No Peri they are missing something and you are completely correct IMO Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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) > _______________________________________________ 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)
