CARB-VW Settlement Could Revolutionize EV Use in California

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
State’s EV Charging Network to Get Big Boost

The recent settlement between the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Volkswagen (VW) for its diesel engine fraud could transform electric vehicle (EV) charging in the state. As a certain presidential candidate would say, the impact “will be Huuuge.”

The CARB-VW settlement could well dwarf any previous state EV charging program. The significance of the settlement is only now sinking in among California’s EV community.

For a sense of how huge remember the hoopla around the state’s announcement earlier this year. The California Energy Commission (CEC) issued awards for a number of fast-charging stations to complete the long-delayed West Coast Electric Highway. The CARB-VW settlement’s impact on fast charging in the state is potentially an order of magnitude greater.

The settlement could result in more new DC Fast Chargers (DCFC) being installed than currently exist in the entire state. That’s right, in the unlikely event that VW could ramp up installations fast enough; they could double the DCFC stations in California in the first year alone.

The Deal

The Consent Decree requires Volkswagen to invest $800 million dollars in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure in California over a 10-year period. VW will be responsible for installing brand neutral “fueling infrastructure” for both EVs and hydrogen-powered cars. VW will also be required to invest in zero-emission vehicle sharing programs and consumer awareness campaigns.

In sum, VW will be investing the equivalent of $80 million per year for ten years. Only a portion of this will be set aside for building EV charging infrastructure, but it could be a significant part. The agreement also specifies that the VW-developed projects must support the “next generation of zero emission vehicles.” The next generation of EVs will have twice the range of existing mass-market vehicles, requiring that most of the new charging infrastructure be devoted to DCFC stations.

If VW invested 75% of the settlement in EV fast-charging stations, the auto company would spend the equivalent of $60 million per year. For comparison, the CEC’s most recent award for fast-charging stations was only $9 million over two years. The money set aside in the CARB-VW settlement that could be used for fast-charging infrastructure represents more than ten times that of the CEC award per year. And VW will be investing that much for the next ten years. That’s indeed huge.

RTEmagicC_DC_Fast_Charging_Stations_Possible_under_CARB-VW_Settlement_01.jpg.jpg


Fast Charging Necessary

Most EVs charge at home or at work. However, intercity travel requires a network of reliable fast-charging stations to make trips possible. Tesla understands this and has invested heavily in building-out a nationwide network of branded “Superchargers.” These stations offer multiple bays with chargers operating at high voltage and high current. Such chargers are a necessity for rapidly charging Tesla’s high-capacity traction batteries.

There’s no equivalent network of DCFC stations for mass-market EVs such as the Nissan Leaf or BMW i3. There are a number of fast-charging stations concentrated in the state’s major urban areas, but travel between cities is extremely difficult. These stations, where they exist, are comprised of no more than two individual fast-chargers. Each of today’s 50 kW fast-chargers is capable of refueling a Nissan Leaf in less than 30 minutes.

The market for EVs currently is restricted to families with two or more vehicles because of the difficulty of using the EV for intercity travel. In contrast, a conventional vehicle can be used for all needs: intracity and intercity travel. To break consumer resistance to widespread adoption of EVs, higher capacity traction batteries, such as those in Teslas, and a reliable network of intercity fast chargers, such as Tesla’s Supercharger network, are necessary.

Mass-market manufacturers will begin introducing vehicles with high-capacity traction batteries in 2017. These batteries will have twice the capacity of those in use today, doubling EV driving range. They will also require twice the amount of time of today’s vehicles for a “fast charge” with current charge stations.

Fortunately, newer fast chargers will soon be introduced that double (100 kW) or triple (150 kW) the charger’s capacity. This will keep the time needed for a fast charge to less than 30 minutes.

The race is now on between the introduction of high-capacity traction batteries and the introduction of higher-capacity fast-chargers to serve them. The CARB-VW settlement could drive the rapid introduction of these new fast chargers and in doing so revolutionize EV use in the state. As the network of intercity stations grows, consumers will have less and less reason to stay on the sidelines.

Scale of Possible Build-Out

To make sense of the potential impact on California’s fast-charging infrastructure, it’s necessary to look at a previous settlement.

In the spring of 2012, the California Pubic Utility Commission reached a [urlhttps://www.nrgevgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NRG-Leave-Behind-1-EV-Infrastructure-Agreement-4-27-12-FINAL.pdf]settlement with NRG[/url], a utility company, for its actions during the state’s power crisis at the turn of the century.

As part of that settlement NRG would pay the CPUC $20 million and invest $100 million over four years in EV-charging infrastructure. Their agreement called for NRG to specifically invest $50 million in 200 DCFC stations. Each of these stations would include two fast-chargers.

The VW settlement is significantly greater. We don’t know how much of the $80 million per year will be devoted to DCFC stations, though we can make an estimate what the impact might be.

For example, if 75% of the settlement is invested in DCFC stations, VW could install from 250 to 400 stations per year. Each station could contain from two to five fast-chargers. This is more fast-chargers in the first year program than the entire NRG-CPUC settlement agreement. It is also more fast-chargers than installed in the state today.

There are 13,500 gas stations in California, each with multiple pumps. While the total number of fast-charging stations that could be installed under the CARB-VW settlement is only a fraction of the gas stations in the state, a direct comparison is inappropriate. Hardly anyone, except for a few farmers and ranchers, has a gas pump at their house. Intercity travel with an EV requires a much smaller number of fast-charging stations than the number of existing gas stations would indicate.

The CARB-VW settlement could provide a sufficient number of DCFC stations to replicate the ease and reliability of refueling now found with gasoline. The settlement could create the critical mass of fast-charging stations needed for intercity travel, spurring rapid EV adoption in the Golden State. Once critical mass is achieved, EV use could grow exponentially, signaling the beginning of the end for gasoline in passenger vehicles in California.

This article is posted to Electric Vehicles on my web site. Any changes or updates will be found there.

Paul Gipe
 
I'm hoping that, at least in California, future DCFC installs follow in the footsteps of Tesla by "electrifying" not just the major freeways, but some of the more isolated, rural corridors as well. This would include US 395 from SoCal to Reno, sections of Highway 1 along the coast, and others.
 
DNAinaGoodWay said:
That's really good, for CA. What about the rest of us? Is it state by state then? Or just CA? And Hydrogen? That's too bad.

I will have something up on the USA EPA-VW settlement shortly, but yes, nationally as well.

Paul
 
abasile said:
I'm hoping that, at least in California, future DCFC installs follow in the footsteps of Tesla by "electrifying" not just the major freeways, but some of the more isolated, rural corridors as well. This would include US 395 from SoCal to Reno, sections of Highway 1 along the coast, and others.

Agree. 395 is one of my personal objectives as is the Hwy 58 corridor east and west.

However, like everything else, you have to get in there and make your voice heard either individually or through the EAA. I suggest both.

Paul
 
smkettner said:
Well I certainly hope the money is not squandered too badly on hydrogen.

Exactly. While we can't stop the H2 juggernaut--some bad ideas take a long time to die--we can get in there and make sure EVs and EV fast charging gets the money needed to build a real network--not the hodgepodge that we have now.

Paul
 
VW/Audi/Porsche really wants a competitor network to Tesla, so this will be Californian centric, nationally rolled out.

VW/Audi/Porsche and BMW are the 2 real backer of CCS Frankenplug, (the others are just along for the ride). Funding the rollout of a Chademo network will be a major punishment for VW. Since they were the real push behind trying to outlaw Chademo in Europe.
 
abasile said:
I'm hoping that, at least in California, future DCFC installs follow in the footsteps of Tesla by "electrifying" not just the major freeways, but some of the more isolated, rural corridors as well. This would include US 395 from SoCal to Reno, sections of Highway 1 along the coast, and others.

I hope the range of the more accessible EVs will follow the footsteps of Tesla. There can be thousands of DCFC installs, but traveling in a 100 mile EV will continue to be a PITA. In fact, I already feel there is a more or less sufficient DCFC install base within the radius I'm willing to venture out in my Leaf around SoCal. Hopefully the Bolt will deliver and others will follow.
 
paulgipe said:
smkettner said:
Well I certainly hope the money is not squandered too badly on hydrogen.

Exactly. While we can't stop the H2 juggernaut--some bad ideas take a long time to die--we can get in there and make sure EVs and EV fast charging gets the money needed to build a real network--not the hodgepodge that we have now.

Paul

In sum, VW will be investing the equivalent of $80 million per year for ten years. Only a portion of this will be set aside for building EV charging infrastructure, but it could be a significant part. The agreement also specifies that the VW-developed projects must support the “next generation of zero emission vehicles.” The next generation of EVs will have twice the range of existing mass-market vehicles, requiring that most of the new charging infrastructure be devoted to DCFC stations.

Paul, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. The "next generation of ZEV" in the context of Califonia folks who hand out money is hydrogen.

I could see virtually all the money devoted solely to hydrogen.

Surely, we aren't going to let that happen without one hell of a fight, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities. I absolutely guarantee that the hydrogen lobby is drunk with excitement for big paydays!

The VW folks, at best, will do everything to promote CCS over CHAdeMO... I think that is a given. The agreement doesn't say anything about protocol... just brands. So, to my reading, German company ABC provides some CCS chargers, and Germany company XYZ provides more.

I can see the state arguing that they just funded the completion of the West Coast Electric Highway with north-south corridor grants, as well as the inter-regional grants. So, why would they waste this valuable opportunity on old school EV, when the agreement specifically mentions "next generation".

There's also no mention of power levels for any EV charging equipment installed. We may want to have 100 to 350 KW chargers, but they are very expensive to install and no for-profit company tends to take the most expensive path with anything, except perhaps Tesla.

Anyway, my caution is to remain vigilant.
 
TonyWilliams said:
I could see virtually all the money devoted solely to hydrogen.

Surely, we aren't going to let that happen without one hell of a fight

Best of luck with that fight. I wish I could help, but frankly don't know what I can do from upstate NY.

I think most of us here agree that DCQC (even if it's CCS) would be the best use of this money. At the same time, the hydrogen folks will certainly want their piece of the pie. To them, their piece may be 90% just due to the difference in cost between a DCQC and a hydrogen station.
 
Valdemar said:
abasile said:
I'm hoping that, at least in California, future DCFC installs follow in the footsteps of Tesla by "electrifying" not just the major freeways, but some of the more isolated, rural corridors as well. This would include US 395 from SoCal to Reno, sections of Highway 1 along the coast, and others.

I hope the range of the more accessible EVs will follow the footsteps of Tesla. There can be thousands of DCFC installs, but traveling in a 100 mile EV will continue to be a PITA. In fact, I already feel there is a more or less sufficient DCFC install base within the radius I'm willing to venture out in my Leaf around SoCal. Hopefully the Bolt will deliver and others will follow.

Valdemar,

I can assure there is not enough DCFC stations installed in California to venture out with a Leaf. I know. I've been campaigning against the CEC's discriminatory DCFC installation program in the San Joaquin Valley--and we still don't have the damn things--and it's mid 2016. Currently the only stations being installed are less than 25 kW! And that's only on the major corridors. There's nothing, zilch, zero for Hwy 58 and other east-west roads. LA and the Bay area may be served, but not the rest of California. See my trip reports for our experience driving a Leaf intercity.

Paul
 
I agree the current (as of mid 2016) California DCQC infrastructure is disappointing. When I leased my 2013 Leaf I was expecting the charging network to grow. But except Tesla the CCS and CHAdeMO chargers did not expand as quickly.

Case in point, just this June I have a need to drive to Santa Barbara for my kids' travel sport meet. Wife took the kids and grand parents down first with the SUV. I was to follow later due to work, and the fact we can't all fit in one car anyway. So, I was left with the Leaf (S trim with QC option, 55K mi, lost one bar).

Try as I may I cannot get to Santa Barbara from Mountain View via CA101. The last CHAdeMO is at Salinas an EVgo one at a supermarket (according to Plugshare). Then there is a gap of 130 miles until San Louis Obispo. The two DCQC stations in the gap are CCS only (24kw, Charge Point) at King City and Paso Robles. If I had a CCS car I probably could make it.

I end up having to rent a Prius C which drives like ****. The alternative would be to use one or two L2 charge in the middle but that would make my journey too long and I don't want to miss my kids' event. Which is the whole point of making the long drive.

This make me really appreciate having a unified charging standard and having a well developed charging network. The California electric highway as of mid 2016 gets an F for major fail. This is the middle of the most populated state that boast wealth, technology. I can't drive around my neighborhood without seeing EVs every mile, Tesla, Leaf, i3 you name it. But besides Tesla everyone else seems to suck at traveling with an EV. Range of the car is one thing, you get what you pay for, but not having a charging network is not helping EV adoption.
 
Back
Top