I think you will find that less than half of households will earn less than the median income just about anywhere. Isn't that just math?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You're thinking of mean income. Median by definition means 50% are below; 50% above.
The 50+ highway corridor locations for California are all 150 kW or 320 kW. The remaining 350 locations for California are metro community spots that wil contain a mix of 150 kW, 50 kW, and Level 2 depending upon location and type of location (parking garage, workplace, apartment building, retail, etc).
Nationwide, there will apparently be closer to 200 highway corridor locations but the non-California national draft plan with those details is being reviewed by EPA and hasn't been released yet like CARB released the California draft plan.
I wasn't able to join the CARB meeting webcast last Friday but I did watch the recorded video so you don't have to.
But just in case you have time to waste, the VW ZEV infrastructure draft plan discussion begins just before the 5 hour mark and runs until the end. The VW Electrify America COO answers questions during the last 30-40 minutes of the recording:
Cal-Span
"Highlights":
A CARB official gives an overview of VW's draft plan. The slides for the overview are available here:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2017/032317/17-3-9pres.pdf
The usual set of automaker consortium and fuel cell industry lobbyists put in a good word about the vital importance of technology neutrality (code-speak for fuel cells) and for forcing VW to spend money on hydrogen even in the first 2.5 year cycle where VW's draft plan is entirely focused on EV-charging. David Reichmuth, speaking for the Union of Concerned Scientists, also spoke up in favor of continued fuel cell spending.
At one point it becomes clear that board chair Mary Nichols has been having a series of private meetings with the VW Electrify America CEO to presumably twist his arm on fuel cell spending among other things. I got the impression that VW intends to stick with their draft plan and only spend on EV charging for the first 2.5 year investment cycle. Perhaps the fuel cell mania will moderate by 2020?
A long string of speakers who helped put together the LA green city bid explain with excruciating duplicity why Los Angeles should win over Sacramento or least become the 2nd green city that VW agreed to fund as part of their most recent 3.0 liter Diesel engine settlement.
Tesla, EVgo, GreenLots, and BTC (DC charger maker) spoke in favor of quickly approving VW's draft plan because they think it will help bootstrap the EV industry and there is lots of room for other non-VW investments. CARB staff said the initial VW spending will only provide 10% of the EV charging infrastructure needed by the state's 2020 goal to have 1 million EVs on the road.
ChargePoint did not speak. In the past CP has been sharply outspoken against the existing Appendix C settlement saying they feared being crowded out of the market by a VW monopoly. I have the impression that CP has been going around the country lobbying against utilities trying to install charging infrastructure. I wonder if this means they think they have a good chance at getting VW as a customer for their new DC charging product line.
Almost all of the board members spoke up about the importance of funding fuel cell infrastructure. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency just published model plans for how to implement carbon reduction targets needed by 2050 and they projected huge numbers of EVs and almost no use of "light vehicle" hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars.
There are constant references throughout by public commenters and board members about the vital importance of social engineering by requiring that 35% of the spending go towards economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and regions in California.
Almost nobody mentioned the importance of choosing infrastructure sites that are optimized for the convenience of most drivers with a nod towards safety, pleasant shops and restaurants. No, it seemed more important to choose a site located in a rundown low-rent neighborhood. Or at least one could interpret it that way.
I'm a political liberal and some of what was discussed makes sense but I overdosed on the level of political correctness permeating the room. The good news here is that VW has their own private business interests at stake and they ultimately control the placement of locations so hopefully they will be driven to make sensible choices.
But just in case you have time to waste, the VW ZEV infrastructure draft plan discussion begins just before the 5 hour mark and runs until the end. The VW Electrify America COO answers questions during the last 30-40 minutes of the recording:
Cal-Span
"Highlights":
A CARB official gives an overview of VW's draft plan. The slides for the overview are available here:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2017/032317/17-3-9pres.pdf
The usual set of automaker consortium and fuel cell industry lobbyists put in a good word about the vital importance of technology neutrality (code-speak for fuel cells) and for forcing VW to spend money on hydrogen even in the first 2.5 year cycle where VW's draft plan is entirely focused on EV-charging. David Reichmuth, speaking for the Union of Concerned Scientists, also spoke up in favor of continued fuel cell spending.
At one point it becomes clear that board chair Mary Nichols has been having a series of private meetings with the VW Electrify America CEO to presumably twist his arm on fuel cell spending among other things. I got the impression that VW intends to stick with their draft plan and only spend on EV charging for the first 2.5 year investment cycle. Perhaps the fuel cell mania will moderate by 2020?
A long string of speakers who helped put together the LA green city bid explain with excruciating duplicity why Los Angeles should win over Sacramento or least become the 2nd green city that VW agreed to fund as part of their most recent 3.0 liter Diesel engine settlement.
Tesla, EVgo, GreenLots, and BTC (DC charger maker) spoke in favor of quickly approving VW's draft plan because they think it will help bootstrap the EV industry and there is lots of room for other non-VW investments. CARB staff said the initial VW spending will only provide 10% of the EV charging infrastructure needed by the state's 2020 goal to have 1 million EVs on the road.
ChargePoint did not speak. In the past CP has been sharply outspoken against the existing Appendix C settlement saying they feared being crowded out of the market by a VW monopoly. I have the impression that CP has been going around the country lobbying against utilities trying to install charging infrastructure. I wonder if this means they think they have a good chance at getting VW as a customer for their new DC charging product line.
Almost all of the board members spoke up about the importance of funding fuel cell infrastructure. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency just published model plans for how to implement carbon reduction targets needed by 2050 and they projected huge numbers of EVs and almost no use of "light vehicle" hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars.
There are constant references throughout by public commenters and board members about the vital importance of social engineering by requiring that 35% of the spending go towards economically disadvantaged neighborhoods and regions in California.
Almost nobody mentioned the importance of choosing infrastructure sites that are optimized for the convenience of most drivers with a nod towards safety, pleasant shops and restaurants. No, it seemed more important to choose a site located in a rundown low-rent neighborhood. Or at least one could interpret it that way.
I'm a political liberal and some of what was discussed makes sense but I overdosed on the level of political correctness permeating the room. The good news here is that VW has their own private business interests at stake and they ultimately control the placement of locations so hopefully they will be driven to make sensible choices.
Last edited:
"David Reichmuth, speaking for the Union of Concerned Scientists, also spoke up in favor of continued fuel cell spending.", really? If so I am cancelling my support to Union of Concerned Scientists and I will let them know why.
I hate to say 'I told you so' so I won't. 
CARB has no valid basis for immediate spending on H2 fuel cell technology. The H2 car technology is not ready, the fuel costs are not ready, the CO2 byproduct levels are not ready, the costs are not under control, and EV technology is accelerating faster than H2 technology is. EV tech is X times better than H2 tech in 2017. It will be 3X times better than H2 in 2020.
CARB has no valid basis for immediate spending on H2 fuel cell technology. The H2 car technology is not ready, the fuel costs are not ready, the CO2 byproduct levels are not ready, the costs are not under control, and EV technology is accelerating faster than H2 technology is. EV tech is X times better than H2 tech in 2017. It will be 3X times better than H2 in 2020.
The video is available at the same cal-span link I gave earlier but I'll repeat it here. Reichmuth's comments are near the 6 hour and 41 minute mark. I believe his comments are consistent with positions he (and perhaps others) have taken on the UCS website.
Cal-Span
He explains his thinking here:
Fuel Cells vs Plug-ins: Both are Winners
He also links this UCS "fact sheet":
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/11/importance-bev-hfcev-fact-sheet.pdf
The State has already committed their funds to H2 infrastructure, but they can't get it built. The 3 stations closest to where I live and work were supposed to be open by mid-2016 but they still aren't even under construction yet. One of them is on their 3rd proposed site. First it was supposed to be in Cupertino near Stevens Creek & CA-85, then it was supposed to be in Los Altos near the Cupertino border at Foothill Exp. & Homestead Rd., now I see that it's proposed to be in Sunnyvale across the street from Fremont High School. Really, you want to build a hydrogen station across the street from a school with almost 2,000 students???I hate to say 'I told you so' so I won't.
CARB has no valid basis for immediate spending on H2 fuel cell technology. The H2 car technology is not ready, the fuel costs are not ready, the CO2 byproduct levels are not ready, the costs are not under control, and EV technology is accelerating faster than H2 technology is. EV tech is X times better than H2 tech in 2017. It will be 3X times better than H2 in 2020.
My point is that CARB should not be asking for VW to spend money on H2 infrastructure when they can't even spend the money they already allocated.
He is a funny guy.
Footnote 5 says H2 is competitive when it's made from wind or solar. No, it's lossy compared to lithium batteries, and it's NOT made from wind or solar.
He says H2 is superior for long range travel. Really.... Guess he didn't hear about what Tesla did.
He makes assumptions about H2 technology that are forward looking even 3 years after the paper was written and compares them to EV technology that was running in 2011. (urban only transportation)
Last edited:
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Jeff, thanks for the overview.
Very sad that political correctness overrides logic on new EV infrastructure ... welcome to California Liberalism
Very sad that political correctness overrides logic on new EV infrastructure ... welcome to California Liberalism
Before we pee all over CARB & H2 (something I, too, dislike subsidizing) let's not forget CARB's key role in bringing VW's misdeeds to light and ultimately "taking them down".
I have experienced similar frustration in Massachusetts with the MOR-EV program. The "optics" problems of assisting "expensive" EVs (namely, Teslas) that are purchased by "rich" people. The desire to fund more EVs in underprivileged areas... people who can't afford to waste time and money on a still-nascent technology and its infrastructure. Basically, they should all have Leafs and other limited EVs rather than Teslas that can actually one-for-one replace an ICE (although admittedly not for ALL use cases).
But I sure can't depend on the US EPA at this point to stand up and defend EVs and/or call automakers to account. I'm learning more about CARB through this (and other) threads, so I understand that CARB isn't perfect. And yet I think it has its value.
Alan
I have experienced similar frustration in Massachusetts with the MOR-EV program. The "optics" problems of assisting "expensive" EVs (namely, Teslas) that are purchased by "rich" people. The desire to fund more EVs in underprivileged areas... people who can't afford to waste time and money on a still-nascent technology and its infrastructure. Basically, they should all have Leafs and other limited EVs rather than Teslas that can actually one-for-one replace an ICE (although admittedly not for ALL use cases).
But I sure can't depend on the US EPA at this point to stand up and defend EVs and/or call automakers to account. I'm learning more about CARB through this (and other) threads, so I understand that CARB isn't perfect. And yet I think it has its value.
Alan
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
It was an independent lab, not CARB that discovered the emissions cheating by VW
How A Little Lab In West Virginia Caught Volkswagen's Big Cheat
Volkswagen was recently brought to its knees when scientists discovered the company had installed a device in its diesel-powered cars to fool emissions tests. Its stock price tanked, its reputation has been damaged and its CEO resigned on Wednesday.
So who made the discovery that sent the German car giant into a tailspin? A group of scientists at West Virginia University.
It was an independent lab, not CARB that discovered the emissions cheating by VW
How A Little Lab In West Virginia Caught Volkswagen's Big Cheat
Volkswagen was recently brought to its knees when scientists discovered the company had installed a device in its diesel-powered cars to fool emissions tests. Its stock price tanked, its reputation has been damaged and its CEO resigned on Wednesday.
So who made the discovery that sent the German car giant into a tailspin? A group of scientists at West Virginia University.
That's amazing. CARB had a huge party honoring their staff for catching VW. IIRC, they got bonuses and promotions.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It was actually The International Council on Clean Transportation which gave WVU a contract to test VWs.
Their motivation was to show the EU that you could have clean diesels by testing US "clean diesels". Of course, we know they didn't get the expected results and found that VW was cheating.
They turned their data over to CARB and EPA who ran with it.
It think CARB gets credit for playing hardball with VW and forcing an innovative (and expensive) settlement to promote EVs. They could have just rolled over and buried the cheat.
Yes, I suppose. CARB could have treated the VW fiasco like they have the H2 fiasco, but I think it's a different issue. One is a corporation behaving badly, and the other is corrupt bureaucrats and politicians behaving badly, so it's understandable why they don't punish anyone for the H2 CO2 emissions. We were told it was 100% clean, ZEV. But they lied to us. Then they rewarded themselves and the H2 lobbyists for successfully deceiving everybody.
Nobody at CARB today is in great risk of getting nailed to a cross by Romans. But someday they might have to go through a Seven Step Program as outlined by Dante.
Sorry I haven't kept up with the details of the plans -- so who pays for the electricity at these new facilities? VW is just paying for the infrastructure, right? I assume users are paying for the power, at the benefit of the power companies and whoever gets hired to collect the money from users. Is this where the ChargePoints are going to make out like bandits? No money for infrastructure, but get to make profit off of power sales with handling charges?
It was an independent lab, not CARB that discovered the emissions cheating by VW
How A Little Lab In West Virginia Caught Volkswagen's Big Cheat
Volkswagen was recently brought to its knees when scientists discovered the company had installed a device in its diesel-powered cars to fool emissions tests. Its stock price tanked, its reputation has been damaged and its CEO resigned on Wednesday.
So who made the discovery that sent the German car giant into a tailspin? A group of scientists at West Virginia University.
Oh, I quite agree, that lab was impressive.
From the lab, as best I can tell, the issue went to CARB, which pursued the issue doggedly.
If my wording made it seem that I thought that CARB had the only role, or even the single most important role, then I stand corrected.
Alan
Details of the national non-California plan are now available. Apparently, the national plan has been approved by the EPA. The California plan is pending approval later this month.
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/38726
VW press release is here:
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/464175
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/38726
VW press release is here:
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/464175
Similar threads
