs???
Looks like, instead of the $2,000 LADWP rebate being added to the $1,200 ECOtality contribution, ECOtality is grabbing the entire LADWP rebate and now providing none of the originally committed $1,200.

Does anyone know the answer to this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the original $1200 was coming from the federal gov't.

Can the LADWP rebate not be used in conjunction with the original $1200?

 

[dlich18]

Can the LADWP rebate not be used in conjunction with the original $1200?

I happen to now be intimately familiar with this issue. In fact, I have been in contact with Raymond Harper at LADWP (very helpful!) as well as my City Councilman's office. According to Len Nguyen of Councilman Bill Rosendahl's office, consideration is being given to escalating this possibly to a City Council hearing. This is also being pitched by to the Los Angeles Times for possible coverage.

Long story short - ECOtality appears to have withdrawn its $1,200 rebate. In place, it has grabbed the $2,000 LADWP rebate. In other words, although LADWP intended to benefit the citizenry of Los Angeles with its rebate, it has, to a large extent, benefited ECOtality.

If you are as upset about this result as I am, I suggest you contact your City Councilman and have them coordinate with Mr. Nguyen. I may come out OK on this, because I don't expect that my installation costs, including the 2nd meter, will exceed $2,000 (because I have overhead utilities). But I really believe someone needs to look into this mess further to figure out how it came to be that the LADWP rebate is subsidizing ECOtality which, as you correctly state, is administering federal grant funds.

 

[rpmdk]

Thanks for the info - I will contact my council member. In my situation I need to upgrade to 240V so it looks like this is going to cost me even more money, where really, the LADWP should have negated the extra expense to upgrade. I am going to have to look into purchasing a charger and having an electrician do the upgrade and second meter - I can't imagine it would exceed $2000 (by much)

 

[dlich18]

I am going to have to look into purchasing a charger and having an electrician do the upgrade and second meter - I can't imagine it would exceed $2000 (by much)

Yes, but, if your Leaf has the Level 3 receptacle provided free by ECOtality, I wonder what would be the effect of opting out of the EV Project agreement. No one seems to know the answer to that.

 

[rpmdk]

yeah - I was wondering about that too, but all along the way I thought I was told opting out wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 770]

Long story short - ECOtality appears to have withdrawn its $1,200 rebate. In place, it has grabbed the $2,000 LADWP rebate. In other words, although LADWP intended to benefit the citizenry of Los Angeles with its rebate, it has, to a large extent, benefited ECOtality.

Thank you dlich! The amended agreement statement that "Participants in the EV Project are required to use the TOU rate for electricity supplied for charging their vehicle. This requires that a second electric meter be installed in accordance with LADWP standards." is an absolute deal-killer for me, as I have solar panels on my roof and will be using them to power my LEAF, which means I HAVE to have my EVSE on my main meter, not on a separate one. If it's on a different meter then I'll be charged for the EV electricity regardless of how much credit I get on the main meter.

I suspec this will be the case for others in the LADWP area who have solar as well. Curse the ECOtality beancounters! :evil:

 

[thankyouOB]

Long story short - ECOtality appears to have withdrawn its $1,200 rebate. In place, it has grabbed the $2,000 LADWP rebate. In other words, although LADWP intended to benefit the citizenry of Los Angeles with its rebate, it has, to a large extent, benefited ECOtality.

Thank you dlich! The amended agreement statement that "Participants in the EV Project are required to use the TOU rate for electricity supplied for charging their vehicle. This requires that a second electric meter be installed in accordance with LADWP standards." is an absolute deal-killer for me, as I have solar panels on my roof and will be using them to power my LEAF, which means I HAVE to have my EVSE on my main meter, not on a separate one. If it's on a different meter then I'll be charged for the EV electricity regardless of how much credit I get on the main meter.

I suspec this will be the case for others in the LADWP area who have solar as well. Curse the ECOtality beancounters! :evil:

check with DWP, I was told a month ago that they are making an exception for solar with whole house TOU meters.
They realize what a rip the second meter is for you, especially if you have a system designed to power your car.
ECOtality was aware of the issue, too.

 

[91040]

...I have solar panels on my roof and will be using them to power my LEAF, which means I HAVE to have my EVSE on my main meter, not on a separate one. If it's on a different meter then I'll be charged for the EV electricity regardless of how much credit I get on the main meter.

I suspec this will be the case for others in the LADWP area who have solar as well. Curse the ECOtality beancounters! :evil:

I sent a note to my Councilman regarding the Ecotality and LADWP rebate situation as well as the solar electric issue. It would seem that if LADWP needs the data from a parallel meter, they could subtract the dollar amount of that meter from the solar overproduction credit.
I would stay in the program. There are ways to get around the current problem.

check with DWP, I was told a month ago that they are making an exception for solar with whole house TOU meters.
They realize what a rip the second meter is for you, especially if you have a system designed to power your car.
ECOtality was aware of the issue, too.

When I talked with DWP less than a month ago, there was a hint that something was being worked out regarding solar. However, time goes by with no info and no Blink.

 

[rpmdk]

an absolute deal-killer for me, I suspec this will be the case for others in the LADWP area who have solar as well. Curse the ECOtality beancounters! :evil:

have you figured out an alternative plan?

I don't have solar to contend with, but I do have to upgrade my home to 240v and it is making things very expensive. I'm trying to get an idea of what it would cost to forgo the ECOtalitly offer and have a contractor come in, upgrade the system by running another line to the overhead power, instal a second meter and charger. Can't be too much more than the $2000 LADWP rebate can it?

 

[dlich18]

I sent a note to my Councilman regarding the Ecotality and LADWP rebate situation as well as the solar electric issue.

I strongly suggest that everyone affected by this situation write to their City Councilman. Here is a link to the website listing each Councilman's contact information: http://lacity.org/YourGovernment/CityCouncil/index.htm.

In my view, this does not appear to be an LADWP screwup - it was trying to do a good thing by granting a rebate for out-of-pocket costs associated with installation - especially because it was requiring a 2nd meter. I think the solar is really separate and should be dealt with directly with LADWP.

It appears to me to be an issue with ECOtality going back on its contractual participation agreement to fund up to $1,200 of installation costs and, instead, grab onto the LADWP rebate.

Len Nguyen in Councilman Bill Rosendahl's office (http://cd11.lacity.org/) is working on this, so you might suggest that your Councilman's office coordinate with him.

 

[Deleted member 770]

I strongly suggest that everyone affected by this situation write to their City Councilman. Here is a link to the website listing each Councilman's contact information: http://lacity.org/YourGovernment/CityCouncil/index.htm.

I just sent an e-mail to my Councilman (Greig Smith) as well. Also spoke to Raymond Harper about my situation to see whether there's any alternative techical solution (he wasn't aware of any). Basicaly, if I were to follow through with ECOtality's (and LADWP's) requirements, I would:

a) Spend about $1400-$2000 more of SOMEBODY's money (likely mine or LADWP's) to install a separate circuit and TOU meter for which I have absolutely no use, and

b) Be forced to PAY the LADWP for all electricity that my EV uses EVEN THOUGH my solar panels more than offset its usage. That's because the LADWP requirements call for a separate circuit which is billed independently of the one feeding my house now.

For me it's a HUGE lose-lose. So I'm pretty sure that unless ECOtality allows those of us to don't want to do TOU to revert to our orginal agreement, I'll have no choice but to opt out of the program (which will cost me almost $3000 to do: $800 for the EVSE, $1200 for installation costs & $700 for the LEAF level 3 port that I can't get out of accepting now).

I wonder if there's anyone at DOE who would listen to our complaints...after all, it's their money that ECOtality is supposed to be spending...

 

[rpmdk]

I'll have no choice but to opt out of the program (which will cost me almost $3000 to do: $700 for the LEAF level 3 port that I can't get out of accepting now).

is that confirmed with ECOtality?