California Energy Commission on EV Charging Infrastructure

[Michael Bornstein]

Yesterday the California Energy Commission (CEC) held a seminar on EV Charging Infrastructure. It ran from 10am to about 4pm. I am on vacation in Hawaii but managed to listen to the first half from 10am to 12:30 (8am to 10:30 HST). There were several presenters from various government agencies as well as UC Davis and Nissan. Tony Williams was given 5 minutes at the end and he gave a very good talk about the need for corridor DCFC stations (i.e. along major freeway routes). He also countered the points of some of the other presenters who talked about the difficulty of getting 120kW of 408 3-phase to the middle of nowhere enroute from Sacramento to Portland. Tony mentioned the use of batteries and solar which would reduce the requirement to about 20kw of 240 single phase.

Some points that I noted:

One presenter showed a graph that showed FCV's dominating the car inventory by 2050 (about 80%) while BEVs where about 10%. This, I think, shows how the government is planning for our future.

There was a long discussion about the West Coast Electric Highway and how there wasn't much interest in some of the corridors along I-5, including the Central Valley and Sacramento North. I believe in the "Field of Dreams" theory, "If you build it, they will come." As one presenter said, when someone goes to a dealer, the question is not really "How many miles will it go on a charge?", but rather, "Will it get me to Vegas or Tahoe?" If the infrastructure is not there, the demand for EVs wont be there. Remember, we are a special class of early adopters or nerds. We understood the limitations of EVs and bought them anyway. The next generation of buyers will just want a car that will get them where they want to go with minimal headaches.

Finally, I heard no discussion of how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is doing what it can to limit the future of EVs. A prime example is the BMW i3-Rex. Due to CARB rules, the North American version has a miniscule gas tank and no "Mountain Mode" (Mountain Mode allows the car to save 40% SOC so that when extra power is needed, such as climbing a mountain, both the battery and the ICE can power the car). The Chevy Volt has this. The REX in the i3 is underpowered and cannot climb a hill such as the Grapevine or to Tahoe without battery assistance. CARB requires that the battery reach 6% SOC before the ICE can start, and therefore you cannot save enough of it to climb a hill at freeway speeds. The European version of the car has this capability.

Did anyone else besides Tony and I attend? Where there any other interesting presentations?

 

[michael]

Yesterday the California Energy Commission (CEC) held a seminar on EV Charging Infrastructure. It ran from 10am to about 4pm. I am on vacation in Hawaii but managed to listen to the first half from 10am to 12:30 (8am to 10:30 HST). There were several presenters from various government agencies as well as UC Davis and Nissan. Tony Williams was given 5 minutes at the end and he gave a very good talk about the need for corridor DCFC stations (i.e. along major freeway routes). He also countered the points of some of the other presenters who talked about the difficulty of getting 120kW of 408 3-phase to the middle of nowhere enroute from Sacramento to Portland. Tony mentioned the use of batteries and solar which would reduce the requirement to about 20kw of 240 single phase.

Some points that I noted:

One presenter showed a graph that showed FCV's dominating the car inventory by 2050 (about 80%) while BEVs where about 10%. This, I think, shows how the government is planning for our future.

There was a long discussion about the West Coast Electric Highway and how there wasn't much interest in some of the corridors along I-5, including the Central Valley and Sacramento North. I believe in the "Field of Dreams" theory, "If you build it, they will come." As one presenter said, when someone goes to a dealer, the question is not really "How many miles will it go on a charge?", but rather, "Will it get me to Vegas or Tahoe?" If the infrastructure is not there, the demand for EVs wont be there. Remember, we are a special class of early adopters or nerds. We understood the limitations of EVs and bought them anyway. The next generation of buyers will just want a car that will get them where they want to go with minimal headaches.

Finally, I heard no discussion of how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is doing what it can to limit the future of EVs. A prime example is the BMW i3-Rex. Due to CARB rules, the North American version has a miniscule gas tank and no "Mountain Mode" (Mountain Mode allows the car to save 40% SOC so that when extra power is needed, such as climbing a mountain, both the battery and the ICE can power the car). The Chevy Volt has this. The REX in the i3 is underpowered and cannot climb a hill such as the Grapevine or to Tahoe without battery assistance. CARB requires that the battery reach 6% SOC before the ICE can start, and therefore you cannot save enough of it to climb a hill at freeway speeds. The European version of the car has this capability.

Did anyone else besides Tony and I attend? Where there any other interesting presentations?

I concur with you about the "if you build it..." theory. A co-worker of mine actually donated his personal charging station to Harris Ranch so that he could make it between LA and the Bay area in his Tesla Roadster. The Harris Ranch people were forward thinking enough to install it and this became the basis for the Tesla oasis there.

I still cannot understand why BMW took such a wrong path and crippled the I3 Rex model. Volt allows charge maintaining (i.e. run on the gas engine) at ANY charge level in order to preserve battery for later use...current models are not limited to mountain mode, but have charge maintaining mode as well. Volt still qualifies for green stickers and $1500 state rebate. Why did BMW (which has half the engine size of Volt) deny the US the same car they know is needed worldwide?

 

[davewill]

I still cannot understand why BMW took such a wrong path and crippled the I3 Rex model. Volt allows charge maintaining (i.e. run on the gas engine) at ANY charge level in order to preserve battery for later use...current models are not limited to mountain mode, but have charge maintaining mode as well. Volt still qualifies for green stickers and $1500 state rebate. Why did BMW (which has half the engine size of Volt) deny the US the same car they know is needed worldwide?

At the time, the green stickers were set to expire, and no one was talking about extending them, so BMW did this to qualify for a $2500 (vs. $1500 for PHEV) rebate and white stickers. Then the Rex ended up getting green stickers anyway. Not worth crippling the car for IMNSHO.

 

[miimura]

I think each i3 REx gets more CARB credits than each Volt the way it is designed too. It's not just about what the customer can see - rebate and stickers.

 

[Michael Bornstein]

My understanding is that CARB created a new category of car somewhere between BEV's and PHEV's (which is what the Volt is considered) that gets more CARB points than the PHEV. Unfortunately, BMW had to cripple all cars sold in North America including Canada in order to qualify. I would think that someone could make a fortune importing the European BMW software and gas tank, and then retrofitting the cars. The way the car is currently configured, it cannot drive from SF to Tahoe or San Diego to the Central Valley without stopping to recharge at the bottom of the hill. Using Mountain Mode or Hold Mode, the Volt has no trouble doing that at 75 mph.

 

[kiwiguy]

A couple of interesting points from the afternoon sessions:

1) Several people spoke about the need for more L1 charging points at places like airports/hotels and having many of them for longer term charging.

2) The need for a DCFC that cost $10K to increase the economics for widespread installation. Sounds like a job for Tony.

3) The issue of demand charges from utilities with L2 and L3 charging. Also not exceeding the transformer loading.

4) Encouraging people to not use work charging as their only charger if they can charge at home. This is all about work charging policies and what to charge.

5) The economics of EV charging costs with gas at $2 a gallon.

6) Municipalities can take years to budget, plan and install charging systems.

7) Not forcing a labor delivery nurse to have to move her car in the middle of a birth if the hospital has a 4 hour charging limit (theoretically).

8) There was only about 5 mins for public comments at the end.

Any other interesting points? There are many issues to consider.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think each i3 REx gets more CARB credits than each Volt the way it is designed too. It's not just about what the customer can see - rebate and stickers.

CARB didn't cripple the i3... BMW did by trying (and successfully getting) Zero Emission credits with a gasoline engine.

My opinion is that only the EV version of i3 should get ZEV credits, and the hybrid version should not get any.

So, BMW crippled up the car to meet the rules that they petitioned CARB to make.

I'm surprised that GM didn't try that with the new Volt.

 

[Rav4EVoom]

Thanks a lot for taking time out of your precious time in Hawaii to do this nice recap.

One presenter showed a graph that showed FCV's dominating the car inventory by 2050 (about 80%) while BEVs where about 10%. This, I think, shows how the government is planning for our future.

I guess high volume car maker such as Toyota, Honda's FCV commitment and lobbying is convincing the authorities(?) of a FCV dominant future. With increased consumer acceptance for EV, hopefully soon high volume car maker will begin to include solid EV lineup in their roadmap to show a higher percentage of EV inventories in the future.

There was a long discussion about the West Coast Electric Highway and how there wasn't much interest in some of the corridors along I-5, including the Central Valley and Sacramento North. I believe in the "Field of Dreams" theory, "If you build it, they will come." As one presenter said, when someone goes to a dealer, the question is not really "How many miles will it go on a charge?", but rather, "Will it get me to Vegas or Tahoe?" If the infrastructure is not there, the demand for EVs wont be there. Remember, we are a special class of early adopters or nerds. We understood the limitations of EVs and bought them anyway. The next generation of buyers will just want a car that will get them where they want to go with minimal headaches.

Did they say "who's" interest are valuable to them? How about the existing EV owner's desire of having more complete L2/L3 charging infrastructure? With complete fast charging network availability throughout California, the adoption of EV will grow exponentially. Many people including myself will forego our ICE vehicle. It'll be perfect to be able to take EV out for long trips without extensive advanced charging planning knowing that L2/L3 charging is conveniently available through out the state.

 

[user 340]

Thanks to everybody for attending and especially to Michael for the notes and to Tony for continuing to roll the DCFC rock up the CEC state hill.

So the CEC is planning for FCV's dominating by 2050? Even if that wild scenario becomes true, the stat's own plans show BEVs + PHEVs will dominate FCVs through 2035 and will be very significant in 2050:

That is Fig 1 from this CARB report:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/clean_cars/acc%20summary-final.pdf

I'm still trying to get some responses from the CEC re. the letters I sent them but so far I've only gotten excuses ("Our H2 coordinator will contact you..."). I'll try to attend the Feb 12 meeting Advisory Committee meeting and public workshop for the Alternative Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program via webex.

 

[Michael Bornstein]

That's an interesting article. Note that the charts on page 16 show that BEV's have less than 1/2 the GHG and Smog producing emissions than FCV's. How can the state promote FCV's with all the attendant costs and inconveniences when BEV's end up being cheaper, more efficient, and lower in emissions?

 

[TonyWilliams]

My written proposal to the California Energy Comission (CEC) on or before 15 Feb 2015 for EV corridor travel within our fine state will highlight:

1) Because hydrogen refueled vehicles are sometimes referred to by some as "electric vehicles", first I need to clarify that my proposal is specifically for vehicles that require electrcity to "refuel" the vehicle. That could be a gasoline or hydrogen plug-in hybrid, provided that car has the required DC charge port installed.

2) Placement of EV charging plazas with the highest rate chargers (200 amps for CCS, CHAdeMO) along the logical inter and intra routes that Californians drive their cars, not where policy makers and think tanks have determined that folks might actually drive an 80 mile range EV. The future is not all 80 mile range EVs.

3) Those plazas would consume sub-20kW of continuous power to eliminate "demand fees".

4) These plazas would largely be in relatively rural areas, where urban planning issues are largely eliminated (impacted parking, difficult power distribution, etc).

5) Large enough battery storage to power XX number of cars per day based on expected usage at that site. The worst case scenario is that the battery is depleted and only a single car at a time can be recharged at near 20kW. In such cases, a backup natural gas generator might be practical. Another option, made possible because of the rural areas, will be night time power generation via a windmill.

6) Specified to use a simple 208 / 240 volt "single phase" power source with a 100 amp circuit breaker. Yes, the meager requirements of any single average house could power this. No huge transformer requirements and no expensive three phase requirements in sparsely populated areas that might not have this service.

7) By planning now for future more capable cars, these should be placed 75-100 miles apart. That still allows 37-50 mile "in between" stations for the current crop of 80 mile capable cars. I recommend simple 20kW CHAdeMO / CCS charge ports at these inbetween locations, and no other hardware.

8) The "charging plazas", would have a minimum of two separate DC chargers, and a total of three separate charge cords at each plaza; one for CCS, and two for CHAdeMO minimum.

9) Private company Tesla Motors should be solicited to install at least a single Supercharger at each location to make it a truly "EV Plaza", however their equipment may be limited to 200 amp service (they currently are at over 300 amps)

10) No charge cards, fobs or cash will be required at the stations. Prepaid travel vouchers can be purchased online, anywhere at any time and a "Liberty" style ten key code will activate the station. No networking required to make the station work, although networking can add complimentary features such as security, advertising, maintenance monitoring, etc.

11) 10 year minimum land agreements

12) 10 year maintenance funding from CEC

13) Solar canopies over the charge locations for comfort with ample lighting and signage to easily find the chargers

14) Use the "West Coast Electric Highway" logo with "California" added, like the Interstate freeway signs. California has been a signatory member since 2009.

15) Fees are charged from the very first day of operation compatible with industry norms. At the very first DC charger on the nation's largest EV charging network, ChargePoint, the fee is 15 cents per minute of use, which I propose should be the standard to meet for 20kW rates. 80-100kW rates should be slightly more.

16) At least one J1772 and one Tesla HPC should be at each station for local use. It would not be intended to provide power for long range travel, where the fastest charge is desirable.

17) Public restrooms with lockable door codes for charge customers only (where other restroom options do not exist)

18) All of this is grossly less expensive than a single hydrogen refueling station.

 

[fromport]

My written proposal to the California Energy Comission (CEC) on or before 15 Feb 2015 for EV corridor travel within our fine state will highlight:
[deleted]
18) All of this is grossly less expensive than a single hydrogen refueling station.

 

[Michael Bornstein]

9) Private company Tesla Motors should be solicited to install at least a single Supercharger at each location to make it a truly "EV Plaza", however their equipment may be limited to 200 amp service (they currently are at over 300 amps)

Since Tesla already has an extensive Supercharger network, can't the CEC negotiate with them to add CHAdeMO and Frankenplug chargers to the existing stations? This would add a bunch of chargers in strategic places at relatively low cost.

 

[fromport]

My written proposal to the California Energy Comission (CEC) on or before 15 Feb 2015 for EV corridor travel within our fine state will highlight:

10) No charge cards, fobs or cash will be required at the stations. Prepaid travel vouchers can be purchased online, anywhere at any time and a "Liberty" style ten key code will activate the station. No networking required to make the station work, although networking can add complimentary features such as security, advertising, maintenance monitoring, etc.

I googled for "liberty 10 key code" but I didn't get any results.
Could you explain a little bit what you mean by that ?

"No networking required to make the station work"
Is that to make the system more reliable ?

13) Solar canopies over the charge locations for comfort with ample lighting and signage to easily find the chargers

and or feed surplus energy back into the grid if the local storage battery is full to lower costs per kWh

15) Fees are charged from the very first day of operation compatible with industry norms. At the very first DC charger on the nation's largest EV charging network, ChargePoint, the fee is 15 cents per minute of use, which I propose should be the standard to meet for 20kW rates. 80-100kW rates should be slightly more.

why per minute and not per kWh ?

*ignore this part, not enough coffee syndrome*
$0.15/minute x 60 minutes is $9 for 20 kWh, so $2.22 per kWh ?!
Almost 7 times the tier 4 rate of SCE (my utility provider).
Given my average of 3.85 miles/kWh that would be > $0.58 per mile for electricity.
As pointed out by Michael Bornstein i made a bad calculation somehow, sorry for the noise.

What is the charger loss with L3 btw ? the same 15% as with L2 ?

I know the costs of the L3 charger should be earned as well, but this seems high in my opinion.

17) Public restrooms with lockable door codes for charge customers only (where other restroom options do not exist)

I would argue against the restrooms as that adds significant cost and maintenance
Tesla doesn't do that, they just have the charging stations on walking distance from restaurants that can provide those facilities.

 

[davewill]

Since Tesla already has an extensive Supercharger network, can't the CEC negotiate with them to add CHAdeMO and Frankenplug chargers to the existing stations? This would add a bunch of chargers in strategic places at relatively low cost.

They "can" negotiate, but unless they intend to force the issue with laws or regulations, I can't see any benefit to Tesla that would entice them to do it. Also, a lot(most? all?) of the locations are owned by third parties. Tesla probably can't make those kinds of changes without renegotiating with them.

 

[Michael Bornstein]

why per minute and not per kWh ?
$0.15/minute x 60 minutes is $9 for 20 kWh, so $2.22 per kWh ?!
Almost 7 times the tier 4 rate of SCE (my utility provider).

Given my average of 3.85 miles/kWh that would be > $0.58 per mile for electricity.
What is the charger loss with L3 btw ? the same 15% as with L2 ?

I know the costs of the L3 charger should be earned as well, but this seems high in my opinion.

$9 for 20 kWh is $0.45 per kWh, not $2.22. The chargers will be at least 50 kW, not 20 which brings it down to $,18/kWh which is less than the cost of gasoline which is about $.24 for $2/gal gas. I think Tony is projecting 100 kW chargers

 

[Michael Bornstein]

Since Tesla already has an extensive Supercharger network, can't the CEC negotiate with them to add CHAdeMO and Frankenplug chargers to the existing stations? This would add a bunch of chargers in strategic places at relatively low cost.

They "can" negotiate, but unless they intend to force the issue with laws or regulations, I can't see any benefit to Tesla that would entice them to do it. Also, a lot(most? all?) of the locations are owned by third parties. Tesla probably can't make those kinds of changes without renegotiating with them.

The enticement is called "MONEY". I would assume that CEC would pay Tesla for the privelege.

 

[fromport]

why per minute and not per kWh ?
$0.15/minute x 60 minutes is $9 for 20 kWh, so $2.22 per kWh ?!
Almost 7 times the tier 4 rate of SCE (my utility provider).

Given my average of 3.85 miles/kWh that would be > $0.58 per mile for electricity.
What is the charger loss with L3 btw ? the same 15% as with L2 ?

I know the costs of the L3 charger should be earned as well, but this seems high in my opinion.

$9 for 20 kWh is $0.45 per kWh, not $2.22.

oopsie... didn't drink enough coffee this morning it seems...
sorry, stand corrected.

The chargers will be at least 50 kW, not 20 which brings it down to $,18/kWh which is less than the cost of gasoline which is about $.24 for $2/gal gas. I think Tony is projecting 100 kW chargers

I read
the fee is 15 cents per minute of use, which I propose should be the standard to meet for 20kW rates. 80-100kW rates should be slightly more
as that the $0.15/minute is based on 20kW charging. If that rate is also for 50kW, that would be great.

 

[miimura]

The chargers will be at least 50 kW, not 20 which brings it down to $,18/kWh which is less than the cost of gasoline which is about $.24 for $2/gal gas. I think Tony is projecting 100 kW chargers

I read
the fee is 15 cents per minute of use, which I propose should be the standard to meet for 20kW rates. 80-100kW rates should be slightly more
as that the $0.15/minute is based on 20kW charging. If that rate is also for 50kW, that would be great.

I think for all the cars that don't have Tesla batteries, the final $/kWh delivered will not be significantly different between 20kW and 50kW chargers. Someone with more detailed knowledge of Leaf charge tapering could probably tell you the maximum number of minutes that a Leaf can take more than 20kW, but I'm guessing it's between 10 and 15 minutes. A RAV should be able to take 50kW for 30-40 minutes before tapering down and a Model S 85 with a CHAdeMO adapter should be able to take 50kW for about an hour. Those times result in a significantly different $/kWh result when you are paying by the minute.

 

[fromport]

Those times result in a significantly different $/kWh result when you are paying by the minute.

That is why i would prefer to pay per kWh