California Energy Commission on EV Charging Infrastructure

[Michael Bornstein]

On that I agree. Gas at $3/gal is about $.225/kWh assuming 3.0 mi/kWh and 40 mpg. $4 gas would then equal $.30/kWh. Gas will bounce around in that range for a while, and hopefully electricity will be in that range. Although this is much more than we pay at home (where we own our own "oil refinery") it is still "reasonable" when compare to the cost of an ICE car.

 

[Incredulocious]

why per minute and not per kWh ?

I like the per minute charge as it would discourage people from continuing to occupy the L3 charger all the way to 100%, after it tapers down so much. And keep them from leaving the car sitting there after it's fully charged.

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.

I agree... just place them somewhat near other facilities (when possible). Don't add the expense of additional plumbing infrastructure and frequent maintenance.

 

[Michael Bornstein]

Just got an answer to my letter to the CEC where I used CARB data to show that the FCV produces more GHG and SMOG than a BEV. Mr. Freeman advises that I attend a meeting on February 12th to get more information. Unfortunately I have to work that day. Hopefully tony or tgreene can attend. Here is the letter

Hello Again Mr. Bornstein,

The Air Resources board has updated the analysis of well-to-wheel GHG emissions in the transportation sector, as part of their ongoing Low Carbon Fuel Standard proceedings. The 2012 analysis they completed includes updates of the energy efficiency of BEV and FCVs to account for newer vehicle models that came out during that time period (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/CleanFinalRegOrder112612.pdf http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lu_tables_11282012.pdf ). The difference between all vehicle options changed significantly since then, including the updates that will presented at their February 19th public hearing http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs2015.htm . It should be interesting to see what the will show.

I would highly encourage you to participate in our February 12th Advisory Committee Meeting for further discussion of this topic (http://www.energy.ca.gov/calendar/index.php?eID=2292 ). Unlike the January 28th EV infrastructure workshop, which was meant to be more of a technical/planning discussion, the Advisory Committee Meeting’s main purpose will be to discuss the best use of available funds. Beyond the category breakdowns, we are also seeking input on how to direct the EV infrastructure funding to the highest needed infrastructure type.

If you would like any other information on this workshop, please let me know.

Thanks again for your input,

Andre Freeman
Energy Commission Specialist
California Energy Commission
Fuels & Transportation Division
1516 9th St. MS-27
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
(916) 654-4162

 

[user 340]

Funny, I also got a reply from Mr. Freeman of the CEC this morning. He did answer my question re. why the CEC is spending so much $ on H2 infrastructure. The reason is that they are required to do this by law; see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB8&search_keywords=
"“(e) (1) The commission shall allocate twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) annually to fund the number of stations identified pursuant to subdivision (d), not to exceed 20 percent of the moneys appropriated by the Legislature from the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund, established pursuant to Section 44273, until there are at least 100 publicly available hydrogen-fueling stations in operation in California.“

So we have our fine state legislators to thank for wasting so much of our $ on hydrogen. I hope that the oil company and Toyota lobbyists who wrote the law bought our fine representatives some nice meals, drinks, and gifts to repay them for their votes...

Anyway, it does sound like the Feb 12 Advisory Committee Meeting will have more opportunity for public input on how to spend funds than the one on Jan 28. I do plan to attend for some of it until about 3:00 pm, but I'll have to multitask with some other work.

-Tom

 

[user 340]

I attended the Energy Commission's Advisory Committee web meeting today. It consisted of a few presentations going over their 2015 - 2016 draft plan, which we have been discussing here for the past month. The Advisory Committee members were mostly reps. of industry groups, including 1 EV person. I could feel the hydrocarbons wafting over the phone and through the webex presentations. They did briefly mention their EV plans, and I commented as below.

It was obvious that a number of people in other alternative fuel industries (Ethanol, Natural gas, biodiesel, etc.) wanted a chunk of the $20M / yr that the CA legislature has earmarked for Hydrogen. Several of them mentioned that amount of funding needs to be re-examined if H2 vehicle deployments do not meet expectations. I believe that the expectation that went with the funding was that there would be thousands of H2 cars by now. There will be opportunity to give input on that starting this summer.

I did give an oral public comment on their EV infrastructure plans based on my written points below. I also emailed these to the CEC to be included in the meeting record:

My Public Comment:
- I am a resident of Redwood City who is interested in low carbon transportation options and efficient vehicles.
- I Commend the CEC and Board for electric vehicle infrastructure investments and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
- I'm concerned about the paltry deployment of long-distance EV charging: only 9 DCFCs installed (< $150K, per Investment Plan Update)
- Slide 13 of Mr. McKinney's update showed only about 3 PUBLIC DCFCs outside of metro regions
- Already 120,000+ EVs in CA. Growth is exponential. Your own documents show EVs will dominate over
H2 vehicles for next 20 years.
- As you know, the major obstacle to EV adoption is range anxiety, important for Valley residents.
- Your & private investments in L2 and L3 in metro areas is good: EVs are now practical for local travel in CA.
- I urge the CEC to show leadership by investing in building an effective network of DCFCs along transportation corridors.
The few planned along I5 and 99 are insufficient to enable long-distance EV travel in CA.
- I am concerned that your focus on regional plans may have caused neglect of inter-region EV travel.
- Need to also include 101 between SB and SJ, extend 101 and I5 to Oregon to connect to West Coast
Electric Highway.
- A network of ~100 DCFCs along transportation corridors will cost about the same as 1 H2 fueling
station per the CEC's recent update report.

 

[evdrive]

Nice job Tom. Thank you for representing us well.