Next San Diego EVent: Sat, Aug 9, 2014, CANCELLED

[KMG365]

Great meeting, and look forward to the next.

Tony

Thanks for herding up the cats for the meeting today, Tony! I'm very glad to have found this group and am looking forward to learning all I can and paying it forward.

Karen noticed the very rough notes I was taking and offered to scribe them for the group. I've scanned them and will email them to her. I'll be VERY surprised if she can decipher all my chicken scratch and odd abbreviations (these were just for my own use and not official notes/minutes by ANY means), but I'm sure together we'll be able to get them good enough to be of some use to the membership.

I hope I'm off for the next one!

 

[DaveEV]

Tony, et al, that was an excellent meeting - thanks for getting it together!

You're welcome.

+1 - very informative meeting for most with the primary topic being DC quick charge infrastructure - lots of activity behind the scenes on this front!

Obviously, I didn't expect a standing room only event, and I did try and get a larger room at the last minute. Should we use that venue again, we'll use the larger meeting room nearby.

Room was just barely big enough for all so worked out quite nicely!

For the future, I recommend that we park together at the parking lot across the street to the east (across Midland Road near the train depot).

Good idea - would have bee nice to have gotten a picture of all the LEAFs (and Car2go Smart EV) in a picture and might have facilitated more mingling after the presentations/discussion.

Then, Mike Cully from Car2Go spoke a new project that he is starting specifically for EV drivers. He thought my sales pitch/introduction was good enough to be on his payroll !!!

Yes - apparently customers (like Tony) are using the service in ways that they had never thought of! I spoke with him after the presentations and got him to show me and a few others the Smart EV and talk a bit more about his EV car sharing program. Seems to be a good fit for EV owners, especially those who frequent the service area around downtown. Profusely apologized for some of the charging station hogging that was happening which is mostly resolved now and is working to get more L2 stations installed. Has a fleet of 300 Smart EVs of which 200 are currently in public use - won't roll the other 100 out until there is more L2 infrastructure which he is personally working on. If you notice a Car2go hogging a public charging station, you can call them up and they'll move the car as soon as possible - or you can sign up and move the car yourself. He mentioned a special promo code at the meeting good for a discount which would allow us to rent/move cars ourselves if needed at no cost - not sure if it's appropriate to share that or not - perhaps someone else who got his contact details can confirm?

Andy Hoskinson from Ecotality introduced his new San Diego area sales specialist, Dave Gotcha (he got a Love My Leaf t-shirt, too). Lots of questions that I let somebody else detail.

Andy spoke a good deal about the technical and logistical hurdles in getting QC and even L2 stations installed. There has been a bit of a chicken and an egg problem with many businesses wanting to see actual usage before committing parking spaces and money towards charging stations. Now with some public charging stations out and with over 700 LEAFs in San Diego, they are beginning to sign more agreements and we should see a lot more stations coming on-line in the next 2-3 months.

As far as DC quick charge stations - the biggest issue here is cost - the 2nd biggest issue is cost - and the 3rd biggest issue is cost. (This will be repeated by the other presenters working on DC quick charging, Angus Clark, Dave Bliss and Randy Walsh).

People asked why Tennessee was the first to see a good number of QC stations while California has none and it came down to 2 things:
1. CrackerBarrel wanted to be first with a QC network.
2. Installation and utility costs are significantly lower in Tennessee than in California.

Ecotality is actively looking for business partners / property owners to host charging stations. Getting all the ducks in a row to get a station installed has turned out to take far longer than originally expected - hence the limited infrastructure so far.

Someone asked about AM/PM-Arco - Andy said that gas/convenience stations turn out to not be very good spots for QC stations for a couple reasons:
1. Limited parking space - most stations are very compact.
2. Proxmity to gas pumps - QC stations need to have special installs to minimize risk of fire which increases cost, not to mention not being able to place the stations very close to pumps to meet code requirements.

I asked Andy if Ecotality had thought about presenting different rates in exchange for limiting charging to different rates (for example, the standard L2 Blink is capable of 7.7 kW / 32A, but nearly all current EVs including LEAF can only charge at 16A / 3.8 kW) and he replied that that is something they are considering/working on for the business L2 units.

Angus Clark of EV Oasis spoke next, with goals for 100 - 200 DC charger in 36 months, with a goal to all be less than 500 feet from a freeway. He is planning an "event" sometime in Feb, and has invited us all to attend.

Angus is hoping that his first DC charger will be going in soon - hoping for 2-3 months. He is focusing on stations primarily along I-5. North County San Diego and south Orange County (on both sides of Camp Pendleton) are focus points since that will connect two large EV communities - San Diego with 700+ LEAFs and Los Angeles area with 2000+ LEAFs. He also mentioned that he has been actively involved with QC manufacturers in trying to get charging station costs down from the $40-50k cost of 1st generation chargers.

Dave Bliss of ChargeBliss brought his whole team; VP Doug March, CTO Derek Daw, and his San Diego based partners at Skelly Electric, Kevin Weinburg and Jim Kelly.

ChargeBliss is also focusing on DC quick charging. They are in earlier stages of planning, but Dave went into most detail about costs of getting QC stations installed. As I mentioned before, the biggest 3 issues for getting QC infrastructure is cost, cost and cost.

Cost #1 is the charger itself. Lower cost QC stations are only now becoming available as other presenters (mentioned).
Cost #2 is the install cost. Not many suitable sites have the utility power on-site to handle a QC station - getting that power there is cost prohibitive. For those that do have it, it's not in a location that suits a simple install which increases install cost.
Cost #3 is the utility cost, primarily demand charges. A single quick charge at peak hours can incur a monthly utility bill of ~$1500 (don't recall the exact cost said). So maximizing use of the QC is a huge priority.

Dave Bliss also emphasized that they are working hard on finding innovative business models that work for everyone.

I spoke on my plans for DC quick charging.

Tony has plans to personally fund 2 DC in San Diego - one in Poway and another near down town if I remember correctly. Will very likely be a < 20 kW unit to avoid being forced to go on a rate schedule that includes demand fees. I'll let you go into more detail yourself on your plans if you wish.

Finally, Randy Walsh of Meissner Jacquet announced his $60,000 budget program, with chargers in Santa Isabel (near Julian), Ramona, and La Mesa. He fully intends to invite us all should he get that first Ecotality QC up and running!!!

Yes, the first will be in Santa Ysabel in front of Don's Market and should be up in 2-3 months if all goes according to plan (I think it will be a race between them an Evoasis). It will be a dual-cord Blink QC unit along with 3 L2 stations. The L2 stations are likely to be up and running before the QC station. This is a very convenient place to stop for visits to Julian and beyond - a 15 min QC should give most SD county residents enough charge to comfortably make the round-trip from home or enough to get to Borrego (I think stations are planned there, too, eventually).

Randy also went provided some of the insight that can hold up charging station installs as a property manager who works as a middle-man between property owners, tenants and companies like Ecotality, Evoasis and ChargeBliss.

Whew - all that was from memory so please chime in if I made any mistakes and fill in any blanks I missed.

Pleasure meeting people today and putting faces to names.
--
Dave Rees

 

[Aeolus]

From the OC, thanks for the update on what's happening to the south. It looks like I'll be consulting on a project in San Diego, and I can't wait to see those first QC stations be installed. I've figured out how to get around the LA basin with L2 and a little L1 charging, but would love to be able to drive to and from San Diego for weekends without using the Prius.

Meanwhile, it's off to the Amtrak station today for my Irvine to San Diego trip with a short hop on the Orange Line trolley when I get there.

 

[garygid]

Did anybody mention using, or planning to use, the new Nissan QC (less than $10k)?

Our "progress":
If we can learn enough about the Chademo CAN-bus interface, our supplier says that they are willing to add that control to their under $2k 10kW "charger".

 

[TonyWilliams]

Did anybody mention using, or planning to use, the new Nissan QC (less than $10k)

My plans are centered on the Nissan / Sumitomo unit, although Andy and Dave think I should use their Ecotality Blink DC charger

I don't think the ChargeBliss plans specified any charger.

EV Oasis did not mention the Sumitomo unit that I heard, and I think the units they plan to use are sub $10k.

Obviously, Blink will use their own unit, as will the Meissner-Jacquet installations.

 

[ttweed]

+1 - very informative meeting for most with the primary topic being DC quick charge infrastructure - lots of activity behind the scenes on this front!

My most disconcerting takeaway from the info provided on this front was the impediment placed in the way of L3 charging by the "demand tariff" structure of the utility's electricity rates. The informed consensus seems to be that this policy will not be reviewed or changed by the CPUC for at least another year, if ever, and it is something that just has to be "worked around" in any business plan for L3 installations. Unfortunately, it appears that the alternatives to deal with this involve either "throttling back" the energy transfer rate of the unit to < 20kW, to avoid application of the demand tariff (which will double the time necessary to charge the car), limit installations to the fewer (and less ideal) locations that already have high energy usage with demand management systems in place, or increase the cost of the L3 charge to account for the high cost of the electricity and hope for enough customer volume to make the operation profitable (even though higher cost is going to shrink demand for the service). All of these offer a much bleaker picture of the rapid growth of the L3 charging infrastructure than I had been hoping for previously, and points to the need for a much stronger and concerted lobbying effort by EV advocates to achieve a political solution to the roadblock that demand tariffs by utilities in CA represents.

Then we need to tackle the SAE vs. CHAdeMO clusterf#$k....
TT

 

[Randy]

Good points, Tom. In addition, there is some R&D work / thought going on in the industry to add energy storage to a typical FCFC installation so it would pull less than 20kW, thus minimizing grid impact and demand charges. The initial capital cost would be higher, but the ongoing operating costs would be cheaper, which would pay off over the long run...

 

[edatoakrun]

+1 - very informative meeting for most with the primary topic being DC quick charge infrastructure - lots of activity behind the scenes on this front!

My most disconcerting takeaway from the info provided on this front was the impediment placed in the way of L3 charging by the "demand tariff" structure of the utility's electricity rates. The informed consensus seems to be that this policy will not be reviewed or changed by the CPUC for at least another year, if ever, and it is something that just has to be "worked around" in any business plan for L3 installations. Unfortunately, it appears that the alternatives to deal with this involve either "throttling back" the energy transfer rate of the unit to < 20kW, to avoid application of the demand tariff (which will double the time necessary to charge the car), limit installations to the fewer (and less ideal) locations that already have high energy usage with demand management systems in place, or increase the cost of the L3 charge to account for the high cost of the electricity and hope for enough customer volume to make the operation profitable (even though higher cost is going to shrink demand for the service). All of these offer a much bleaker picture of the rapid growth of the L3 charging infrastructure than I had been hoping for previously, and points to the need for a much stronger and concerted lobbying effort by EV advocates to achieve a political solution to the roadblock that demand tariffs by utilities in CA represents.
Then we need to tackle the SAE vs. CHAdeMO clusterf#$k....
TT

Suggestions on how to penetrate the CPUC beaurocracy are welcome.

I think that the vast majority of DC capable California BEV owners would share the opinion, that rather than lead BEV adoption in California, or even following the initiatives by manufactures and buyers, the CPUC is definitely getting in the way.

Letters? Petitions? Occupy the CPUC parking lot with BEVs, before the next meeting?

 

[DaveEV]

EV Oasis did not mention the Sumitomo unit that I heard, and I think the units they plan to use are sub $10k.

Evoasis' is using stations manufactured by Delta, I believe.

My most disconcerting takeaway from the info provided on this front was the impediment placed in the way of L3 charging by the "demand tariff" structure of the utility's electricity rates. The informed consensus seems to be that this policy will not be reviewed or changed by the CPUC for at least another year, if ever, and it is something that just has to be "worked around" in any business plan for L3 installations.

Angus Clark of Evoasis specifically mentioned that he is working on storage schemes to minimize demand charge impacts, but did not reveal how far along this is. I believe he did say with current prices of Lithium batteries it just about makes sense business wise. I think that in a few years storage will be cheap enough to negate any demand charge issues...

Maybe a 25 kW natural gas fuel cell for each QC station - this would cut the demand charge in half while producing electricity at the same time. Only 25 kW since for commercial installs you have to pay demand charges for generation, too and fuel cells don't like to ramp up/down quick enough to mitigate QC usage.

Then we need to tackle the SAE vs. CHAdeMO clusterf#$k....

True - though until someone actually _sells_ a car with the SAE QC port. CHAdeMO has an inherent advantage here. It is disappointing that Tesla went their own way given that they are the only other manufacture who will have a decent number of QC capable cars on the road in the next year. I expect some enterprising individuals to manufacture adapters that will allow Tesla Supercharger cars to use CHAdeMO charging stations and CHAdeMO cars to use Tesla Superchargers...

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think that the vast majority of DC capable California BEV owners would share the opinion, that rather than lead BEV adoption in California, or even following the initiatives by manufactures and buyers, the CPUC is definitely getting in the way.

Letters? Petitions? Occupy the CPUC parking lot with BEVs, before the next meeting?

I physically spoke at the CPUC hearing in San Diego months ago. So did one other person present at our meeting.

 

[edatoakrun]

I think that the vast majority of DC capable California BEV owners would share the opinion, that rather than lead BEV adoption in California, or even following the initiatives by manufactures and buyers, the CPUC is definitely getting in the way.

Letters? Petitions? Occupy the CPUC parking lot with BEVs, before the next meeting?

I physically spoke at the CPUC hearing in San Diego months ago. So did one other person present at our meeting.

Any response? Does the CPUC even acknowledge the problem?

The most recent info I have found (see below) is that the PUC plans to wait for several years before reviewing public charge rates, including demand charges for DC sites.

Are there options for us to request or apply for interim relief?

An obvious solution, IMO, would be a waiver of demand charges at DC charge stations, at least until a large number of DC charges actually significantly increase peak demand, at which point the demand charges could easily be paid by reasonable charge fees.

As I posted on the thread:

The CPUC and California DC fast chargers

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7232&p=158728#p158728" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Could we use a thread to discuss the implications of CPUC utility rate design and it's hindrance of DC public charging?

It looks like California electric utilities have a history (see below) of arguing for even higher charges for EV fast-charge locations...

It seems that this CPUC policy will result in delays in private businesses establishing charge locations by (bizarrely) linking the cost per kWh to the total kWh demand of the metered entity. This will mean very high marginal kWh costs to many of the very businesses which are otherwise ideally situated to install DC chargers, roadside convenience stores, fast–food outlets, and even gas stations, that currently pay relatively low demand charges."

5.3. Rate for Non-Residential "Quick Charging"
...SCE and PG&E stated that quick charging facilities should be eligible for existing non-residential rate schedules. NRDC stated that such facilities will place a greater stress on the electrical grid and emphasized the importance of assuring that terms of service be imposed to prevent price signals from being masked. (NRDC September 24, 2010 comments at 17.) SDG&E stated that differing rates should apply to facilities, such as quick charge facilities, that place a higher kilowatt demand on the system and, specifically, that quick charging facilities should incorporate monthly fixed charges and both on-peak and non-coincident demand charges that appropriately reflect kilowatt demand. (SDG&E September 24, 2010 comments at 10.)

At this time, we do not see a reason to treat non-residential electric vehicle charging differently from other types of non-residential electricity usage. We find that, at this early market stage, any additional costs placed on the system are adequately reflected in existing rates applicable to non-residential customers. Therefore, no need exists to develop rates specifically for customers with quick charge facilities. Notably the tariffs now available in the commercial and industrial context are characterized by a number of design features and eligibility requirements that serve to ensure that electric vehicle service providers bear the costs appropriate to their impacts on the electric system. These include all or some combination of time-of-use rates, demand charges, and/or eligibility criteria that limit the capacity under a given tariff to a pre-defined maximum....

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/AGENDA_DECISION/138526.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

Any response? Does the CPUC even acknowledge the problem?

The response, I believe, will be in March 2012 to SDG&E's petition to CPUC.

No, they don't acknowledge anything; just take your comments. I seriously doubt that little ole Tony swayed the CPUC against a $1.8 billion revenue monopoly with a guaranteed profit margin.

I suspect we'll start seeing more "fees" like the proposed solar grid hook-up fee. DC chargers are too easy of a target.

In other words, it won't get better.

 

[ttweed]

Angus Clark of Evoasis specifically mentioned that he is working on storage schemes to minimize demand charge impacts, but did not reveal how far along this is. I believe he did say with current prices of Lithium batteries it just about makes sense business wise. I think that in a few years storage will be cheap enough to negate any demand charge issues...

Maybe a 25 kW natural gas fuel cell for each QC station - this would cut the demand charge in half while producing electricity at the same time. Only 25 kW since for commercial installs you have to pay demand charges for generation, too and fuel cells don't like to ramp up/down quick enough to mitigate QC usage.

Those are all possible solutions/workarounds, indeed, but they each carries a higher capital cost (beyond the already large investment in the site and EVSE equipment) than just hooking up to the existing grid and pulling out power at a reasonable price. Higher initial investment will undoubtedly result in higher per/charge cost for the end user, and we are in a delicate balancing act here--if the cost per charge exceeds that of gasoline, and takes 10 times longer to "pump" into the car, people are going to be inclined to only use such a service in an emergency, and not on a regular basis. Less customers means lower volume and even higher prices to amortize the investment and make a profit. I did notice that no one involved in these efforts is really willing or able yet to stick their necks out and say exactly what a L3 DC "fillup" is going to cost, compared to pumping 3-4 gallons of gas in your ICE car to drive the same distance. Pricing is a critical issue for the "supply and demand" equation, and the enduring success of such an operation. They need all the help they can get to keep prices low enough to make it an attractive proposition.

I expect some enterprising individuals to manufacture adapters that will allow Tesla Supercharger cars to use CHAdeMO charging stations and CHAdeMO cars to use Tesla Superchargers...

I am getting a little nervous about what I have been hearing about different signaling protocols, etc., though. It doesn't appear to be as simple as matching pin-outs with an adapter fitting. Adding some application-specific microprocessor to the adapter to take care of communications between the different standards may be all that is necessary, but this will also add expense to the device. At least this will only be a one-time cost, though, and not an incremental addition to each charging episode that may fluctuate and go up over time due to changing conditions.

Occupy the CPUC parking lot with BEVs, before the next meeting?

I really, really, like this suggestion. In my mind, we need to get Gov. Brown and the legislature to make the two opposing bureaucracies in this case get on the same page. On the one hand, we have the CARB pushing the goal of mass adoption of EVs in the state, and setting mandates for auto manufacturers to meet. On the other, we have the CPUC putting obstacles in the way of such mass adoption by letting the utilities charge unrealistic prices for public L3 charging business models to be feasible. We can write all the letters we want, and make appearances before boards and commissions, but nothing would get publicity and put pressure on the powers-that-be like direct action by masses of people--the more the merrier (with a little touch of disruption of "business-as-usual" thrown in for good measure). Unfortunately, I don't think we quite have the "critical mass" of numbers behind us yet, though, and a bunch of "greenie" nerds protesting expensive electricity for their pricey EVs isn't the most sympathetic image, considering the other problems in our country at the moment. :shock:

TT

 

[hill]

+1 - very informative meeting for most with the primary topic being DC quick charge infrastructure - lots of activity behind the scenes on this front!

My most disconcerting takeaway from the info provided on this front was the impediment placed in the way of L3 charging by the "demand tariff" structure of the utility's electricity rates. The informed consensus seems to be that this policy will not be reviewed or changed by the CPUC for at least another year, if ever, and it is something that just has to be "worked around" in any business plan for L3 installations. Unfortunately, it appears that the alternatives to deal with this involve either "throttling back" the energy transfer rate of the unit to < 20kW, to avoid application of the demand tariff (which will double the time necessary to charge the car), limit installations to the fewer (and less ideal) locations that already have high energy usage with demand management systems in place, or increase the cost of the L3 charge to account for the high cost of the electricity and hope for enough customer volume to make the operation profitable (even though higher cost is going to shrink demand for the service). All of these offer a much bleaker picture of the rapid growth of the L3 charging infrastructure than I had been hoping for previously, and points to the need for a much stronger and concerted lobbying effort by EV advocates to achieve a political solution to the roadblock that demand tariffs by utilities in CA represents.
Then we need to tackle the SAE vs. CHAdeMO clusterf#$k....
TT

Suggestions on how to penetrate the CPUC beaurocracy are welcome.

From my experience it would take litigation. Having a monopoly (just try and start your own power company ... wana go in on a hydroelectric dam with me?) means there ought to be more flexibility (from the monopoly holder) when the majority of public opinion requires modification to the status quo. There are already other states that have more reasonable fees for demands in excess of 20k - so there's no rational reason CA can't too ... especially when a Q.C. (for example) sits under a PV structure. Some of the local stores around here are running >100k PV systems ... and the Irvine Kaiser hospital system is about to come on line ... it's more than double the 100k size of some of the other facilities ins O.C. ... so there's no rational basis for sticking them with demand fees. At their core, all regulations are required to be rationally related to achieving a legitimate objective. That objective is not legitimate, if it's simply to gouge the end user.

.

 

[garygid]

Maybe a micro strip mall (or postal mail box) model for businesses needs to be used, where each business is at the same address, but with a different suite number.

Each business might be a franchise, with its own power meter, running its own vending machine, and with its own mailing address.

Four distinctly-owned franchise micro-businesses might support one "4-Way" QC, that has four 240v AC inputs (with a maximum 13 kW each).

The micro-business might support one 6 kW L2 EVSE as well, taking care that the business, including night lighting, did not ever go over 20 kW.

The QC machine, property lease, etc. could be owned by the parent company, which sells the franchises.

Maybe that would get around the 20kW demand charge (per business)?

 

[walterbays]

Those are all possible solutions/workarounds, indeed, but they each carries a higher capital cost (beyond the already large investment in the site and EVSE equipment) than just hooking up to the existing grid and pulling out power at a reasonable price. Higher initial investment will undoubtedly result in higher per/charge cost for the end user, and we are in a delicate balancing act here--if the cost per charge exceeds that of gasoline, and takes 10 times longer to "pump" into the car, people are going to be inclined to only use such a service in an emergency, and not on a regular basis. Less customers means lower volume and even higher prices to amortize the investment and make a profit.

Demand charges ($/kW) serve a good purpose. They represent the cost of building the power plant and transmission grid to stand ready to provide power when you need it. Electricity cost ($/kWh) represents the cost of fueling the power plant. But when applied to EV recharging they make operating a lightly used quick charging station prohibitively expensive. A 14.7 kWh (10% - 80%) charge might cost $2.43 in electricity at commercial peak rate, but by drawing 49 kW might incur $1,127 in demand charge. That's the same demand charge for one car or for five hundred cars in a month. So if just one car charged in a month, it would cost $1,129.43; and if five hundred cars charged in a month, each would cost $4.68.

Once a million EV's are on the road with a fully developed charging infrastructure, demand charges might not matter very much. But with a few thousand EV's on the road and a charging infrastructure struggling to get started, demand charges could prove an insurmountable obstacle. Now some companies like EVOasis and ChargeBliss believe they can make a business of quick charging, in part by using on-site storage to buffer electricity supply and demand and avoid the demand charges. I hope so!

If you could use a $15k charger with $20k installation, they could be ubiquitous. But if to that capital cost you add $50k of batteries, another $10k of control electronics, and another $10k installation cost, you've turned a $35k charger into a $105k charger - just to get around the artificial rate structure. You could pay off a $35k charger within 5 years and begin turning a profit with fairly low utilization rates. But a $105k charger would have to be very highly utilized to turn a profit in a reasonable time. Or you'd have to raise the charging price higher than the equivalent per-mile price of driving a gasoline car, at which point your utilization would drop to near zero.

The CPUC wants to study the usage of EV quick chargers for a few years before deciding on any rate structure for e-fueling. But with the current regulations there may be few charging stations, little data on their use, and none of it relevant to how charging stations might be used with a fully developed infrastructure and a million EV's on the road.

From a public policy point of view, public quick charging should always cost less than gasoline to promote EV driving, and should always cost significantly more than charging at home overnight, to promote the use of excess generation capacity, particularly renewable capacity.

Instead of building a bunch of $2.5M hydrogen refueling stations for cars that (mostly) don't exist, California ought to be putting that money into $35k quick charging stations for cars that do exist, and into temporarily paying the demand charges for all quick charging stations. Instead of managing peak power draw at each station with expensive batteries and electronics, the utilities should manage power draw across the entire network of quick charging stations. If there is a transient peak at one substation, the utility should be able to reduce the output of all the QC stations using that substation from 49 kW each, to say 40 kW each, or 3 kW each - whatever it takes, until balance is restored. If there is an impending system wide blackout from A/C use on a hot day, the utility should be able to shut off all the QC stations if necessary. CPUC should require that the cost of a QC be at least twice as high as overnight residential charging, and no higher than the equivalent cost of gasoline in an average car.

That would give CPUC some real data from which to decide on a long term rate structure. And maybe in the mean time it would have developed a charging infrastructure and EV population robust enough to thrive even if demand charges were reimposed.

References:
http://www2.sdge.com/tariff/com-elec/ALTOUPrimary.pdf
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog...ture/cost-of-hydrogen-fueling-infrastructure/

 

[ectyguy]

Hello everyone! Thank you for allowing me to speak at the event and get a chance to meet all of you. I am a new sales specialist with ECOtality...so new that I am still waiting for my business cards. But I did want to pass along my contact information since I did not get the chance to do so at the meeting. Also, please let me know if you have any suggestions/contacts for placing more charging stations in SoCal. I look forward to the next event, and continuing the open communication between ECOtality and the early adopters of EVs. We are all in this together; and I welcome the opportunity to overcome the challenges and share in the rewards of improving EV infrastructure.
Thanks again,

David Gatcha
Area Sales Specialist - San Diego
[email protected] | Cell: 480-721-4069

 

[ttweed]

From a public policy point of view, public quick charging should always cost less than gasoline to promote EV driving, and should always cost significantly more than charging at home overnight, to promote the use of excess generation capacity, particularly renewable capacity.

Instead of building a bunch of $2.5M hydrogen refueling stations for cars that (mostly) don't exist, California ought to be putting that money into $35k quick charging stations for cars that do exist, and into temporarily paying the demand charges for all quick charging stations. Instead of managing peak power draw at each station with expensive batteries and electronics, the utilities should manage power draw across the entire network of quick charging stations. If there is a transient peak at one substation, the utility should be able to reduce the output of all the QC stations using that substation from 49 kW each, to say 40 kW each, or 3 kW each - whatever it takes, until balance is restored. If there is an impending system wide blackout from A/C use on a hot day, the utility should be able to shut off all the QC stations if necessary. CPUC should require that the cost of a QC be at least twice as high as overnight residential charging, and no higher than the equivalent cost of gasoline in an average car.

That would give CPUC some real data from which to decide on a long term rate structure. And maybe in the mean time it would have developed a charging infrastructure and EV population robust enough to thrive even if demand charges were reimposed.

That sounds like the most reasonable and well thought out policy approach I have heard articulated yet, Walter, and might offer a practical compromise between the conflicting issues and goals involved. Just scratching one $2.5M hydrogen station in favor of subsidizing an experimental L3 charging network along those lines would go a long way towards paving the way for commercial installations to be more viable as the EV population grows. It is sort of a "chicken and egg" situation right now--We need/want more EVs on the road to justify/support L3 charging, but EVs need L3 charging to gain fuller acceptance/utility and really explode sales down the road when production ramps up. It's the same way for hydrogen power, I suppose, but I don't see the hydrogen cars out there in any numbers yet, and EVs are here now.

I'm not sure I like the "shut off all the QC stations if necessary" part, although that would certainly be a better alternative than a massive rolling blackout in a peak load situation, if required. Rather than leave people stranded somewhere they expected to be able to charge, hopefully cutting the draw by half or more to all stations might be a sufficient contribution in such a situation, doubling your time to charge possibly, but not leaving you dead in the water. I don't know enough about grid management, though--is it feasible for a central operator to manage a widespread L3 network in such a way, throttling back available power only to them when needed? Can they control separate circuits from a substation that way?

Thx,
TT

 

[SanDust]

Other than Car2Go it's hard to see anything that provides a viable business model for public charging. Since unlike personal vehicles most of the Car2Go fleet will have to use public chargers, every Car2Go vehicle on the streets is like adding 100 or more personal EVs. As a consequence, I think we'll see many more 240V chargers within the Car2Go service area than would otherwise be the case, creating some interesting data points on usage, demand, and the viability of public charging.

Hopefully the EV community will get behind the Car2Go concept. Some people have complained that the Car2Go vehicles will hog the chargers but you can get a membership, move the Car2Go vehicle out of the space, and move yours in. Vastly superior to having an ICE vehicle parked there.

Fast chargers are just pushing on a string. EV Oasis has a rest stop model which we can hope works. Other than that there is no model. And even then the time frame is years not months and certainly not days. It would be great to see at least one fast charger at LAX. That might work since you have a huge amount of traffic and the HOV lanes provide an incentive to use an EV rather than an ICE.

With respect to the question about using the a less expensive Nissan fast charger, the Nissan model hits that price point but stripping out the electronics that operators need. Once you add those back in the price isn't all that different than those from competitors.

 

[surfingslovak]

Great report and an interesting discussion. I found a fairly recent video from one of our Dutch friends showcasing a commercial fast charger he came across in Delfgauw (near Den Haag). It's located at a BP station, and a quick charge costs 8 euro.

I thought this could be interesting in the context of this thread. I'm not familiar with the rates utilities charge in the Netherlands, but perhaps some other forum members are. Although my Dutch isn't that great, I managed to understand that this station has a number of customers use the fast charger every day, and there is a program that allows members charger access via a key fob.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nyQfAJiW5k[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vswamLDiaE[/youtube]