Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.

CA. requires units on chargers, not time.

7K views 78 replies 18 participants last post by  sly 
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 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.
 
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.
Like all people, I had a knee-jerk reaction. Noticing my bias, I read the article as objectively as I could, then posted my comment.

Your analogy is bogus though, because nobody would accept a petrol station that required one to use a funnel, so the free market would put an end to that absurdity.

Allowing DCFC owners to bill for time post-charge, or parking fees, or connection fees... still doesn't recover the cost of slow charging vehicles that are occupying a spot that could otherwise be utilized more effectively. I can already envision manufacturers building in the option to set charging limits so that one could use a DCFC at a very low rate to maximize some benefit like free parking, or otherwise avoid "idle" fees that would kick in post-charging.

Perhaps politicians meant well, but as usual, didn't engage the neural activity required to actually implement a change for the better. The end result of all this will simply be higher cost to charge since the cost of slow charging cars can't be captured anymore.

As a registered voter in CA, I was never asked my official opinion on this matter.
I wonder why we don't have referendum legislation more often, but then the I know the answer to that. There's no personal political advantage by letting people represent themselves, and no way to sneak special interest legislation into omnibus bills.

But those demand charges only kick in after the first 25-30kW. For example here in Georgia, Georgia Power starts demand charges at 30kW. So a basic 30kW circuit cost the same $10/month that a residential circuit costs.

In addition these lower power DCFC run at standard voltages and phases. So it may not be necessary to deploy new electrical infrastructure to install them.

All of this is to say that medium speed DCFC will be cheaper to install and run, so the cost to use it will be comparable to L2.
I hadn't thought to find out at what kW rate the utility would change from billing a flat monthly rate, to demand pricing, so thanks for bringing this up. From what I researched, the most profitable, or at least the most likely to break-even DCFC are the slower ones, with the likelihood of breaking even less likely the faster the rate of charge it is capable of, and all of that due to demand pricing.

Perhaps the most profitable avenue at the moment is a medium speed DCFC at about 30 kW, especially in CA where they will bill by the energy delivered and not time spent. Minimize operating costs and maximize profits. I wonder how popular such a speed would be? Perhaps very popular if the parking spots were also preferred locations nearest entrances to places like malls.

It does represent 1 more layer of complexity to an already complex ecosystem. People might understand slow L1-2 charging, and understand DCFC, but adding a medium speed is yet another complication. With ICE, nobody has to wonder if they are getting a fast pump or a slow pump, or how to estimate the total cost for that matter.
 
This could lead into a pretty good discussion though. What size battery would the perfect PHEV have? Is the BMW i3 with REX the perfect electric car? With 120 miles of range would that satisfy 98% of electric range and the other 2% be gas. The smaller battery would make cars cheaper, less CO2 emissions to produce, and avoid high output fast chargers. This is a discussion I would love to have because it might be a great solution.
Of course, perfect is subjective.

I've maintained that manufacturers would have been smart to max out the federal tax credit using PHEVs that have the minimum size battery to claim the full credit, which is 16 kWh. The battery would then be subsidized by taxpayers at $469 per kWh, which is far above the cost to manufacture. That's money on the table.

In a car like the Prius, that would be an EV range of about 65 miles, which would cover most daily commutes and errands. In the Chrysler Pacifica, that's a little over 30 miles of range.

Somewhere around 50 miles EV range probably makes the most sense for most people. That covers 80% of miles.
 
That's exactly what Toyota is doing. 2020 RAV4 Prime (PHEV) will have $7500 tax credit. When I was looking at the Prius Prime, it would be cheaper than the Prius, after the $500 tax credit. RAV4 should be similar.
According to Fueleconomy.gov, the plug-in Prius had a $2,500 credit, and the Prius Prime has $4,500. In my view, that's leaving a lot of money on the table, but perhaps in the grand scheme of things, the few thousand extra per vehicle isn't worth it to Toyota. They have burned through over half their credit allotment with zero vehicles claiming the full amount. My estimate is they have forfeited $375M in free money by selling 100k vehicles at roughly half the credit limit.

I expect the RAV4 Prime to be a wild success given the desirability of the vehicle in general, and considering it will likely be less costly after rebate than the non plug-in version.

That was my point though, that any manufacturer could have had a plug in version of their most popular vehicles cost less to consumers than their non plug-in versions after the federal credit was factored in.

PHEV is the gateway drug to BEVs. Not only could manufacturers stand to profit from our ridiculous tax incentive(s), but they could be exposing a larger portion of the population to the joy of less visits to the petrol station and all the other benefits of EV driving.
 
One last thing Sly, you can only do your calculation for 93,000 miles. After that the car's battery doesn't have any CO2 impact per mile because it is completed from the assumed lifespan of 150,000 km.
CA requires batteries to be warrantied for 10 years and 150k miles. Manufacturers will build them to exceed this requirement to avoid warranty claims. 200k miles seems like a reasonable expectation for the lifetime of a battery, or any car in general. Interesting to think the average car will nearly cover the distance to the moon before heading to a junkyard.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top