Expanding EV charging in Yosemite

[GRA]

The following is a first draft of the Introduction section of a letter I'm going to send to the various organizations who would be involved in doing this. I'm still working on the Technical section, and am making a hiking trip over the next few days which will include examining potential charging sites in the Wawona area, results of which will be included in the latter. Constructive criticism is welcomed, especially if you think there are things I can leave out of the intro and move elsewhere to shorten it to one page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name
Address
email

Date:

To: Woody Smeck, Acting Superintendent, Yosemite National Park
Bob Concienne, V.P. of Operations, Yosemite Hospitality, LLC
Frank Dean, President & CEO, Yosemite Conservancy


Subject: Expanding electric vehicle charging in Yosemite to reduce local air and noise pollution, and GHG emissions

Enclosures:

Suggested Charging Sites
Technical Section
Glossary


To reduce transportation-related air and noise pollution, GHG emissions and congestion, shuttle buses have been provided to transport visitors inside the park, and the YARTS bus system was established to transport visitors between surrounding communities and Yosemite. However, the majority of visitors still reach the park via private vehicle, and due to personal choice or because buses don't run when/where they need, they often do substantial amounts of driving inside the park as well.

In order to reduce pollution from these latter vehicles, it is important to encourage the use of Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs), which consist of two major types: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), which run on batteries some of the time; and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), which run on batteries all the time. Providing a greater number of charging facilities for them, more widely distributed inside the park, will allow their use for travel to and from the park, and ensure that most or all of the miles which these vehicles may drive inside the park will be on electricity, near silent and and having zero tailpipe emissions. An additional advantage of PEVs inside the park is that range when running on batteries is still considerably less than is typical of Internal Combustion-Engined vehicles (ICEs); range on batteries can always be increased by slowing down, so PEV drivers are more likely to adhere to park speed limits, reducing the number of animals killed or injured in collisions.

I believe it is important to provide at least some initial increase in charging facilities at sites both inside and outside the Valley, by the start of the summer season of 2017, for the following reasons:

• 1. Until now, the only BEVs which as a practical matter had the range to visit the park from charging stations outside it were very expensive models by Tesla. That is about to change, as GM will introduce the sub-$40k MSRP, 200+ mile range Bolt BEV by the end of this year, and several other companies will follow with similarly-priced models over the next two years.
  
  2. PHEVs have no trouble reaching the park, but until recently weren't available in the vehicle type most desired by outdoors enthusiasts, all-wheel drive (AWD) Crossover Utility Vehicles/Sport Utility Vehicles (CUVs/SUVs), so their numbers have been lower in the park than would otherwise be the case. That has recently changed, currently at the expensive end of the scale (Porsche/BMW/Volvo etc.), but several more affordable PHEV AWD CUVs are due to be introduced in 2017-18.

Despite the fact that the San Francisco Bay Area has the highest percentage of PEVs per capita in the country and the second largest total (Greater L.A. is first), there are only two official charging sites inside the park, both in the Valley. Other national parks, such as Zion and Yellowstone, have made greater progress installing charging facilities despite having a much smaller nearby PEV population. Yosemite's charging sites aren't listed in the 'Facilities' section of the Yosemite Guide or on the park's own website (they are listed on the concessioner websites for those facilities), although given that they can only handle a maximum of three cars simultaneously at the moment, only two of which are usable by all PEVs without after-market adapters, that's perhaps appropriate.

The number of charging stations at each charging site, as well as the number of charging sites both in and outside the Valley need to be increased, they must be usable by all PEVs without after-market adapters, and their locations must be advertised. I have explained my rationale as to where I believe charging sites should be located as well as the type and number of stations at each site, in the Suggested Charging Sites section which follows.

Money to fund such programs is always an issue, but improving park air quality and reducing noise and GHG emissions is desired by the Park Service, Yosemite Hospitality LLC and the Yosemite Conservancy, all of which may be willing to fund some of this work. Crowd-funding by PEV owners is also a possibility.

I will be happy to provide any advice or assistance I can to advance this. My interest in improving access by PEVs to and inside the Park is personal rather than professional, due solely to my desire to improve visitors' experience of Yosemite, which I have been privileged to enjoy regularly ever since I first visited Tuolumne Meadows as a young child over 50 years ago. I have no business or financial interest in, or connection with any company providing charging or other electrical equipment, electrical utilities or auto manufacturers. However, in the early 1990s I worked for a small company that sold off-grid renewable energy equipment and also designed complete off-grid systems, and while so employed I proposed, designed and with the assistance of the hut ranger/caretaker installed the photovoltaic lighting and water-pumping systems at Ostrander Lake ski hut, which I have visited almost every winter since 1980.



Sincerely,

 

[abasile]

This is great work.

In addition to reducing "air and noise pollution" I would suggest adding "reducing carbon pollution", given California's comparatively clean electric power generation. One goal for the national parks is to serve as models in the battle against AGW.

It might also be worth mentioning that "affordable" long-range BEVs such as the Tesla Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt are coming soon, thus potentially enabling many more battery-only cars to reach the park. For BEVs, of course, gasoline is not an option and charging infrastructure is vital. Many people will be more likely to purchase a BEV, and thus avail society at large of its benefits, if they know it can be used to visit national parks.

 

[forummm]

I want more EV charging everywhere. But keep in mind that the NPS wants there to be fewer cars in the Valley during peak season (summer). It's too crowded already. They want you to park your car and use the shuttles. I still think it's a good idea to have charging infrastructure (so Leaf-range EVs can make the round trip--and the longer drives to the edges of the park). Just something that you may want to work into the letter.

I also wonder if there's that much electrical bandwidth coming into the park. Places like Curry Village only let you use a single light bulb. They may be constrained as to how much juice charging stations could even use. Highlighting this issue could be helpful to get them to increase capacity by a larger amount whenever they do upgrade their infrastructure.

I'd love to find this out actually (where their electricity comes from--just out of curiosity). Quick googling didn't reveal.

 

[GRA]

This is great work.

In addition to reducing "air and noise pollution" I would suggest adding "reducing carbon pollution", given California's comparatively clean electric power generation. One goal for the national parks is to serve as models in the battle against AGW.

Good idea. Heading up this evening, but will add it when I get back.

It might also be worth mentioning that "affordable" long-range BEVs such as the Tesla Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt are coming soon, thus potentially enabling many more battery-only cars to reach the park. For BEVs, of course, gasoline is not an option and charging infrastructure is vital. Many people will be more likely to purchase a BEV, and thus avail society at large of its benefits, if they know it can be used to visit national parks.

Already going to mention that (see the fourth paragraph, "For reasons explained in that [Technical] section, I believe it is important to provide at least some initial increase in charging facilities, at sites both inside and outside the Valley, by the start of the summer season of 2017." I'm planning to discuss the differing requirements of BEVs and PHEVs there as well. I'd initially planned to put it in the intro, but I've gone back and forth about which section to put it in, as I'd really like to get the intro down to a single page (two now). I'm trying to shorten it as much as possible to make it an executive summary, as the addressses will likely hand this off to people in appropriate departments to look at the details. These people are busy, so giving them something big picture they can scan and quickly decide whether to support it or not, without bogging them down in the fine points is what I'm aiming for.

 

[GRA]

I want more EV charging everywhere. But keep in mind that the NPS wants there to be fewer cars in the Valley during peak season (summer). It's too crowded already. They want you to park your car and use the shuttles. I still think it's a good idea to have charging infrastructure (so Leaf-range EVs can make the round trip--and the longer drives to the edges of the park). Just something that you may want to work into the letter.

I'm mainly interested in providing charging outside the Valley, but also looking at L1 primarily for lodging facilities in the Valley and elsewhere, which are slow enough that people will want to leave their BEVs parked and walk, bike or use the shuttles during their stay, to have enough juice to get home or to QCs located in gateway communities which will eventually appear (Groveland, Buck Meadows and/or Hardin Flat plus Lee Vining for 120; Mariposa and/or El Portal for 140; Oakhurst and/or Fish Camp for 41). As it is, there are several eVgo dual standard QCs along 99 (Salida, Modesto, Ceres, Atwater, Chowchilla, Fresno/Clovis), most with 2 dual standard QCs, from where the park can be reached now by a Bolt (and might even be able to do the round trip to the Valley un-recharged), and some stand-alone CHAdeMO in the same areas and a few more.

I also wonder if there's that much electrical bandwidth coming into the park. Places like Curry Village only let you use a single light bulb. They may be constrained as to how much juice charging stations could even use. Highlighting this issue could be helpful to get them to increase capacity by a larger amount whenever they do upgrade their infrastructure.

I'd love to find this out actually (where their electricity comes from--just out of curiosity). Quick googling didn't reveal.

Believe me, I've surveyed most of these sites for what kind of electrical capacity they have and how much may be excess, and will highlight those limitations in the technical section. It's the lack of excess capacity inside the park as well as the desire not to upgrade the infrastructure, that leads me to believe that QCs belong outside the park in the gateway communities.

Park electricity comes from a variety of sources. Tuolumne gets theirs from So Cal Edison, whose power lines run up Lee Vining
Canyon (including at least one hydro station there). I imagine the Valley gets their's from Hetch Hetchy, and I'm not sure about Wawona. Could be them, SCE or PG&E. Crane Flat gas station and IIRR White Wolf get theirs from diesel Gensets, so I'm not going to recommend charging there.

BTW, a long time ago, after the first time I stayed in the freezing (at that time non-insulated) tent cabins at Curry Village in the winter, I subsequently used to pack along a screw-in dual receptacle with light socket and pull chain, available at most hardware stores, plus an electric blanket and/or space heater and an extension cord. As each cabin was equipped with a single incandescent light bulb on a 15A circuit (glass fuse inside the cabin where the wire entered), the cabin was much more comfortable on subsequent trips . . . but you didn't hear it from me

Heading up there again in a couple of hours, for recreation and a final electrical infrastructure survey of some areas I haven't visited in a long time.

 

[GRA]

Spent one day hiking on the east side, one in Tuolumne Meadows participating in a volunteer end-of-season trash cleanup (National Public Lands Day was the 24th), and one checking out sites in the valley and at Wawona, after first hiking up to the top of Lembert Dome just after sunrise (woke up about 1/2 hour late). Got some very light snow which melted as soon as it touched anything Thursday afternoon just east of Tioga Pass at about 9,800 feet, and it had obviously snowed within the past couple of days as well, as the higher peaks had dustings.

I'm finally starting to see some PHEVs in the T.Mdws area, one each PiP, Volt 2 and C-Max Energi over Friday - Sat. morning. Also checked out Valley locations, and saw three PHEVs in the absolutely full Curry Village (Half Dome Village? Bah!) orchard parking lot: an i3 REx, another Volt 2 and a Fusion Energi. Also saw two Model S and a Model X. One Model S was coming back from the Ahwahnee (Majestic Yosmite Hotel? Bah, Humbug!), and probably had charged there, the other was driving towards the east end of the valley. The Model X 90D was charging at the J1772 (a Clipper Creek CS-100 protected at 40A, so 32A), and I talked briefly to the owner. Originally, I'd read that there was a single Tesla HPWC plus a NEMA 14-50R at the Ahwahnee, but inspection found the HPWC plus a Clipper Creek LCS-20 side by side; the latter's space was ICED, no warning signs referring to fines or towing being present, unlike the handicap spaces I found elsewhere, which all had "Minimum Fine $250" signs on them.

Drove to Wawona, and decided where I'd recommend the stations there, at the Wawona Hotel (Big Trees Hotel? Double Bah, Humbug!!) and the store/Pioneer History Center parking area.

 

[GRA]

Checking the transformer at the former T. Mdws gas station, while it's missing any placard it appears to be identical to the 25 kVA transformer at Tioga Pass Entrance Station. Checking the transformer at Tuolumne Meadows Lodge (75 kVA), I found it was a 208Y/120V as expected. Assuming this holds true for the one at the former gas station, and that we want to serve both store and campground visitors, we presumably have 20kVA to play with (25 kVA x .8 for continuous load). That being the case, I'd like to hear what people think would be most useful/preferred for a mix of BEV/PHEV, both short term and overnight:

1. 3 x (208V x 32A) L2s, possibly dual connectors sharing the circuit (total of 6.6kW available per circuit, one car gets it all, but if two cars are connected they each get 3.3 kW), with Point of Sale payment by pre-paid network card as usual (ideally by standard credit/debit card).

2. 2 x (208V x 32A) L2s (possibly dual as above) with PoS payment, plus 4 x (120 Volt x 12/16A) L1s probably just NEMA 5-15R or 5-20R receptacles, free.

3. Same as above, but L1s are J1772s, either PoS or free (indicate whether either would be acceptable).

4. 6 x (208V x 16A) L2s, either PoS or free (indicate whether either would be acceptable).

5. Other (describe).

Thanks. BTW, I've made some edits to the draft in the first post, so please check it out and see what you think.

 

[LeafMuranoDriver]

Since all of the options have 6, I would say #4 for 6 L2's. They all sound like they will be good though.

 

[abasile]

Glad you were able to scout this out! Personally, I think I like (3), because this option maximizes the number of PEVs that can be served while offering limited higher-speed charging options for those who might need it.

A. If funding exists for J-1772 connectors, this is preferable to 120 V outlets because it reduces the likelihood of "abuse" by those not actually charging an EV, eliminates the risk of theft of owners' portable 120 V EVSEs, and improves convenience.

B. Those driving PHEVs can charge on L1 in not too many hours. There's probably little utility in charging most PHEVs on L2 since most PHEV owners appear, in my observation, to leave their cars plugged in longer than necessary anyway.

C. Longer-range BEVs can be charged on L1 while their owners are camping or backpacking. If in the extreme case a Tesla BEV needs to add 200 miles of range, that could be accomplished in three full days on L1. That would be very useful to those of us who like to stay for days and hike everywhere.

D. Offering some higher-speed L2 charging (relatively speaking, as 32A still isn't really "fast") would be useful to those who are just staying for a short time and passing through. Signage could encourage longer-stay users to leave the L2 spots open if possible for this purpose.

E. Collecting PoS (point of sale) charging fees would be ideal, but only if this can be done without excessively driving up the installation and maintenance costs.

F. In the absence of PoS fees, perhaps users could be encouraged by signage to pay or make "donations" at the General Store or perhaps on site via envelope system.

G. It should be possible to commence a charging session 24/7. Many campers arrive after hours, some hikers and backpackers arrive during the wee hours of the night to start their adventures, etc.

 

[GRA]

Glad you were able to scout this out! Personally, I think I like (3), because this option maximizes the number of PEVs that can be served while offering limited higher-speed charging options for those who might need it.

A. If funding exists for J-1772 connectors, this is preferable to 120 V outlets because it reduces the likelihood of "abuse" by those not actually charging an EV, eliminates the risk of theft of owners' portable 120 V EVSEs, and improves convenience.

That is an issue that I'm going to address in the technical section. Here's one pricey example from 3 years ago:

Illinois Company Introduces Low-Cost 120-Volt Public Charger for Electric Cars

http://www.plugincars.com/illinois-company-introduces-low-cost-120-volt-public-electric-car-charger-127306.html Given how low L2 prices have dropped in the interim they would have to be a lot cheaper now to compete. And 16A is too high: if we're going to provide a couple of 32A L2s on a 25kVA (20 kVA usable) 208V transformer plus 4 L1s, they need to be 12A.

As I mentioned to cwerdna in another thread, there's another side, in that people worried about potential theft of their EVSEs aren't going to hog the spots, but will disconnect as soon as they're done. Personally, if I had to use my own EVSE I think I'd make some kind of mount which the EVSE could be placed in and then the car driven on top of it (the tire blocking removal), so that only the cords could be stolen. Here's a version where the cord is in such a device (6th photo down): http://insideevs.com/protect-nissan-leaf-level-1-charger-theft-video/ What I don't know is if the J1772 connector or the 'box' is the expensive part to replace - ideally, you'd protect both, but if the box sits up tight with the receptacle, that isn't an option, unless you use an extension cord (and violate dire safety warnings).

The question is, is it better to risk losing someone's personal EVSE without disabling the charging station, or provide permanent EVSEs with J1772 connectors that will be used more often, but which can be put out of service with a single act of vandalism? The long-term answer is obviously wireless charging via embedded coils.

Re abuse, I hear you; once receptacles are known about, it's dollars to donuts that campground denizens would be using them to recharge their phones and other portable electronics.

B. Those driving PHEVs can charge on L1 in not too many hours. There's probably little utility in charging most PHEVs on L2 since most PHEV owners appear, in my observation, to leave their cars plugged in longer than necessary anyway.

C. Longer-range BEVs can be charged on L1 while their owners are camping or backpacking. If in the extreme case a Tesla BEV needs to add 200 miles of range, that could be accomplished in three full days on L1. That would be very useful to those of us who like to stay for days and hike everywhere.

D. Offering some higher-speed L2 charging (relatively speaking, as 32A still isn't really "fast") would be useful to those who are just staying for a short time and passing through. Signage could encourage longer-stay users to leave the L2 spots open if possible for this purpose.

We're on the same wavelength, which is why I lean towards providing free (or at least lower cost) L1 mixed with a few higher cost L2s, as the people who are charging overnight or longer will see no reason to pay for faster charging, and the PHEVs will mostly opt for the L1s, leaving the L2s available for those BEVs need them most of the time.

E. Collecting PoS (point of sale) charging fees would be ideal, but only if this can be done without excessively driving up the installation and maintenance costs.

That's always the problem, along with reduced reliability when you introduce electronic fee payment and need reliable communications.

F. In the absence of PoS fees, perhaps users could be encouraged by signage to pay or make "donations" at the General Store or perhaps on site via envelope system.

Aha! Brilliant minds etc. I was trying to find someone who could tell me how much the campground 'fee' collection poles' cost this past weekend, but struck out. Compared to the cost of the charging equipment, I'd think the answer would be 'essentially nothing,' but someone's got to collect the fees too. AOTBE I'd opt to use simple, reliable Clipper Creek EVSEs everywhere, and use the honor system. But, while that will work well among early adopters, if PEVs move from the early adopters to the mainstream the % of people who will 'do the right thing' voluntarily is going to drop precipitously. I'm still pondering what to recommend.

G. It should be possible to commence a charging session 24/7. Many campers arrive after hours, some hikers and backpackers arrive during the wee hours of the night to start their adventures, etc.

I'm one of those who tends to show up late at night or in the wee hours. That's one reason I'd prefer PoS at least on the L2s, kWh pricing w/wo ToU, but once charging is complete, time-based occupation charges to encourage people to move. OTOH, there'd need to be an occupation-fee free period running from say 8 p.m. - 8 a.m, as people aren't (and shouldn't have to) going to get out of bed/sleeping bag and schlep over to the car at Zero-Dark Thirty to move it, just because it has completed charging. That's one reason I favor lots of L1s at lodging sites and campgrounds, as they charge slowly enough that it's almost a non-issue. Whenever possible, I try to encourage courteous behavior through design rather than compulsion.

 

[abasile]

The question is, is it better to risk losing someone's personal EVSE [for L1 charging] without disabling the charging station, or provide permanent EVSEs with J1772 connectors that will be used more often, but which can be put out of service with a single act of vandalism? The long-term answer is obviously wireless charging via embedded coils.

Particularly at places like Tuolumne Meadows, I think the convenience and abuse-prevention benefits of J-1772 connectors outweigh the risk of vandalism. And it is not obvious to me that inductive charging is the answer here, as I would imagine the losses could be fairly high if this approach is used for slow L1 charging. (It's already slow enough without adding more resistance.)

AOTBE I'd opt to use simple, reliable Clipper Creek EVSEs everywhere, and use the honor system. But, while that will work well among early adopters, if PEVs move from the early adopters to the mainstream the % of people who will 'do the right thing' voluntarily is going to drop precipitously. I'm still pondering what to recommend.

I think you are right on this point. Some might be surprised to find that in campgrounds using the honor system, a non-trivial fraction of campers try to slide by without paying. I've witnessed this. As a result, rangers are forced to waste their time checking for compliance.

Given that there's no wifi and the cellular data coverage is spotty, I suppose a PoS system might have to work over traditional phone lines if possible. Another option could be to activate EVSEs using a machine that reads coins and bills, like a vending machine, but that seems expensive and clunky.

Maybe the best that could be done would be to require payment by envelope and have park staff check any parked vehicles vs. the envelopes from time to time, with the threat of real parking tickets for those who choose not to pay. While I'd prefer not to add another responsibility for park employees (or volunteers), this is actually in concept no different from maintaining other park amenities that visitors depend on.

 

[GRA]

The question is, is it better to risk losing someone's personal EVSE [for L1 charging] without disabling the charging station, or provide permanent EVSEs with J1772 connectors that will be used more often, but which can be put out of service with a single act of vandalism? The long-term answer is obviously wireless charging via embedded coils.

Particularly at places like Tuolumne Meadows, I think the convenience and abuse-prevention benefits of J-1772 connectors outweigh the risk of vandalism. And it is not obvious to me that inductive charging is the answer here, as I would imagine the losses could be fairly high if this approach is used for slow L1 charging. (It's already slow enough without adding more resistance.)

I don't see wireless used for L1 for the reason you state; my assumption is that it will always be L2. The amount of work initially required to lay the coils would make it silly to skimp on the wiring/service and only do L1 IMO. However, that's for the future, by which time I expect there will be QCs in reasonably plentiful numbers in the gateway communities and BEVs will have increased their range even further, making the need for overnight L1 charging much less necessary. A couple of hours of L2 opportunity charging if needed would be more than enough.

AOTBE I'd opt to use simple, reliable Clipper Creek EVSEs everywhere, and use the honor system. But, while that will work well among early adopters, if PEVs move from the early adopters to the mainstream the % of people who will 'do the right thing' voluntarily is going to drop precipitously. I'm still pondering what to recommend.

I think you are right on this point. Some might be surprised to find that in campgrounds using the honor system, a non-trivial fraction of campers try to slide by without paying. I've witnessed this. As a result, rangers are forced to waste their time checking for compliance.

Given that there's no wifi and the cellular data coverage is spotty, I suppose a PoS system might have to work over traditional phone lines if possible. Another option could be to activate EVSEs using a machine that reads coins and bills, like a vending machine, but that seems expensive and clunky.

Maybe the best that could be done would be to require payment by envelope and have park staff check any parked vehicles vs. the envelopes from time to time, with the threat of real parking tickets for those who choose not to pay. While I'd prefer not to add another responsibility for park employees (or volunteers), this is actually in concept no different from maintaining other park amenities that visitors depend on.

I'm definitely leaning towards recommending envelopes/hang tags (the latter purchased at the store or Lodge reception during open hours) for L1, even though I'd prefer not to involve park staff in enforcement of these. That's the main beauty of PoS L2 - it's self-regulating. Assuming they agree to install something, I expect that decision will be made much further up the NPS food chain, as it will be the campground/patrol rangers who have to enforce it and whose time will need to be reimbursed.

One thing I'm planning to recommend is that if it's cost-effective to do so, EVSEs, especially L2s, be installed so that they can easily be transferred to other locations (Badger Pass comes to mind), as there's no reason to leave them sitting anywhere along the Tioga Rd. for the 6 months or so it's inaccessible each year. Moving receptacles wouldn't be worth the trouble.

BTW, when you say you're in favor of option #3, would you rather have the L2s be 2 single 32A EVSEs, or 4 16A/32A shared ones? IOW, which is more important to you: a guaranteed 32A L2 EVSE but a max. of only two available; or would you rather have double the chance of finding a free J1772 with at least 16A, or 32A if no one else is connected to the other EVSE on the circuit?

 

[abasile]

I don't see wireless used for L1 for the reason you state; my assumption is that it will always be L2. The amount of work initially required to lay the coils would make it silly to skimp on the wiring/service and only do L1 IMO. However, that's for the future, by which time I expect there will be QCs in reasonably plentiful numbers in the gateway communities and BEVs will have increased their range even further, making the need for overnight L1 charging much less necessary. A couple of hours of L2 opportunity charging if needed would be more than enough.

Personally, if given the choice between leaving my car plugged into L1 for a day or two near my campsite vs. a 30-60 minute QC stop outside the park, I'd most likely prefer the L1. The great thing about destination charging is that you don't have to wait around for it, assuming you're staying at your destination for a while. (I'm not opposed to waiting, and can generally occupy the time well, but it's not necessarily anyone's first choice.) It also doesn't hurt that L1/L2 is usually cheaper than QC. Even if there's a bit of hassle to shuttle between the campground and a nearby charging location, it's time spent in a mountain paradise.

One thing I'm planning to recommend is that if it's cost-effective to do so, EVSEs, especially L2s, be installed so that they can easily be transferred to other locations (Badger Pass comes to mind), as there's no reason to leave them sitting anywhere along the Tioga Rd. for the 6 months or so it's inaccessible each year. Moving receptacles wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Even if they end up not wanting to move the EVSEs around, this is a good idea, as it'd also make it easier to swap out EVSEs in the event of a fault or damage.

BTW, when you say you're in favor of option #3, would you rather have the L2s be 2 single 32A EVSEs, or 4 16A/32A shared ones? IOW, which is more important to you: a guaranteed 32A L2 EVSE but a max. of only two available; or would you rather have double the chance of finding a free J1772 with at least 16A, or 32A if no one else is connected to the other EVSE on the circuit?

Having four 16A/32A shared EVSEs would be preferable to two 32A EVSEs, I think. There'd be nothing to lose, as two cars could still charge at 32A each. If there are four cars, then everyone gets something, and if a given car finishes charging, then the vehicle it's paired with gets the full 32A. I don't think people are going to want to wait in line to charge and shuffle cars around so that everyone can get their 32A.

In general, I think that adaptive charging is a great way to serve large numbers of EVs with a fixed amount of total power available. There's a project underway at Caltech to demonstrate this. They've got something like 50 EVSEs in one parking garage and can accommodate a range of EVs, including faster-charging Teslas. See https://api.plugshare.com/view/location/82444 and https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/free-destination-charging-50x-l2-80a-stations-caltech-pasadena-ca.58038/ What you're putting forth isn't quite that flexible, but it's in the right direction. It may some time to fine tune this concept.

 

[GRA]

I don't see wireless used for L1 for the reason you state; my assumption is that it will always be L2. The amount of work initially required to lay the coils would make it silly to skimp on the wiring/service and only do L1 IMO. However, that's for the future, by which time I expect there will be QCs in reasonably plentiful numbers in the gateway communities and BEVs will have increased their range even further, making the need for overnight L1 charging much less necessary. A couple of hours of L2 opportunity charging if needed would be more than enough.

Personally, if given the choice between leaving my car plugged into L1 for a day or two near my campsite vs. a 30-60 minute QC stop outside the park, I'd most likely prefer the L1. The great thing about destination charging is that you don't have to wait around for it, assuming you're staying at your destination for a while. (I'm not opposed to waiting, and can generally occupy the time well, but it's not necessarily anyone's first choice.) It also doesn't hurt that L1/L2 is usually cheaper than QC. Even if there's a bit of hassle to shuttle between the campground and a nearby charging location, it's time spent in a mountain paradise.

I hear you, but expect that the NPS will continue to try and reduce infrastructure as much as possible, so I think widespread L1 is likely a temporary step. If they DO choose to retain it, all the better. I also expect that it will be some years yet before affordable BEVs can make T.M. with an adequate reserve without an enroute QC stop; e.g. for me coming from the Bay Area, it's 186 miles and 8,500+ of climb to T.M., so a QC stop in Oakdale or better yet Groveland (and Lee Vining coming the other way) is pretty much required in any case.

BTW, when you say you're in favor of option #3, would you rather have the L2s be 2 single 32A EVSEs, or 4 16A/32A shared ones? IOW, which is more important to you: a guaranteed 32A L2 EVSE but a max. of only two available; or would you rather have double the chance of finding a free J1772 with at least 16A, or 32A if no one else is connected to the other EVSE on the circuit?

Having four 16A/32A shared EVSEs would be preferable to two 32A EVSEs, I think. There'd be nothing to lose, as two cars could still charge at 32A each. If there are four cars, then everyone gets something, and if a given car finishes charging, then the vehicle it's paired with gets the full 32A. I don't think people are going to want to wait in line to charge and shuffle cars around so that everyone can get their 32A.

In general, I think that adaptive charging is a great way to serve large numbers of EVs with a fixed amount of total power available. There's a project underway at Caltech to demonstrate this. They've got something like 50 EVSEs in one parking garage and can accommodate a range of EVs, including faster-charging Teslas. See https://api.plugshare.com/view/location/82444 and https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/free-destination-charging-50x-l2-80a-stations-caltech-pasadena-ca.58038/ What you're putting forth isn't quite that flexible, but it's in the right direction. It may some time to fine tune this concept.

The only problem at the moment is that I'm not aware of any company that makes shared EVSEs which also offer PoS payment; Clipper Creek offers the units but not the PoS equipment/network. Does anyone know of any other EVSE provider that offers shared EVSEs equipped with PoS payment? [Edit] ChargePoint seems to offer this, in their Dual Port Standard Power Share version of the CT4000 series: http://www.chargepoint.com/files/datasheets/ds-ct4000.pdf
Only 30A single (at least at 240V), but I'm not going to lose any sleep over 2A. They are far more expensive than Clipper Creeks, but offer all sorts of pricing options.

BTW, the following will undoubtedly put things on hold awhile, until the Superintendent's replacement is appointed and has time to settle in:

Yosemite official stepping down amid harassment allegations

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-yosemite-harassment-20160929-snap-story.html

Woody Smeck, the superintendent of Sequoia/Kings Canyon (a former Deputy Superintendent of Yosemite), will be the acting superintendent for the next four months. As the proposal isn't finished the delay won't hurt, yet, but until he or someone else is confirmed as permanent, any major decisions will likely be on hold.

 

[abasile]

I hear you, but expect that the NPS will continue to try and reduce infrastructure as much as possible, so I think widespread L1 is likely a temporary step. If they DO choose to retain it, all the better. I also expect that it will be some years yet before affordable BEVs can make T.M. with an adequate reserve without an enroute QC stop; e.g. for me coming from the Bay Area, it's 186 miles and 8,500+ of climb to T.M., so a QC stop in Oakdale or better yet Groveland (and Lee Vining coming the other way) is pretty much required in any case.

Unfortunately, I agree that the NPS appears to have little or no institutional desire (or available funding) to improve electrical infrastructure.

Adding electrical hookups to many campsites would, in my opinion, make for generally better park experiences. Besides the obvious benefits for EVs, it would be preferable to have RVs and "campers" on the grid rather than running generators. There is nothing more jarring than the noise and fumes produced by generators during the day, and I'm not sure it'll be realistic to completely ban their use until most RVs/trailers come with large battery packs (which would still need to be charged). On the negative side, having electrical hookups would enable RV owners to run noisy air conditioners all day, though that would presumably be less of an issue at cool places like Tuolumne Meadows, and in any event I'd prefer air conditioners to generators.

 

[GRA]

I hear you, but expect that the NPS will continue to try and reduce infrastructure as much as possible, so I think widespread L1 is likely a temporary step. If they DO choose to retain it, all the better. I also expect that it will be some years yet before affordable BEVs can make T.M. with an adequate reserve without an enroute QC stop; e.g. for me coming from the Bay Area, it's 186 miles and 8,500+ of climb to T.M., so a QC stop in Oakdale or better yet Groveland (and Lee Vining coming the other way) is pretty much required in any case.

Unfortunately, I agree that the NPS appears to have little or no institutional desire (or available funding) to improve electrical infrastructure.

Adding electrical hookups to many campsites would, in my opinion, make for generally better park experiences. Besides the obvious benefits for EVs, it would be preferable to have RVs and "campers" on the grid rather than running generators. There is nothing more jarring than the noise and fumes produced by generators during the day, and I'm not sure it'll be realistic to completely ban their use until most RVs/trailers come with large battery packs (which would still need to be charged). On the negative side, having electrical hookups would enable RV owners to run noisy air conditioners all day, though that would presumably be less of an issue at cool places like Tuolumne Meadows, and in any event I'd prefer air conditioners to generators.

I'm rarely in campgrounds, more typically just off in the woods with my camp being any reasonably flat spot where I can put down my groundcloth, pad and bag, in the back of my car at a trailhead, or on a peak somewhere, but the times I've stayed in T.M. campground it was noticeably a lot more quiet at night than would be the case with more developed campgrounds, especially those in the Valley (Camp 4 can be a real zoo, and that's all climbers and backpackers - I shudder to think what the car campgrounds there are like). I attribute this mostly to the fact that T.M. is cool to cold at night, so the Yahoos who stay up until the wee hours drinking, doping and playing music loudly on their stereos tend to stay away, and the rangers are more likely to crack down on them swiftly if they don't.

From what I can recall from back when I could still hear them, most modern portable generators are near silent, at least the small Hondas and the like were. I can maybe see electrical hookups if camping in hot weather locations (e.g. Death Valley early or late season), but for me they really belong in RV parks, as most tent campers aren't trying to haul their entire homes around with them or duplicate their amenities.

So I'm all in favor of keeping power out of the campsites - nowadays with small PV modules and LED lanterns, there's really no need for generators. Course, I'm not an RV person, even though a lot of my off-grid customers were, and have a visceral loathing of many RV drivers when they're on the road, as IME at least the inexperienced ones who're renting seem to assume that because they have no direct vision to the rear, they must therefore be the only vehicles on the road, and are thus free to drive at 22 mph on a 45 mph road and ignore all the pullouts, as well as horns, flashed headlights and any other indications that they aren't the sole travelers on it. The 20-50 vehicles piled up behind them take a different view, and I've got to say that they're been more than a few times that I felt ambivalence about whether or not I'd rather be driving 007's Aston Martin - the forward firing machine guns would have come in handy as far as satisfying my rage at such inconsiderate behavior, and it makes road rage incidents explicable if not justifiable. OTOH, as the mother of one of my scouts was shot and killed in a road rage incident, I'm just as glad I'm not tooled up to do likewise when some RV bozo decides he's 'King of the road'. Shouting imprecations and using appropriate sign language when the opportunity to pass finally arrives can also be cathartic.

 

[abasile]

From what I can recall from back when I could still hear them, most modern portable generators are near silent, at least the small Hondas and the like were. I can maybe see electrical hookups if camping in hot weather locations (e.g. Death Valley early or late season), but for me they really belong in RV parks, as most tent campers aren't trying to haul their entire homes around with them or duplicate their amenities.

So I'm all in favor of keeping power out of the campsites - nowadays with small PV modules and LED lanterns, there's really no need for generators. Course, I'm not an RV person, even though a lot of my off-grid customers were, and have a visceral loathing of many RV drivers when they're on the road...

You may be right about modern generators, and the T. M. campground is certainly quieter than others we've stayed at. Still, on every visit, we've found that some neighbors invariably crank up their loud generators.

As one who prefers to travel light, I don't care much for RVs, either. Driving around a small house on wheels generally seems wasteful, slow, and inflexible. But plenty of nice people seem to like them, and they aren't going away anytime soon. So as long as the parks are going to allow RVs, I'd rather they do so in a manner that is less of an imposition on others, in other words, by providing electrical hookups in order to eliminate the perceived need for generators.

At the same time, enabling in-campground charging for BEVs and PHEVs is a direct way to reduce in-park ICE usage. While that may not be as noticeable of a benefit as getting rid of those old generators, it is consistent with the mission of the NPS, at least IMHO.

Anyway, I agree that my preference for electrical hookups in portions of more NPS campgrounds isn't likely to gain a great deal of traction, at least in the near term. So I'm grateful for the efforts to get charging installed near some campgrounds such as T. M.!

 

[GRA]

<snip>
So I'm all in favor of keeping power out of the campsites - nowadays with small PV modules and LED lanterns, there's really no need for generators. Course, I'm not an RV person, even though a lot of my off-grid customers were, and have a visceral loathing of many RV drivers when they're on the road...

You may be right about modern generators, and the T. M. campground is certainly quieter than others we've stayed at. Still, on every visit, we've found that some neighbors invariably crank up their loud generators.

As one who prefers to travel light, I don't care much for RVs, either. Driving around a small house on wheels generally seems wasteful, slow, and inflexible. But plenty of nice people seem to like them, and they aren't going away anytime soon. So as long as the parks are going to allow RVs, I'd rather they do so in a manner that is less of an imposition on others, in other words, by providing electrical hookups in order to eliminate the perceived need for generators.

At the same time, enabling in-campground charging for BEVs and PHEVs is a direct way to reduce in-park ICE usage. While that may not be as noticeable of a benefit as getting rid of those old generators, it is consistent with the mission of the NPS, at least IMHO.

Anyway, I agree that my preference for electrical hookups in portions of more NPS campgrounds isn't likely to gain a great deal of traction, at least in the near term. So I'm grateful for the efforts to get charging installed near some campgrounds such as T. M.!

It strikes me that the other option is to simply prohibit generator use in the parks altogether. There's generally a quiet time specified now, IIRR typically 10 p.m. - 6 a.m., so it would seem simpler (and a lot cheaper) to just expand that and say that generators are banned entirely, or else between such and such hours. The people who just have to have a generator to run their electric deep fat fryers (I'm serious - I've seen it) are free to camp in private RV parks outside the jurisdiction of the NPS! Anyway, enough of my ranting - the NPS ideology is clear, and except where they already exist due to more extensive development grandfathered in (typically at sites like Death Valley or Grand Canyon that were previously National Monuments), I know of no desire on the part of NPS to wire campsites.

As to EV charging at campgrounds, I think it more appropriate to offer it outside the campground sites in a central parking area (as is the case with the former T.M. gas station) rather than individually by site. It's less expensive, and I hope just enough less convenient compared to having charging at the campsite that people will be loathe to drive their cars any more than necessary. Even in national park campgrounds, people who are used to walking no more than a few steps to their car every day will hesitate before taking those extra steps, especially if a shuttle stop is closer. That's one reason why I want to see charging put in at Curry Village in the Valley, which is within walking distance of the Pines campgrounds but not immediately adjacent to them. If expansion is needed and power's available reasonably near by, some central parking space may be found near various campground entrances - there's one just outside the campground entrance in T.M., on the right side of the entrance road, and there's a meter and single 5-15R and 10-30Rs about 75 feet away from it.

 

[abasile]

It strikes me that the other option is to simply prohibit generator use in the parks altogether.

I wouldn't object to that! BTW, generators are already prohibited during "quiet hours", mainly at night. So the question is, would public opinion support such a move?

I truly am fine with EV charging that's within walking distance of the campground, rather than right at the campsites. That approach probably represents the best possible compromise given funding realities and sentiment within the NPS.

 

[smkettner]

My suggestion is for more low power L2 such as 12 to 16 amps. Yosemite should be a place to park for an extended period and ride the bus around. EVs will tend to remain plugged in all day so best to have more cords and less power each if that is the limitation. Best to have at a single location where there is extra parking close to a bus stop. Don't need EVs driving around all the areas that might have charging just to snag one or not. Or course if 4 cords can share 50 amp circuit with 10 to 40 amps available depending on use would also be great however a low tech (low maintenance) solution might be better.