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 
#1 ·
#9 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#6 · (Edited)
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#10 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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?
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
L2 isn't going to solve a lot of public charging issues due to the design specification requiring hours of charging to get a decent charge. A better, more flexible solution is adding medium speed DCFC into the mix in some of the places described above. DCFC in the 25-50 kW range can deliver a decent, cost effective charge in time frames under an hour. Now it won't be a full 10-80% charge, but being able to recover 100 miles of recharge in an hour will be helpful to folks who supplement private or exclusively use public charging for their EVs.

ga2500ev
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I recently charged at EVgo for a 100 mile return trip home at night, in the rain and in the upper 30s. Charging infrastructure in Oregon is poor and relying on getting a charge closer to home was a risk I didn't want. So, I sat at an EVgo for about 40 minutes. Charged without a hitch. There was absolutely no indication of what I was being charged or even how much I was charged until I got an email indicating total kWh and total cost. I calculated that it cost a bit over $0.58 / kWh. If there was an indication on the charger, I might have cut it a bit shorter, but there was nothing. At this stage, I'm just glad to get a charge. But next time, EVgo won't be my first choice. Even if the fee isn't based on kWh, there should be something that displays in real time the total cost, kWh received, and effective cost per kWh. I shouldn't have to wait for an email and a calculator to figure it out.
 
#27 ·
I am fine with more DC fast chargers, but you need to understand that electricity from these units are much more expensive and you have to pay $0.50 per kWh minimum for this convenience. People that depend on fast charging to do the majority of their driving should not own EVs at this point in adoption. Those people that have crazy jobs and are away from home a lot should own a hybrid right now. The 99% of us who live normal lives can charge at home or work. This makes level 2 charging more important and installing level 2 charging is a fraction of the cost.
 
#28 ·
The specific reason to deploy lower powered DCFC chargers are to manage the cost. Ultra-high speed DCFC costs so much due to both installation capitalization of electrical infrastructure, where a high powered transformer has to be installed to power the circuit, and due to electrical demand charges, where the monthly base charge for the circuit is based upon its power capability. Those charges can be upwards of $10/kw each month and kick in if the circuit is used at full power for even a single 15 minute period during the entire month. So a 125 kW circuit can have a base usage charge of over $1000/month even if the station is used only once during that month.

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.

As for hybrids, the fastest way to kill the EV revolution is to pronounce that unless someone fits within a rigid set of guidelines, that EVs don't work. I come on threads like this to point out that there are other charging models other than overnight dedicated L2 and ultra-high speed travel charging. Those other options are more flexible, more cost-effective, and more sharable, than the rigid charging lanes that are currently in use. It's critical to get folks to understand that EV charging should almost always be an activity that is ancillary to doing something else. One charges while one shops, or works out, or watches a movie. Most folks with ICE make a specific trip to refuel. We need to deploy a charging infrastructure such that no one ever has to make a specific trip to refuel. Refueling should only occur in conjunction with something the driver was going to go do anyway.

Now we certainly are not there yet. But the first order of business is breaking down these notions of "this is how I charged my EV, so everyone else has to charge their EV the same way."

ga2500ev
 
#31 ·
There should be only two type of charging. 40 amp level 2 charging and DC fast chargers that can support up to 250 kW. Simplicity is what we need here. The general public is confused enough about charging, we don't need to have anymore variety of charging. Charge at work, charge near home, or pay a premium to charge your car as quickly as it allows. It should be that simple. BTW, it should also be mandated that any car over 150 mile range has fast charging. The Bolt still doesn't have this and probably upsets people when they find out all the can do is level 2 charge.
 
#34 ·
People will accept more complexity, as long as that complexity gives them more utility, or gives them a more cost effective option. Most anyone would understand charging $20 for an hour to charge to full is OK, but charging $6 for an hour to charge about halfway is a better deal, though it would take over 2 hours to charge to full.

You're proposing to only give the $20/hr option to folks who have to charge anywhere but home. Why not offer cheaper options?

ga2500ev
 
#32 ·
I think that 20-25 kW charging at places you will be for 30-120 minutes makes perfect sense in the urban environment.

Movie theaters, malls, restaurants, etc.

Also, Appt Complexes (or mobile home parks), where the price / kWh triples once the charge rate drops below 12 kW, and when it drops below 6 kW there's an additional $0.25/min parking fee that kicks off. So people will use it for an hour, maybe two, and get affordable electricity so long as they don't hog it. Especially if the charging platform has a "wait list" that is notified when the charging is stopped and the next person in line has 5 minutes to get there to start charging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ga2500ev
#35 · (Edited)
Living in a state where there truly is an insufficient distribution of chargers, meaning that there are huge areas that are difficult for EV travel, I am all for any type of DCFCs that expand the network. I would be delighted with 25 kW DCFCs sprinkled around the state and allowing travel anywhere, even if it means long charging times. I speak from experience that it would be far better than being stuck at an L2 charger while on a trip. One of the barriers to EV adoption is the honest problem of charging away from home, sometimes just perceived but often times very real. People know this and that uncertainty is not something they want to gamble with when purchasing a new car. So they go with the ICEV. It is only after a basic DCFC charging network is established that there is a proper focus on installing faster (and much more expensive) chargers.

As for PHEVs, I've recently been reading up on the life-cycle CO2 costs of different powertrains. It just so happens that PHEVs have a significantly lower life-cycle CO2 cost that BEVs. That probably doesn't hold for a subcompact BEV with a range of about 70 miles, but beyond that, BEVs are worse than PHEVs. When manufacturing has a lower carbon footprint, that won't be the case, but for now it is. I love my Bolt. I thought I was making the best environmental choice when I bought it, but that doesn't appear to be true. It's still a great car to drive, but I chose it for perceived environmental reasons, not for the driving experience.
 
#36 ·
As for PHEVs, I've recently been reading up on the life-cycle CO2 costs of different powertrains. It just so happens that PHEVs have a significantly lower life-cycle CO2 cost that BEVs. That probably doesn't hold for a subcompact BEV with a range of about 70 miles, but beyond that, BEVs are worse that PHEVs.
You are reading FUD material, this is absolutely not true unless you live in a state like Wyoming that gets 80% of its electricity from coal. Please link the article to show this data, because it is complete nonsense.
 
#39 · (Edited)
Thanks for the reply. It will take a bit of time to completely digest it. Proper usage is indeed very important. Not doing so is like buying a heavy-duty reusable plastic shopping bag but never actually reusing it, making it significantly worse. But, a good question is: What is the effective mpg of a PHEV as typically driven? If the PWN efficiency requirement of > 95 mpg is accepted, which is the highest in the U.S. and likely anywhere, then how much must a Volt be driven as an EV to break even? A Volt gets ~42 mpg in hybrid mode. So, EV mode %0 + Hybrid mode 100% = 42 mpg. If 50% of the driving was in in EV mode, total mpg = 82 mpg. But, using your figures, if 66.5% of driving is in EV mode, then the total mpg = 125 mpg. With a little math, the breakeven point of 95 mpg is achieved with just 56% of EV-mode driving. This makes a Volt as typically driven much better than a BEV even in the PNW, and far better anywhere else in the country. Much of the country will require a far smaller percent of EV-mode driving. So by these calculations, a PHEV with similar characteristics as a Volt, typically driven, is the clear winner. I would say that for BEV owners who are good at plugging in, a PHEV would be even better as they would be driving even more in EV mode. But each person will do best to modify that for their particular situation. Those with long commutes, meaning a low percentage of EV-mode driving, will certainly do better with a BEV, as will those who use a PHEV as just a hybrid. As for your specific situation, if you leave home with a full battery and are able to recharge to full at work, then your EV-mode percentage would be 61.5%, which would make a PHEV better even if you lived in the PNW. If you live elsewhere, then the threshold would be even lower.
 
#47 ·
You guys could come up with the perfect plug-in hybrid, but I wouldn't buy one. I considered and skipped getting first the Prius and then the Volt. Waited instead for a pure electric. Now maybe a 48V mild hybrid makes sense. Stop all that idling and recover some braking energy.
 
#56 ·
#57 · (Edited)
For heavy use a BEV is superior, but people don't drive like me. I put 40,000 miles on my car every year. The longer you drive a BEV, the better it gets. In my situation a BEV is superior considering I drive in California, have solar panels, and have a 130 mile commute every day. For me a BEV is much better for the environment than a PHEV, please prove me wrong about my situation.

I think my calculations already prove you wrong, but again, I will look further and perhaps try your approach to see what I come up with. Always, everyone needs to modify basic approaches for their particular situation. However, I offered a scenario with 0 CO2 cost of electricity, and the BEV still wasn't a clear-cut winner. Perhaps that calculation will change as I look further, but I think it is basically sound. Assuming after-life-cycle amelioration shouldn't be necessary. Even in your own "heavy use" case, if you can charge at work, then you still would operate 61% of the time as an EV, and that would increase when considering around-town uses. It is true that at some point a BEV will likely be better, though never in the Midwest.

Even if PHEV are more "green" right now, that won't be the case in 10 years. By pushing BEV technology, we will have a point where they will become better very soon. If we can produce a lithium ion battery with 50 kg of CO2 per kWh and the battery can last 1 million miles, BEV's will be superior in every way! Part of me adopting a pure EV is that I want this technology to win.

I look forward to the day when manufacturing is carbon neutral. That will change many things. But, even in 2040, the world will still be getting most of its energy from fossil fuels, more than 70%. The U.S. might do a bit better, but maybe not, and I am not confident that it will be so. Still, people must make choices now, not for what might be in 10 years. Right now, and for years to come, I have no reason to think that a PHEV isn't the best choice.

The other thing that is important to know is every year my BEV produces less emissions as the power grid becomes more renewable. This is not true of PHEV's since they always depend on fossil fuels. My argument right now is a PHEV like the Volt and BEV are probably about the same for the environment. I am not saying all PHEV's because they are making SUV one's that get like 15 mile range, 30 mpg, and will rely on 70% of the energy to be gas.

Yes, for sure. The faster we decarbonize the better. But decarbonization does help a PHEV because 2/3 or more of the time it operates as an EV. But, it is unlikely that states will become less carbon intensive than Oregon. Using Oregon was my attempt to be as favorable to BEVs as possible. Most states have far to go to get where we are. And, even in Oregon, it appears that a PHEV is a clear winner. I know that you don't like my calculation, and I'll look into that further. But right now I think it is basically sound. Any modification isn't likely to be much more than a rounding error. I agree that PHEV SUVs need to improve. But, the RAV4 Prime gets 40 mpg combined in hybrid mode, and I believe the battery is big enough for 40 miles of EV travel. That puts it fairly close to the Volt. The MPGe is only 90, but not enough of a difference to likely tip the scales. I didn't buy a Prius Prime because of the short battery range, and I didn't want a sedan. I also passed on the Outlander PHEV because of the rather poor MPG rating and short range. But a new generation will be available very soon which changes the calculus. I feel confident speculating that the RAV4 Prime is superior to a BEV in total CO2 emissions as well as offering an overall more compelling package.

Just answer my question here. Would you agree that if we got battery emissions down to 70 kg per kWh and 70% of energy was renewable that a BEV would be superior to a PHEV? I know we aren't there yet, but that is the goal. We hit limits on ICE cars and hybrid technology. To take the next step in reducing CO2 we need to invest in BEV technology more.

Well, it depends on the carbon footprint of manufacturing, which is what I guess you are referring to. I would have to run some numbers to determine what the breakeven point would be. Assuming can be a dangerous activity. But clearly, any manufacturing-related reduction would be favorable to BEVs, though PHEVs would also benefit. One thing that this discussion has indeed impressed on me is the critical need to reduce the manufacturing carbon footprint. Will that fall with less CO2 intense electricity? Probably some, but I don't know if it will be enough. Might be worthy of further investigations, though.
 
#63 ·
For heavy use a BEV is superior, but people don't drive like me. I put 40,000 miles on my car every year. The longer you drive a BEV, the better it gets. In my situation a BEV is superior considering I drive in California, have solar panels, and have a 130 mile commute every day. For me a BEV is much better for the environment than a PHEV, please prove me wrong about my situation.
Just stating the obvious, but are you charging your car with energy stored from your solar? If not, and you are charging at night, then you really have to see where your night time energy is coming from...
 
#59 · (Edited)
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.
 
#64 ·
I don't really trust any of these "well-to-wheels" calculations because they are very complex with answers strongly dependent on the assumptions. Imagine accounting for all the CO2 emissions produced by making a battery: extracting the raw materials, transporting, refining, transporting, processing, transporting, fabricating parts such as separators, case,...on and on. Then consider making an ice, the exhaust, and fuel delivery for a phev - extracting the iron ore, transporting, smelting, extracting the alloying elements, transporting...furnaces to make the steel...on and on. Many, many steps and highly variable depending on many factors. In such a case the result depends strongly on the assumptions used. If you don't sweat every detail of the calculation you don't know what the final number really represents. Beyond that, should you also account for the energy that went into (and the resulting emissions) building the factories that make the batteries and their parts, the engines and their parts? If so, how do you estimate a per unit cost in emissions? What assumptions do you use for total units that will be produced, and what effects that assumption? It goes on and on...
 
#66 ·
I don't really trust any of these "well-to-wheels" calculations because they are very complex with answers strongly dependent on the assumptions.
I think that the big benefit of these kinds of analyses is to remind us that it's not just driving efficiency that counts. But in terms of using them for comparison purposes - yeah, you've got to be very careful not to put more trust in them than they deserve.

The big takeaway is that, like any other vehicle or other manufactured object, driving or using it longer reduces the impact of the purchase cost and all of the harm caused in its manufacture.
 
#69 · (Edited)
Problem converting kg to lbs in the last line. The numbers for total lifetime emissions should be

Bolt: 24.2 tons CO2
Volt: 26.2
Gas Car: 58 tons

The takeaway: EV and PHEV are pretty close and which is better depends on CO2 in electricity generation, size of the battery and how much a PHEV is driven n EV mode. But, the big gain is achieved with any electrification. For the given case, just switching to a PHEV reduces CO2 emissions by 55%. Changing to an EV reduces CO2 emissions by only another 3.4%, which is not much more considering the greater inconvenience of an EV. The 2 ton lifetime reduction amounts to less than 7 weeks of per capita US CO2 emissions.

Increasing the use to 20 years, 300,000 miles, makes the PHEV emit 23% more CO2 than the EV, an extra 12 tones CO2, less than 4% of per capita CO2 emissions.

Another way of looking at this is that in the given scenario, an EV does worse for the first 6 years and then gains an edge over the PHEV.

For low mileage drivers, say 6000 miles per year, an EV requires 9 years to break even with a PHEV. For PHEV drivers who drive more around town and drive 85% of the time in EV mode, almost 20 years will be needed for the EV to come out ahead.
 
#70 ·
Another way of looking at this is that in the given scenario, an EV does worse for the first 6 years and then gains an edge over the PHEV.
The size of the battery and how it is made is the biggest factor of CO2 emissions for a BEV. I am actually a huge fan of longer range PHEV's that can get 50 miles of range that can cover over 90% of an individuals driving. With the Volt being discontinued, what is the longest range PHEV? The Prius Prime/Hyundai Ioniq both get about 25 miles of all electric range. New cars like the Subaru Crosstrek PHEV get 17 miles of range. I am not liking this new type of PHEV. I think 50 miles of all electric range should be the number for a PHEV. These new PHEV's will be treated like hybrids and over 60% of driving will be on gas. The Volt with 53 miles was the best PHEV out there and it wasn't close!
 
#77 ·
I don't. I deliver it to the recycling collection point. It can then be sent to remove contaminants by various means and results in a product almost identical to virgin oil stock. This can be done indefinitely. It is not done on site except in large industrial applications where a lot of waste oil is produced. Used motor oil from oil changes is collected and sent to an appropriate recycler. I wouldn't recommend using a coffee filter.
 
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