VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

[Jeff N]

What a bunch of PC bull ... 35% of the funding for underserved communities is complete nonsense

I suspect most of the impact of this on actual charging locations will be at the community charging level with multi-unit residential buildings, workplace, and shopping L2 240V units.

Some highway chargers may inherently qualify as part of this mix because they are in rural locations but I doubt that it will significantly influence their overall placement.

 

[McRat]

I suspect most of the impact of this on actual charging locations will be at the community charging level with multi-unit residential buildings, workplace, and shopping L2 240V units.

Some highway chargers may inherently qualify as part of this mix because they are in rural locations but I doubt that it will significantly influence their overall placement.

I doubt poor people think it's a great idea to park a $30k EV overnight on the street in Oakland. Or quick charge for 40 minutes at 1 am in South Central. And doubt that meth heads understand the $5 worth of copper they can gut out of a charger is not in their best interests.

Out of $200 million, 1/3 will actually be spent towards highway DCFC, with up to 1/3 of those placements in areas of high risk for motorists who loiter.

We were conned. Again. It's July 2017, and not a damn thing has been done but pork barreling, graft, and committee meetings. Money has been spent, just not on anything but government and consultant (usually ex-government or family) wages.

 

[Jeff N]

Out of $200 million, 1/3 will actually be spent towards highway DCFC, with up to 1/3 of those placements in areas of high risk for motorists who loiter.

I doubt that the highway placements will be any riskier than Tesla's highway placements.

Since California is getting a disproportionate amount of the overall settlement it will still end up with better highway corridor coverage than other states.

Even within the "disadvantaged" census tracts being used to guide investments there will be a mix of residential and business sites and are better suited for community charging than others.

I'm happy that the plan appears to be on track for imminent approval. Not much has otherwise really changed from the original plan other than the addition of Fresno to the 5 other CA community charging metro areas and some minor redirects of public outreach funding.

 

[RubberToe]

DOH!!! I'm such an idiot. Not only is Sacramento the Green City of Tomorrow, 90% of Californians approved of the decision.

35% of the monies must be spent 'disadvantaged' communities, and $75 million will be used to actually put in DCFC sites on freeways.

San Jose apparently is now considered a Disadvantaged Community.

Once again, our good friend @McRat is spewing mis-information in an ongoing campaign to discredit anything and everything being done by CARB, VW and the State of California. Please see subsequent and more accurate posts from poster @Jeff N for a clearer picture of what the CARB approval means.

I'll take this opportunity to show why McRat is incorrect...

Here is the exact wording from the supplemental plan that CARB is going to approve Thursday. In the quote below, you see how VW states that their spending does not need to go to disadvantaged communities:

So no, the VW spending earmarked for "Community Charging", which is $89 million total, does not need to be spent in "disadvantaged" communities.

If you actually read the Supplemental Plan, you will see that there is a BIG difference between the two concepts of "disadvantaged communities" and "underserved communities". The former has a lot to do with income, but the latter has nothing to do with income. Underserved is based on to what extent the projected number of EVs sold in a given area exceeds the current number of chargers available in that area. That is the criteria VW will be using for the placement of the community chargers. Here is where that is described in the Supplemental Plan:

VW later goes on to describe how they will include census tracts from low income communities in a "significant percentage" of their community charging deployments:

And section 4.7 sums it up nicely, where they discuss: 1) underserved, 2) disadvantaged, and 3) low income communities, and state that 35% of the community investments may very well end up in disadvantaged communities, but that they do not guarantee this...

I would encourage everyone participating in the thread to read through both the original and supplemental plans before pulling out the pitchforks based on uninformed and incorrect inflammatory posts meant only to discredit all parties involved in the process.

It is not in VWs best interest, as an EV producer, to intentionally waste this huge amount of money, when they will be one of the beneficiaries of it by being able to sell more EVs. It is not in CARB's best interest to force VW to spend money deploying infrastructure that would not be as useful as possible, both now and into the foreseeable future. This is precisely why CARB is going to approve the VW spending plan on Thursday (7-27-17), and we can get back on track to getting chargers installed and used.

And BTW, there will be $75 million spent on DC fast charging deployment, with 50+ stations averaging 5 plugs each. The above discussion was primarily concerning the $89 million allocated for community charging, which will be 350+ locations and 2,000 chargers.

In summary:
$89 million community charging
$75 million DC fast charging
$20 million for education
$16 million for ride and drive events and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$200 million first 30-month period

Back to reality now...

RT

 

[SageBrush]

Thanks, RT
Still opaque to me, but I'll withhold an opinion until we see actual dispersal.

I'm sorry to see $1.5M per DCFC station -- that is just waaay too expensive.
They would have been much better off sub-contracting to Tesla with the provision that the stations include both Tesla and CCS access.

 

[McRat]

Let's observe action. I've been right about a few things. In particular, the small % of funding towards actual infrastructure critical to EV adoption (DCFC highway corridors).

California would delay the plan for pork. Wetting of the Beaks.

Sacramento would be the Green City Or Else.

Sacramento would delay the Corridors.

I did not fully anticipate the elimination of the EV purchase incentive though.

There is something we cannot see going on. Normally California is a leader in Green Tech, but now they are stalling it. There is always a reason, and it's always money. Usually the kind that lines the pockets of Jerry and Friends.

 

[FlatSix911]

Once again, our good friend @McRat is spewing mis-information in an ongoing campaign to discredit anything and everything being done by CARB, VW and the State of California. Please see subsequent and more accurate posts from poster @Jeff N for a clearer picture of what the CARB approval means.

I'll take this opportunity to show why McRat is incorrect...

Here is the exact wording from the supplemental plan that CARB is going to approve Thursday. In the quote below, you see how VW states that their spending does not need to go to disadvantaged communities:

So no, the VW spending earmarked for "Community Charging", which is $89 million total, does not need to be spent in "disadvantaged" communities.

If you actually read the Supplemental Plan, you will see that there is a BIG difference between the two concepts of "disadvantaged communities" and "underserved communities". The former has a lot to do with income, but the latter has nothing to do with income. Underserved is based on to what extent the projected number of EVs sold in a given area exceeds the current number of chargers available in that area. That is the criteria VW will be using for the placement of the community chargers. Here is where that is described in the Supplemental Plan:

VW later goes on to describe how they will include census tracts from low income communities in a "significant percentage" of their community charging deployments:

And section 4.7 sums it up nicely, where they discuss: 1) underserved, 2) disadvantaged, and 3) low income communities, and state that 35% of the community investments may very well end up in disadvantaged communities, but that they do not guarantee this...

I would encourage everyone participating in the thread to read through both the original and supplemental plans before pulling out the pitchforks based on uninformed and incorrect inflammatory posts meant only to discredit all parties involved in the process.

It is not in VWs best interest, as an EV producer, to intentionally waste this huge amount of money, when they will be one of the beneficiaries of it by being able to sell more EVs. It is not in CARB's best interest to force VW to spend money deploying infrastructure that would not be as useful as possible, both now and into the foreseeable future. This is precisely why CARB is going to approve the VW spending plan on Thursday (7-27-17), and we can get back on track to getting chargers installed and used.

And BTW, there will be $75 million spent on DC fast charging deployment, with 50+ stations averaging 5 plugs each. The above discussion was primarily concerning the $89 million allocated for community charging, which will be 350+ locations and 2,000 chargers.

In summary:
$89 million community charging
$75 million DC fast charging
$20 million for education
$16 million for ride and drive events and operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
$200 million first 30-month period

Back to reality now...

RT

RT, I am afraid that you have again proved our point and confirmed our concerns about the low income requirements.
In fact, your summary indicates that 35% is just a minimum and more may be invested (but not guaranteed)!

 

[mspohr]

RT, I am afraid that you have again proved our point and confirmed our concerns about the low income requirements.
In fact, your summary indicates that 35% is just a minimum and more may be invested (but not guaranteed)!

View attachment 237289

What's the problem with giving low-income and disadvantaged areas access to EV charging?
Are EVs only for the rich?
Tesla is not the only EV. There are lots of affordable EVs (especially used Leafs and Volts).

 

[McRat]

What's the problem with giving low-income and disadvantaged areas access to EV charging?
Are EVs only for the rich?
Tesla is not the only EV. There are lots of affordable EVs (especially used Leafs and Volts).

People do not need charging (except for Frankenstein's Monster), cars do. You base your studies on EV charging placement based on where EVs are, and where they cannot reach.

A Leaf or Volt is affordable to you, but low-income people aren't buying as many $20k+ cars.

Heck, even California acknowledged this already. They stipulate a family of 4 must have a net income of over $73k to be considered an average EV buyer. Lower than that? You get extra incentives.

However, much of this money is unclaimed. Families under $73k after deductions do not want EVs very much.

It really depends on your goals:

A) More EV miles, more EV sales, more duties EVs can perform.

B) Entitlements need to include EVs as part of the package.

 

[TEG]

Around where I live (in California) a lot of bargain car shoppers have been leasing EVs like LEAF or Fiat 500e because the lease rates were so attractive and the costs to operate are so low. The tax incentives are factored into the lease rates, so I think it ends up being in a lower price segment than the MSRP would suggest.

$99/month leases are seen sometimes.
Lease a NEW Nissan LEAF for only $99 per month from Fontana Nissan

There are also free charging programs that make it even more affordable.
Nissan No Charge to Charge | EVgo

 

[McRat]

Around where I live (in California) a lot of bargain car shoppers have been leasing EVs like LEAF or Fiat 500e because the lease rates were so attractive and the costs to operate are so low. The tax incentives are factored into the lease rates, so I think it ends up being in a lower price segment than the MSRP would suggest.

$99/month leases are seen sometimes.
Lease a NEW Nissan LEAF for only $99 per month from Fontana Nissan

Sales numbers do not lie. Fiat 500e's and Leafs often have 'suicide' leasing to move stock. $79 for a 500e.

However, they are not selling as well as cars without it. Not to the rich, middle, or lower class.

The Leaf is far cheaper to lease than the Bolt or Volt, and it's cheaper to buy. Then why doesn't it win in the showroom?

 

[McRat]

I do get a kick out of the theory behind Lower Income Larger Rebates, even if it hasn't worked.

"If you pay more taxes, you should get less from your government. It's only fair that you are punished for not dodging your taxes and honestly declaring all your income without loopholes."

Trust me, somebody will buy a Tesla cash using the Low Income program if they haven't already. Just because you tell the government you don't make any money, doesn't mean you're not wealthy.

Maxine Waters probably qualifies for Model X P100D trimmed out and low income.

 

[mspohr]

I do get a kick out of the theory behind Lower Income Larger Rebates, even if it hasn't worked.

"If you pay more taxes, you should get less from your government. It's only fair that you are punished for not dodging your taxes and honestly declaring all your income without loopholes."

I don't think you understand how taxes work.

 

[mspohr]

People do not need charging (except for Frankenstein's Monster), cars do. You base your studies on EV charging placement based on where EVs are, and where they cannot reach.

A Leaf or Volt is affordable to you, but low-income people aren't buying as many $20k+ cars.
.

This reminds me of the fool looking for his keys under the streetlight because the light is better there.
You put charging where you want people to adopt EVs, not where they already are.
Used Volts and Leafs and 500es are going for less than $10,000 which is what low income people spend on cars. If they had access to charging, they could buy a used Leaf and cut their cost of commuting to their minimum wage job. Win win!

 

[FlatSix911]

What's the problem with giving low-income and disadvantaged areas access to EV charging?
Are EVs only for the rich? Tesla is not the only EV. There are lots of affordable EVs (especially used Leafs and Volts).

Do you believe in a free market economy or should CARB decide where to place EV charging stations?
Do you support the California Train to no-where or the Musk backed Hyperloop ? Regulation vs. Innovation?

 

[McRat]

I don't think you understand how taxes work.

I absolutely understand how taxes are supposed to work.

Everybody chips in for the common necessities for a civilization. Roads, public safety, common defense, courts, etc.

Because taxes are on a percentage, those who work more, pay more. Because they have more invested in the community.

Which part of that is wrong?

 

[mspohr]

Sales numbers do not lie. Fiat 500e's and Leafs often have 'suicide' leasing to move stock. $79 for a 500e.

Then why doesn't it win in the showroom?

Because low income people don't have a place to charge?
Maybe that's why CARB wants VW to put charging stations in low income areas.

 

[McRat]

Because low income people don't have a place to charge?
Maybe that's why CARB wants VW to put charging stations in low income areas.

Let's see how it works. Giving them bigger EV discounts had no effect, even when Volts and PHEVs are options.

When I was poor we lived first in projects, then a rented house. Most families had 0-1 cars, nothing new except Beetles. Buses were transportation.

 

[mspohr]

Let's see how it works. Giving them bigger EV discounts had no effect, even when Volts and PHEVs are options.

When I was poor we lived first in projects, then a rented house. Most families had 0-1 cars, nothing new except Beetles. Buses were transportation.

I know. You pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and all of your success is due to your brilliant intellect and you had no help along the way.
Well, others are not as fortunate and you have a civic responsibility to help them.

 

[mspohr]

I absolutely understand how taxes are supposed to work.

Everybody chips in for the common necessities for a civilization. Roads, public safety, common defense, courts, etc.

Because taxes are on a percentage, those who work more, pay more. Because they have more invested in the community.

Which part of that is wrong?

So, why are you whinging about paying taxes to help others?