I'll throw in a wet towel. It is very exciting to see support for more
charging stations and, in general, I support that. But I think this will
be the wrong technology.
200+ mile EVs are coming and with that the next wave of (semi) early
adopters. The build out needs to support them. I strongly believe those
people will expect to use their EVs for long road trips and be able to
charge when it's convenient for them, and not necessarily at home. Many
will not have a place to charge at home.
In order to support these people, we need ESVEs which can deliver
something at 100kw or better. Only Tesla is doing this today. As best as
I can tell, the proposal is to install a mix of facilities with 253
"fast charge stations" with power output similiar to what's available
today: around 40-50kw. While the chademo spec allows much higher power,
this doc indicates the status quo (page 5):
http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/documents/electric_vehicle.pdf
For level 2 stations, why should the utility be installing them? Such
facilities would most likely be located at businesses and other
public-accessible places where people are willing to spend an hour or
more waiting for a charge. Wouldn't it be better to provide a government
based incentive for the businesses to install them?
Maybe I'm completely missing something. Speak up :)
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "brucedp5 via EV" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 23-Aug-16 1:43:01 AM
Subject: [EVDL] turn sez utility PG&E's EV charging station plan would
co$t all ratepayers
% What turn sez below may sound good for the consumer, but IMO one
needs to
take turn.org with (a ton of) salt, because not only was turn against
the
CARB mandate and EVs in general back in the 1990's-on, their staff does
not
speak with one voice, nor is it stated where turn gets its funding.
Clearly
they are speaking for who is funding them (today). %
'Utilities can afford to dream big on their customers’ dime'
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article96490842.html
PG&E’s EV charging station plan would cost all ratepayers
AUGUST 18, 2016 [Elise Torres is an energy attorney at The Utility
Reform
Network (TURN). etorres @turn.org. Eric Borden is an energy analyst at
TURN,
a nonprofit that represents California consumers. eborden @turn.org]
In California, cars are as ubiquitous as sunshine. That’s one reason
more
than one-third of the emissions in our state’s air come from the
transportation sector. So there’s no doubt we need to get gas-guzzling
cars
off the road.
One attractive solution is the electric vehicle. Powered by an electric
battery that has to be charged periodically, these vehicles represent a
potential shift toward a cleaner, greener energy future.
However, PG&E’s plan to take advantage of the interest in EVs and
expand its
business to include EV charging stations isn’t about a cleaner, greener
future. It’s about using customers’ money to muscle its way into the
new
market from its advantageous position as a monopoly with a guaranteed
income
and profit stream: us.
PG&E proposes a whopping 7,600 charging stations for electric vehicles,
without any data or analysis to support that there is a need for them.
Customers, whether they own an EV or not, would pay the $160
million-plus in
estimated project costs.
Utilities can afford to dream big on their customers’ dime. But after
winning limits on overly expensive charging experiments in Southern
California, The Utility Reform Network knows PG&E can limit the risk to
customers by starting smaller. That will give PG&E and regulators a
chance
to see if PG&E can be more successful in this new venture than in some
previous ones.
Not only should PG&E’s program be smaller, it should plan for the
future.
For example, declining battery prices and improved technology will lead
to
increased EV range (miles per full battery charge) in coming years.
This
makes it even more likely that consumers will primarily charge their
vehicles at home, not in the mostly public and workplace locations P&GE
is
proposing. There is already a robust private market for workplace and
public
charging, one that is seriously threatened by PG&E’s proposal.
In addition, PG&E’s proposal does nothing to address the massive
barriers to
EV adoption outside of the availability of charging stations. Access to
public charging infrastructure is not a magic wand that will solve
other
barriers to consumer adoption of electric vehicles, which include the
high
purchase price of EVs and the impact of low gas prices.
PG&E’s stated commitment to provide charging stations to low-income
communities sounds good in theory. But when TURN investigated that
claim, we
found the locations PG&E has targeted as “disadvantaged” include the
Google
and LinkedIn campuses, Twitter’s headquarters and the Transamerica
Building
– wealthy workplaces that do not need ratepayer subsidy to install
charging
stations.
TURN instead urges that infrastructure be targeted to apartment
buildings in
low-income communities, and consumers that qualify for the CARE program
(for
low-income households in California) should receive an upfront rebate
from
existing low-carbon credit funds if they purchase or lease an EV.
California is truly a world leader when it comes to transforming its
energy
sector and achieving ambitious greenhouse gas reductions. But our
progress
will be impeded, at a cost to the environment and utility ratepayers,
if
wasteful and bloated utility programs are approved in lieu of smart,
cost-effective solutions.
Regulators should not let the attraction of EVs blind them to the
wasteful
and self-serving nature of PG&E’s proposal. Proposals claiming to
“save” the
environment should actually help decrease state emissions, not just add
to
utility bottom lines.
[© sacbee.com]
...
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+with+a+grain+of+salt
Grain of salt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt
...
http://www.turn.org/tag/electric-vehicles/
The Utility Reform Network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TURN_(The_Utility_Reform_Network)
http://charityreports.bbb.org//oakland/human-services/utility-reform-network-in-43558
http://consumerfdn.org/about-us/grantees/the-utility-reform-network-turn/
...
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/documents/461232896/VGI%20FD.PDF?nid=17366
'arguments of TURN against SDG&E EVSE program'
For EVLN EV-newswire posts use:
http://evdl.org/evln/
{brucedp.0catch.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/turn-sez-utility-PG-E-s-EV-charging-station-plan-would-co-t-all-ratepayers-tp4683435.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
