TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance Passes in NYC

Discussion in 'North America' started by vgrinshpun, Jan 28, 2014.

  1. vgrinshpun

    vgrinshpun Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    PA
    The City Council of New York City has passed an ordinance in which it requires new parking lots to include provisions for the installation of electric vehicle wiring for 20% of the available spaces. This requires a minimum of a 1 inch conduit to these spaces for a minimum load requirement of 3.1 kW. The space will also have to meet the requirement to place a 3.1 kW cabinet/charging stations in these dedicated spaces, according to a release from NEMA.

    The bill, Int. No 1176, sets out the following rules:

    • Every new parking lot or garage in NYC has to install conduit and provide the electrical capacity for future EVSEs for 20% of parking spaces
    • Within two years, up to 2,000 parking spot are expected to be charger-ready
    • Within seven years, up to 5,000 parking spots in NYC will likely be charger-ready
    • End goal calls for 10,000 spots to be charger-ready
    • The building code required the conduit to be installed so that wire can be easily threaded at a later date (Inside EVs)

    http://ecmweb.com/news/electric-vehicle-charging-ordinance-passes-nyc?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ECMMostRecent+%28Electrical+Construction+%26+Maintenance%29&Issue=ECM-04_20140127_ECM-04_378&NL=ECM-04&cl=article_3_b&sfvc4enews=42&YM_RID=larry.ferguson%40wgint.com&YM_MID=1445461
     
  2. Electric700

    Electric700 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Florida, United States
    Very sensible move. I think there should be innovative regulation like this one in more places. Additionally, increasing subsidies for going the extra step to install chargers would be even better.
     
  3. ThosEM

    ThosEM Space Weatherman

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    I dunno. This seems misguided to me. I'd rather see a government mandate that auto service stations provide level 3 charging facilities, to help them get over that hump. Or perhaps that apartment buildings provide 10kW wiring or at least not oppose its installation by those wishing to charge at home at night.
     
  4. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,491
    Location:
    Maine
    As I see it, success for PEVs will significantly reduce the number of service stations, so it would seem counter-productive to put chargers there.

    Rather:
    - Support home charging, with laws like CA's on rented and managed accommodation; support on-street parking with constructive solutions to allow residents to have roadside chargers.
    - Support destination charging with clear, standardized EV parking rules, enforcement against ICEing and encouragement for cooperative charging; have reserved parking at park-and-ride facilities
    - Support emergency charging by having limited-use fast chargers installed on public property.
    - Support long-range BEV networks, proprietary and generic, by allowing open, competitive and reasonable installation in public facilities.

    I think the ordinance fits in with encouraging destination and home charging.
     
  5. ThosEM

    ThosEM Space Weatherman

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Annapolis, MD
    Agreed that the rate of cars seeking local fueling stations will be reduced, especially in residential areas. But the rate at which a station can refuel cars will also be significantly reduced, though less so the faster the charging becomes. That might even things out somewhat. Still there will be a need for both destination and highway service stations in the same locations where they currently exist, and many destinations are residential. So it seems to me that stations should hybridize, selling both gas and recharging. Electricity being everywhere, all it would take is for them to put in some electron pumps in place of some of the gas pumps, and then evolve the mix as the market dictates.

    Perhaps there are political issues with oil company loyalties on the part of even independent gas stations, but many of those companies make noises about being "energy" companies, so they should start walking the walk. It just seems to me that the deployment of numerous widely dispersed charge points, some in public parking areas, is a model predicated upon a low rate of charge that requires hours of parking. High power quick charge stations are significantly more expensive so they cannot be put everywhere, and they will function more like traditional service stations.

    We clearly need a mix, but I'm enough of a libertarian (ha!) to be suspicious of government regulation of how this develops. Tesla is showing that entrepreneurs can drive the market more powerfully than government efforts. At some point, Tesla will have to deal with the desirability of their superchargers to drivers of competing products, just as Nissan is having to put up with charging requests from Tesla drivers. Then we'll see where things go in terms of charging equipment interoperability and fees charged for power.
     
  6. N4HHE

    N4HHE Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Madison, AL
    I think it is wrong to legislate, "you must do this, you must do that." It is wrong to subsidize a favored industry, such as EV and EVSEs.

    Is far better to quit penalizing EVs and those who install EVSE. For instance allow submetering where one pays for power usage rather than flat one size fits all hourly rate. Get rid of zoning restrictions which might hinder construction of EVSE. Get rid of licensing restrictions which regulate who can operate an EVSE.

    When left to government you get arbitrary values which only serve to displease everyone. 3.1 kW? Really? Thats the kind of number which gets invented in committee where those who do not have to live by it convince themselves they are now educated and knowledgeable on the subject and "Thats all you need! Gee that was easy!" The same kind of thinking which gives us, "75 mile range is all you need! 99% of all driving are less than 75 miles per day and if you can fully charge at your destination then it now covers 99.9%!"

    And 20% of the space in new construction parking? That sounds excessive. Would be far better to make sure the operators of parking facilities can make a profit installing EVSEs than to ram them down their throats. That those who have EVSE will attract the more desirable affluent clientele ... And we have to do our part in shunning those who do not support our vehicles. Its the same sort of thing as when parking at the airport whether you pay more to park in the covered garage or less to park in the paved field outside.
     
  7. GSP

    GSP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,993
    I think this law does not require installation of EVSEs. Instead it just requires conduit, space for future EVSEs, and space for an electrical panel to feed them. Not a big cost burden, and it will really help reduce installation costs if or when EVSEs are installed.

    GSP
     
  8. mkjayakumar

    mkjayakumar Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Plano, TX
    3.3kW? On a Model S it is what about 10 miles an hour ?
     
  9. dsm363

    dsm363 Roadster + Sig Model S

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    18,235
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    This is a great concept. The cost of running empty conduit is probably 0.00001% of the cost of a multi-million dollar garage and future proofs the garage in the case EVs and PHEVs catch on. They should do this for new apartment/condo parking too. I don't understand the 3.1kW number either but maybe that was so they wouldn't install a conduit for 120V just to comply making it practically worthless? 10 hours of charging is a lot but usually long enough for a normal work day commute.
     
  10. miimura

    miimura Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,239
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    I'm guessing the 3.1kW number per space is primarily for calculating the total electrical capacity required for the site.
     
  11. vgrinshpun

    vgrinshpun Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    PA
    #11 vgrinshpun, Feb 3, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
    There are some regulations that are bureaucratic and void of sense, but others are very sensible and thoughtful. I think it is baseless and wrong to conclude that everything that comes from government regulations is bad. It seems wise to first study the ordinance (just three pages long) before arriving at sweeping conclusions. This particular is very thoughtful in general and very sound technically.

    Here is a quote from the ordinance that explains the intent:

    The Council finds that electric vehicles emit approximately 75% less carbon dioxide (CO2) than average vehicles. Pure battery electric vehicles do not emit tailpipe pollutants such as benzene and nitrogen oxide, which negatively impact city air quality and resident health. Providing for infrastructure to promote and support electric vehicle use will lead to improvement of the city’s air quality and reduce the city’s production of greenhouse gases.

    Electric vehicles require chargers, or Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSEs). The vast majority of parking facilities are not currently being built to accommodate electric chargers. For many parking facilities built without EVSE-readiness, adding more than a handful of chargers will require expensive retrofits. Building parking facilities to be ready for electric vehicles incurs minimal additional costs while helping avoid expensive new wiring later. This legislation does not require installing EVSEs, but requires that the building have electrical capacity to add EVSEs to up to 20% of newly created parking stalls as needed.

    The displeasure with regards to 3.1kW is due to misunderstanding of what it means.

    It is not intended as a size of future individual feed, it is intended only for sizing the future panel and its feed. This is consistent with how panels are routinely sized based on utilization factor for the equipment that is being fed from such panel. Since all equipment connected to the panel does not need 100 percent of power all the time, the utilization factor is used to estimate total demand. In this case the utilization factor is 0.3 - according to the ordinance each of the 20% of parking spaces have to be equipped with the raceway that provides minimum supply of 11.5 kVA (this is enough to fully feed Tesla Model S with a single 10kW charger). Assuming 0.8 power factor, 11.5kVA yields 9.2kW. The total power requirement for 10 parking spaces, for example, would be 10 x 9.2 x 0.3 = 30.7kW or 30.7 / 10 =3.1 kW per parking space.

    It is clear that this particular committee "invention" is well thought and technically sound, not arbitrary as you seem to suggest.

    I think that you are unfortunately totally misunderstanding this ordinance.

    It does not require anybody to install EVSE, power panel or wiring. It only requires dedicated space for future panel and installed conduit for future wiring. So upfront expense is really marginal, but very smart. In future, when the need arises, the owner of the parking lot can install the panel, wiring and EVSE. It is totally up to the owner of the parking lot how to monetize this added service (at some time in the future) - either by charging for installation, charging for use of the EVSE, or counting on additional business that installed EVSE can potentially bring.

    All of the above is clearly spelled out in this concise, well written ordinance. You can see it for yourself, just click the link in the original post and read through the ordinance - it is only three pages long. (Int. No 1176)
     
  12. miimura

    miimura Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,239
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    To me, this means that the electrical service for the property must be sized for the future EVSE load at the time of approval and permitting so that the main feed will support EVSEs in the future for the full 20% of spaces.
     

Share This Page