JOBS, JOBS, politics and Level 3 chargers.

Here in California, 40% of the skilled trade workers are out of work, as the demand for residential and commercial construction fell off a cliff.

In this context, it is appalling that the contractors who are supposed to be spending federal money allocated as part of a jobs program cannot get their act together to install level 3 charging systems.

We know the excuses. The utilities passively and actively discourage charging stations with their tariffs and their policies. Standards, blah blah blah. UL approval blah blah blah. Tsunami and earthquake blah blah blah.

But really it's all a lack of will and a lack of pressure on elected officials who should be pushing this and other funded jobs programs towards hiring American workers and completing jobs immediately. There are UL approved Chademo chargers that can be installed now. There is money available that companies haven't managed to spend. There are locations that are available and willing to accommodate clusters of Quick Charge and Level 2 stations.

Skilled contractors and electricians are ready to go to work now at reasonable prices.

Time to call your Congress critter and ask why they aren't installing Level 3 chargers in your district. Whether they voted for the spending or not, it's your Congress member's job to bring this money back into the district and push until it's done. If they push and ask questions, it rolls downhill fast.

Amen. This is exactly why the failure of Ecotality is so creepy. The economic climate to get something done could not be better yet they claim "nobody wants these chargers". It sounds alot like GM talking about how "nobody wants the EV1" while people are getting arrested trying to keep them.

The truth is really nobody wants Ecotalities business plan.

The DOE needs to disperse the funds to any business/contractor that manages to secure and complete a site. This would make it impossible for competing interests to undermine what is happening since it would be too diverse and spread out to sabotage.

I want to see CHAdeMO deployed whoever / however it gets done.

By the way, a search on some of terms in this thread turned up this article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/08/green-temp-jobs-granted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aeolus said:

it is appalling that the contractors who are supposed to be spending federal money allocated as part of a jobs program cannot get their act together to install level 3 charging systems.

Click to expand...

L3 - Why are Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, Arizona, and Texas ahead of California?

The first 1,000 Leaf and Volt drivers in San Diego bought our cars without much in the way of public charging infrastructure. The next 1,000 will buy their cars with just a little public L2 charging infrastructure and no public L3 infrastructure. The next 10,000 drivers and the next 100,000 drivers are not likely to do so. They'll buy ICE instead unless they can "fill up."

It's important for utilities to level their demand because they have to build power plants and transmission lines for the worst case. For this reason they love EV's charging at night when capacity is otherwise unused. Also for this reason SDG&E levies a "demand charge" of $26 per kW of peak usage, regardless of average usage.

But this demand charge for a single L3 charging station would be $1,560 per month. If the station is used a single time in a month, the cost to provide that single charge would be $1,560 - before anything is paid for the electricity itself, nor for the equipment, installation, maintenance, etc. Suppose the station is used 150 times per month, so it's busy about 50% of the time over 12 hours of each day. Then the demand charge alone would cost $10 per charge, which to someone whose ICE alternative is a Prius is like buying gasoline for $9.48 per gallon - and again that is before allowing for electricity or any other costs. Where will those 150 people come from who feel like paying $9.48 per gallon for their e-gas? Tony is looking for some technical solution: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5867 But right now it's hard to see how an L3 station could make economic sense in California.

By analogy with number of ICE cars per gas pump, and assuming that EV drivers will charge at home at least 90% of the time, one L3 station should support a population of 2,000 EV's. So if the demand charge prevents one L3 from being built it saves 60 kW of peak demand, but thereby misses out on 7,200 kW of load leveling night-time demand when those 2,000 drivers choose to buy gasoline cars instead.

An L3 charging station could run economically if instead of connecting it to the utility grid you connected it to a natural gas or diesel generator. Diesel sounds terrible to someone who specifically bought a Zero Emission car, but if L3 charging were only used for 10% or 1% of your annual miles driven I imagine the total emission numbers would work out pretty good. But it doesn't matter, because state air quality regulations prohibit permanent installations of such generators - and for good reason lest thousands of businesses might otherwise run generators regularly to level their loads and reduce their demand charges.

But now look at the unintended consequences of this rule. It keeps one diesel generator, 90 hp, running intermittently at constant rpm with stationary emission controls and regular maintenance, from spewing its emissions into San Diego's air. But by preventing that L3 charging station from being built it thereby it puts 2,000 more ICE cars onto the road, each with 100-200 hp, with varying levels of maintenance of their emission systems.

I don't think that EV's should get a free ride on regulations, taxes, nor long term subsidies. But we need to think about unintended consequences, and about what it is we're trying to accomplish with our regulations lest some 20th century regulations hold back a 21st century transportation system.

walterbays said:

Also for this reason SDG&E levies a "demand charge" of $26 per kW of peak usage, regardless of average usage.

But this demand charge for a single L3 charging station would be $1,560 per month. If the station is used a single time in a month, the cost to provide that single charge would be $1,560 - before anything is paid for the electricity itself.....

Click to expand...

I found out today that the $25 / kW fee is only for "primary" 4000 volt service. "Secondary" 240/480volt service is $80 / kW, or $4000 per month, every month, for a single instance of a 50kW energy load.

TonyWilliams said:

I found out today that the $25 / kW fee is only for "primary" 4000 volt service. "Secondary" 240/480volt service is $80 / kW, or $4000 per month, every month, for a single instance of a 50kW energy load.

Click to expand...

How does that work when an electric oven is capable of 20 kW (240V * 40A). If that were the case then each house should be paying $1600/mo in demand charges. What happens if I also run my dryer (5kW), air conditioner (3kW) and charge my car (3.7kW) at the same time for a 32 kW load?

Electric rate tariffs can be changed, and there is no reason why Quick Charge stations cannot be set up to minimize the demand on the grid, for example with a station with multiple "nozzles" where multiple vehicles can plug in, and the charging on one vehicle doesn't begin until the previous vehicle has finished.

Dozens, or hundreds of QC stations are not going to have any noticeable impact on the grid, locally or regionally. And given the percentage of EV users who are also PV generators (I've seen the number at 30%), the utilities may find that Quick Charge stations have no net increase in grid

This also gets me back to one of my basic premises, that in many locations QC stations can be tied into carport-style solar generation facilities like those currently being completed in civic facilities in Huntington Beach to minimize peak load demands, and the demand charges they incur. It looks like SCE, my utility, has a plan to minimize demand charges for commercial customers who generate 15% of their usage with PV.

Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- SunEdison, a leading worldwide solar energy services provider and subsidiary of MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (NYSE: WFR), and the City of Huntington Beach, California, announced today that they have signed agreements pursuant to which SunEdison will deploy over 2 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity at three Huntington Beach city properties without upfront costs from the City.

Through solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between the City of Huntington Beach and SunEdison, SunEdison will finance, construct, monitor and maintain three carport canopy photovoltaic power plants at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, Central Library and City Yard. In return, the City will buy the energy produced from these solar systems to offset their demand from the grid at predictable energy rates for 20 years.

Click to expand...

SunEdison is figuring out how to do make a profit with solar power purchase agreements. No reason you can't add QC stations into the mix, if you have some vision and leadership.

The "Demand Charge" only applies to businesses, not to residential use.

Do PUs other than SDG&E have the same/similar peak demand-charge?

drees said:

...How does that work when an electric oven is capable of 20 kW (240V * 40A)...

Click to expand...

Huh? 240V@40A=9.6kW not 20kW.
Besides, home ovens are usually a fair bit less than 40A. They may require a 40A breaker, but use more like 32A.

TEG said:

drees said:

...How does that work when an electric oven is capable of 20 kW (240V * 40A)...

Click to expand...

Huh? 240V@40A=9.6kW not 20kW.
Besides, home ovens are usually a fair bit less than 40A. They may require a 40A breaker, but use more like 32A.

Click to expand...

Whoops. My range requires on a 50A breaker. Would probably have to run it in self-cleaning mode with all the top-burners on to get demand that high, but still...

drees said:

TonyWilliams said:

I found out today that the $25 / kW fee is only for "primary" 4000 volt service. "Secondary" 240/480volt service is $80 / kW, or $4000 per month, every month, for a single instance of a 50kW energy load.

Click to expand...

How does that work when an electric oven is capable of 20 kW (240V * 40A). If that were the case then each house should be paying $1600/mo in demand charges. What happens if I also run my dryer (5kW), air conditioner (3kW) and charge my car (3.7kW) at the same time for a 32 kW load?

Click to expand...

I suspect you're comparing residential service to commercial.

I don't claim it makes sense.

Another big impediment to fast charging are all the government programs supporting EVs. The eVgo program in TX is pretty interesting. For $90/month you get a home charger, complete with install, all you can eat electricity with no time restrictions, and access to Level II and DC charging stations. It's a three year contract.

Not sure how this will work in TX but in CA it's not going to work. You have the DOE/Ecotality Program so home chargers are free. Then you have all the special EV rates that drive the cost per kWh down. Because you're only paying $15 to $45 per month, the question becomes whether fast charging is worth another $45 - $75 per month. Most likely most will just skip paying $2700 on a three year contract to get access to fast chargers and just make do with their Level II charger at home.

drees said:

TEG said:

drees said:

...How does that work when an electric oven is capable of 20 kW (240V * 40A)...

Click to expand...

Huh? 240V@40A=9.6kW not 20kW.
Besides, home ovens are usually a fair bit less than 40A. They may require a 40A breaker, but use more like 32A.

Click to expand...

Whoops. My range requires on a 50A breaker. Would probably have to run it in self-cleaning mode with all the top-burners on to get demand that high, but still...

Click to expand...

Yea, ours is on a 50A breaker too. You run all the top burners and the elements on the oven and it does do just over 40A.