Gov Brown Settles w NRG - $100,000,000 of EVSE's for CA!!!!

[scottf200]

https://www.facebook.com/evchels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Chelsea Sexton

These dandy new chargers we Californians are buying from NRG w their own settlement? Also get to pay $10-15 per charge to use them. IOW, more than gas, per mile. Oh, yay!

Sigh. What a misuse of public funds. Very disappointed to see orgs like Union of Concerned Scientists praise it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120323-711516.html?mod=WSJ_Utilities_middleHeadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no skin in the CA game but you guys set precedence's. Not sure where the $10-$15/charge numbers come from.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

wow, sounds good...too good.

what i get out of this

compromise; the company in question owes the state much more than the settlement. so instead of cash, it is trading goods and services which does not cost the company 100 million, only provides 100 million in "billable goods" which means true value could be half that amount

2015; sounds like another 3 years of waiting... have had enough experience on that score.

"better than nothing" proposal is exactly that. dont know the details of this company paying out the services, but what is it they can afford to pay and what exactly do they owe the state?

10 year lawsuit means CA probably paid $10 million to get this far. will have to pay a few more million to keep tabs on the company as it pays it pittance.

so, now its an $88 million dollar settlement or less.

i would rather they write a check TODAY, (after all, the interest from the time the money has been in dispute is enough to QC the entire length of I-5) so CA can start building the QC's TODAY.

i never could understand these types of long term proposals. construction projects have micromanaged time schedules in weeks or months. this first one is 3 years away??

ya, good deal

 

[walterbays]

I have no skin in the CA game but you guys set precedence's. Not sure where the $10-$15/charge numbers come from.

Nor do I know. As others have commented, pricing for these new stations will be crucial.

If evgo prices them the same as in Houston, with no a la carte pricing, then I can just see the Fox News headlines: "Governor Moonbeam and Commie Socialist Liberal Obama Offer Cure for $4/gallon gasoline: $8/gallon coal fired electricity" That's $8/gallon equivalent if someone drives 500 miles per month, pays evgo $79/month, and compares to a Prius getting 50 MPG. If they fail to offer a la carte charging then they will be useless to the current base of EV drivers nearly all of whom already own their home charging stations.

If they offer a la carte L2 charging at $3/hour that's like $7/gallon gas to me, comparing on the basis of my other (gasoline) car. The prices that will be most valid are comparing on the basis of the Volt (40 MPG?) and plug-in Prius (55 MPG?) because the point at which they exceed the price of gasoline is the point at which they lose nearly all of the PHEV and EREV business.

I hope the state thought of this in the settlement agreement.

 

[Herm]

ya, good deal

It could be worse, it could be Ecotality

 

[Valdemar]

Here is some additional details from the evgo's web-site: https://www.evgonetwork.com/News_an...le_FastCharging_Infrastructure_in_California/

 

[scottf200]

Chelsa FB thread and her angle.

R. M.

Maybe you are reading the wrong source. I prefer Katie Fehrenbacher at gigaom cleantech over the WSJ. This is a settlement which is a compromise. They get something accomplished instead of litigating and spending the next few years in court. In case you don't the know state is broke. Only this kind of deal or federal money could enhance our weak charging network in the state. I remember lobbying during the early 90's. The requirements weren't tough enough I was told. Folks changed their tune when they didn't hold. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/electric-car-charging-gets-a-120m-push-in-california/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chelsea Sexton

Rod- I've read Katie's articles, and like her stuff in general. And yes, I am aware of the state's economic condition; I've lived here all my life. I was also involved with getting public infrastructure installed here during the last EV generation. I disagree strongly that taxpayer funding "can only enhance" our charging network- nearly $100 million has already been allocated to this state for charging, and it hasn't exactly gone well. The backlash from too much, poorly placed, expensive, inconvenient (etc) charging is worse than none at all, no matter who pays for it.

I'm not against this settlement going toward charging. But either the money should have been distributed via RFP, or NRG should be donating this infrastructure to the state with no strings attached. To give them back their $100million and then allow them to profit from it on top of that? Totally corrupt.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Chels rarely misses making a good and valid point. this is no exception. the State got screwed years ago and it is ongoing. they essentially did not win, they gave up

 

[TRONZ]

I am going to wait for the agreement to be finalized before bouncing off the walls.

 

[EricH]

I've been over this before. It is not simple if you cannot get the rest of your usage to fit into the hydra-headed and punitive rate structure which tops out somewhere around $.55 if you are on TOU and reach that tier for your other usage. The other option is a second meter, which turns out to be ridiculous. Please let's not get into a discussion of how we could modify and moderate our home's energy profile or install Solar. Simply put, TOU vehicle charging rates don't work for everyone. They should. TOU rates punish those who otherwise would be trying to do the right thing, and that's a shame.

If widespread adoption is going to fit into the infrastructure, everyone who charges at home should have a clear path to realize a substantial savings if they charge at night -- regardless of their circumstances, without consulting an Excel Macro or spending hours researching rate structures, without digging and trenching, and without juggling the rest of their lives around the attempt. It has to be stone cold simple and guaranteed -- not the carnival game it currently is.

I believe there is widespread realization around CA regulation (CPUC, staff, utilities) that the 5-tier residential rate structure is utterly counterproductive, in terms of sending "price signals" to customers (the holy grail) -- a signal in Sanskrit may be worse than no signal at all. SCE has filed to flatten its residential rate to 3 tiers, which is presently the statutory minimum (Tier 1 = "baseline" allocation, Tier 2 = 30% of your baseline allocation, Tier 3 = all other consumption). The first 2 tiers are still required by state law that dates back to the energy crisis (~2000). My understanding is that other parties have accepted this idea; the final CPUC decision is likely to come in fall 2012.
In addition, the CPUC may have it within their regulatory discretion to allow "optional" rates like residential TOU to be completely tier-less, although I don't believe they have ever ruled on that, either way. Simplicity should be coming, just not as quickly as anyone wants it.

 

[EricH]

I don't know what's better, $100,000,000 of charging infrastructure or knowing the funding is basically clawback money for corrupt utility practices. I would hope that solar (no demand charge) is a big part of the QC stations.

The corrupt practices at issue here, as I understand it, were by non-utility generating companies during the California energy crisis that unseated Gov. Gray Davis a little over a decade ago. These companies were formed to buy and operate (or not operate, depending upon the level of corruption) the generating plants that California utilities were forced to sell in what turned out to be a misguided attempt to bring 'competition' to the physics of moving electrons around the state. Physics turned out to be unmoved by regulatory theory, and the new generating plant owners were moved by little besides maximizing profits, which turned out to be incompatible with maximizing generating output. The resulting shortages and rotating blackouts brought us Gov. Arnold.

Enron was much more famous, and went bankrupt just as famously, but they were not the only company playing fast and loose in California with formerly utility-owned plants. NRG appears to have inherited the liability from Dynegy, who was among the original purchasers of utility generating plants in California.

 

[thankyouOB]

I believe there is widespread realization around CA regulation (CPUC, staff, utilities) that the 5-tier residential rate structure is utterly counterproductive, in terms of sending "price signals" to customers (the holy grail) -- a signal in Sanskrit may be worse than no signal at all.

Eric makes a good point; if you want customers to behave a certain way in reaction to rates, they need to be sraightforward, and the tiers need to be simple.
LADWP does a good job of that with basically three tiers for TOU meters, and the base rate runs for 14 hours overnight and all day on weekends, with the highest rates of the other two tiers from 1-5pm weekdays in the summer. that is how it is supposed to be; simple -- to get customers to react.

As to the stuff about EVSE infrastructure. I love my Leaf and it makes me feel good and is a good purchase choice. Right now, it reduces my cash flow needs and it will save me money. Does it pay off? For an initial investment of 20-23k including tax, I have hedged my transportation costs out 10 years at 2 cents a mile or so.
What I really need is assurance that Nissan wont fold on the commitment, as GM did on the EV1.

I would like to see more EVSEs. There is a good debate about whether L1, L2 or L3 would attract the most people to EVs.
Currently, I use L1 at work most days, but also have the option to find the L2s -- which are about a 10-minute walk away.
They both have their place. I suspect L3s have a big niche, especially along key roadways and at key destinations.

I look forward to that, but I can do fine what I need to do with the current set up.

 

[TRONZ]

There is a good debate about whether L1, L2 or L3 would attract the most people to EVs.

I am firmly on the side of whatever is fastest. Better, Faster, Cheaper is the triangulation problem of all engineering... and we only get to pick two at a time! Fortunately we already know that EV's are Better (clean, simple, reliable, powerful, etc) so all thats left to do is the Faster and Cheaper. Faster charging essentially makes an EV battery larger when you need it to be larger (going far) but without paying for the $$$ capacity up front and extra weight all the time. Faster charging also opens up a whole new market of shorter range less expensive EV's with less battery capacity because they can always just quickly charge if they need to. This new market increases scale of EV production and manufacturer competition for market share and then Better, Faster, Cheaper starts all over again.

 

[Nubo]

I wonder what this does to companies like ChargePoint?

 

[thankyouOB]

There is a good debate about whether L1, L2 or L3 would attract the most people to EVs.

I am firmly on the side of whatever is fastest. Better, Faster, Cheaper is the triangulation problem of all engineering... and we only get to pick two at a time! Fortunately we already know that EV's are Better (clean, simple, reliable, powerful, etc) so all thats left to do is the Faster and Cheaper. Faster charging essentially makes an EV battery larger when you need it to be larger (going far) but without paying for the $$$ capacity up front and extra weight all the time. Faster charging also opens up a whole new market of shorter range less expensive EV's with less battery capacity because they can always just quickly charge if they need to. This new market increases scale of EV production and manufacturer competition for market share and then Better, Faster, Cheaper starts all over again.

nicely put, but cheaper also means cheaper infrastructure.
where I work, they put in all sorts of 120 volt sockets for golf carts to run around the farm. they could do the same for EVs and, since most are parked all day while we work, that would work well for many.
of course, there should be somewhat more expensive L2s for those who travel farther. such units are way less expensive than L3s.
there is a place for them, too, as Tronz points out.

 

[hill]

+1 ... it almost makes me forgive Jerry for appointing Rose Bird (who effectively over turned Charles Manson and similar folks death sentences, and against the state's will, just because she was opposed to it) during his earlier tenure in California. Equally important, the more and more Q.C.'s that dot our landscape, the less and less likely the GM Frankenstein monster plug will ever come into existence ... presuming GM ever puts an EV on U.S. streets, much less a quick chargeable one. This is REALLY good news.

Another article. Yeah, Jerry.

GOLETA - Gov. Jerry Brown said today that he will push the state to put 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025, reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent over 1990s levels.

In an executive order, the Democratic governor directed state agencies to help facilitate that effort.

Meanwhile, Brown announced a $120 million settlement between the California Public Utilities Commission and NRG Energy Inc. - resolving a years-old claim related to power costs during California's energy crisis - to fund construction of 200 fast-charging stations for zero-emission vehicles and 10,000 plug-in units around the state.

"This executive order strengthens California's position as a national leader in zero-emission vehicles," Brown said in a prepared statement, "and the settlement will dramatically expand California's electric vehicle infrastructure, helping to clean our air and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Brown's announcement came as he defended his record on oil production at a conference on the economy and the environment just outside Santa Barbara. Four months after firing the top two overseers of drilling operations in California, Brown said, "I fired the people in charge, and now our permits are dramatically up."

When asked about his position on nuclear energy and hydraulic fracturing, Brown said he is still studying them.

The administration said the zero-emission vehicle settlement would fund charging stations in the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles Basin and San Diego County.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...on-cars-defends-oil-policy.html#storylink=cpy

 

[scottf200]

Aside:

<snip> ... presuming GM ever puts an EV on U.S. streets, much less a quick chargeable one.

See this post: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=183755#p183755" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[thankyouOB]

wow--attacking rose bird out of nowhere. but you do live in Orange County, where the anti-bird had its home. gee, do you know any of the housewives?

but seriously, rose bird didnt act alone. she had a majority of the state supreme court with her. and the death penalty has been shown to be inequally applied--and if you dont care about equal protection--also very expensive.
the right wing put forward a campaign and bird and her fellow moderate to liberal justice were all defeated for reelection

but think of this:
capital punishment costs millions and millions of dollars more than life in prison without parole.
it is fine to talk about EV here, but when you mix in this kind of political aside, dont expect a pass from those of us who are paying attention to history.
political

 

[lkkms2]

I wonder what this does to companies like ChargePoint?

Me too.

What are the long term implications for the other companies in the industry?

Hope the State gets the details right on the implementation requirements so that it helps in the short term, but does not hurt the long term development of the various companies trying to grow in this industry.

 

[TRONZ]

I think we all know the final model for charging infrastructure will be pay based. AND whenever money is involved, competition breaks out to ruthlessly chase it. So I think this news is good for any company that is (honestly) involved in EV's. More chargers mean more EV's which need more charger which mean more EV's, etc. The pie just gets bigger for everyone involved.

 

[planet4ever]

..The administration said the zero-emission vehicle settlement would fund charging stations in the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles Basin and San Diego County...

Um-How about the rest of the State?
Hey, up here...up here...up here...

Sorry, I'm about 6 pages late getting to this fast-moving discussion, but I noticed something. The press release said "San Joaquin Valley", but the executive order said "The State’s major metropolitan areas." Technically the San Joaquin Valley is only the part of the Central Valley from Stockton south, but that would exclude Sacramento. There is no way they would exclude the state's capitol, and the sixth largest city in the state. I would point out that colloquially I often refer to the entire Central Valley as the San Joaquin Valley, and I think many others do that as well. I suggest the the writer of the press release really meant the Central Valley, which would include the entire 400+ mile stretch from Redding to Bakersfield.

With that interpretation most of the population areas of the state would be included, though not the Sierras (sorry LakeLeaf), the central and northern coast, or the desert. There is also the very important Yreka/Weed/Mt Shasta stretch of I-5 for anyone with dreams of long distance EV travels. (Not my personal dream, but I respect those for which it is.)

Ray