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.