Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
This is welcome news. But all existing chargers are grandfathered in, so it's going to be a slow progression.

The state's new rules treat slower, alternating-current chargers, known as Level 2, differently than DCFCs. Under the latest DMS version, new Level 2 chargers won't need to comply with the rule until the start of 2021 and new DCFC until the start of 2023.

All chargers that exist now — and those that are built until the dates above — have a 10-year grace period. Since an EV charger usually lasts no longer than a decade, it essentially means that the expensive retrofits won't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
CA as always is heavy handed in the marketplace. Still don't know how the top businesses are drawn to Silicon Valley.

What right does the government have to dictate how something is sold, especially after the fact? There's a case to be made that consumers need to be fully informed, but once you get 2 informed parties (business and consumer) that agree on something, that's between the 2 parties and nobody else.

As if charging infrastructure needs more obstacles to profitability. Nobody is served by someone sticking it out on a DCFC to get the last few percent charge at low rates, so it makes sense to incentivize them to move on. It isn't good for the consumer that is wasting their time, and it isn't good for the DCFC owner who needs to cycle people through as quickly as possible, and it isn't good for those queued up waiting for a charge.

So, what problem does this address? The article seemed to suggest it addresses people who are bad at math and can't be bothered to figure out how their vehicle or charging infrastructure works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
What right does the government have to dictate how something is sold, especially after the fact? There's a case to be made that consumers need to be fully informed, but once you get 2 informed parties (business and consumer) that agree on something, that's between the 2 parties and nobody else.
So if I hire Socko to kill my brother-in-law, and we agree on a price, it is none of the governments business? People elect governments to oversee many things, including business transactions. If they decide they don't like the way this administration is doing it, they can vote them out next time around.

In fact, since none of this goes into effect until 2021, they can let them know before then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
So if I hire Socko to kill my brother-in-law, and we agree on a price, it is none of the governments business? People elect governments to oversee many things, including business transactions. If they decide they don't like the way this administration is doing it, they can vote them out next time around.
There's already laws protecting (some) human life. The rules are to be as few as necessary to facilitate orderly commerce. DCFC isn't some predatory paycheck loan company that is causing financial ruin to poor people; it's a highly unprofitable business whose customers tend to be much wealthier and informed than other markets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
For Tesla this law is silly and their lawyers will get involved. Tesla can post this to the screen of the cars through software updates, which will be much cheaper. Requiring a digital display on the unit is ridiculous for the Tesla Superchargers.
It would appear that the state of California isn't having that idea.

The industry pushed back, but DMS said California law has already settled this issue:
Another predominant alternative proposed by stakeholders is to remove the requirement to have a primary indicating element on the EVSE, as defined in NIST Handbook 44. This alternative is contrary to California law regarding commercial weighing and measuring devices. BPC § 12510 (a)(6) requires the owner of the commercial device, not the purchaser, to position the indicating element in such a way that required indicating information is made available and can easily be read by the purchaser. Several EVSE manufacturers have designed their commercial EVSE without a primary indicating element incorporated in the device. This would require the purchaser to use a mobile device or their vehicle’s telemetrics and on-dash screen to view the required information. While this alternative lessens the financial impact of this proposed regulation on EVSE manufacturers and EVSE owners/operators, it transfers the responsibility to the purchaser of electricity as motor vehicle fuel. The Department does not have authority to propose a regulation in conflict with existing California law and regulation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
There's already laws protecting (some) human life. The rules are to be as few as necessary to facilitate orderly commerce. DCFC isn't some predatory paycheck loan company that is causing financial ruin to poor people; it's a highly unprofitable business whose customers tend to be much wealthier and informed than other markets.
I'm not saying I think this mandate is a good idea. It is the job of government to give people what they want. Sometimes those people are even the voters, and what they want often has adverse unintended consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
CA as always is heavy handed in the marketplace. Still don't know how the top businesses are drawn to Silicon Valley.

What right does the government have to dictate how something is sold, especially after the fact? There's a case to be made that consumers need to be fully informed, but once you get 2 informed parties (business and consumer) that agree on something, that's between the 2 parties and nobody else.

As if charging infrastructure needs more obstacles to profitability. Nobody is served by someone sticking it out on a DCFC to get the last few percent charge at low rates, so it makes sense to incentivize them to move on. It isn't good for the consumer that is wasting their time, and it isn't good for the DCFC owner who needs to cycle people through as quickly as possible, and it isn't good for those queued up waiting for a charge.

So, what problem does this address? The article seemed to suggest it addresses people who are bad at math and can't be bothered to figure out how their vehicle or charging infrastructure works.
So I guess you're ok if they gave you a funnel and a gas can at a gas station and charged you by how much time it took to fill your car.? Or how about how much time the electricity is on at your house even if it is just a few night lights or LED bulbs? Did you read the article?

Electrek e-mailed Schnepp about operators’ ability to charge separate fees, who confirmed, “Electric vehicle service providers are allowed to charge ancillary fees such as: a connection fee; waiting fee for staying connected after reaching full state of charge; parking fee where such charges are normally applied; and a non-network access fee where applicable, provided that these fees are disclosed to the consumer prior to initiating a charging session (there may be other allowed fees not identified in this example).”

Or just a knee-jerk reaction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
There is no simple pricing system that would be fair, and profitable. If you charge by the kWh you penalize the provider, in the case of slow charging cars. If you charge by the minute, you penalize people with slow charging cars. If you charge what it costs to deliver, almost no one will use it. We live in a real world, with real consequences. EVs will never allow us to behave as foolishly as we are accustomed too. Will we adjust our behavior to the new reality...probably not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Imagine this:
“Gasoline vehicle service providers are allowed to charge ancillary fees such as: a pump connection fee; waiting fee for staying connected after reaching a full tank; parking fee where such charges are normally applied; and a non-network access fee where applicable, provided that these fees are disclosed to the consumer prior to initiating a refueling session (there may be other allowed fees not identified in this example).”

How long would the general public accept this pricing scheme by gas stations? It's been standard procedure to roll all costs into the advertised price per gallon of fuel and to have the amount and cost of fuel delivered to the vehicle displayed in real time on the gas pump. Why can't it be the same for EVs- advertise the price per kWh with the delivered kWh and cost displayed in real time on the EVSE?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,442 Posts
Why can't it be the same for EVs- advertise the price per kWh with the delivered kWh and cost displayed in real time on the EVSE?
Because the delivery time per gallon is the same for all ICE vehicles...not at all the case for EVs. I suppose you could have two meters, with two prices, one for kWh, and one for time. Your total bill is the combination of the two. This would actually be a fairer, and clearer, way to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
I think in the end, this will all become a moot point and legislation. I for one enjoy living in CA and paying for what I use vs time to charge but it has already come down to only 2 providers which do this: Chargepoint and Greenlots (some).

In a capitalistic free market, the providers adjust and adapt by charging other "fees" to compensate for their perceived loss of income or if not, will simply withdraw from the game as other companies have from being overregulated. I am waiting to see what EA and EVgo start charging per unit!

As a registered voter in CA, I was never asked my official opinion on this matter.

In the mean time, I am immensely enjoying the free Chargepoint DCFC my city has been so gracious to provide. There was another previous free DCFC but it has since been decommissioned. I guess they could not justify giving away the product or service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Because the delivery time per gallon is the same for all ICE vehicles...not at all the case for EVs. I suppose you could have two meters, with two prices, one for kWh, and one for time. Your total bill is the combination of the two. This would actually be a fairer, and clearer, way to do it.
That seems to be the system ChargePoint is using on many of their DCFCs in CA, e.g. $0.25/kwh + $0.10/min.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
That seems to be the system ChargePoint is using on many of their DCFCs in CA, e.g. $0.25/kwh + $0.10/min.
That turns out pretty expensive per KWh rate. Would be great if they reduced the KWh charge to 15 or 20 cents instead.

27936


36 cents per KWh would mean about 14 cents a mile driving highway speeds.

27937


26 cents per KWh would mean about 10 cents a mile driving highway speeds.


... in comparison, my 2017 RAV4 Hybrid averaged about 36 MPG on long trips, that's about 8 cents a mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
DC fast charging should be that much IMO. It should only be used for long trips and not an everyday occurrence. We need more level 2 charging for people in apartments, shopping plazas, and work places. The big issue to holding back EV adoption is for the majority of renter's it is inconvenient to have an EV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
Agreed, it would be awesome if there were one charge port between every 2 parking spots... that would maximize the flexibility of leaving EVs in place after charging and/or allowing ICE cars to park there when the rest of the lot is full.
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top