In fact, the Hyundai/Kia folks have been complaining about exactly that with EA. Their cars charging speeds max out at like 80 kW - and even that is over a small portion of the charging curve before tapering starts. So they get stuck in the 125 kW tier. Apparently there is some sort of pricing agreement now, but still more expensive than the 75 kW tier.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Dc combo for USA port
- Thread starter Wkwjsrjal22
- Start date
In fact, the Hyundai/Kia folks have been complaining about exactly that with EA. Their cars charging speeds max out at like 80 kW - and even that is over a small portion of the charging curve before tapering starts. So they get stuck in the 125 kW tier. Apparently there is some sort of pricing agreement now, but still more expensive than the 75 kW tier.
Your first set of numbers are for charging rates in kW and that's what EA charges per minute at those rate bands (well, for the max your vehicle reports it can accept).
Your 2nd set of numbers is confusing. Are you talking about cents per kWh?
Also, at those 99, 69 and 25 cent/minute rates (which apply to CA and probably numerous other states), there's a $1 session fee.
If you subscribe to Pass+, per Pricing and membership for EV charging | Electrify America in CA, it's 70, 50 and 18 cents/minute for those power bands and there's no session fee. But, there's a $4 monthly fee.
I'm on Pass+ and although I paid $4 for my 1st month, they've been waiving the Pass+ monthly fee (Electrify America Waives Monthly Membership Fees During COVID-19 Crisis). However, they are going resume charging it on Sept 8th (I received the email from them). And yes, I have a suitable non-Tesla vehicle to charge on them.
Last edited:
Electrify America's 'Hyundai Select Plan' Addresses Pricing Issue
Electrify America Offers Kia Select Plan To Reconcile Kia Pricing Issue
They haven't done it in California yet. California has allowed per kWh pricing for many years already, possibly even before EA activated their first public charger.
Right, but they say that's their plan going off this:
Exclusive: Electrify America Will Transition To Pay By kWh Pricing, And More
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
It’s worse than that. You get binned based on the charging capability of your car, whether you come close to that speed or not. So if your car is “capable” of charging at 150kw, you pay a buck a minute even if you draw 10kw for the whole session.
EA’s pricing and user experience are a complete joke.
smatthew
Active Member
So being able to set a fake max charge rate in a CCS adapter would be very beneficial, right?
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
That would be interesting. Would essentially imply active electronics that overrode the signaling from the car, but an interesting thought.
It would be nice if you could specify the charge rate, at least until kWh billing is the norm. My SR+ spends an irritatingly long time at the low end of the expensive tier; if there is plenty of open stalls, I'd like the option of skipping over the 60-79kW range and drop down to 59kW.
Yes, but you would have to limit the actual charging to the rate you set as your "fake max charge rate". A flat charging curve just under the limit for an EA tier would have a clear benefit.
smatthew
Active Member
Since the charge rate is negotiated by the vehicle and the charger, a CCS adapter could easily say "I only accept 75kW." And that's all the charger would attempt to provide.
Even when billing is done by kWh, I suspect you'll still see different rates. Charging at a high rate means either big demand charges, or the station has to have batteries to even out the power usage. I suspect EA will keep some form of tiered pricing.
Without batteries at the station, one driver refueling at 350kW could trigger demand charges so high the station will probably lose money all month.
MXLRplus
Active Member
Demand based pricing is the bane of EVs.
If the government really wanted true "Green Policies" they would forbid demand based pricing for EV charging. EV DCFC consumes so little power from the grid that it's silly to punish them for faster speeds.
Perhaps in 2025 or 2030, they might need demand tiers for DCFC, but not in 2020.
If the government really wanted true "Green Policies" they would forbid demand based pricing for EV charging. EV DCFC consumes so little power from the grid that it's silly to punish them for faster speeds.
Perhaps in 2025 or 2030, they might need demand tiers for DCFC, but not in 2020.
Or we can just make chargers like this one the norm.
Up to 120kW vehicle output with <30kW grid draw. 240V Split phase or 120Y208V grid connections.
Plugshare - Arco AMPM - Lodi, CA
Wow! I've been talking about one of those kinds of things for years. I didn't know anyone actually made one. I've been suggesting that Tesla should easily be able to do this kind of thing for small two-stall Supercharger installations on these small state or U.S. highway routes that are off the interstate and maybe only see a couple of cars a day, but are still relatively important connections.
you sure about that? an 8 stall v3 supercharger could in theory, although highly unlikely, pull 2MW from the grid. That's probably about what, 200-250 housed worth of normal load? Onsite batteries constantly charging at lower rates to offset demand is the key, but obviously adds a lot of fixed cost.
No. V3 cannot do that. Each cabinet that serves 4 stalls can only pull 350kVA from the grid. 8 stalls can only pull 700kVA. Just because each car can pull up to 250kW, it doesn't mean all cars can simultaneously, even in theory. This data is from the actual nameplate on the cabinet.
MXLRplus
Active Member
You're talking about drawing a royal flush, not a realistic scenario. Onsite batteries increase power use. It's not a free lunch even if you don't consider capital costs. DCFC doesn't have a noticeable effect on the grid, and in the wild edge case that it might, demand tariff doesn't stop it. It just makes it more expensive to use electricity than gasoline.
Is that right? That seems like in a full cabinet scenario it's only marginally better than 2 v2 cabinets.
The cabinet also has a 500kW DC bus for batteries and sharing between cabinets.
It is what it is.
This is also true. Actually 575kW DC. However, without batteries, you still cannot exceed N x 350kVA grid draw from N number of V3 cabinets. I don't know if there are any DC connected batteries at public V3 sites. I'm pretty sure Kettleman and other sites of similar age that have Powerpacks all use AC connected batteries with the large Tesla inverter box between the batteries and the Supercharger cabinets. This allows them to reduce demand charges, not increase instantaneous Supercharger output.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
