Three US States Will Spend $1.3 Billion To Build More Electric Vehicle Charging (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Three U.S. states announced major investments in charging infrastructure for electric cars on Thursday. In total, California, New York, and New Jersey will put $1.3 billion on the table in the coming years to help chip away at one of the biggest barriers standing in the way of widespread EV adoption. California's Public Utilities Commission approved up to $738 million worth of projects over the next five years, the agency announced. Southern California Edison and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will spend up to $343 million and $236 million, respectively, to build charging infrastructure that will support thousands of medium or heavy-duty vehicles at around 1,500 locations throughout the state. PG&E will spend another $22 million building 234 DC fast-charging stations at around 50 different sites throughout the state.

In New York, the governor's office announced a pledge of up to $250 million through 2025 to its electric vehicle expansion initiative, EVolve NY. The New York Power Authority will work with the private sector to install up to 200 DC fast chargers "along key interstate corridors" with the goal of making them available every 30 miles, and it will also bring them to urban areas as well, including at or near New York City's two major airports. Meanwhile, New Jersey's biggest utility owner Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) announced a $300 million pledge to build out up to 50,000 charging stations along highways, in residential areas, and at workplaces.

Comments

Re: This will harm consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. What really "harms consumers" is runaway pollution by vehicle exhaust, that consists 99% of carcinogenic soup of toxic chemicals.

Solving the wrong problem

[vtcodger]

What is needed for EVs to take off is a safety regulation compliant, not too uncomfortable, basic vehicle that can be driven away for $15000 USD -- preferably less. Build that and you'll probably find coin operated EV chargers installed at every convenience store and office building parking lot. As long as EVs cost ten times the price of a (well) used Honda Civic, Slashdot will continue its unending stream of articles on EV breakthroughs. And the number in actual use will continue to be minimal.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[Gravis Zero]

What is needed for EVs to take off is a safety regulation compliant, not too uncomfortable, basic vehicle that can be driven away for $15000 USD -- preferably less.

Since the batteries are the pricey part of EVs, what we really need is for the automation issues with the Gigafactory to be completely solved so that they can scale up and out to many other sites.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[AmiMoJo]

The Gigafactory alone won't be nearly enough, but fortunately there are plenty of others being built around the world. Korea, China and Japan are all ramping up output.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[AmiMoJo]

The main issue limiting adoption is not really cost - you can get used EVs really cheap, and they are a great buy because there is very little to go wrong with them and they need next to no maintenance. The issue is lack of charging infrastructure.

Norway has got it right. Chargers everywhere. Simple operation, no stupid phone apps or subscriptions required. If someone asks for a charger outside their home the local government just does the whole street.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[LynnwoodRooster]

What is the lowest price realistic EV (not a GEM glorified golf car) on the market today? Does it come anywhere near the typical $20K of a budget ICE?

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[dfghjk]

Smaller battery banks will NOT result in smaller motors nor would it matter even if it did. The barrier to adoption is not the battery or the motor but the myriad problems with charging, only one of which would be addressed with "more chargers".

Re: Solving the wrong problem

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ahh, so by having my neighbors give me $7500 I can have a lower cost vehicle. Nice to socialize my car costs! BTW, Leafs and eGolfs are over $30K before rebates, so....

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[dfghjk]

What is the lowest price realistic gasoline powered car given the same extemely low volumes that EV faces today? Asking the wrong question.

Don't agree with the claim that there is "very little to go wrong" with a used EV. They are still cars. Used EVs are cheap because there's no resale demand for them. All that would change with broad adoption. New prices would come down, resale value would improve.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, new EVs are expensive because of lo volumes because no one can afford to buy them, and they are really cheap used because no one wants them. And the solution is broad adoption - of a vehicle that people either can't afford (new) or don't want (used). Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re: Solving the wrong problem

[kenh]

Before or after $7,500 government subsidy?

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[kenh]

Build that and you'll probably find coin operated EV chargers installed at every convenience store and office building parking lot.

The raw electricity to charge a plug-in car is over $2.50, add profit and overhead, and you could be looking at $7.50-$10 per charge - that's a lot of coins.

Electric car development,
Electric car factories,
Car battery factories,
consumer purchase of the electric car,
charging stations in public places,
charging stations at office buildings,
charging stations at home,
are ALL subsidized, and are allowed to run tax-free on public roads and bridges.

If electric cars aren't ubiquitous, it isn't for lack of government support.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[AHuxley]

In Soviet Union real car ready in 2038 for you.
In Capitalist West California builds free charging station for you.
California is still working on the free car part.

Re: Solving the wrong problem

[Barsteward]

all your fossilised fuel is "socialised" too - and trumps aiming to do more by wanting to find a way to subsidise loss making coal and nuclear plants.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[AmiMoJo]

A used Leaf, couple of years old with low mileage. A similar Zoe.

Re: Solving the wrong problem

[LionMage]

I don't suppose you did the due diligence of researching this for yourself? Of course not, you're posting as AC.

Just one problem with charging vs. refueling is the issue of transferring a given amount of energy in a reasonable amount of time. Chemical batteries have an upper limit to how much charge they can accept in a given unit of time; charging too fast can explode batteries, cables need to be substantially thicker as current requirements go up, and charge time is related to how much current you can deliver. Supercapacitors might not have the problems that chemical batteries do, but they have their own issues -- and you still need to figure out how to deliver all that current in a short time in a practical way.

Thicker cables are not as flexible, which create practicality issues. At some point, you may want to ditch cables altogether and go with some kind of fixed-point connector that the car docks into. If you don't trust the average driver to properly dock their car to a charger, you're going to need software to automate the process. Seeing how people actually park their vehicles at a filling station, I wouldn't trust humans with docking.

Charging stations are going to need some hefty infrastructure to supply the current to multiple vehicles at a time. Safety concerns will need to be addressed. On-site power generation may be impractical, at least for the energy volume required. Just one example: Solar panels are only good for daytime use, etc., and battery storage for charging EVs at a charging station during a night-time cycle will probably not work for the foreseeable future.

I'm no apologist for the fossil fuel industry, but there are definitely technical challenges to EV charging that need to be addressed. Right now, gasoline is a pretty stable fuel, it's delivered to vehicles via hoses and pumps that have been slowly improved over time, and the energy density is hard to beat. EVs and their charging infrastructure have to compete against these advantages. I think it's certainly doable, but people may have to change their expectations of what "normal" is for driving a car.

In the meantime, EV and plug-in hybrid owners are getting expensive 240V charging stations installed at home... and it still takes several hours to charge, but at least you know your vehicle is in a safe place doing it.

I don't see a problem here

[oldgraybeard]

After all, California only has 777 billion in state debt last time I looked. What is another 700+ million added to that.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re: I don't see a problem here

[dfghjk]

Agreed. Furthermore, subsidies are NOT to give people something that don't need it, it's to accelerate the creation of a market. Subsidies help overcome impediments to technologies that benefit society. Subsidize EVs AND build out charging infrastructure, there is nothing more obviously beneficial to society today than doing that.

Re: I don't see a problem here

[kenh]

Electric car development,
Electric car factories,
Car battery factories,
consumer purchase of the electric car,
charging stations in public places,
charging stations at office buildings,
charging stations at home,
are ALL subsidized, and are allowed to run tax-free on public roads and bridges.

If electric cars aren't ubiquitous, it isn't for lack of government support.

Why can't electric vehicle owners be expected to fund construction of a sufficient number of refueling stations the way automobile owners fund construction of gas stations?

Currently, who typically buys electric vehicles? is it the lower income families or those lousy 1%ers? One of the most popular electric vehicles on the road today are the various tesla vehicles, which are NOT marketed in inner-city neighborhoods to lower-income families.

Re: I don't see a problem here

[Barsteward]

Why haven't they stopped fossil fuel subsidy after decades and decades of development, surely they are passed the "new tech market" by now and should have got it right by now? A new way of doing things never happens overnight, I don't understand why there is an expectation that production of vehicle with a new power train would be at the numbers level of a 100 year old industry that still gets a subsidy and bailout when they go bust.

Re: I don't see a problem here

[Bengie]

Pollution from fossil fuel is costing the USA about $100bil in healthcare per year. Externalizing costs is just another form of subsidy. That said, I'm not sure how much this applies to a discussion about electric cars where either the cars burn the fuel or the power plant burns the fuel, even if it burns cleaner by some measure and further away.

Re: This will harm consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

This will harm consumers and should be illegal. It wasn't necessary for the states to build gas stations and it shouldn't be necessary for them to build charging stations.

Actually, government support was necessary for the original oil companies.

You may have forgotten about TeaPot Dome, but the history is there.

Even coal relied on the public subsidized water and rail routes.

You're more than welcome to level the playing field. Just tax them back.

Compatible level 2 and level 3 charging connector?

[BrookHarty]

Not a big fan of Tesla using their own charging ports for level 2 and level 3 charging. We finally force mobile device vendors to use usb as a standard, and tesla is using its own charging port plugs. People are already complaining about compatible charging stations.

https://chargehub.com/en/elect...

Is this an investment?

[SantiagoMcRib]

Here's what I'm curious about: Assuming the normal sales tax rate is applied to the electricity sold by these charging stations, is the state making more or less money than the taxes on gas?

I'm guessing less, but I have no idea where to even begin nailing down some of those variables.

Re:Is this an investment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Quite a bit less. Assuming the normal retail $0.25/kWh paid in CA, a P100D would need $25.00 to completely charge. Assuming a max of 10% sales tax, that is $2.50 for the State. Gas taxes in CA run about $0.58 per gallon. Assuming 300 mile range, and 30 MPG, the State would collect less than half the taxes of an comparative ICE.

Additionally, since damage to roads goes as the fourth power of vehicle weight, EVs (which tend to outweigh similar-sized ICE vehicles) tend to do a lot more damage to the roads. And they pay less tax towards the roads. Taxes on charging stations need to be tripled or more to compensate for the damage and wear-and-tear on the roadways.

Re:Is this an investment?

[dfghjk]

Why does this matter?

Gas taxes pay for infrastructure, it's done that way because it can be. If electric makes that unrealistic then it will be done another way (and that would be a great problem to have). The government will find their taxes regardless.

Re:Is this an investment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

And without roads, the usefulness of the EV is? We need to maintain the infrastructure REQUIRED for either EVs or ICE. Or do we ignore the damage done to roads by EVs, and let the roads deteriorate (or further deteriorate, if you're here in CA) to the point you cannot drive on them?

Re:Is this an investment?

[Barsteward]

They will be taxed in some way at some point in the future, just not now when they are trying to get to a tipping point in a brand new market. There are some heavy ICE vehicles out there too so tax according to weight and not power.

Re:Is this an investment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

So in other words we should mask the true cost of EVs until they are the majority, then we can sock it to 'em. And we do partially tax by weight, as MPG tends to go hand-in-hand with weight, and we tax by gallon of fuel.

Re:Is this an investment?

[SantiagoMcRib]

There is definitely room for some swing in those figures, but I agree with the outcome. Thanks for the input.

Generally speaking, I'm a proponent for electric vehicles. But the general public simply isn't going to adopt until the cost of switching is less than the cost of remaining in a gas powered vehicle.

Re:Is this an investment?

[SantiagoMcRib]

Gas taxes pay for infrastructure, it's done that way because it can be. If electric makes that unrealistic then it will be done another way (and that would be a great problem to have).

I like this perspective. However, I don't know that I have a lot of faith that the government cogs will spin quickly enough to keep up with the changing market.

Re:$22M for 234 stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

$94,000 per station? That seems seriously inefficient.

a gas station has $100,000 in fire suppression equipment

Re:Compatible level 2 and level 3 charging connect

[cayenne8]

Not a big fan of Tesla using their own charging ports for level 2 and level 3 charging. We finally force mobile device vendors to use usb as a standard, and tesla is using its own charging port plugs. People are already complaining about compatible charging stations.

Sounds like there is money to be made in the dongle/adapter market.....eh?

;)

Re:$22M for 234 stations?

[santiago]

Level 3 DC fast-chargers are $50k-$100k each.

https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/...

Great!

[gatfirls]

Now I will need to park 75 spaces away from the door, after the handicapped, then the 'family' then the 'charging', then the compact. May as well just walk because I am closer to my house than when I started.

Actually...Hey...wait a minute! What a devious plan.

Re: This will harm consumers

[Archangel Michael]

wait for the droughts buddy. Coming soon!

Good idea, bad structure

[RhettLivingston]

We need to encourage a future in which the vast amount of charging occurs at home. Slow charges are much better for the batteries and the impact on the grid is less if charging is spread out, coordinated with home systems, and occurs largely overnight. The positive impact to the grid is also maximized in a future where these vehicles are connected to the grid when parked for long periods of time and can be utilized to stabilize it.

Of these three initiatives, New Jersey's sounds best due to more prominent support for large numbers of home installations.

Governments do have a place in this. The place is to clear the regulatory hurdles to installations.

For example, most states will need a law clearing HOA hurdles, especially for those living in condominium and townhome situations who need to be given the right to run electric to their parking spaces without getting HOA permission which is almost always impossible, even if the HOA boards wish to do so. Their hands are usually tied by bylaws that can't be altered without impossible to attain vote percentages. Our HOA has had trouble even electing board members to abandoned spots because they can't gather a quorum. Homeowners are just completely apathetic to the process.

Another is to ensure that new major household systems such as ovens, water heaters, and air conditioners include some communication protocols to help manage household load. This can allow vehicle charging to work around A/C and water heater usage and keep peak draws no higher than they currently are. Since the A/C and water heaters could work around each other as well, it could even lower peak draws versus today. Regulating production of household systems to ensure a healthy grid is nothing new. Without existing regulations, the grid would have collapsed long ago.

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[LynnwoodRooster]

If we charge overnight, and the majority have EVs, then haven't we simply doubled up on "peak hours"? The typical EV will need 150-20kWh of charge, meaning for a typical home, 8 hour overnight charge, you'll need to pull 2 to 3 kW per hour - more than the home would use during the typical "day" period. The grid would need to be massively upgraded to now handle high peak loads in residential areas, not just commercial or industrial.

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[LynnwoodRooster]

Multiply that 2-3 kW by every home on your block. Or each unit in a 300 unit apartment building. The issue is when it scales up to more than just you... Could your local power transformer handle the hit if all your neighbors were pulling the same as you?

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[RhettLivingston]

The average American drives about 1100 miles per month. So, about 4 full charges of a vehicle with a 70kWH+ battery a month. Because it greatly extends the total mileage an auto battery reaches to top off instead of charging fully, a 1/7th or so top off every night is much better practice. This is around 10kWH per night on average. The average is what matters when looking at the grid impact across entire communities. Most nights, cars are parked for over 12 hours. But, let's call it 10 and assume that everyone parks the same 10 and we've got a 1kW average draw. This load can be handled by a 120V-15A plug.

But, this is also making assumptions about nobody charging at work, while they are in stores, or anywhere else. That is also not true. A healthy city will be encouraging employers to add charging so that some of the load is spread into the day too when solar is at a peak. Charging autos at work during the day is one of the best concepts for fully utilizing solar energy output.

We also have several areas in which home energy usage is expected to go down 10-20 years from now, just in time to help with this. The most important of those are some advances in air conditioning that are expected to take about that long to deploy.

This is not the first time we've encountered the overloaded grid threat. Around 1980, we were saved having to perform massive grid upgrades by the advent of the microwave. We'll make similar advances in the future, especially if pressed into it.

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[Barsteward]

And all shopping mall car parks, general car parks should be completely covered with solar panels (where possible - nice to come back to a cooler car) and chargers installed so you can top up when shopping.

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[Barsteward]

You are assuming every single car is going to be charging every single night and every car is going to have a nearly empty battery, people will either plug when necessary i.e. nearly empty or every night just for a top up. The charging can also be controlled as it can all be linked so if the draw gets too much, the grid can temporarily shutdown charging for some EVs or when Vehicle to Grid comes on line, they can draw a little from a EV connected to the grid - this is where microgrids come in handy.

Re:Good idea, bad structure

[b0bby]

Fortunately this is going to be a transition over the next decade +, so in the areas where upgrades are need they can happen. I certainly don't end up drawing 25kwh every night, more like 10 every few nights. I already have my timer set to start at off peak times and could easily push to 1 am if it were cheaper.

The fact that my power company is actively involved in pilot programs means they are not likely to get caught too off guard by any of this.

Government out of control

[Snotnose]

They're choosing one tech over another. Did the government build gas stations 100 years ago? Hell no. Joe blow had to decide "hmmm, haystacks or gasoline. Wat do?". The successful ones chose gasoline.

Who's to say electric charging stations are better than hydrogen refill stations; or, hell, gas stations.

The government needs to butt out and let the market decide. Putting your thumb on the scale only results in a Hillary vs Trump campaign, when there is a very good chance Bernie could have won the whole enchilada. (Bernie vs HRC? HRC in a landslide. Bernie vs Trump? We'll never know. HRC vs anyone with a 40% disapproval rating? Probably the scumbag).

Re:Government out of control

[dfghjk]

"They're choosing one tech over another."

When it's in society's best interest, it is an appropriate function of the government to do this. Where's your outrage over the government building roads?

"Who's to say electric charging stations are better than hydrogen refill stations; or, hell, gas stations."

Intelligent people, that's who. It's not a mystery. Who's to say it's an either/or situation?

"The government needs to butt out and let the market decide. Putting your thumb on the scale only results in a Hillary vs Trump campaign..."

What an ignoramus.

Re:Compatible level 2 and level 3 charging connect

[LynnwoodRooster]

EU requires micro USB for charging. iPhones in the EU ship with dongles to adapt.

Re:Compatible level 2 and level 3 charging connect

[dfghjk]

It did work well. The problem would be worse without it, and the problem gets better with time.

Your sarcasm does nothing to hide your ignorance.

Re:This will harm consumers

[kenh]

Wait, you mean politicians didn't offer free gasoline in state-owned gas stations to spur along the new horseless carriages owned by the 1%ers of their time? How did the burgeoning industry ever develop?

Re: This will harm consumers

[kenh]

You're more than welcome to level the playing field. Just tax them back.

Gasoline companies pay over 58 cents per gallon in federal taxes. They pay plenty of taxes.

Do electric cars pay taxes to build roads and bridges? No.

Re:$22M for 234 stations?

[kenh]

A gas station has a dozen or more pumps, thousands of gallons of flammable liquid in the ground, and were universally built with private funds.

Public charging stations are, by definition, built with public funds, largely paid for by people that do not own electric vehicles.

30 min vs 3 min

[mapkinase]

The fastest superchargers will take 30 min. It takes me 3 min to fill up the tank.

It makes sense to develop a network of chargers along major interstates for long-distance travelers, so they can enjoy their sundae taco while their car is charging.

As for commuters, they will still need to charge their cars overnight at their homes. Every day.

Re:30 min vs 3 min

[ebvwfbw]

150 KWH? That's like 360 HP the entire time it's charging. So you're one of those - fill it up 1/3 of the way guys instead of filling it up? If it's a diesel engine generating that kind of power, we're at 18 GPH. Gasoline we're more like 30. So 30 minutes we're still at 9 gallons. Even at 10 minutes we're at 3 gallons. Interesting thing is, we're not at that 100 MPG level that they keep telling us we'll get. No where near it. 3 gallons of gasoline will take my 12 year old full sized caddy 75 miles. The electric vehicle is probably around double that.

Not that impressive yet. Then with that I'm reading about the crappy repair records and hostile policies for Tesla cars, it's not worth it. Maybe a Chevy volt would be better. Thanks AC for getting me to think about this. By the way, be a real man, get a userid. You don't need to be an AC.

Re:30 min vs 3 min

[Agripa]

So electric vehicle ranges are 33% lower than advertised? Why am I not surprised?

Re:So another subsidy

[Barsteward]

so how does that compare to Trump's new idea of subsidising the loss making coal and nuclear power stations?

Re:$22M for 234 stations?

[Barsteward]

Possibly if they were built by independent operators. if built by a fossil fuel company then not really as all fossil fuel companies are being subsidised all the time and have been for decades and decades - you think they'd got it right by now after they became a monopoly propulsion system fuel. Subsidies should only be for new stuff when trying to get it into the market.

Re:Only 30 miles?

[Barsteward]

Saudis are also driving hard into the renewables arena, they are not sitting on their hands and whining about last centuries tech

Re: This will harm consumers

[Type44Q]

Gasoline companies pay over 58 cents per gallon in federal taxes.

Huh. How much do they pay when adjusted for subsidies??

That's what I thought.

Some corporate welfare is more equal than others

[eric_harris_76]

If the electric car companies were footing the entire bill for this, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But they aren't, so I do.

Others are only offended by corporate welfare when it benefits a company or industry they have no emotional investment in.