Biden administration wants to standardize electric vehicle charging, like gas stations

[ElectricIAC]

As I said earlier:

If the chargers are free to use, there is no incentive to repair them when they break down.

I’ve seen them down and I’ve also seen them being worked on.

 

[Earl]

That's great. Maybe they're getting better.

 

[CyberGus]

As I said earlier:

If the chargers are free to use, there is no incentive to repair them when they break down.

Rest-stop toilets are free, and they work fine

oh wait

 

[TunaBug]

As I said earlier:

If the chargers are free to use, there is no incentive to repair them when they break down.

I don't think the problem is about free chargers at rest stops. If they're government run then incentive to fix them is provided for by law, but unfortunately the work is done either by government employees that don't give a crap, or by a government contractor whose profit model is to charge as much as possible and do as little as possible.

I would be all for charging at rest stops, but I would want to first remove the restrictions that rest stops cannot have commercial business at them. Then auction off the right to install & run chargers (similar to how the FCC auctions spectrum), so that the chargers can be owned and maintained by an entity who has a financial incentive.

 

[CyberGus]

I don't think the problem is about free chargers at rest stops. If they're government run then incentive to fix them is provided for by law, but unfortunately the work is done either by government employees that don't give a crap, or by a government contractor whose profit model is to charge as much as possible and do as little as possible.

I would be all for charging at rest stops, but I would want to first remove the restrictions that rest stops cannot have commercial business at them. Then auction off the right to install & run chargers (similar to how the FCC auctions spectrum), so that the chargers can be owned and maintained by an entity who has a financial incentive.

There are legitimate business concerns surrounding the commercialization of public rest stops. But there's an existing carve-out for "vending machines", and I'm pretty sure an "electron dispenser" would plausibly fit that category.

 

[TunaBug]

There are legitimate business concerns surrounding the commercialization of public rest stops. But there's an existing carve-out for "vending machines", and I'm pretty sure an "electron dispenser" would plausibly fit that category.

Good point. And even if the electron dispenser doesn't fit that category, I would hope that the presence of one carve-out would make it easier to add another one.

 

[TunaBug]

Edit: since I didn’t see it in the OP here is the link to the full text of the proposed rule

Thank you @lynyrdM! For those who haven't clicked on that link, you might try it. You'll note that this is not a final ruling: this is a "Notice of proposed rulemaking". Page 2 has the addresses where you can send your feedback. Don't forget that suggestions to the people writing the rules has the potential to change things, whereas internet forums are, as far as this is concerned, just a lot of hot air.

 

[e of pi]

The FHWA proposes requirements to standardize the communication to consumers of price and availability of each charging station. Specifically outlined in the proposed regulation, States would be required to ensure that basic charging station information (such as location, connector type, and power level), real-time status, and realtime price to charge would be available free of charge to third-party software developers through application programming interface. The FHWA believes these requirements would enable effective communication with consumers about available charging stations and help consumers make informed decisions about trip planning and when and where to charge their EVs. The FHWA also proposes requirements for public transparency when EV charging prices are to be set by a third party. The FHWA believes that this will protect the public from price gouging.

(page 8-9)

This cost/map data would be nice to have...

Section 680.106(c) proposes a requirement that DCFCs connect and communicate with EVs through an industry standard charging port type called the Combined Charging System (CCS). The CCS port is a non-proprietary, accepted standard port in North America developed and endorsed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The CCS connectors are proposed for all DCFCs to accommodate a baseline of vehicles and to accommodate use of adapters that will provide EV charging for all vehicles. The CCS ports represent the most common port type used across all manufacturers of new EVs today...Section 680.106(c) would further provide for additional flexibility for the provision of charging ports after the aforementioned CCS requirement has been met. This includes adding permanently attached proprietary connectors to DCFCs.

p30

Each DCFC charging port must have a permanently attached Combined Charging System (CCS) Type 1 connector and must charge any CCS compliant vehicle. For NEVI projects using FY22 funds, one or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached CHAdeMO connector (see www.chademo.com). Each AC Level 2 charging port must have a permanently attached J1772 (incorporated by reference, see § 680.120(d)(1)) connector and must charge any J1772-compliant vehicle. One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector.

p67-68

So it sounds like the answer is "must have permanent CCS cords, may have other proprietary cords". If I'm reading it right, FY22 funds may go towards also installing Chademo or proprietary plugs after the minimum of 4 independent >150 kW CCS plugs is met, but apparently only if that stall is also equipped with a permanent CCS cord? So two-cord with TPC and CCS is OK, two-cord with CCS and Chademo is OK, three cord with CCS, Chademo and TPC would be OK is such a thing exists, but basically you have to have a permanent CCS cord.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

(page 8-9)

This cost/map data would be nice to have...

p30

p67-68

So it sounds like the answer is "must have permanent CCS cords, may have other proprietary cords". If I'm reading it right, FY22 funds may go towards also installing Chademo or proprietary plugs after the minimum of 4 independent >150 kW CCS plugs is met, but apparently only if that stall is also equipped with a permanent CCS cord? So two-cord with TPC and CCS is OK, two-cord with CCS and Chademo is OK, three cord with CCS, Chademo and TPC would be OK is such a thing exists, but basically you have to have a permanent CCS cord.

Yes, 4 150kW+ CCS and then anything goes.
Although really 1 or more CHAdeMO is bad. It should be a rule that if another cord is included there must be a minimum of 2.

Based on the overall rules, Tesla's not going to get any Federal funds without making some changes. Non-network payment, communications and reporting would currently be a barrier.

But overall, it's pretty obvious stuff. If there's anything really bad, it could be ending up with excessive technician certification requirements.

 

[e of pi]

Yes, 4 150kW+ CCS and then anything goes.
Although really 1 or more CHAdeMO is bad. It should be a rule that if another cord is included there must be a minimum of 2.

"Anything goes" but each funded DCFC must have a CCS cord. So if Tesla wanted to take money for all stations at a 10-stall Supercharger buildup, they'd have to have 10 dual-cord stations with CCS/TPC.

 

[Mockingbird]

(page 8-9)

This cost/map data would be nice to have...

p30

p67-68

So it sounds like the answer is "must have permanent CCS cords, may have other proprietary cords". If I'm reading it right, FY22 funds may go towards also installing Chademo or proprietary plugs after the minimum of 4 independent >150 kW CCS plugs is met, but apparently only if that stall is also equipped with a permanent CCS cord? So two-cord with TPC and CCS is OK, two-cord with CCS and Chademo is OK, three cord with CCS, Chademo and TPC would be OK is such a thing exists, but basically you have to have a permanent CCS cord.

"Anything goes" but each funded DCFC must have a CCS cord. So if Tesla wanted to take money for all stations at a 10-stall Supercharger buildup, they'd have to have 10 dual-cord stations with CCS/TPC.

Reading between the lines, this is to prevent what Tesla did in Canada, which is to install 1 x 50 kW CCS + 4 x 250 kW TPC and receive the government's money.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

There are legitimate business concerns surrounding the commercialization of public rest stops. But there's an existing carve-out for "vending machines", and I'm pretty sure an "electron dispenser" would plausibly fit that category.

But there is also concern that access to those rest stops could be a commercial advantage.

The UK suffered for years with Ecotricity getting a monopoly at Motorway services (traval plazas/rest areas), especially when they made a bad choice of unreliable CCS chargers that they couldn't recover from.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Reading between the lines, this is to prevent what Tesla did in Canada, which is to install 1 x 50 kW CCS + 4 x 250 kW TPC and receive the government's money.

No reading between the lines is necessary. They're just setting a minimum standard of what they want. What they want includes every charger having CCS and serving up a decent amount of power (150kW+).

What they would be doing would also avoid repeating the mistake they allowed from the ElectrifyAmerica settlement. ElectrifyAmerica were able to put in crappy 1-charger CHAdeMO support that was no better than the old EVGo charging stations in my state, and then say they were stopping because nobody used them. Well, duh.

 

[STS-134]

As I said earlier:

If the chargers are free to use, there is no incentive to repair them when they break down.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a local mall that has about 15 Tesla WC. I got there and about half of the spaces were open! I'd never been able to use them before, and I drove my PHEV and not my Tesla but I was carrying my TeslaTap adapter. I pulled into a space and plugged in, and nothing happened. Eventually, I realized that half of the spaces were empty because the EVSEs were out of order. And since the mall doesn't get revenue from those EVSEs, they clearly do not care if they work or not.

 

[ElectricNerd]

EVgo is installing 4 new chargers in the parking lot of the gym I go to. They are still working on it as of today but I drove by them slowly to see if they by any chance had a Tesla charging handle on any of them. I know we have a CCS adapter but I don't like the thought of it costing me $300+ and I don't understand why Tesla doesn't already offer it in the US.

 

[srs5694]

So it sounds like the answer is "must have permanent CCS cords, may have other proprietary cords". If I'm reading it right, FY22 funds may go towards also installing Chademo or proprietary plugs after the minimum of 4 independent >150 kW CCS plugs is met, but apparently only if that stall is also equipped with a permanent CCS cord? So two-cord with TPC and CCS is OK, two-cord with CCS and Chademo is OK, three cord with CCS, Chademo and TPC would be OK is such a thing exists, but basically you have to have a permanent CCS cord.

The bit you quoted explicitly mentioned CHAdeMO as an option in addition to CCS, but makes no mention of Tesla connectors. It doesn't explicitly disallow Tesla connectors, but given that it does explicitly mention CHAdeMO, I could see some unfriendly bureaucrat or judge denying Tesla funds for dual-port CCS/Tesla Superchargers because of that omission. I'm not saying that's likely -- it's certainly not how I'd read the regulation if I were in charge of interpreting it -- but it's an ambiguity that could cause problems. That said, as I understand it, this regulation is still in draft form, not finalized, and I'm sure Tesla's lawyers and lobbyists are all over it, so if it's likely to be an issue they'll push hard to fix it. Also, IANAL, so I may be seeing problems where there are none.

 

[e of pi]

The bit you quoted explicitly mentioned CHAdeMO as an option in addition to CCS, but makes no mention of Tesla connectors. It doesn't explicitly disallow Tesla connectors, but given that it does explicitly mention CHAdeMO, I could see some unfriendly bureaucrat or judge denying Tesla funds for dual-port CCS/Tesla Superchargers because of that omission. I'm not saying that's likely -- it's certainly not how I'd read the regulation if I were in charge of interpreting it -- but it's an ambiguity that could cause problems. That said, as I understand it, this regulation is still in draft form, not finalized, and I'm sure Tesla's lawyers and lobbyists are all over it, so if it's likely to be an issue they'll push hard to fix it. Also, IANAL, so I may be seeing problems where there are none.

"One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector."

 

[Mockingbird]

What they would be doing would also avoid repeating the mistake they allowed from the ElectrifyAmerica settlement. ElectrifyAmerica were able to put in crappy 1-charger CHAdeMO support that was no better than the old EVGo charging stations in my state, and then say they were stopping because nobody used them. Well, duh.

I want to know what is it that you like so much about CHAdeMO that you keep bringing it up.

Also, Electrify America isn't required to support CHAdeMO at all.

 

[Mockingbird]

The bit you quoted explicitly mentioned CHAdeMO as an option in addition to CCS, but makes no mention of Tesla connectors. It doesn't explicitly disallow Tesla connectors, but given that it does explicitly mention CHAdeMO, I could see some unfriendly bureaucrat or judge denying Tesla funds for dual-port CCS/Tesla Superchargers because of that omission. I'm not saying that's likely -- it's certainly not how I'd read the regulation if I were in charge of interpreting it -- but it's an ambiguity that could cause problems. That said, as I understand it, this regulation is still in draft form, not finalized, and I'm sure Tesla's lawyers and lobbyists are all over it, so if it's likely to be an issue they'll push hard to fix it. Also, IANAL, so I may be seeing problems where there are none.

Yes, it does.

One or more DCFC charging port(s) may also have a permanently attached proprietary connector.

 

[STS-134]

I want to know what is it that you like so much about CHAdeMO that you keep bringing it up.

Also, Electrify America isn't required to support CHAdeMO at all.

Oh yes they are, at least in California. California Air Resources Board denied them permission to discontinue it at new sites.