VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

[ChadS]

Most gas stations have multiple nozzles - regular, high octane, diesel. Charging stations could be the same and have multiple connectors, the hard part is finding a good location with sufficient power and parking.

A government-enforced standard would have some obvious benefits in terms of economies of scale, reducing consumer confusion, simpler stations, etc. But I am very concerned that the standard chosen would be the one with the best lobbyists, rather than the one that is best for consumers and future growth of the market.

Even if they try in earnest to pick the best standard, would they properly balance cost, ease of use, future charging speed improvements, safety, flexibility for various business models, backwards compatibility, and flexibility to accommodate unforeseen developments? At this point of market development I am not confident we are ready for a standard.

 

[RichardC]

Perhaps a dumb question... But shouldn't the government insist on standardizing supercharging stations, and even demand that all EV makers opt for the same standardized connectors? The comparison of course is with gas stations, where drivers tank the same gasoline, using the same nozzles.

Not at all a dumb question, the Ontario Government's Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario Program (EVCO) (which is a one-time competitive application-based grant program designed to cover the purchase and installation cost of public EV charging stations along major inter-city transportation corridors and in urban centres across the province) specifies that the applicants must comply with the following technical requirements. As would be expected the Program specifies the use of the open SAE and CHAdeMO standards (but the province has approved the Tesla HPWC for the home charging incentive program).

See: Electric Vehicle Chargers Ontario (EVCO) Program Guide

3.0 EVSE Technical Requirements
A guideline of minimum technical requirements that each EVSE supported under the Program would need to meet:

• The EVSE must have the ability for remote data acquisition, monitoring and control of the EVSE.
• Collected data at a minimum must include the number of unique charge events, the duration of each charge event, and the amount of electricity used.
• Data from the unit must be collected and reported in a non-proprietary format.
• The EVSE must provide open source communications and networking to enable the general public to remotely identify if the EVSE is in use, or available for use, including on a smart phone.
• The EVSE must use an open payment method (credit card, debit card, etc.) with flexibility to accommodate billing users by time, energy consumed and flat rate.
• Must be rated for outdoor operation by a nationally recognized testing laboratory CSA, ULC or other certification marks approved by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority.

In addition, Level 3 EVSEs must:

• Use a four-hundred eighty (480) volt, three (3) phase power input
• Contain at least 1 charge connector that is CHAdeMO compliant and 1 charge connector that is SAE J1772 Combo compliant.

Level 2 EVSEs Must:

• Use AC Input (208 to 240VAC) at 40 Amps minimum.
• Include a charge connector that is SAE J1772 compliant.
• The EVSE installation work at each EVSE Location must ‘rough in’ an appropriate level of capacity to support future demand and technology.

 

[ecarfan]

No, I don't think that the government should insist on standardized EV charging. It's too early in EV evolution to do that, and it will end up "dumbing down" the charging infrastructure. It's okay if there are different types of EV charging, they can compete and over the next decade those that are superior will hopefully win out. It's too early to decide which is "best", and with rapidly changing technology there is no way to predict which will be "best".

Given that cars are now Internet-connected computers on wheels (or at least the drivers are internet connected via smartphones) it is relatively easy for the driver (or the car, in the case of Tesla) to know where there are suitable charging stations and then plan a route based on that information. In the "old days" it was important for all gasoline stations to work the same way because the humans driving the cars could not possibly keep track of which stations would be suitable for their vehicles if stations weren't all the same. But now the humans and the vehicles can easily determine where there are suitable charging stations. Over the next several decades, as autonomous vehicles become the norm, the vehicle will figure out where to charge and the vehicle occupants won't have to spend a minute trying to figure it out.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

NRG's network in California would be a key cost input for this.

VW/BMW were THE key automakers backing the CCS in an attempt to delay/frustrate global Chademo rollout. (Not GM, Ford, Mercedes, etc). Unfortunately for CCS backers, 2 vehicles occurred that they underestimated.

1) Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (major fast charge capable car in EU)
2) Tesla Model S/X (major fast charge capable car in USA)

Due to an industry wide delaying tactic of using CCS versus Chademo, the industry squandered it potential to compete with Tesla SC. So is now relying on Too Big to Fail. GM, Ford, FCA, Mercedes, these all have significant government stakeholder/union issues. CCS is seen as a must not be allowed to fail solution.

VW (Audi,Porsche) and BMW are 2 of the 3 main manufacturers most at risk due to Tesla. So it is absolutely imperative that any network they fund combat Tesla and/or Chademo. However, Chademo has morphed into both a market standard, and an industry standard. So expect any rollout under settlement to provide equal backing for Chademo and CCS. How this affects Tesla SC? I don't know. Obviously Tesla SC network is the user model for how a network should be..

Somehow I suspect the Whitehouse's recent $4.5 billion loan guarantees are intended to mesh with the EPA/CARB settlement.

a cautionary tale ...
"'Blaming' drivers of the UK's most popular EV for wanting to charge their car."
Ecotricity blames £6 charge on Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs ‘clogging up’ network | Motoring Research

It's funny. Ecotricity says that the Outlander is a problem, when it's really showing that their model doesn't work if people actually want to use their cars to travel longer distances. Replace Outlanders with BEVs with the same usage and they'd still have had blocked chargers. And of course, those BEVs would have used more electricity. Lesson: charging must be as fast as technically possible.

 

[glenhurst]

The wording, as provided by RubberToe (thanks for all that analysis work, RubberToe) excludes "proprietary" connectors:



Is Tesla's SC connector considered proprietary? Actually, while SCs are better & faster, I'd be okay with a bunch of CCS/CHAdeMO combo chargers as long as they're maintained (which seems covered in the decree) and they continue to improve them (read, make them charge faster). They could even provide a Tesla CHAdeMO adapter at each charger. At $1.2B for the rest of the country, that works out to about 500 such chargers per state (assuming cost of $40K per charger) I'd like to see at least one such charger in every county in every state. That way, you're never more than 30-50 miles or so from the nearest charger.

That means that by 2025 there will be so many places to charge, and minimum range for EVs will likely be at least 250 miles per charge, and the inherent cheaper maintenance cost of EVs, that the picture of vehicles on the road will be quite different than it is today. I suspect that most people driving ICEs don't see it coming.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Most gas stations have multiple nozzles - regular, high octane, diesel. Charging stations could be the same and have multiple connectors, the hard part is finding a good location with sufficient power and parking.

A government-enforced standard would have some obvious benefits in terms of economies of scale, reducing consumer confusion, simpler stations, etc. But I am very concerned that the standard chosen would be the one with the best lobbyists, rather than the one that is best for consumers and future growth of the market.

Even if they try in earnest to pick the best standard, would they properly balance cost, ease of use, future charging speed improvements, safety, flexibility for various business models, backwards compatibility, and flexibility to accommodate unforeseen developments? At this point of market development I am not confident we are ready for a standard.

The business model issue is the one that's generally missed. We don't even yet know what will work. Right now the pure subscription+PPU models are losing money, and are depending on government and car manufacturer support. And Tesla's losing money as well, and is opaque enough that we have no clue whether the Supercharger model will actually work.

Ironically, Dieselgate could turn out to be incredibly bad for Tesla, as not only has it forced competitors to commit to electrification as governments turn their back on diesel for private vehicles, but in effect VW's spending will be equivalent to billions of dollars of government investment in charging infrastructure. For now, one thing that could help Tesla it's that the resulting infrastructure could be more of the same underpowered chargers that are only adequate for emergency back-up. However, this will be $2B in tranches, which means that VW will do it strategically, and will adjust their strategy over time.

 

[ecarfan]

Ironically, Dieselgate could turn out to be incredibly bad for Tesla, as not only has it forced competitors to commit to electrification as governments turn their back on diesel for private vehicles, but in effect VW's spending will be equivalent to billions of dollars of government investment in charging infrastructure.

Elon's point of view is that anything that gets more EVs in use and on the road is a good thing. I agree. This EV spending by VW, mandated by the government, is a good thing, on balance.

 

[Merrill]

The business model issue is the one that's generally missed. We don't even yet know what will work. Right now the pure subscription+PPU models are losing money, and are depending on government and car manufacturer support. And Tesla's losing money as well, and is opaque enough that we have no clue whether the Supercharger model will actually work.

Ironically, Dieselgate could turn out to be incredibly bad for Tesla, as not only has it forced competitors to commit to electrification as governments turn their back on diesel for private vehicles, but in effect VW's spending will be equivalent to billions of dollars of government investment in charging infrastructure. For now, one thing that could help Tesla it's that the resulting infrastructure could be more of the same underpowered chargers that are only adequate for emergency back-up. However, this will be $2B in tranches, which means that VW will do it strategically, and will adjust their strategy over time.

I do not see it as bad for Tesla, anything that promotes EV adoption is good.

 

[adiggs]

I don't just see anything promoting EV adoption as a generic good - I also see anything promoting EV adoption as a good thing for Tesla, as an investor. The issue today for Tesla isn't one of competition with other EV makers - the issue today is widespread knowledge of their existence, and that EV's are really an option.

The more the rest of the industry helps tackle the awareness and education, the more consumers there are in the market. I would much rather Tesla have 25% of a market where EVs are 10% of cars being sold, than 50% of a market where EV's are 1% of cars being sold.

And Tesla is the only company today that is investing and planning to be able to build 2.5% (~2M cars per year) of the world car market as EV's.

 

[TEG]

Gack. I have seen so many subsidized charging stations go in that aren't maintained, or have some overpriced pay structure so they don't get used.

Tesla has the best solution right now (quickest, most user friendly, best maintained), and seems to be in a position to dominate, or at least be the primary EV supplier (with the number of model 3 pre-orders showing that), so it would make sense if there was a way to use that VW fund to help further expand the supercharger network.

As soon as Tesla shows that another brand can use the supercharging stations then it is a competitive "standard" just like CHAdeMO or CCS. For now, it appears like a proprietary isolated standard, so I bet they would have trouble getting access to any of that money.

Here's hoping that Tesla opens up supercharging enough that they start getting the outside help they deserve to continue guiding the industry on large scale quick charging.

 

[thegruf]

I assume that as this is a punitive measure against VW for lying and cheating over emissions that there will be no VW related branding permitted on the charging stations, nor any related advertising elswhere referring to their "investment".

Otherwise you can see a situation where VW get all high and mighty about their green credentials and having one of the largest US charging infrastructures in the US and how they are helping to drive the ZEV mission.

Do hope your regulators are up to speed on this.
(our impotent lot are just complaining "it's not fair" ffs)

 

[GSP]

Gack. I have seen so many subsidized charging stations go in that aren't maintained, or have some overpriced pay structure so they don't get used.

Tesla has the best solution right now (quickest, most user friendly, best maintained), and seems to be in a position to dominate, or at least be the primary EV supplier (with the number of model 3 pre-orders showing that), so it would make sense if there was a way to use that VW fund to help further expand the supercharger network.

As soon as Tesla shows that another brand can use the supercharging stations then it is a competitive "standard" just like CHAdeMO or CCS. For now, it appears like a proprietary isolated standard, so I bet they would have trouble getting access to any of that money.

Here's hoping that Tesla opens up supercharging enough that they start getting the outside help they deserve to continue guiding the industry on large scale quick charging.

In order for Superchargers to become non-proprietary, Tesla would need to publish all of the specifications for the plug and inlet connectors and the communications protocol. They would also have to commit to publishing any future changes to these specifications. Just proving it is possible to add one automaker, or one charger manufacturer, via an NDA does not make supercharging an open standard.

Publishing the complete specifications allows any charger manufacturer or automaker to make a compatible car or charger. Tesla could still control what cars can use their Superchargers by reading the VIN and not allowing charging unless paid for by the car manufacturer.

GSP

 

[RubberToe]

I assume that as this is a punitive measure against VW for lying and cheating over emissions that there will be no VW related branding permitted on the charging stations, nor any related advertising elswhere referring to their "investment".

 

[RubberToe]

Here is an interesting excerpt from the "creditable cost" guidance, meaning what VW can use the $200 million for:

[URL=http://s882.photobucket.com/user/RubberToe420/media/ecost_zpskcbxrlsq.jpg.html][/URL]

So the settlement money can't be used to pay for electricity. At first I thought that this meant that VW itself was going to have to pay for the power. But then I wasn't sure, so I guess it could be that some sort of user charging might also be possible. If anyone knows for sure, please post the answer. If the charging is "free" (i.e. VW picks up the tab) that would be very good for promoting the infrastructure use.

RT

 

[cpa]

Here is an interesting excerpt from the "creditable cost" guidance, meaning what VW can use the $200 million for:



So the settlement money can't be used to pay for electricity. At first I thought that this meant that VW itself was going to have to pay for the power. But then I wasn't sure, so I guess it could be that some sort of user charging might also be possible. If anyone knows for sure, please post the answer. If the charging is "free" (i.e. VW picks up the tab) that would be very good for promoting the infrastructure use.

RT

RT,

If VW were to pick up the tab to pay for the electricity, it would be an accounting nightmare. It would be ripe for fraud. VW would argue for credit for accounting and reporting to be applied against the settlement. No thank you.

I think the installation plus a reserve for maintenance on deposit with whoever installs the units is satisfactory, Let the site owner or the charging company pay the utility bill. They already have the procedures in place.

 

[RubberToe]

Well, finally starting to get some news pertaining to this. Looks like some car charging companies are concerned that VW is going to shape the EV charging space, given the large amount of money they will be spending. They want an independent party appointed to oversee the entire process. The funny thing is, CARB is essentially the "independent overseer", at least in California. Not sure about the Federal $1.2 billion, but I believe the EPA is overseeing that distribution.

They want some of the money spent on a rebate program for employers, apartment owners and workplaces that install stations. Kind of makes sense from their perspective. If your company installs EV charging equipment, you would want some of the $800 million to be used by parties to install your equipment in their location.

Electric car charging station companies issue warning over VW settlement

I still have not heard any new information concerning when the "settlement date" that all the other dates on the timeline start from actually is. My e-mail to CARB asking for that was answered. But their answer was that "We are unable to answer specific questions regarding individual vehicles". I sent another e-mail just now, hope they are able to understand the question this time.

RT

 

[30seconds]

Well, finally starting to get some news pertaining to this. Looks like some car charging companies are concerned that VW is going to shape the EV charging space, given the large amount of money they will be spending. They want an independent party appointed to oversee the entire process. The funny thing is, CARB is essentially the "independent overseer", at least in California. Not sure about the Federal $1.2 billion, but I believe the EPA is overseeing that distribution.

They want some of the money spent on a rebate program for employers, apartment owners and workplaces that install stations. Kind of makes sense from their perspective. If your company installs EV charging equipment, you would want some of the $800 million to be used by parties to install your equipment in their location.

Electric car charging station companies issue warning over VW settlement

I still have not heard any new information concerning when the "settlement date" that all the other dates on the timeline start from actually is. My e-mail to CARB asking for that was answered. But their answer was that "We are unable to answer specific questions regarding individual vehicles". I sent another e-mail just now, hope they are able to understand the question this time.

RT

RT - Based on the terms of the settlement could VW use the first $200m / 30months almost exclusively on hydrogen and then expand EV infrastructure later? I'm think that they may want 30 months to get their EV production up and going.

 

[RubberToe]

CARB has final say in the VW plan for any given 30 month spending. VW needs to submit the plan to CARB, and then CARB can tell them to adjust the plan to CARB's liking. I really can't foresee VW trying anything like rolling out nothing but Hydrogen in the first tranche. We should be finding out pretty soon what the initial proposed VW plan contains. Stay tuned

RT

 

[RubberToe]

From the ARB FAQ:

 

[hiroshiy]

利利を矢をリラ利ラリれ等をりゃをリララリり利利りゃらや利利利利リラわゃりりりらさを利りをーわささややね