-
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
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Whoa, the "coming soon " list has expanded from 27 to 55:
Welcome to Electrify America | Locations
There are now 5 California locations on the list too. Looks like all our collective hand wringing finally got these guys off their extended lunch break...
33 of the 55 are at Walmarts. Makes a certain amount of sense. Anybody going to Walmart is going to be spending 30 to 60 minutes there, get quite a bit of juice. Seems more like local charging though, unless the Walmarts are highway adjacent.
RT
Welcome to Electrify America | Locations
There are now 5 California locations on the list too. Looks like all our collective hand wringing finally got these guys off their extended lunch break...
33 of the 55 are at Walmarts. Makes a certain amount of sense. Anybody going to Walmart is going to be spending 30 to 60 minutes there, get quite a bit of juice. Seems more like local charging though, unless the Walmarts are highway adjacent.
RT
And if you go to the "Plug into the Present" website, you can sort available EVs by their mileage:
Plug into the Present
You may or may not be familiar with a manufacturer from California known as Tesla Motors...
Plug into the Present
You may or may not be familiar with a manufacturer from California known as Tesla Motors...
What? I doubt there are many EVs near that location in Oregon. In fact, it's barely in Oregon. It's far closer to Boise than any Oregon city of similar size. Oregon desperately needs CCS above 24kW on I-5. Ironically, I think VW contributed to the cost of those 24kW units too.
The California location that caught my eye as filling a current gap in charging infrastructure is Dunnigan, CA. Although, ChargePoint is planning a DCFC site across the street at the Chevron station. However, it will only be a single DCFC plus an L2. EVgo is also planning a DCFC down the road at the Pilot Travel Center with 2 DCFC units plus an L2. The ChargePoint and EVgo sites are partially funded by the California Energy Commission.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Baseless speculation, just what I expect from you.
Here is what we know: EA excluded Tesla from the beginning with legal language. You might ask yourself why that was included if Tesla would not have been interested in joining the party.
As to the question whether you are a shill, so far as I know you are not paid.
Nobody had any interest in including Tesla in the Dieselgate settlement - not the EPA, not CARB, certainly not VW. Tesla made it clear they were going out on their own, so they can lay in the bed they made. Tesla drivers won't care they are left out of this because Tesla is so far ahead anyway.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Good point. The I-84 corridor will need at least one or two more locations to connect that spot, between Ontario and Baker City, to the Portland area. That stretch of I-84 also includes significant elevation gains and strong headwinds along the Columbia River when westbound. Nobody is getting from this EA site to Portland without additional charging.
I don’t know why they built this location early but it is part of a string of stations being installed along I-84 on the eastern edge of Idaho leading from Seattle or Portland down to Salt Lake City.
One of the new spots on the “coming soon” list is Island City, OR which seems to be the next location on I-84 north from the T&T Country Store in Huntington, OR that is now open.
You’re welcome.
Tesla is not excluded by name. The VW/EA settlement allows for new standards-based charging designs to be supported in the future. If they were to go through the standardization process and publish their specs then it would, in theory, allow VW/EA to spend settlement funds on adding Tesla plugs to their sites. As a practical matter, it all seems unlikely to happen.
True!
@SageBrush, could you please supply a pointer to the EA legal language that excludes Tesla?
Thanks,
Alan
Thanks,
Alan
You need to go back to the original consent decree:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-mititrust/documents/2016-10-25_2l_cd.pdf
Here is the relevant section:
This was all discussed earlier in the thread. They SHALL HAVE the ability to service all non-proprietary connectors, hence the DCFCs being deployed all have CCS and at least one Chademo connector. Teslas connector is proprietary. So EA does not have to support Tesla connectors. As the second highlighted sections states: EA is not obligated to provide support for non-proprietary (Tesla) connectors.
In summary: EA does not have to support Tesla connectors. There is nothing preventing them from doing so if they wanted to, but there is nothing compelling them to do so, and given the cost there is no reason they would support Tesla connectors. So EA is not going to be deploying Tesla connectors on any of its DCFC sites.
RT
The legal language in the consent decree I posted above was written as part of the VW settlement. This language was put together by the court and CARB. EA had nothing to do with the verbiage in the consent decree, it was imposed on them. All EA documents and reports since then have described how they will conform to the consent decree.
RT
It’s not clear to me that EA could use settlement funds to pay for Tesla or other proprietary plugs although they could probably pay for it using non-settlement funds. All of their spending gets audited and only items that fit a definition spelled out in detail in a separate document are allowed to come from the settlement $$.
As far as I know it has not been published and may be considered to be confidential between EA and CARB (or EPA). I’ve been meaning to ask CARB about this but haven’t gotten around to it. This document is identified in the public settlement as the “creditable costs” document or some name like that.
Similar threads
