Phoenix
Well-known member
edatoakrun said:DaveinOlyWA said:i think the dealership option is best for a start due to the ability to monitor and provide quicker response for repair issues.
now, despite what I said, the QC deployment will be reviewed and in the Vacaville case, it very well could be an exception. keep in mind, its all speculation right now and part of the group's focus is how to determine what is a good place and not a good place. there is a LOT of consensus that this is a good place and Nissan will know this (if they dont already and I suspect they do. the person in charge of the deployment plans is an active reader of this forum and whether she plans to address these issues with us directly here or not, its not like your comments are not known.
Has anyone pointed out to Nissan that the existing Vacaville (defunct) DC location (at the park-and-ride) has an excellent location, already has the infrastructure for a single (or several?) DC's, is adjacent to multiple L2s for "back up", and could conceivably be up and running extremely quickly?
Isn't the main thing holding up the replacement (we are told) is that no one has given Vacaville a replacement (UL approved) DC?
Heck, Nissan could put in their own sleek DCQC if the nozzle is a problem (which I don't think it is). Just a stupid holding pattern amongst various bureaucrats with no one stepping up to assume liability. THIS CAN BE A TRANSITIONAL QC for a defined period of time if someone (Nissan) takes over liability from PG&E or Eaton which supposedly was signing a contract with the city of Vacaville (last we heard).
Ball's in Nissan's court. They have most to gain by having QCs that will sell more LEAFs. Maybe they can get some SF/Oakland/Walnut Creek dealership to sponsor this QC. Sell more LEAFs in Bay Area. Advertise that LEAF can go all the way up to Sacto with a QC for the time being. Until NRG, Blink, etc. puts up the for-profit infrastructure.