...), and what happens when you just want half a charge, or even less. Do you still have to pay $7? ....
Actually, that is exactly what is happening.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...), and what happens when you just want half a charge, or even less. Do you still have to pay $7? ....
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.
A minor correction, Chad -- nearly the entire geography of California is served by one of the three IOUs (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), including lots of "tween" miles of highways. Remote areas of northern CA or the EVSE desert along I-5 between SF and LA are all in their service territories. I think you're more on point with the subscription plan point, which is really driven by the <100 mile range of all non-Tesla EVs.Unfortunately, this doesn't help Tesla owners yet. In addition to the cluster-around-populated-areas distribution that R.B mentioned (they are areas whose utility customers were part of the settlement; that's part of why they chose clustering rather than trying to cover the whole state; but it also fits better with evGo's subscription plans)
The $7 minimum threw me. Most stations are free today. Does this just apply to NRG? Would hate to learn that all EVSEs in California will have to start charging $7--that would be crazy. I'm sure that's not what's happening.
The $7 minimum threw me. Most stations are free today. Does this just apply to NRG? Would hate to learn that all EVSEs in California will have to start charging $7--that would be crazy. I'm sure that's not what's happening.
Hmm... The new DC CHAdeMO at Stanford shopping center is also (coincidentally?) $7 per charging session...
Do "they" (whoever it is) offer partial fees for partial charging?
NRG is supposed to put in 200 chargers over 4 years (fairly evenly distributed over the years; exact numbers are specified).
Unfortunately, this doesn't help Tesla owners yet. In addition to the cluster-around-populated-areas distribution that R.B mentioned (they are areas whose utility customers were part of the settlement; that's part of why they chose clustering rather than trying to cover the whole state; but it also fits better with evGo's subscription plans), evGo currently only plans to put in CHAdeMO chargers--good plan, given that's all that is available. While Tesla has said it is "possible" to create a CHAdeMO adapter, and it seems in Tesla's best interests to create one someday, they have not committed, so I don't think we should count on using one soon unless they surprise us with an announcement.
And in the longer term, the subscription issue that Larry mentions could be an obstacle. The settlement currently insists on the DC chargers allowing drive-up (non-subscription) users for 5 years; Plug In America is trying to make that indefinite (as well as putting some limits on rates, making the rates easy to understand at the charger, allowing drive-ups at L2s as well, etc).
Each of evGo's CHAdeMO installations will also include wiring for another DC charger. The current thinking (not a firm plan) is to eventually put SAE chargers there, if the SAE ever finalizes a standard, and if manufacturers decide at that time that it's worth releasing cars and chargers that support it. It sounds like Tesla would be more interested in building an adapter for SAE chargers; but again who knows if they will (or if they can; who knows what changes SAE may make). So that's another thing we shouldn't count on.
The nicest thing would be if Tesla could convince evGo to put Superchargers on some of their empty wires.
Perhaps because the SAE adopts Tesla's design (ha),.
perhaps because CA decides to encourage a local design (ha), or just because evGo wants another way to monetize their investment (Tesla could pay NRG to speed up Supercharger installations). But in case you didn't notice the pattern yet, that's something else we shouldn't count on...
I'm just assuming this whole evGo thing won't make any difference at all for Tesla owners. I hope I end up being wrong sooner rather than later.
You're right to be confused -- that rationale doesn't hold up. Probably people in the government think that EVs have only 40-mile ranges! Here's a map of the California electric utility service areas:Really? Thanks for the info R.B; I hadn't seen a list of IOUs before and don't know where they operate, so I assume you are correct.
But I was under the impression that the CPUC asked for DC stations to be located mostly within four areas: SF, LA, San Diego County, and San Joaquin valley. That they were IOU service territories was supposedly the CPUC's rationale. If the service territories are much larger then that, then, well, I'm confused. Perhaps that was only the start of the rationale...I just hope the rest of it wasn't "and these areas work well for a subscription plan".
Hi Larry,
In the Houston & DFW markets, $39 monthly would provide unlimited access to our Freedom Station network if you didn't want the home charger install. Thank you for reaching out with your question!
Carly Kade - Communications Specialist - eVgo Network
I assume it is 350Green; they just put a unit in at Stanford Shopping center. They have confirmed that $7 is the minimum for timed charges, as they are not sure how much energy will be dispensed, and it might really cost that much with demand charges. (They didn't address the question of lowering the timed period).
However, they did say that CA is one of the few places that allows for selling by the kWh (they actually said "KW" so maybe it's related to charging rates and demand charges, but I assume they simply mis-spoke and meant they'll charge by energy dispensed, which was the question they were answering), and that their manufacturer is working on allowing this. Perhaps as early as next month they'll have another pricing scheme available.
The article, and/or those cited by it, leap to strong conclusions.
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.
- 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.
We can debate whether they would have spent $100 million- and I strongly question whether they'll actually spend $100m now- but it has been clear for some time that NRG/eVgo has been planning to expand into the CA market. Otherwise, why hire a Dir of Bus Dev for CA last August? (who shortly thereafter confirmed to me that the company intended to bring its subscription business here.)
I understand that you think this is a great deal, Robert, though your vested interest dictates that. My professional judgment is that the state's ratepayers and EV drivers would have been better off with only the $20m in cash, if indeed (and we'll never know) that was the only alternative. I fail to understand the expectation that Californians be grateful because NRG is going to spend money here, or that any dollar that goes toward EVs or infrastructure is a good thing, no matter how poorly its spent- a problem that extends well beyond this deal. As more information comes out, the more concerns I have- and the responses from everyone involved in the deal can be summed up as "trust us". Given the history of EVs in CA? Ummm....no, thank you.
NRG has pretty much said (at least strongly implied) that they would have done something in CA in any case. They only claim it would not have been as much, and not as soon. You do not seem to question that they could have implemented any such plans without the governments help. Except for a number of obligations, their plans for CA seem to be similar to what they do in Texas, in other words, a result of what *they* honestly consider to be a good way to invest money.
With many government incentives for EVs, the intent is not to make something happen that would not happen otherwise, but to *accelerate* the development. This may include learning from errors.
NRG has several obligations including a price bracket for non-subscription fast-charges (at least for some time, it seems). At least when that time expires, NRG/eVgo can adjust pricing to what they have learnt since then, and for that time, the minimum of $7 for a full fast charge ensures that other companies have a chance to also build up a business without NRG become a monopoly.
And, if you mention Robert's interests, then one should equally mention that your engagement for GM and the Volt doesn't necessarily leave you unbiased towards CHAdeMO vs SAE, and the ability of EVs to use fast-charging instead of gasoline for medium distance (and eventually long distance, with larger batteries) trips.
Leaf owners do want a CHAdeMO network, and that's not something the grocery store next door will finance with its marketing budget, for free use. Walgreens has plans but they also involve fees, and all those plans all seem very very slow. Leaf owners have expected something long ago. This looks like it will indeed accelerate and jump start.
in general this seems to me to be a big step forward.