-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
10,000 California Charging Stations Funded
- Thread starter green01
- Start date
Hi Robert,
Do you really think this particular network, with its current subscription policy, will appeal to most Tesla owners? Don't you think that most Tesla owners will be installing relatively inexpensive 240 V outlets in their garages? For those that plan on installing higher capacity "chargers", don't you think they will be installing Tesla's High Power Connectors with capacities up to 70 amps versus 30 amps for the eVgo? Isn't the federal government still offering a $1,000 credit toward the installation of chargers? Regardless, it seems there will be little benefit to paying $49 per month toward the installation of an eVgo home charger that most Tesla owners probably won't want. In addition, the $39 monthly fees are too high to merely gain access to the public network especially since they have to pay additional healthy charging fees. Further, as you point out there are currently no eVgo DC fast chargers at places where the typical Tesla owner would need them.
Thanks.
Larry
Last edited:
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
NRG is supposed to put in 200 chargers over 4 years (fairly evenly distributed over the years; exact numbers are specified). There are penalties if they don't--too bad the DOE didn't think to put that in Ecotality's contract.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
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".
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".
Last edited:
Hmm... The new DC CHAdeMO at Stanford shopping center is also (coincidentally?) $7 per charging session...
Norbert
TSLA will win
It should apply only to the first 200 fast chargers built in California by NRG. (and I hope it is just the vague language which suggests that half a charge won't be half the cost).
As said above, the intent is to avoid that these 200 fast chargers will keep other service providers from being able to get a foot in this "market". A minimum for NRG allows others to compete against their large number by offering less expensive (or even free) fast-charging, thereby keeping NRG from establishing a monopoly. If I understand it correctly.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
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.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Do you know these numbers?
Assuming for the sake of discussion it will be all CHAdeMO… and likely limited to 50 kW… it makes more sense to have 90 kW Superchargers along the long-trip routes. So from Tesla owner's point of view, a cluster-around-populated-areas distribution might be an interesting complement to Superchargers. There you might want and/or be more willing to stay a bit longer for the charge to complete at the lower 50 kW rate. I nevertheless agree, just it might not be as unfortunate as it sounds.
"trying to make that indefinite" … sounds good!
"More interested" also since SAE can provide 90 kW. But even if eVgo builds SAE chargers, it doesn't mean they will be 90 kW, they could be also 50 kW (especially if the first EVs with SAE will have only 50 kW or so).
Yes. (Though the "empty wires" are for L2 EVSE, it seems to me.)
Too good to be true?
By conventional wisdom, yes.Nope, but we can count on Tesla itself to build at least a skeleton network quite soon (pending Tesla's upcoming Supercharger announcement.)
When the number of Model S's on the street grows to an interesting number, ego might be interested to also build a few Superchargers. I don't anything would keep them from doing so. What it will do, is, start defeating that meme which says "infrastructure is so difficult it might not happen". That is, it will help people to see EVs as a viable technology which will eventually offer a full scale of options. I'm not afraid of a few chargers looking "unused". We just have to say that they are ready for the future. Seems a better problem to have.
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:
Norbert
TSLA will win
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.)
On a side note, I've had several journos ask if Jeff Byron was involved in the negotiations for NRG?
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.
Norbert
TSLA will win
The sum of $120 million was a catching headline, but meanwhile nobody claims that the *full* sum would constitute a "punishment" (not all terms of a settlement are necessarily "punishments", they may include terms that are beneficial to either party or both), except in so far as NRG makes rather large upfront commitments, without guarantee that it will make profit equivalent to the investments, any time soon.
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.
A bit opposing to what you said in your previous message in this thread, 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. According to your theory, they might have invested the same amount in a way that would allow them act in that direction.
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.
I do agree with some of your concerns, for example regarding pricing for partial charges. And I hope that some improvements (if not solved by clarifications) can be made, but in general this seems to me to be a big step forward.
If TX deployment is your proxy, they've seen it as a "good investment" to install 12 stations there. So it's fair to suggest that they wouldn't build 200 DC + 10k make-readies in the next four years (assuming they do that here). However, a subscription business plan is very different than POS, and is not necessarily in overall interests of EV drivers. A publicly funded or State-endorsed deal should be. NRG has no incentive to make sure that infrastructure is sited and uses a cost model that fosters usage- they told me that they prefer the fast chargers stay open. This makes sense when they're trying to attract subscribers who want to see uncrowded infrastructure. Yes, they have to offer temporary POS accessibility to the fast chargers (not the Level 2), but they are also allowed to sell subscription plans at the same time. Which do you think they'd prefer? I'm not saying a little of it might not end up being useful, but the State has ceded control of deployment effectiveness to a company whose shareholder interests don't necessarily align with the State's relevant constituents (a problem that led to needing this deal in the first place), and I'm not willing to offer the same blind faith. But it is the State I fault for allowing the settlement without hearing from those w experience but no vested interest in the deal, not NRG; they only accepted the gift handed to them.
I've not seen anything suggesting that this will realistically accelerate infrastructure deployment, much less any guarantee of it. And I'd be much more willing to allow for learning from new errors if there'd been any consideration so far in any of these public deals in learning from the old errors. I want infrastructure to happen as quickly and effectively as possible- which is why I have little tolerance for the "let's just toss some stuff out there and see what happens" model, when we know better.
NRG can charge whatever they want to subscribers on the Level 2 infrastructure, and on subscriptions for fast charging. They temporarily have to offer POS access at $7-15 on DC fast charging. So yes, there is a temporary restriction on 200 of 10,400 charging spots.
The other EVSPs don't agree that this deal leaves a competitive market for them, and do believe this agreement amounts to an ad hoc monopoly.
Ahh, I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up again. Not that it's either true or relevant to this thread, as I've said nothing about the merits of fast charging in my assessment of the NRG deal, or whether SAE is better than CHAdeMO. Robert's assessment of the situation, on the other hand, is premised at least in part on the fact that he was paid to help make it happen in the first place- that is a fair observation to make, and were it I in his place, you'd have been the first one to make it.
Of course Leaf and i drivers want a CHAdeMO network. And I've repeatedly said that I don't agree with the SAE standard, and certainly not holding up infrastructure and vehicle deployment over it. How that makes me biased for GM, I'm not sure...
Other fast charging deployments have been unacceptably slow. But the fact that the others haven't met their obligations doesn't make this plan automatically better. It might get few chargers in the next year or two. That TX still only has a dozen doesn't bode well, and there has been an eVgo member over on the Leaf forum warning them not to get their hopes up. Per the actual deal requirements, we're not going to see very much until at least a year after FERC approves the deal, with most coming later than that. If in a couple years we're still fighting with Ecotality and others to get the CHAdeMO drivers the charging we've all publicly funded in the first place, then we as an industry have much bigger problems. There's also no consideration for the fact that this agreement adds planned infrastructure to places that already have been allocated more than makes sense. I understand why, given the geography of the IOUs, but the State is still obligated to consider these big picture elements.
I understand- others have reached the same conclusion. At this point, I happen to disagree. That's all. If NRG alone had announced intention to build this privatized network, fine; whatever I think of how they do it, they answer to their shareholders. It's the settlement framing, blessing by the State of NRG's business plan, and assertion that this is the best way to serve all EV drivers (let alone ratepayers) that continues to fail my sniff test.
But I continue to welcome any information that makes this deal smell better.
