Electrify America Network

[danrjones]

I haven't seen any new EA stations coming soon around my area - is their an easy access list of their future plans stations / next phase? I remember reading some documentation that showed the next phase would build out more in the cities. But I'm still hoping for more chargers along the highways and interstates to fill in gaps.

Or any word if EA has applied for the federal funding?

[GRA]

I haven't seen any new EA stations coming soon around my area - is their an easy access list of their future plans stations / next phase? I remember reading some documentation that showed the next phase would build out more in the cities. But I'm still hoping for more chargers along the highways and interstates to fill in gaps.

Or any word if EA has applied for the federal funding?

I don't see how EA would be eligible for federal funds - after all, they were required to build out the network rather than having had to pay even heavier fines to the government. Giving them other people's money would reward them for being the scum that they were.

[WetEV]

I don't see how EA would be eligible for federal funds - after all, they were required to build out the network rather than having had to pay even heavier fines to the government. Giving them other people's money would reward them for being the scum that they were.

Confusion in the above post, VW had to fund EA, but EA isn't VW as Ford and others have added funding. EA is an independent company.

EA isn't scum.

[danrjones]

Seriously though, why wouldn't EA be eligible and apply for the federal funds that were approved to buildout EV infrastructure?

Rumor has it that the reason tesla is "considering" adding CCS chargers is because they are going to use said federal funding to do so, ie, having CCS will be a requirement to use the federal funds.

[GRA]

I don't see how EA would be eligible for federal funds - after all, they were required to build out the network rather than having had to pay even heavier fines to the government. Giving them other people's money would reward them for being the scum that they were.

Confusion in the above post, VW had to fund EA, but EA isn't VW as Ford and others have added funding. EA is an independent company.

EA isn't scum.

But VW was, and EA only exists because VW was required to establish and fund it as part of the settlement. See https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/volkswa ... settlement

under "Mitigation" and "Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Investment". If other companies choose to give EA money that's their business, but the government shouldn't be doing so until the terms of the settlement have been fully carried out, including EA operating and maintaining the network for the full 10 year term. Otherwise the feds are simply helping EA establish a non-Tesla charging monopoly.

There are plenty of other ways the feds can spend money on charging infrastructure, e.g. by giving money to the states and letting them award contracts to companies other than EA, as has mostly been done with the VW money received in mitigation.

[danrjones]

Well I'm not a legal or contracts expert, so I don't know.


But the one issue I do see (if EA is blocked from the funds) is that those funds are meant to expand interstate and freeway charging infrastructure.

In my area, the only high speed chargers are built by EA (and tesla, of course).
All of the other charger brands - Greenlots, Chargepoint, EV connect, and Caltrans chargers are ~ 50 kW.

No one else has anything close to EA's 150 and 350 kW chargers. And while I've found the new chargepoint chargers to be some of the more reliable chargers, 50 kW (or 62.5 kW) isn't good enough for intestates and highways.

[GRA]

Well I'm not a legal or contracts expert, so I don't know.

Dan, me either, but my primary rationale against giving EA government money is not so much from a legal as from a moral position. They (their corporate parents) are being punished by the government by being forced to spend some of their ill-gotten gains in a certain way they would not have chosen to do voluntarily, for the benefit of others, so shouldn't be rewarded with money by that same government to do the same thing until the punishment is over.

But the one issue I do see (if EA is blocked from the funds) is that those funds are meant to expand interstate and freeway charging infrastructure.

In my area, the only high speed chargers are built by EA (and tesla, of course).
All of the other charger brands - Greenlots, Chargepoint, EV connect, and Caltrans chargers are ~ 50 kW.

No one else has anything close to EA's 150 and 350 kW chargers. And while I've found the new chargepoint chargers to be some of the more reliable chargers, 50 kW (or 62.5 kW) isn't good enough for intestates and highways.

No argument that 50-62.5 kW FCs are inadequate for extended road trips. Perhaps you've forgotten that the first 150 & 350 FCs were installed by EVgo in Baker, CA on I-15 to serve the LA - Vegas traffic, so it's not as if no one but EA has done or can do this: https://www.evgo.com/press-release/evgo ... v-drivers/

States e.g. CO & MT have been spending settlement money on establishing charging networks both on interstates and U.S. highways, admittedly mostly lower power and in Montana's case just a single FC per site, which is totally inadequate for reliability never mind potential extended wait-times, but there's nothing to preclude states or the feds from requiring more powerful and more numerous FCs per site as a condition of receiving money.

As the energy majors and other auto manufacturers increasingly move into charging (e.g. Shell owns Greenlots here; BP, Total etc. own some European networks while BMW/Daimler/Ford/Hyundai/VW own the high power, widespread Ionity network) we'll see more private money being invested, especially as more and more of manufacturers sales and profits will depend on PEVs.

[GRA]

The Electrify America charging station has opened at 70 Yellow Creek Rd, Evanston, Wyoming 82930.

Until Rawlins opens this just leaves you hanging in western Wyoming on I-80, unless you're heading up to the Wind Rivers (BTDT), and good luck getting back without destination charging. And Rawlins is too far for comfort, so at least one site in between is also needed.

BTW, Dan, here's the only info I'm aware of as to what EA's current plans are; scroll down to Cycle 3: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan/

[WetEV]

I don't see how EA would be eligible for federal funds - after all, they were required to build out the network rather than having had to pay even heavier fines to the government. Giving them other people's money would reward them for being the scum that they were.

Confusion in the above post, VW had to fund EA, but EA isn't VW as Ford and others have added funding. EA is an independent company.

EA isn't scum.

But VW was, and EA only exists because VW was required to establish and fund it as part of the settlement. See https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/volkswa ... settlement

VW is pushing electric cars now, is that worse than Exxon? Worse than buying bonesaw Saudi oil? How about some hospital shelling Russian crude?

Really? With a straight face?

There are plenty of other ways the feds can spend money on charging infrastructure, e.g. by giving money to the states and letting them award contracts to companies other than EA, as has mostly been done with the VW money received in mitigation.

Sadly, much of the State funded EV charging has less than useful. L2 at a park? Almost never used. 50kW units for yesterday's EVs rather than 150kW and 350kW for tomorrow's EVs.

[danrjones]

No argument that 50-62.5 kW FCs are inadequate for extended road trips. Perhaps you've forgotten that the first 150 & 350 FCs were installed by EVgo in Baker, CA on I-15 to serve the LA - Vegas traffic, so it's not as if no one but EA has done or can do this: https://www.evgo.com/press-release/evgo ... v-drivers/

States e.g. CO & MT have been spending settlement money on establishing charging networks both on interstates and U.S. highways, admittedly mostly lower power and in Montana's case just a single FC per site, which is totally inadequate for reliability never mind potential extended wait-times, but there's nothing to preclude states or the feds from requiring more powerful and more numerous FCs per site as a condition of receiving money.

As the energy majors and other auto manufacturers increasingly move into charging (e.g. Shell owns Greenlots here; BP, Total etc. own some European networks while BMW/Daimler/Ford/Hyundai/VW own the high power, widespread Ionity network) we'll see more private money being invested, especially as more and more of manufacturers sales and profits will depend on PEVs.

Good point the Vegas route has other brands of high speed charging - but is the Vegas route an anomaly?

Admittedly, I'm not along an interstate. But at least in my area - CA-14, US 395, its all been EA (sparsely though), Chargepoint and EVConnect.

EVConnect stations in Inyokern and Mojave have been horrible for reliability. Charge point has been pretty good, but as mentioned, limited speeds. I guess if it wasn't for the CEC initiative, we wouldn't even have Chargepoint.

Still, if I look at the I40 route to AZ, it only has a few EA stations, and nothing else. So you are spot-on for the Vegas route, there are others.

So that federal funding, is it only for interstates or will it also be spent on US highways?

I think I remember looking at that phase 3 EA document and it didn't tell me if any additional chargers were coming, say along I-40, or CA-14, or US 395.

Part of me hopes Tesla will open their older stations to us non tesla folks. In Inyokern, they have both a 12 stall V3 and a 4 stall V2. Opening the old V2 to CCS would be big - it would allow 4 new 150 kW chargers. I've heard in many areas Tesla sold / dismantled their old v2's when the V3 went in - but they DID NOT do that here in Inyokern. Even then, I'd love to see more EA stations, or someone else as well.