Federal administration proposes new rules for EV charging stations

[Trick.Mach-E]

5. Mandates chargers every 50 miles along highway

Fast chargers east of El Paso, TX to San Antonio, TX were spaced out on average 115 miles from each other. An 80% quick charge in the Mach-E gives about 200-220 miles of range depending on how you drive. Anyone who has done this drive on the I-10 knows everyone and their grandma are doing 90MPH or more and for the Mach-E that really drops its range so you have to stop every 115 miles for up to a half hour (assuming everything goes smoothly with the chargers).

Fast chargers spaced out on average every 50 miles would greatly increase the real-world usable range of Mach-E (and all EV's) and would lesson any concerns that if you find some that work you only have roughly 50 miles to the next charger vs 115 miles.

This was our biggest issue on a 3200 mile trip from CA to San Antonio, TX and back. You couldn't trust the "charge for ** minutes" to get just enough range for the next charger. We found ourselves going to at least 80% every time to make sure we had enough range to account for any charger issues.

Sponsored

 

[jlauro]

No contradiction at all. The source of funding is the taxpayer. The government is just a middleman, not the source.

The taxpayer may be the primary source, but that doesn't mean the government is not funding what their income is spent on. As a tax payer I can't choose directly not to have the government spend money on something I don't want it to. For better or worse, the government is more than a middleman otherwise I could avoid spending money on taxes or be able to directly pick what my tax money was spent on.

Compare dealers to the government. They are true middlemen. The purchase of vehicles is funded from the customer, and paid to the manufacturer by the dealer. However, the customer gets to pick what vehicle is purchased, or can even choose not to purchase a vehicle. With the government, the tax payer has no such choice and can not opt out. The government decides who wins the contract(s), not the tax payer, so the government is not a simple middleman.

 

[Stevey]

Why do we have to have one or the other? There are regulation that prevent DCFC operators from selling electricity in some areas in other areas is is permitting, and in others it just a lack of infrastructure. Some areas it is a combination of several things. The national grid is a conglomeration of oligopolies that are allowed to exist so we don't have a set of power lines for each power company. Up until this point ,for the most part, this has served us well. The Federal government needs to standardize (as they have mentioned) so that all 50 states have the same set of requirements/guidelines when it comes to DCFC and rates (severely regulate or abolish demand power surcharges). I am not saying a national standard rate, but rather a regional one set by market that is consistent in that area and representative of the consumer residential rate (or rate plus market component) . So that is Big Bad Government part, and here is the entrepreneur/ free market part. Just like we did with space transportation to the ISS (COTS) we contract it out (NOT Cost Plus). The national grid is already split into 3 regions (Western Interconnection, Eastern Interconnection, and Electricity Reliability Council of Texas Interconnection). Each region (could break it into smaller regions) would be contracted out via the bidding process. The program would define separate standards/requirements for interstate vs local. For example for interstate, they would be allocated money for 100,000 DCFC stations (for their region)(all must be installed) with no 2 station being closer that 50 miles (when between cities) and greater than 350kw (attempt to future prep) and a minimum of 6 or more "plugs" with 2 of them being pull thru. For the local component an example might be to allocate another 50,000 (all must be installed) to be distributed among cities with a minimum distance of 7 mi. The companies will be required to maintain stations with a 98% up rate. The companies would assume all risk, however, there would be no limits other than the ones created by the "Big Government" part. For example if they want to co-locate restaurants or other amenities they would be free to do so and charge whatever they would like.

All numbers were just examples to illustrate a point.

 

[mkhuffman]

Why do we have to have one or the other? There are regulation that prevent DCFC operators from selling electricity in some areas in other areas is is permitting, and in others it just a lack of infrastructure. Some areas it is a combination of several things. The national grid is a conglomeration of oligopolies that are allowed to exist so we don't have a set of power lines for each power company. Up until this point ,for the most part, this has served us well. The Federal government needs to standardize (as they have mentioned) so that all 50 states have the same set of requirements/guidelines when it comes to DCFC and rates (severely regulate or abolish demand power surcharges). I am not saying a national standard rate, but rather a regional one set by market that is consistent in that area and representative of the consumer residential rate (or rate plus market component) . So that is Big Bad Government part, and here is the entrepreneur/ free market part. Just like we did with space transportation to the ISS (COTS) we contract it out (NOT Cost Plus). The national grid is already split into 3 regions (Western Interconnection, Eastern Interconnection, and Electricity Reliability Council of Texas Interconnection). Each region (could break it into smaller regions) would be contracted out via the bidding process. The program would define separate standards/requirements for interstate vs local. For example for interstate, they would be allocated money for 100,000 DCFC stations (for their region)(all must be installed) with no 2 station being closer that 50 miles (when between cities) and greater than 350kw (attempt to future prep) and a minimum of 6 or more "plugs" with 2 of them being pull thru. For the local component an example might be to allocate another 50,000 (all must be installed) to be distributed among cities with a minimum distance of 7 mi. The companies will be required to maintain stations with a 98% up rate. The companies would assume all risk, however, there would be no limits other than the ones created by the "Big Government" part. For example if they want to co-locate restaurants or other amenities they would be free to do so and charge whatever they would like.

All numbers were just examples to illustrate a point.

Your master plan is going to have unintended consequences, as all master plans do. The free market with minimal government regulations would solve the problems in ways you haven't thought of. And without using our tax money or creating more government debt.

 

[Rt1AWD]

I just don't see Tesla retro-fitting the old chargers at all. Too costly and subsidies apply to new chargers, right? They will stay as non-CC, closed Tesla-only networks.

Is it a problem to start selling SC to CCS adapters?

 

[jonkMACHE]

Your master plan is going to have unintended consequences, as all master plans do. The free market with minimal government regulations would solve the problems in ways you haven't thought of. And without using our tax money or creating more government debt.

Yeah, but, here's the thing: the free market is not solving the problem right now. Electrify America is installing chargers where it makes financial sense for them to do so (and rightfully so). And because of that, the US currently has major gaps in its EV infrastructure.

Taking anything to the extreme is almost never the optimal solution. Extreme free-market economics leads to things like sweatshop working conditions (think of all the safety-related factory deaths in the 1920s). On the other hand, extreme government funding/regulation leads to a bankrupt state and 60% taxes like in Italy and Greece. There is such a thing as balance.

And honestly, with $3+ trillion spending packages being proposed in this country... is breaking off a $100 million piece of that for EV infrastructure really going to make much of a dent either way? Seems like if you wanted to trim the fat, there would be better ways of doing that than cutting out subsidies for charging.

 

[jonkMACHE]

And one other thing... it's not like government funding doesn't engage free market economics. It's not like the government's 3-stooges team will be doing the electrical work... they'll open up a contract bid to the free market and multiple for-profit companies will get the opportunity to bid for it so the price is not artificially inflated.

 

[Rt1AWD]

Here in Canada the city of Vancouver proposed that all gas stations have at least 50kw and parking lots at least 4 level 2 chargers by 2025 or pay a 10000$/year added to there permits

Canada

 

[Mirak]

The best answer is cutting taxes, cutting spending, and cutting regulations so DCFC stations can actually be profitable and so entrepreneurs actually want to build them. Enticing businesses to build unprofitable stations will likely mean they will be neglected and not maintained properly.

There ain’t nothin that’s gonna make current DCFC profitable with existing battery tech. The hardware needs to get a lot cheaper.

 

[Rt1AWD]

Government could spend that money to put DCFC chargers on all rest areas

 

[yngwenli]

There are a huge number of state and local regulations that control what, where and how new construction can be done. Some are simply zoning regulations but there are permits and approvals people need to get to build a DCFC station. If you have built a house you get a small taste of what I mean.

You make it sound like we should just have no laws and let people do whatever they want (because free market, entrepreneur right?). I certainly wouldn't want a massive power plant next to my house, but I still challenge you whether the business of a DCFC is even profitably if regulation was $0. I don't think it's the regulation blocking it, but the business idea of a DCFC itself.

My guess is that it's still not a profitable business and $0 amount of regulation isn't going to change that. It's a service that very few people need in the suburbs/city if they have enough to charge at home and lots need remotely, but that only works on weekends/holidays and crickets during the week. If the cost was too high for weekends, it'd be avoided as well and people will use gas for long trips.

 

[voxel]

Yeah, but, here's the thing: the free market is not solving the problem right now. Electrify America is installing chargers where it makes financial sense for them to do so (and rightfully so). And because of that, the US currently has major gaps in its EV infrastructure.

Nah, EA is a compliance network and is forced to spend the $2B with 40% of that in CA (as per settlement). Their decisions have nothing to do with financial sense.

 

[voxel]

Is it a problem to start selling SC to CCS adapters?

Tesla connectors can only support around 450V due to the physical separation of the pins/connectors and I suspect no CCS1-based EV has the hardware to "talk" to the Tesla Superchargers.

The Tesla CCS adapter for Model 3/Y is pure piece of plastic with metal inside (no chips). The brains are in the 2021+ model year Teslas to communicate with CCS chargers.

 

[vinny2487]

I understand the sentiment, but wasting more money giving subsidies that help rich people is not the answer. I might agree with you if we had a balanced budget, lower taxes, and we cut something else to pay for the subsidies.

Cut subsidies to oil and gas industry to pay for it

 

[SWO]

One of the tricky things is the sporadic/random nature of people charging via DCFC. Which makes it difficult to build expensive stations that will get enough business to support themselves, but also enough capacity for peak times.

Unlike gasoline, most EV charging takes place at home/work/hotel on L2. Which means locals typically won't be giving business to nearby DCFC stations. That's where most of the regular/routine business comes from that supports a gas station.

Travel routes are supported mostly by travelers, but the 20-30 minute charge duration makes it tricky to right-size a station. When a gas station fills up and cars back up 2 or 3 deep, it's not a biggie because it's maybe a 5-10 minute wait. But when that happens at a DCFC station, a 30-60 minute wait is a much bigger deal. But doubling the # of chargers there to avoid that is very costly, and they'll sit empty without revenue the other 95% of the time.

It will help some when the chargers themselves are manufactured at higher volumes and the costs come down, but that doesn't help expensive labor costs for installation and maintenance. It may just come down to significantly higher charging prices, especially when the taxpayer subsidies start drying up.

That bolded portion is not correct due to the charging incentives manufacturers are providing with new EV purchases. Next time you're at a crowded EA station, look at how many vehicles have in-state plates, then pay attention to how many of those cars offer 2-3 years of free EA charging (Hyundai, Kia, VW, Porsche, Mercedes, Rivian, BMW, etc..).

This is going to be a real problem as EV sales surge while infrastructure is stagnant.

Sponsored