I always wondered how fast chargers were allowed to sell by time, not units. Well in CA. at least that is now history: https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/24/c...lling-tesla-superchargers-will-need-displays/
CA. requires units on chargers, not time.
-
Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Good for them. Now if other states will follow suit.....
Joined
·
1,128 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.
DUP: CA - tapering now just cost you time, not money
California bans per-minute billing https://electrek.co/2019/12/24/california-bans-per-minute-billing-tesla-superchargers-will-need-displays/
www.chevybolt.org
Joined
·
8,871 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.
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 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.
Joined
·
8,871 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.
2017 Premier, new battery, 1993 GMC 2500, 2022 MYLR, 2017 M235i, Kubota B7100
Joined
·
891 Posts
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:
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
151 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?
“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?
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.
Joined
·
74 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.
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.
Joined
·
1,592 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.
I like it!
That turns out pretty expensive per KWh rate. Would be great if they reduced the KWh charge to 15 or 20 cents instead.
36 cents per KWh would mean about 14 cents a mile driving highway speeds.
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.
Joined
·
1,128 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.
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
