California Lags in DC Fast-Charging Station Density for Electric Vehicles

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

paulgipe

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2014
Messages
428
Location
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Despite its reputation for being electric vehicle (EV) friendly, California lags behind other North American states and provinces in the density of non-Tesla EV fast-charging stations relative to population. California ranks fifth behind Oregon, Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario, but ahead of Washington State. Oregon has 1.7 times more stations relative to its population than the much more populous Golden State.

Most EVs, including Teslas, charge at home. However, DC fast-charging stations are needed by EVs for intercity and regional trips. Tesla operates its own extensive network of fast charging stations designed for intercity travel. Non-Tesla EVs use a patchwork of fast-charging stations that are often concentrated in large urban areas unless policy directed the stations elsewhere.

British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon, and California are partners in the West Coast Electric Highway that would allow an EV to drive from Mexico to Canada along the Interstate 5 corridor. However, California never completed its portion of the network until recently. California instead focused on urban areas, leaving much of the state devoid of fast-charging stations needed for intercity trips.

RTEmagicC_Non-Tesla_DC_Fast_Charging_Station_Density.jpg.jpg


The absence of a robust non-Tesla DC fast-charging network for intercity travel may have inhibited the growth of EVs for more than just urban commuting in California. Tesla early on identified the need for a comprehensive network of fast-charging stations along major travel corridors as a prerequisite for EV adoption. See A Canadian Take on Tesla's Supercharger Network for an insightful analysis of this question.

Parts of California are still not served by DC fast-charging stations. After a much later start than other regions, the California Energy Commission (CEC) now expects to complete its network of fast-charging stations along major highways by 2020. The CEC's program--two large awards currently underway--would still leave areas of the state underserved, such as the East Side of the Sierra Nevada. There's a dearth of public, non-Tesla chargers of any kind along US 395 from Mojave to Bridgeport on the East Side. There are neither DC fast-charging stations nor any public Level 2 stations.

However, two separate programs could add stations to more remote areas. As part of its diesel-gate settlement, VW's Electrify America network is installing 160 stations across California and some of those are in more remote locations. Electrify America's vague maps don't provide much detail, but it appears they plan stations somewhere between Bakersfield and Mojave. They also have stations planned for somewhere between Inyokern and Olancha and a third station somewhere around Bishop. These three stations would serve the East Side of the Sierra Nevada.

In addition, CalTrans, the state's department of transportation, had planned for the installation of 37 stations to be operational by November 2018. Three of these planned stations are east of the Sierra Nevada: Coso Junction, Independence, and Bishop, California. Unfortunately, CalTrans will miss its deadline. CalTrans' stations are on hold, according to the Electric Auto Association's Raejean Fellows, pending the outcome of Proposition 6 in the November mid-term election. If passed, Proposition 6repeals an increase in the road tax that CalTrans planned to use in part for the DC fast-charging stations.

Port Density

California does have the highest density of ports for non-Tesla EVs relative to population among the regions examined. But, the number of ports, called outlets by the Alternative Fuels Data Center, doesn't tell you how many vehicles can charge.

RTEmagicC_Screenshot_2018-09-14_Alternative_Fuels_Data_Center_Electric_Vehicle_Charging_Station_Locations.jpg.jpg


Each port serves one vehicle, but not all ports are active at one time. Most new DCFC stations in California have at least two charging kiosks. Each kiosk, or dispenser in Electrify America's vernacular, has two ports. In the typical installation, only one port is active at a time.

For example, EVgo operates one station at a Walmart in Bakersfield. This one station has two kiosks. Each kiosk has two ports. Thus, the station has four ports--but only two can be active at one time. As a result, the number of ports listed by the Alternative Fuels Data Center does not reflect how many vehicles can actually charge.

Stations in Tesla's supercharger network have dozens of ports. The Kettleman City and the Baker, California stations have 40 kiosks each, all with a single port. All ports are active all the time, although the level of charging may be reduced by the number of vehicles charging at one time.

Tesla operates 82 supercharger stations strategically placed along major as well as minor corridors in California. Notably, there are 1,088 Tesla DC fast-charging ports in the state and all are designed to be operational all the time. Tesla operates eight ports in remote Mammoth Lakes, another four ports in Lone Pine, and four ports in Inyokern, all on the East Side of the Sierra Nevada.

VW's Electrify America is installing multiple kiosks per station. Each kiosk has two ports, but like kiosks from other companies only one port is active on a kiosk at a time. At its station in Colby, Kansas, Electrify America has installed four kiosks for EVs using the American-German CCS standard, and one kiosk for the Japanese CHAdeMO standard. It's not clear if this mix of kiosks is in full compliance with VW's settlement agreement to be brand neutral. VW builds EVs using the CCS standard.

To summarize, California lags behind its peers in number of non-Tesla DC fast-charging stations relative to its population. The state has more ports than any other state relative to population, but not all of these ports can be used simultaneously to charge an EV. Currently, gaps remain along several major corridors. However, both the state and VW's Electrify America is installing hundreds of new stations that will be completed within the next 18 months.
 
It would be nice to be way up there at the very top, but where they are is still in the highest echelon. CA will need to keep it up, but they are no laggard.
 
Interesting analysis, but I think the use of "Lags" in the title is inappropriate. Maybe it's the result of the author's frustration. The only state that exceeds CA's density is OR, which has 1/10th the population. It turns out, that makes it a whole lot harder for CA to compete on a per-capita basis. That they are the #2 state means they are a leader (leadership is not all-or-nothing).

The comparison of U.S. states with Canadian provinces is apples and oranges. They have very different national incentives and different cultures.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Interesting analysis, but I think the use of "Lags" in the title is inappropriate. Maybe it's the result of the author's frustration. The only state that exceeds CA's density is OR, which has 1/10th the population. It turns out, that makes it a whole lot harder for CA to compete on a per-capita basis. That they are the #2 state means they are a leader (leadership is not all-or-nothing).

The comparison of U.S. states with Canadian provinces is apples and oranges. They have very different national incentives and different cultures.

Brian,

The whole exercise began because a Canadian thought BC had a higher station density per capita than California. Sean was right. I always make my comparisons North American. I never limit my comparisons to just the USA unless there's no data on Canada.

I was surprised by the results myself.

We could extend the comparison to other US states. I only included the eastern Canadian provinces because I was already familiar with them. Ontario's roll out of DCFC was much, much faster than California.

Paul
 
That's fine. I'm just saying that there are very different forces at work in the US and in Canada. So saying that California is behind may be accurate, it may not reflect so much on the Californian efforts, as on the US Federal Government's efforts.

Regarding other states, I'd be curious how Vermont ranks. They have a low population (<1M I believe) but a decent DCQC network.
 
I concur that California does fit in the leader category on this.

Also, the Tesla charging network is a good example of how to be successful in this space. It goes a long way to thwart range anxiety - and that is for cars that have much longer range than their counterparts. We really need fast charging infrastructure if we really want EVs to become mainstream, especially for those who don't own their own home and need to rely upon public charging. A lot more.

At the most convenient charging spot near my work, there is 1 J1772, and 2 of the ChadeMo/CCS kiosks. Of course the J1772 is occupied about half the time I try to use it. :(

This location also has a dozen Tesla spots. Most I've seen on those is 4, but with the Model 3 selling strong, that will probably grow pretty quick. I'd really love if Tesla would allow non-Tesla to access this network. But I fully understand the competitive advantage it gives them and that is what justifies the expense of building that network.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
That's fine. I'm just saying that there are very different forces at work in the US and in Canada. So saying that California is behind may be accurate, it may not reflect so much on the Californian efforts, as on the US Federal Government's efforts.

Regarding other states, I'd be curious how Vermont ranks. They have a low population (<1M I believe) but a decent DCQC network.

Brian,

Just follow the link and type in Vermont. I think the filters will already be set.

To my knowledge, California and US states have a big advantage that the Canadians don't have. We have the $7,500 federal subsidy. I don't think there's anything like that in Canada. Canadian EV incentives and Canadian roll out of DCFC chargers are due to provincial action. Consequently, the fact that California falls behind them is more significant than it first appears.

You could argue that BC has a provincial utility and effectively no regulation--same in Quebec--so they can pretty much do what they want. Not so in Ontario. Ontario is more similar to California in that DCFC roll out was purely a provincial and not utility function. To go further, Ontario even made some of the same mistakes (24 kW stations winning bids) as California.

Paul
 
I'm sorry, but this OP is self-serving propaganda of the eastern Sierra advocacy for the advancement of feeble EVs in sparsely traveled areas. I sort of appreciate the advocacy* to not leave any EV behind (thanks, George) but not the approach.

Specifically, DCFC density per capita is context dependent and at *best* tells only a small part of the utility of a fast charging network.

Oregon is a good example. The state enabled regional EV driving for non Tesla cars in the greater metropolitan areas in particular and along the coast to a lesser extent but eastward driving is poorly supported if at all. This makes a lot of sense given where the the body of people live who buy EVs, the majority of tasks asked of those cars, the battery sizes and the charging rates across the network. None of these guiding principles are encapsulated in a per capita metric.


* Well, sort of. Getting the interested EV owners to pony up for 14-50 outlets at hotels along the favored routes strikes me as more likely to succeed and a lot less obnoxious to the wider EV community and cause than demanding million dollar DCFC pavilions for the five or so people who will use them each year.
 
SageBrush said:
I'm sorry, but this OP is self-serving propaganda of the eastern Sierra advocacy for the advancement of feeble EVs in sparsely traveled areas. I sort of appreciate the advocacy* to not leave any EV behind (thanks, George) but not the approach.

Specifically, DCFC density per capita is context dependent and at *best* tells only a small part of the utility of a fast charging network.

Oregon is a good example. The state enabled regional EV driving for non Tesla cars in the greater metropolitan areas in particular and along the coast to a lesser extent but eastward driving is poorly supported if at all. This makes a lot of sense given where the the body of people live who buy EVs, the majority of tasks asked of those cars, the battery sizes and the charging rates across the network. None of these guiding principles are encapsulated in a per capita metric.


* Well, sort of. Getting the interested EV owners to pony up for 14-50 outlets at hotels along the favored routes strikes me as more likely to succeed and a lot less obnoxious to the wider EV community and cause than demanding million dollar DCFC pavilions for the five or so people who will use them each year.

I think you would be surprised by the volume of traffic on US 395. Why do you think Tesla installed four superchargers on the route?

And unlike Oregon, California didn't even try to connect major cities along the north-south corridor until very late in their program--and only after a lot of advocacy. And forget about East-West connections. The major East-West corridor to Tahoe was done by the Japanese and maybe BMW. I don't remember the consortium exactly, but you could look it up.

Paul
 
paulgipe said:
...unlike Oregon, California didn't even try to connect major cities along the north-south corridor until very late in their program--and only after a lot of advocacy....

This was my main gripe about CA's ineptitude. If there's no functional network, the charger-to-population ratio is moot because it's difficult to get out of one's local zone regardless of how dense the chargers might be in your home area.

Also, thanks to SAE's insistence on a new standard that added nothing of import compared to the already-established standard, development of the charging infrastructure will be unduly burdened for years to come.

Tesla also went their own way but in this case entirely justified because it took an end-run past years of standards-body dithering and obstructionism and instituted a much more fully-realized solution right away. They're willing to partner with other makers. Please, PLEASE Nissan!
 
paulgipe said:
I think you would be surprised by the volume of traffic on US 395. Why do you think Tesla installed four superchargers on the route?
I was referring to feeble EV traffic on the 395. EVs like your Bolt (and in fact every CHadeMo/CCS sold to date in the USA is not a long trip car to anybody but a handful of enthusiasts like yourself. The remainder treat them as local/wide-local cars and that is where an infrastructure that extends their range in a way that people will use is reasonable.

Tesla are not feeble EVs due to their range AND charge rate.
 
Nubo said:
paulgipe said:
...unlike Oregon, California didn't even try to connect major cities along the north-south corridor until very late in their program--and only after a lot of advocacy....
This was my main gripe about CA's ineptitude. If there's no functional network, the charger-to-population ratio is moot because it's difficult to get out of one's local zone regardless of how dense the chargers might be in your home area.
I presume the thinking was to first enable local EV use, then wide-local. The reasoning makes sense to me, particularly given the limitations of non Tesla EVs sold during those years. Connecting cities in CA was a PR exercise since very few 75 mile range EVs would ever care to drive between San Diego and LA, let alone LA to SF. Heck, even today driving a CCS/CHadeMO EV between LA and SF is a chore best left to the retired.

I live in a rural area and work is 45 miles away. A dispersion of L2 charging would be so much more enabling for the LEAF than one fancy DCFC location.
 
SageBrush said:
A dispersion of L2 charging would be so much more enabling for the LEAF than one fancy DCFC location.

True for both LEAFs, Teslas and any other electrics. Especially if are higher Amp stations, 60 Amps or more, which today's LEAF can't take advantage of, but Tesla cars with dual chargers sure can.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
A dispersion of L2 charging would be so much more enabling for the LEAF than one fancy DCFC location.

True for both LEAFs, Teslas and any other electrics. Especially if are higher Amp stations, 60 Amps or more, which today's LEAF can't take advantage of, but Tesla cars with dual chargers sure can.
Tesla owners do not care about L2 charging ... unless they are using it for inexpensive electricity or convenient parking. Such is the life of owning a 300 mile range EV supported by home charging and a 120 kW well developed, dispersed and maintained DC network.

The CHadeMo/CCS network and the cars that use it, such as it is, is a pale imitation of the Supercharger network and does not lead to the same owner behaviors.
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
A dispersion of L2 charging would be so much more enabling for the LEAF than one fancy DCFC location.

True for both LEAFs, Teslas and any other electrics. Especially if are higher Amp stations, 60 Amps or more, which today's LEAF can't take advantage of, but Tesla cars with dual chargers sure can.
Tesla owners do not care about L2 charging ... unless they are using it for inexpensive electricity or convenient parking.

Or they are beyond the convenient reach of supercharge stations, which isn't 300 miles, or even half of that. Such places do still exist. And are likely to continue to exist for a long time.

Need an example? Neah Bay, WA

99 miles on 101 from the Superchargers at Sequim. Need to have enough to get back. Need to have some for local trips around Neah Bay, and for reserve for unknowns, and for vampire losses. Can't charge to 100 %, unless you spend a lot of time in Sequim. Hmm. And if rather than going back, continue on to Aberdeen. 255 miles between Superchargers, and you want some side trips? Maybe an L2 in Neah Bay (or at some other stop on the trip) is a good idea.
 
SageBrush said:
paulgipe said:
I think you would be surprised by the volume of traffic on US 395. Why do you think Tesla installed four superchargers on the route?
I was referring to feeble EV traffic on the 395. EVs like your Bolt (and in fact every CHadeMo/CCS sold to date in the USA is not a long trip car to anybody but a handful of enthusiasts like yourself. The remainder treat them as local/wide-local cars and that is where an infrastructure that extends their range in a way that people will use is reasonable.

Tesla are not feeble EVs due to their range AND charge rate.
I'm in partial agreement, but I think the Bolt and the other soon to arrive 200+ mile BEVs with CCS/CHAdeMO work okay as one QC each way trip i.e. weekend getaway cars. So, for Bay Area residents, putting a QC in Groveland or some point east of it makes it possible to visit Yosemite and return with just one QC stop along the way (each way), and even over to 395 and maybe as far south as Mammoth and return. Putting a QC in Inyokern, Olancha or Lone Pine allows Greater L.A. residents to reach Mammoth and return, although you'd also want/need destination charging there. Naturally, the closer spacing the better, which is why Tesla has SCs in Mojave, Inyokern, Lone Pine and Mammoth, is adding one in Bishop at some point, and still needs one in Lee Vining. Lee Vining, Bishop and Lone Pine are all about 1 hour apart, which allows un-recharged round trips to any point between them (plus some local driving), while only needing to charge to 80% or so ( I assume minimum of 15% reserve). Adding QCs in Inyokern and/or Mojave (plus Kramer Junction) allows for no worries in worst case conditions.

As the 150kW and then 350 kW CCS BEVs (and maybe 400kW CHAdeMO) vehicles begin to arrive, Tesla's QC speed advantage will no longer exist (they seem to be talking about going to 250kW or so), leaving them with their range advantage (and a more extensive network) as advantages for now.
 
GRA said:
So, for Bay Area residents, putting a QC in Groveland or some point east of it makes it possible to visit Yosemite and return with just one QC stop along the way (each way)
Take a closer look at a map, and remember that charging past 70% SoC or so is *really* slow, and Yosemite has poor or non-existent charging facilities. Starting at the midway point and ending there is ~ 200 miles not counting any driving around in the park.

Not. Going. To. Happen
 
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
This was my main gripe about CA's ineptitude. If there's no functional network, the charger-to-population ratio is moot because it's difficult to get out of one's local zone regardless of how dense the chargers might be in your home area.
I presume the thinking was to first enable local EV use, then wide-local. The reasoning makes sense to me, particularly given the limitations of non Tesla EVs sold during those years. Connecting cities in CA was a PR exercise since very few 75 mile range EVs would ever care to drive between San Diego and LA, let alone LA to SF. Heck, even today driving a CCS/CHadeMO EV between LA and SF is a chore best left to the retired. ...

Yes, the bar was set too low from the start. A demonstrable "electric highway" is important psychologically long before it's widely used.

While local L2 surely meets some needs, the idea of scurrying from one "opportunity charge" to the next is simply not appealing to any but the most dedicated. Most charging takes place at home. The exception that needs filling is long-distance travel, and apartment dwellers/renters. As the capacity of packs increases, public L2 will become increasingly marginalized and fade away in favor of fast-charging for distance trips and for EV owners who don't have access to home charging. 10 years from now many of today's L2 stations will have either disappeared or will be in disrepair; sort of like phone booths. The exception could be workplace charging with V2G opportunities.
 
Nubo said:
Yes, the bar was set too low from the start. A demonstrable "electric highway" is important psychologically long before it's widely used.
Seems like a fair argument if funds are unlimited.
 
Back
Top