10,000 California Charging Stations Funded

[jerry33]

Perhaps I have this wrong, but I'm under the impression that most of the eVgo DC fast chargers will be installed at locations adjacent to interstate highways. If so, my point is that these fast charges may not be as practical as we would like for protracted interstate highway driving.
Larry

When I was considering getting a Leaf eVgo was the recommended EVSE provider so I had them come out to do the free analysis. Their plan was:

1. You had to have a contract with them to use their charging network.

2. The cost was from $50 per month to $90 per month for two years (this does include the EVSE and some of the installation--but it's not cheap)

After over a year they have only two charging locations in their network in the Dallas area actually up and running, so I wouldn't hold my breath for any significant number of charging locations opening up soon. Note that during the Leaf dog-and-pony show the forecast was to have 36 eVgo stations opened by September (of last year).

It's really cheap to put coloured dots on a map

 

[richkae]

Hi, Larry,

It's hard to say at this point because eVgo has been installing chargers exclusively within a metropolitan region, rather than between them. This is natural outgrowth of a user-base with <100mile batteries, I suppose, but doesn't bode well for relying on eVgo to build the waystations for long-distance travel -- at least, not until those waystations are themselves local markets, e.g. small towns that want a charger at the downtown coffee shop.

~Robert

Tesla is completely alone in needing infrastructure between major cities. The bulk of EVs will likely come from other manufacturers, and none of them are making an EV capable of significant highway travel - so none of the infrastructure will be designed to support it.

 

[Larry Chanin]

The big 85kWh battery should be able to take 50kW until at least 80% full I think. So if you start the charge at ~20% and end at ~80% you will probably get close to 50kWh in an hour.

Hi,

Based on Robert's information that so far there doesn't appear to be many if any eVgo fast chargers on major highways, my continued discussion of the utility of eVgo fast chargers on interstate highways in the US may be purely academic. :redface:


However, continuing in the academic even if we assume that the Model S can charge at the eVgo's charge rate of 160 miles range per hour for a full hour, that potential 160 miles of added range would only apply to driving at close to 55 mph. In my Florida interstate highway example were most folks travel between 70 and 80 mph the 160 mile range would be significantly reduced. If the Model S has similar range to speed characteristics as the Roadster that 160 miles of potential range would be reduced to 118 miles at 70 mph or to 99 miles at 80 mph. So that means that the added range for charging for an hour would be exhausted in 1.7 hours and 1.2 hours for driving at 70 and 80 mph respectively. So in these realistic highways speed examples we are almost spending as much time charging as driving. Of course at these speeds even Tesla's Superchargers start to look less attractive. :biggrin:

It is good to see that Norway has sensible highway regulations. Here in Florida, sensible highway regulations, not so much. :wink:


Larry

 

[eVgo Communications Lead]

Hello Fellow EV Enthusiasts,

eVgo is passionate about EVs, their drivers and great conversation around the future of the technology! I’d like to address some of your specific questions and comments:

North Texas network
eVgo is committed to the DFW and Houston electric vehicle fast charging infrastructures and connecting them is a potential benefit once build out is complete in the two metropolitan areas. Building this first of a kind, fast charging network has taken longer than originally planned as UL approval for the DC chargers was prolonged and some initial software issues had to be worked through with the charging manufacturer. These issues have been addressed and we currently have 4 additional Freedom Stations sites under construction in DFW with many more to come.

Our subscription plan
eVgo enables EV owners to avoid the large up-front cost for a work or residence charger and provides unlimited remote network charging – all for one low monthly fee. Our $49 plan will install a charger in your home, absorbs the up-front installation cost of approximately $2000 and includes service and maintenance for the charger. Our Complete Plan offers the best value at $89 and includes installation of a charger at your home or business, service and maintenance of the charger and covers charging costs from home as well as unlimited access to the only DC fast chargers in the DFW and Houston area. Other plans are available to meet different needs of different EV drivers.

Host site selection
The eVgo network gives EV owners new freedom and range confidence with away from home charging at our Freedom Station sites. Our sites must meet certain criteria including being located at leading retail partners along major thoroughfares, available for use 24/7, passing strict security screenings and providing a retail opportunity for customers while they are charging. Additionally, eVgo offers the only DC fast chargers in the DFW and Houston area which can add 50 miles of charge in 15 minutes and a full charge in 30 minutes.

Please let me know if there is any additional information you would like to hear from eVgo. We’d be happy to clarify!
Carly Kade – Communications Specialist - eVgo Network

 

[Larry Chanin]

Hi Carly,

Thanks for the information.

If someone is not interested in having you install a charger at their home, does it still cost a minimum subscription of $49 per month to access your network?

Thanks.

Larry

 

[Robert.Boston]

Hi, Carly, and welcome to TMC forums.

The Tesla community offers a distinctive business opportunity for eVgo: our cars have a minimum 160-mile range, thus opening the door to inter-city transit. Your entry strategy in HOU and DFW, by contrast, appears to be an "around the town" charging focus. Tesla drivers generally don't care about charging at the grocery store to ensure the charge to return home -- the large batteries in our cars handle all the local stuff easily. How about driving Houston to Dallas? Dallas to Austin? San Fran to Tahoe? These are the scale trips where a fast-charging network would be of greatest service to the Tesla community.

 

[vfx]

Does not look good.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075246_100-million-for-electric-car-charging-devil-meet-details

Settlement gives NRG full control--for life
But the real problems lie in the terms and language of the proposed settlement.
First, the 200 DC fast-charging stations will be owned by NRG for their entire life. That means that to settle its alleged price-fixing, NRG is building an asset it can earn money from.
Second, NRG will also hold the rights to operate the Level 2 charging stations for life. It will have 18 months to install its own hardware at locations once they're wired up, and then it will open competitive bidding for the rest.

 

[Norbert]

Does not look good.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075246_100-million-for-electric-car-charging-devil-meet-details

Instead, notes electric-car advocate Chelsea Sexton, NRG killed two birds with one stone: It settled the lawsuit by funding charging stations it had already planned to build.

"Already"? Didn't notice that mentioned in any of the articles. Did I miss it?

 

[Norbert]

And I don't see the "two birds". They still have to pay for the installations.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The article, and/or those cited by it, leap to strong conclusions.

• As Norbert pointed out, we don't know whether NRG/eVgo would have spent $100m or not -- eVgo had not made public any expansion plans into CA that I'm aware of.
• Dynegy is alleged to have engaged in various illegal activities, but nothing has been proven despite a decade of litigation. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
• In any case, this settlement is for a single long-term contract negotiated between professionals. Nothing nefarious, just a contract that the CDWR willingly--happily--signed, and the governor extolled. This settlement has nothing to do with alleged behavior that may have triggered or exacerbated the crisis.

As I've said before, it's my professional judgment that California would have spent millions in legal fees pursuing this case (and NRG millions defending it), and in the end have gotten nothing. The settlement is a much better deal, even if you don't like every term and condition in it.

 

[Norbert]

The article, and/or those cited by it, leap to strong conclusions.

• As Norbert pointed out, we don't know whether NRG/eVgo would have spent $100m or not -- eVgo had not made public any expansion plans into CA that I'm aware of.
• Dynegy is alleged to have engaged in various illegal activities, but nothing has been proven despite a decade of litigation. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
• In any case, this settlement is for a single long-term contract negotiated between professionals. Nothing nefarious, just a contract that the CDWR willingly--happily--signed, and the governor extolled. This settlement has nothing to do with alleged behavior that may have triggered or exacerbated the crisis.

As I've said before, it's my professional judgment that California would have spent millions in legal fees pursuing this case (and NRG millions defending it), and in the end have gotten nothing. The settlement is a much better deal, even if you don't like every term and condition in it.

So far, there have been plans by other companies/projects to install larger numbers of fast chargers, but none of them have actually installed very much yet. So there seems to be some value in having a legally binding commitment to install 200 fast chargers and 10,000 wirings for EVSE (within the next 4 years, I think). Plus the $20 million. That does represent a certain value, even if one expects more from the phrase "$120 million settlement". None of the articles seem to add information that would allow forming a judgement about whether $20 mill + commitment is a good deal or not. The fees which NRG will charge are the same as their existing fees, one may like them or not. And I'm sure they are free to change them to be lower or more flexible, if they find they don't work well in the real world. But that doesn't really seem to be the point of the settlement. One of the articles mentions that for "spot mark purchases", there are already $4 billion of settlements between other parties. So we don't know what amount of alleged "damage" this settlement relates to, aside from that no "illegal activities" have been proven.

 

[Norbert]

eVgo posted a comment on the greencarreports article, with this bit of information (aside from saying that the value is in the guaranteed investement, larger and faster than "would occur naturally":

Cost structures such as the cost for DC charging is bracketed by the CPUC at a minimum of $7 to avoid undercutting competition and a maximum of $10 off peak and $15.

 

[dmckinstry]

Good idea. In the US, many trucking companies are setting the speed limiters on their tractors to 62 mph. Just stay behind one of them. With adaptive cruise, you could set it at 70 mph, and then just stay behind a 62 mph truck. Adjust the following distance to get a nice aerodynamic tow! With active lane keeping, you could just relax and read a book, or catch up on email and TeslaMotorsClub chatter! :tongue:

GSP

Of course, then you have to be willing to drop to 40 mph or less on long uphill stretches.

 

[EVNow]

eVgo posted a comment on the greencarreports article, with this bit of information (aside from saying that the value is in the guaranteed investement, larger and faster than "would occur naturally":

Considering the very slow rate of QC infrastructure roll out - any guaranteed investment is great in my book. Demand charges and high price of a connection that would allow a QC to operate are making QC impractical in a lot of utility areas.

 

[Norbert]

Considering the very slow rate of QC infrastructure roll out - any guaranteed investment is great in my book. Demand charges and high price of a connection that would allow a QC to operate are making QC impractical in a lot of utility areas.

Yes, at least that makes it more difficult for a business model. There are concerns about whether the $7 minimum is too high (apparently mandated by CPUC to "avoid undercutting competition"), and what happens when you just want half a charge, or even less. Do you still have to pay $7?

Perhaps there could be improvements, now or later, not too many things should be cast in stone. The concern I'd have is that NRG as a utility might be less forthcoming in supporting other charging providers in favor of its own network, in so far as such a situation is possible.

But it is time that something happens for all those Leafs with QC port. Even if not perfect, this should allow learning by example.

 

[doug]

What are these weird price boundaries? Shouldn't the price be set by the market? What competition are they undercutting at seven bucks?

 

[Norbert]

What competition are they undercutting at seven bucks?

Well, none, but that's the point.

Maybe here it shows that this is part of a settlement. $7 allows them to make profit, and thereby make future investments, but it doesn't allow them to build a monopoly. Possible?

 

[GSP]

Of course, then you have to be willing to drop to 40 mph or less on long uphill stretches.

No problem. That will just extend your range even more!

GSP

 

[Robert.Boston]

To be clear, NRG Energy is not a "utility" in California. It's a public company that owns power plants and other components of the bulk power system. May seem picky, but there are big differences for how they interact with customers. The biggest difference is that they cannot exclude competitors (unlike, say, PG&E, which has franchise rights to build the wires for its service area). Market forces will ensure that NRG/eVgo cannot extract above-market profits from their investments, but there's no guaranteed rate of return on investment.

 

[Norbert]

To be clear, NRG Energy is not a "utility" in California.

Good to know.

Market forces will ensure that NRG/eVgo cannot extract above-market profits from their investments, but there's no guaranteed rate of return on investment.

It may take NRG a while, at this early point in EV history, until they get to positive numbers, regarding this investment. And they can't change their mind about it, they can't say "It seems for now, 100 is enough", or so.

Makes me wonder when (if) the imposed price brackets will expire.