Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

VW Fallout: $2.0 Billion for ZEV Infrastructure Buildout

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
With the new administration coming in, is there any way VW will be able to weasel their way out of the non-CARB portion of the settlement if the EPA won't hold their feet to the fire? Could the money be spent on something other than building out EV charging stations? Could VW lobby to have the implementation delayed?
I suppose anything is possible but I really doubt the judge would allow a final settlement to be fundamentally revisited. I think (although I'm not sure) that the final decree is technically issued by the court. I suppose VW could violate it and Trump Justice could look the other way and decline to challenge it in court but I think that's too brazen for even a Trump Justice Dept even though I fully expect the White House itself to do crazy things.

As long as VW has to spend the $$ I think it is in their own interest to spend it on EV highway corridor charging to help them fend off Tesla from their premium car brand markets.
 
It is in everyone's interest to get VW's money to pay for destination charging that isn't happening w/o significant injection of capital. Think about all the apartment/condo parking areas, the government parking areas, and so forth. There's a lot of J1772's that can be installed that benefits all EVs. Imagine if nearly every hotel and motel parking lot had 2 to 20 J1772's. Every convention center, amusement park, and retail mall had even 1% of their parking spaces with J1772's.

Focus on CCS is a misapplication of this money from CARB/CA/US perspective. 90-95% of all energy for an EV should be delivered through destination charging, especially with steerable demand to leverage availability of wind and/or solar. DCFC can actually make the duck curve worse... since people will want all that energy at that moment, and that means the height of the evening power requirements. Think of how much less you would use DCFC if you pretty much always had a L2 AC EVSE available where your car sits at work, at home, at the hotel, or anywhere it is parked for 4+ hours. That infrastructure cost needs to be paid for mass adoption of EVs.
 
Interesting article on the autonews website concerning the settlement funds:

VW can use diesel settlement as revenue opportunity

From the article: EPA enforcement chief Cynthia Giles said “nothing” in the consent decree prohibits VW “from obtaining revenue” from projects that receive that funding.

I have to agree with this. Presumably the charging stations that VW installs could be set up for billing, with VW receiving the proceeds from the billing.

This was in a letter that was a response to lawmakers questions. She also has a blog post that she wrote, and that blog post is linked in the article and can be found here:

Advancing Public Health Protections In Our Case Against Volkswagen

A House hearing on December 1st will look into how the EPA plans on overseeing the spending. This is basically again trying to figure out how the entire process will work, as we have been trying to do here by parsing the verbiage of the consent decree.

Now taking a look at the EPA blog post. Here is her paragraph that sums up what she believes the process entails (my bolding):

EPA’s role in the ZEV investment is limited but essential: EPA, working with the Justice Department, is going to ensure that VW complies with the requirements for stakeholder engagement, that the investments VW makes are truly brand neutral, and that VW complies with all the terms of the settlement. EPA does not make the investment decisions – Volkswagen makes the decisions, informed by the input it gets from stakeholders, the changing market conditions, and bound by the detailed constraints in the agreement – but we will make sure that Volkswagen plays by the rules laid out in the agreement the court approved.

Basically just pointing back to the agreement, which we have parsed before. I still stand by my conclusion that CARB has final say over the California portion of the spending plan. I have not read the non-California portion with my lawyers hat on to form any conclusion about what role the EPA has in the non-California $1.2 billion investment.

Oh, I did receive a response back from CARB concerning my long list of questions, here is their response:

Thank you for your email. I had consulted on it and was preparing to respond, but after a re-read, I am going to have to get our attorney’s interpretation. Unfortunately, that will not be possible until next Monday. I will respond to you as soon as I have a legal interpretation.

This all has me wondering if this isn't going to simply turn into a never ending legal battle, with VW choosing something that CARB disagrees with, and then if CARB tries taking any legal action to force VW to do something different, it goes back to court to litigate the meaning of every word and phrase in the consent decree. With that much money involved, its in VW's best interest to spend a few million $$$ on legal wrangling, to delay any actual action as long as possible. I guess we will have some answers sooner rather than later, since the first deadline is rapidly approaching.

RT
 
VW will probably delay long enough that they don't do anything until it's time to build their already announced network of high power CCS chargers for their upcoming Audi eTron crossover. We can all imagine constructive and efficient ways for the money to be spent, but I am not that hopeful for an ideal outcome that will benefit all EV users.
 
I have not read the non-California portion with my lawyers hat on to form any conclusion about what role the EPA has in the non-California $1.2 billion investment.
It seemed pretty clear to me that EPA cannot reject any VW investments unless they fall outside the scope of the decree. CARB has some unique language that seems to give them some authority to line-item veto aspects of VW's spending plans even if they fall within the scope of the decree.

This all has me wondering if this isn't going to simply turn into a never ending legal battle, with VW choosing something that CARB disagrees with, and then if CARB tries taking any legal action to force VW to do something different, it goes back to court to litigate the meaning of every word and phrase in the consent decree.
Maybe, but VW faces specific fines if the don't spend all of the money required during each 30 month period unless EPA/CARB gives them a pass.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RubberToe
Ok, I received a response from at attorney over at the ARB. My long e-mail is shown first followed by their answer...

I'm trying to get an answer to something concerning the actual consent decree, and some information posted on the ARB website concerning the upcoming public workshop. The basic question comes down to who has the final say concerning how the $200,000,000 first allocation is spent.

This text appears in the FAQ: "VW will submit an investment plan every 29 months after that, each one covering $200 million dollars in investments until the full $800 million is spent. ARB will take public input and provide ideas and comments to VW on each funding plan. Each plan will only be approved after ARB’s comments are addressed."

And this text is from the actual consent decree: "3.3.3. California ZEV Investment Plan Review and Determination. CARB shall review each California ZEV Investment Plan. CARB may, in its discretion, approve or disapprove each California ZEV Investment Plan, in whole or in part. CARB shall notify Settling Defendants of its approval or disapproval in writing and, if not approved in whole, of which parts were approved. Settling Defendants may begin implementing any approved portions immediately. If CARB disapproves the California ZEV Investment Plan, in whole or in part, CARB and Settling Defendants shall meet and confer within 10 days of Settling Defendants’ receipt of CARB’s disapproval. Settling Defendants may resubmit a new version of the disapproved portions of the California ZEV Investment Plan, in whole or in part, to CARB, for CARB’s approval, within 10 days of receiving CARB’s disapproval."

And here is some text from the web page concerning public input: "While ARB is developing initial guiding principles, some of which are outlined in the four areas of qualified expenditures above, the Consent Decree stipulates that VW has final say over its proposal for spending Appendix C funding, as long as it complies with the terms of the Consent Decree."

The last part states that VW has "final say over its proposal", but the text in the FAQ states that "Each plan will only be approved after ARB's comments are addressed". This entire process is presumably governed by the actual consent decree, which I show section 3.3.3 above.

Section 3.3.3 states that CARB can disapprove the plan, in whole or in part, and notify VW of this. But this long section ends with the following quote: "Settling Defendants may resubmit a new version of the disapproved portions..."

The wording states that the Settling Defendants "may" resubmit. What happens if the defendants choose not to resubmit any disapproved portions? Does the VW plan then have the final say even if disapproved?

I would think that with $800,000,000 at stake, the process would be very clearly spelled out. What am I missing here?

And here is the response:

VW is required to submit a ZEV Investment Plan of eligible projects costing at least $200M to ARB that meets the goals and terms of Appendix C about every 30 months. VW need not resubmit disapproved portions of a plan if it chooses not to and the approved portions of its plan still meets the other requirements of Appendix C. However, VW may not implement a disapproved plan or disapproved parts of a plan to comply with Appendix C, and VW will not receive any credit towards its obligation for doing projects that are not approved by ARB.

So basically ARB has the final say. VW has to spend $200 million. ARB approves or rejects portions of the plan. ARB rejected portions do not count toward the $200 million.

BTW, Friday from 9-12 is the public workshop in Sacramento. See the following page for details on joining the webcast:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-zevinvest/meetings/120216_wkshp.pdf

RT
 
Great follow up! Thanks. I got busy with other things and never did follow up on this myself although I plan to attend Friday's hearing.

Unstated, is whether ARB can ARBitrarily reject VW's plan in whole or in part or whether it can only reject portions that it reasonably determines to be outside the scope of legitimate Appendix C guidelines. So, I think there could be some remaining grounds for ambiguity.

In any case, it will be interesting to see if yesterday's European 350 kW charger initiative will have any impact on the hearing. Supposedly Ford and the big Euro automakers will install 400 sites across Europe with at least one 350 kW charger starting in 2017 with further major expansion to follow in subsequent years resulting in "thousands" of high-power charging stations by 2020.

http://www.hybridcars.com/european-electric-carmakers-announce-major-ultra-fast-charging-network/
 
Last edited:
Yeah, given the recent German charger initiative, I would think that part of VW's California plans will include the same kind of CCS chargers. After all, CCS is non-proprietary so falls within the allowable guidelines.

RT
 
Yeah, given the recent German charger initiative, I would think that part of VW's California plans will include the same kind of CCS chargers. After all, CCS is non-proprietary so falls within the allowable guidelines.

RT
I would imagine that they will use the settlement to make good on this plan to deliver a 150kW network for the 2018 introduction of the Audi e-Tron.

The electrified future of Audi | Audi USA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff N
Focus on CCS is a misapplication of this money from CARB/CA/US perspective.
I really disagree.

Installing CCS plazas takes a large capital expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars whereas installing L2 stations is typically cheaper and can be more easily added to incrementally in smaller capital chunks of investment that employers, business parks, and hotels can afford themselves. L2 installation is inherently more local and can be implemented in a more decentralized fashion. Also, there have been grant programs from clean air districts, cities, and now from up to 15% of VW's $2.7 billion NOx environmental trust fund.

The $2 billion VW ZEV infrastructure program is centrally administered by VW itself and is in a much better position to fund large capital installations in a way that is planned on a national scale. No other funding source is able to more quickly and uniformly install a high-power national corridor EV charging network. This fund should be primarily applied to replicating Supercharger-like Ford/VW/Daimler/BMW European high-power network concept in the US.

DCFC can actually make the duck curve worse... since people will want all that energy at that moment, and that means the height of the evening power requirements.
I'm unconvinced. I would think that most highway road-trip DC charging would occur during daylight hours when most people will be driving. This will help mitigate the "duck curve" by absorbing daytime solar energy production. I would think that evening charging would most likely occur on destination chargers at hotels where people can be encouraged to charge off-peak through suitable pricing policies.

Tesla Supercharging sites might see heavier metro/urban evening use than CCS corridor chargers because the Tesla charging has been free and some drivers use them to avoid charging on their own dime at home.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and hiroshiy
Here is a link to the 30 page Powerpoint to be presented at the ARB meeting today:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-zevinvest/meetings/120216_present.pdf

Not much new here that we didn't already know. I will post a couple slides directly from the end showing the timeline they are presenting.

There are slides showing what ARB wishes them to emphasize. Hydrogen is mentioned, as is investment in disadvantaged communities (25% of total funds). They give an example of a scrapping program. I could see a real benefit if some of this money is used to scrap older polluting cars and getting short range, inexpensive used EV's into the hands of people who don't necessarily need to do long drives. There is also an emphasis on leveraging investments already made, and another slide discusses not interfering with or undermining emerging businesses (i.e. Chargepoint, etc.). Another slide emphasizes getting things done at the start of the 30 month window, and not waiting until the very end. Foot dragging by VW till the end of 2.5 years would save them some money versus spending it up front like CARB is looking for.

The last bullet on the last slide is that "CARB approves plan in whole or in part". And we have spent the better part of this thread exploring what that actually means. It also looks like we will not have any real "meat" to chew on until the 2-22-17 date when VW submits the draft plan.



 
  • Informative
Reactions: Pollux and MP3Mike
I mentioned above "we can all imagine constructive and efficient ways the money can be spent", so I will give one here, building on the two points RubberToe highlighted from the slides.
* leveraging investments already made
* not undermining emerging businesses

So, my suggestion is to pay for installation of 150kW chargers at the corridor grant sites already funded by the CEC for initial deployment of 50kW chargers. The grants include conduit and transformer capacity for an additional minimum 125kVA charger. Those sites are currently in development and should be operational by the end of 2017. If VW could get 150kW chargers installed by the end of 2018, that would be an efficient way to leverage investments. Handing over network operation and maintenance to the entity already operating the site would serve to avoid undermining those existing entities. It would also avoid the ridiculous situation where some chargers require different access cards at the same site.

I made a map of the future corridor sites from addresses in CEC documents if anyone is interested.

CEC DC Fast Charge Sites

CEC Fast Charge Sites.jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
This is more bad news for VW/Porsche ... a much more widespread problem if proven cheating on CO2 emissions.

German regulators are investigating whether Porsche may have been involved in Volkswagen's emissions scandal

German government regulators are examining whether Volkswagen AG's subsidiary Porsche programmed its vehicles to cheat on government tests of fuel economy and carbon-dioxide emissions, according to reports in the German business press. The news follows reports last month that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California regulators had opened investigations into similar allegations involving VW luxury-car subsidiary Audi. If these investigations pan out, they could open a new dimension to Volkswagen's ongoing diesel-emissions cheating scandal, one that doesn't necessarily involve diesels but could implicate VW's most important profit generators in cheating on tests that are of concern to governments all over the world.

According to a report in German business magazine WirtschaftsWoche on Thursday, Germany's Federal Ministry of Transport and its Motor Transport Authority (known by its initials in German, "KBA") are investigating whether Porsche equipped its vehicles with software that can detect when a government test is under way. The concern is that the Porsches may have been programmed to switch to a mode in which less fuel is consumed and less carbon dioxide is emitted when testing is detected. Carbon dioxide emissions are implicated in global warming and are strictly regulated in the European Union (and elsewhere). WirtschaftsWoche has reported that Porsche insiders tipped off the government to the existence of the software.

VW's admission that its diesel-powered vehicles cheated on emissions tests was (and is) a big deal in the United States and some other countries but less so in Europe. The emissions in question with the diesel engines are oxides of nitrogen, which contribute to smog. Oxides of nitrogen are heavy regulated in the United States under the Clean Air Act (and extra-heavily regulated in smog-prone California), but European regulators have been less concerned with them. That's why the U.S. government's actions against VW over the diesel-emissions scandal have been much more draconian than Europe's and why California regulators have played such a large role in the efforts against VW. Those European regulators are very concerned about carbon dioxide, however. Carbon dioxide emissions are correlated with the amount of fuel burned by an engine; a vehicle that gets better fuel economy will emit less carbon dioxide. Because fuel-economy testing is a big deal in Europe (and therefore in Germany), VW is more likely to face harsh penalties in its home region if the cheating allegations are proven. It's also likely to be hit with a whole new round of penaties in the U.S. and other jurisdictions (like South Korea) that have already come down hard on VW for the diesel cheating.

There's another dimension, too: While the diesel emissions issue might seem a bit esoteric to the average car shopper, cheating on fuel-economy tests isn't. If the allegations pan out, the Audi and Porsche brands could be seriously damaged as green-minded customers look elsewhere. While there were a few Audi and Porsche models equipped with the diesel-emissions cheating scandal, the vast majority of the vehicles involved were VWs. The scandal appears to have damaged the VW brand in many parts of the world, but the Audi and Porsche brands appear not to have been affected by what has been seen as a "VW" scandal. That's important, because while Audi and Porsche together account for less than 20% of the passenger vehicles sold by VW around the world, the brands generated 67% of its operating profit in 2015. If the two brands suffered damage that hurt their sales or pricing power, the effect on VW's bottom line would be dramatic. That's the potential here. Stay tuned.
 
The ARB website now points to a newly created VW website where they are requesting ideas for the first tranche of spending. Here is a direct link to the website, followed by the brief text description they have on the main page:

Welcome to Electrify America | Commitment



Looks like hydrogen is delayed beyond the first tranche. As are ZEV car sharing and ride sharing.

As for charging infrastructure in California: 15 metro areas with 300+ stations. So maybe 20 "stations" per metro area. And then 200+ DC fast chargers for the cross-country network. Add to that educational efforts and the Green City thing.

Seems like the $200,000,000 for California isn't really buying a whole lot of charging infrastructure. The 300 are L2 or DCFC, and not sure how many of the 200 cross-country would be in California, and whether those in California are paid for out of the $200,000,000 or the National money.

If 500 total "stations" get set up for $200,000,000 then the cost per station might be $400,000 each. If each of those "stations" had 4-8 DCFC's like a Supercharger station, that would almost make sense. If a station is just a single L2 or a couple L2's in a mall parking lot, color me particularly unimpressed. :rolleyes:

I do like they are delaying hydrogen. And I do like that they state construction will start before the end of 2017, so no backloading the 30-month period. Once we get more details on the "stations" and their locations, we should have a better idea if its worth the $200,000,000.

RT
 
Why don't they contract with Tesla to build redundant Superchargers along popular routes and new Superchargers on less-traveled but important secondary routes?

I would think a $5,000,000 investment from VW could add 20 or more locations throughout these United States. And that sum is a pittance of the two billion that VW has to pony up.
 
Why don't they contract with Tesla to build redundant Superchargers along popular routes and new Superchargers on less-traveled but important secondary routes?

I would think a $5,000,000 investment from VW could add 20 or more locations throughout these United States. And that sum is a pittance of the two billion that VW has to pony up.
The problem is the Supercharger network is proprietary. The terms of the settlement require VW to do things that are brand neutral. And given the German's active role in CCS, I highly doubt they have any desire to adopt the supercharger standard at this moment.

Personally, I would have them focus on cross country stations, with "100kW"/200A CCS chargers minimum (don't waste the money on 24kW/60A or 50kW/125A) and multi-stall (don't just have 1-2 and call it a "station"). It's fine to have a few (emphasis on few) 24kW/50kW to cater to CHAdeMO and lower power CCS in metro areas, but then the focus should be on the long distance network which is what is currently lacking for those two standards. There's already been too much money spent on "cluster" based stations for metro areas (24kW/50kW is too slow to rely on as primary charging for those without home charging, and too expensive compared to L2 for just convenience charging).
 
@RT - thank you for continuing to educate us!

As for suggestions on how to spend the money -- I stumble as I try to imagine a world where, say, 90% of personal transport is electrified. In that world, do shopping malls have a charger at each parking spot? Too expensive, too much space required, no way. Same answer for municipal parking lots, office parks, retail.

So what *does* scale?

IMHO: home charging. Long-distance re-fueling where people are willing to stop for 20-30 minutes (current Supercharger model) and there can be software scheduling of available charging slots, applied queuing theory for building out the charging network, real-time usage monitoring.

Or really, REALLY fast charging, so typical charge stop is say 5 minutes, taking us back towards the current gas station model. But that requires engineering and/or theory breakthroughs; can't help you with that.

Or....?

So, circling back to home charging: we already have big enough batteries that typical daily use doesn't pose a problem. If you've got a Tesla with an 85 pack or larger... heck, maybe even a 60 or 70 or larger... then every morning when you emerge, you have enough juice for the day and then some. But not everyone has a stand-alone home.

So I'd push heavily for one of the options you've already listed: solving the charging problem for multi-family dwellings. Two- and three-family homes in the northeast; apartment buildings everywhere. We need really good examples of solving this problem in all its dimensions: zoning, possibly even laws, possibly incentives for landlords/owners, packages or incentives from electric companies, humans or software shuffling cars around at night to maximize charger use.

We already know how to build long-distance charging networks, so why let VW use its own (probably tax-deductible) penalty dollars to build out something that they might want to take advantage of for their own future EVs. Instead, let them belly up to the bar like Tesla did, and spend their own hard-earned dollars.

And as for hydrogen, well -- I'd argue that hydrogen shouldn't receive a single dollar. Unless the hydrogen involved is being produced by electrolysis or some literally zero emission method, rather than steam methane reforming.

Alan
 
@RT - thank you for continuing to educate us!

You're welcome! It's simply my duty as the thread creator. :)

So I'd push heavily for one of the options you've already listed: solving the charging problem for multi-family dwellings. Two- and three-family homes in the northeast; apartment buildings everywhere.

Here is some timely news along those lines. CPUC just approved (12-15-16) a program called "Charge Smart and Save". 7,500 charging stations in Northern California. With 50% in multi-unit dwellings.

California Public Utilities Commission Unanimously Approves Electric Vehicle Charging Program

For a real deep dive into the program, see this article here:

How PG&E's EV charging pilot will test utility ownership models

Makes sense for utilities to get into the EV charging business. They supply the power, and it is already available at 100% of residences. And as the grid gets greener here in California, the gradual shift from ICE to EV will get progressively cleaner over time.

I would love to be part of getting a multi-unit dwelling into one of these programs. The problem here in Pasadena is that it is a municipal utility, very small time. They don't have the resources to pull anything like this off. About a year ago they started looking into a "community solar" plan, where condo dwellers could buy/rent panels at a central location. The web site for informing the community about this hasn't changed since March.

Probably the biggest hurdle is that the main transformer in the building would have to be upgraded at some point in time. No possible way the HOA could do that. The utility could though, as they could amortize it over a 40+ year life. Ours is original from 46 years ago I believe.

A combination of: 1) less expensive EV's, 2) multi-unit charging infrastructure, 3) continuing EV sales incentives, and 4) inexpensive community solar would really start a sustained reaction that couldn't be stopped.

RT