Jump to content

California Regulators Request EV Charge Pause Over Labor Day Weekend


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

I'm not anti-EV at all! I'm a proponent, and almost ordered a Mach-E (went for the Escape instead as my wife wasn't quite ready to go all electric).  Think about what California is saying:

 

"We can't supply the power to let our customers charge their cars when they want, so let's require more cars that we can't charge!"

 

Thank you fordmantpw for supporting automakers', consumers', and governments' vision for an all-electric future for automobiles, and for the work you do at the power plant.

 

However, the statement connecting CAISO Flex Alert to CARB's Advanced Clean Cars II Rule, "We can't supply the power to let our customers charge their cars when they want, so let's require more cars that we can't charge!", is not logically correct.

  • A Flex Alert is a short-term, voluntary electricity conservation initiative to help "balance supply and demand" during major heatwaves and similar climate related events that cause air conditioning use to spike dramatically. Flex Alerts are issued for a specific day and applies only to peak hours within that day (4 to 9 PM for the August 31 Flex Alert for example). My home state of Texas has similar voluntary conservation initiatives.
  • CARB Advanced Clean Cars II Rule is a long-term initiative requiring a certain percentage of new light vehicles sold in California to be ZEV, reaching 100% by 2035. As mentioned earlier, over time more BEV can help improve electric grid resiliency through load management and backup power. PG&E is working with Ford to do just this using bidirectional charging and Intelligent Backup Power/Pro Power features on F-150 Lightning. And rampagex7 provided an excellent real-world example involving his own F-150 Lightning, Mustang Mach-E, and Lincoln Aviator PHEV.

 

 

Edited by rperez817
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it also needs to be pointed out that the southwest (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California) cool substantially at night due to low humidity levels, so electrical demand for to run A/C units falls dramatically from the loads experienced in the afternoon until the sun goes down.  This is unlike the rest of the country where humidity levels keep temperatures high well past sunset and the only reduction in electrical demand for A/C is due to office buildings being empty.  With that said, the southwest has much more capacity at night for BEV charging, but already suffers for over-capacity demand during the day.  It has always been that way because the generation capacity never kept pace with population growth which has been a much bigger contributor to peak power demand than BEV's.  So basically, adding BEV's will increase demand, but only marginally during the day and during peak times.  Population growth and increasing use / need for A/C is a much bigger driver that is straining capacity in the desert southwest.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mkizlvr said:

I have been a member of this forum since I was about 13. I’m now 30 ???? 

I really never post. I just come here to read. But this thread is ridiculous. I have owned 3 plug in vehicles. A  Fusion energi, fiat 500e, and I now have a Mach E. I still have all of these vehicles in our family. Dad- maverick hybrid,  mom- cmax energi, grandma- cmax, boyfriend- Hyundai ioniq…. Etc. I have experience with all of the maintenance and issues, or lack there of for the most part. People who don’t live here in CA act ridiculous when they read this BS. It’s not unusual to charge charge between the hours of 9pm-4pm the next day! As others here have mentioned. It’s not that complicated. All of our cars have been overall flawless and have required almost no maintaince. I’ll keep enjoying this more responsible life style that’s so much more convenient, financially beneficial, and overall just a better driving experience. I am just so giddy as to all policies and legislation that are getting through very recently. Something needs to happen. Better late than never. And better something than nothing. But hey, maybe I’m just more “radical” ?


I edited your post.  Knock off the political jabs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok this is yet again a repeating argument of “yes it is” “no it isn’t”.

 

Peak power use IS an issue in some areas and more EV charging COULD make that worse.

 

And I’m going to keep reminding folks that a large percentage of the population will not be able to charge at home and if those people get off work at 5 pm at 10% battery they need a public charger.

 

Are there ways to mitigate this problem as EVs become more popular?  Of course.

 

The grid has to improve.  EV charging has to improve both from a public infrastructure standpoint and technology.  That doesnt mean it can’t work today or won’t work tomorrow it just means everything has to evolve and there will be bumps along the way.

 

So let’s stop this repeated nonsense of “it will never work” vs “there are no problems at all”.  Neither are true.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said @akirby!

 

Can it work?  Yes, it can, but not the way it stands today.  As I said above, there is going to need to be substantial investments made to the grid as well as generation to support millions of new electric cars to the system.  CA has had issues with rolling brown/blackouts for several years.  You can't just add electric cars to the mix and expect the problems will go away.  You can't just require more electric vehicles without having a plan to invest in the infrastructure to support those electric vehicles.  I haven't seen those plans (though I have to admit, I haven't looked for them), maybe because they aren't headline grabbers like the requirement to move to BEV.

 

Charging at night during off-peak times is good for both the consumer and the provider.  It allows the provider to keep loads more steady and allows the customer to pay less (if their pay structure is set up that way).  Heck, our company has set up a datacenter to mine bitcoins to help even out the electric load as it makes everything more efficient.  It's easier to turn up the datacenter to consume that power and make money with that power than to turn down a powerplant producing 1200 MW of power.  I don't know the specifics, but I would assume they crank up the datacenter at night when load is low.  That's also when they pump water up to the top of our big "battery" of water (pumped storage hydro...research it, it's pretty cool stuff, though it's relatively low tech).

 

Also keep in mind that one of the huge renewables, solar, is not producing at night, so as more power production is switched to solar, charging at night will be LESS green than during the day when the sun is producing that power "greenly."  And how do you supply that power at night after you've converted so much to solar?  Batteries (traditional batteries, capacitors, pumped storage hydro, etc. are all versions of batteries in this case), or other baseload generation.

 

Lots of things to think about.  Has CA done the necessary planning and dedication of resources?  Maybe they have, but I'm doubtful, especially with their past history.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, fordmantpw said:

Has CA done the necessary planning and dedication of resources?  

 

Yes. One example is California Public Utility Commission's activities supporting transportation electrification. Categories include.

  • Electricity rates and cost of fueling
  • Charging infrastructure deployment
  • Vehicle-grid integration (VGI) policy, planning, and pilots
  • Program evaluation and interagency coordination

You can get detailed information on these plans and more from CPUC using their subscription server. Welcome to the CPUC Subscription Service (ca.gov)

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fordmantpw said:

Well said @akirby!

 

Can it work?  Yes, it can, but not the way it stands today.  As I said above, there is going to need to be substantial investments made to the grid as well as generation to support millions of new electric cars to the system.  CA has had issues with rolling brown/blackouts for several years.  You can't just add electric cars to the mix and expect the problems will go away.  You can't just require more electric vehicles without having a plan to invest in the infrastructure to support those electric vehicles.  I haven't seen those plans (though I have to admit, I haven't looked for them), maybe because they aren't headline grabbers like the requirement to move to BEV.

 

Charging at night during off-peak times is good for both the consumer and the provider.  It allows the provider to keep loads more steady and allows the customer to pay less (if their pay structure is set up that way).  Heck, our company has set up a datacenter to mine bitcoins to help even out the electric load as it makes everything more efficient.  It's easier to turn up the datacenter to consume that power and make money with that power than to turn down a powerplant producing 1200 MW of power.  I don't know the specifics, but I would assume they crank up the datacenter at night when load is low.  That's also when they pump water up to the top of our big "battery" of water (pumped storage hydro...research it, it's pretty cool stuff, though it's relatively low tech).

 

Also keep in mind that one of the huge renewables, solar, is not producing at night, so as more power production is switched to solar, charging at night will be LESS green than during the day when the sun is producing that power "greenly."  And how do you supply that power at night after you've converted so much to solar?  Batteries (traditional batteries, capacitors, pumped storage hydro, etc. are all versions of batteries in this case), or other baseload generation.

 

Lots of things to think about.  Has CA done the necessary planning and dedication of resources?  Maybe they have, but I'm doubtful, especially with their past history.


The strategy seems to be pass the law/rule then see if they can force the necessary changes for compliance or at least see how far they can get before backing off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in either July or August 1990 I went to the Ford Dealer introduction meetings/conference in Las Vegas. I didn't expect to go but another dealership was caught cheating in a sales contest and the trip prize was revoked and awarded to our dealership. A few of our other dealership managers had won other trip prizes from Ford recently so the Dealer Principal thought that I should get the trip to Las Vegas since I was the one managing the dealership's USOB (Unscheduled Order Bank), etc. The plane tickets had already been issued so I had to fly out of Newark, NJ and literally drive through a hurricane that day. The drive wasn't fun, but the flight took off on time and we were quickly flying above the storm.

 

That night, there was a cocktail reception at Bally's amongst a display of all the Ford models, including the new or revised models to be introduced a few months later. The next morning there was a sales meeting for all to attend with detailed information on the new Model Year changes, marketing plans, etc. Per usual, a lot of the speakers talked in terms of sports analogies to pump up the audience for the big corporate sales pitch. Boring!

 

The keynote speaker at the meeting was George Will, the prominent columnist at the time and for decades since. During his presentation, George shared two observations that are still relevant today. 

  • Football is nothing but organized chaos.
  • California is the closest thing we have to owning our own foreign country.
Edited by ice-capades
Typo
  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, akirby said:


The strategy seems to be pass the law/rule then see if they can force the necessary changes for compliance or at least see how far they can get before backing off.

 

As Michael Shedlock says in the article below, "This is one h--l of a let's do it and see what happens mandate!"

California Demands More Inflation, Bans Gasoline in New Car Sales by 2035 - Mish Talk - Global Economic Trend Analysis

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ehaase said:

 

As Michael Shedlock says in the article below, "This is one h--l of a let's do it and see what happens mandate!"

California Demands More Inflation, Bans Gasoline in New Car Sales by 2035 - Mish Talk - Global Economic Trend Analysis

 

 

So what it boils down to is if someone else isn't doing it, we shouldn't either...going by that graph?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

So what it boils down to is if someone else isn't doing it, we shouldn't either...going by that graph?


Here we go again.  All it says is regardless of what we do including draconian measures, if other countries don’t follow suit there will be no meaningful impact on the environment.  Nobody is saying do nothing.

 

Maybe this is a better analogy.  If the UK, France, Germany and Spain are each building one section of a bridge across the English Channel and it appears that France and Germany won’t finish their sections within the next 10 years, should the UK work their people 24/7 and spend billions of dollars to finish their section immediately?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:


Here we go again.  All it says is regardless of what we do including draconian measures, if other countries don’t follow suit there will be no meaningful impact on the environment.  Nobody is saying do nothing.

 

Maybe this is a better analogy.  If the UK, France, Germany and Spain are each building one section of a bridge across the English Channel and it appears that France and Germany won’t finish their sections within the next 10 years, should the UK work their people 24/7 and spend billions of dollars to finish their section immediately?


ive been saying the same thing - there is zero reason for us as a country to handicap ourselves to get a 1% decrease, while China and other countries don’t even try and have a 50% increase.

 

is it good to make efforts to be more environmentally friendly and shift more toward renewables?  Sure.  But not to a ridiculous level/timeline where it hurts ourselves just because.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at all of it is why are we making excuses of why we can’t do it? Why is it that we keep dragging our feet? I thought that people would be excited to have vehicles that you can power with 100 percent American energy. Further than that you can even power with the sun. I just can’t ignore how much damage oil has done. Not only concerning the earths health itself but look at how the economy is beholden to oil. 

Edited by mkizlvr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mkizlvr said:

The way I look at all of it is why are we making excuses of why we can’t do it? Why is it that we keep dragging our feet? I thought that people would be excited to have vehicles that you can power with 100 percent American energy. Further than that you can even power with the sun. I just can’t ignore how much damage oil has done. Not only concerning the earths health itself but look at how the economy is beholden to oil. 


Dragging our feet?  You must be joking.  Just because a politician passes a bill doesn’t magically fix all the technical limitations.  Your hatred for Big Oil is cloaking reality.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mkizlvr said:

The way I look at all of it is why are we making excuses of why we can’t do it? Why is it that we keep dragging our feet? I thought that people would be excited to have vehicles that you can power with 100 percent American energy. Further than that you can even power with the sun. I just can’t ignore how much damage oil has done. Not only concerning the earths health itself but look at how the economy is beholden to oil. 


As if other forms of energy aren’t damaging to the environment?

 

strip mining for battery materials doesn’t damage the environment?  Having to literally just bury wind turbine blades because they can’t be recycled isn’t damaging to the environment?   What about the excessive amounts of water needed to put out a battery fire?  That’s not good

 

and we could have 100% American energy but that’s not allowed lol.

 

there are benefits and downsides to all options.   There is no utopia of unicorn farts and rainbows, and BEVs aren’t that despite that they’re made out to be just that. They just have different issues.  They’re not excuses, they’re just being realistic with the obstacles and hurdles that exist to follow that path.  Just saying it or passing a law doesn’t wave a magic wand and bam it’s all finished.  There are things to overcome to get there.

why not let customers decide the timeline of the BEV shift rather than force it on everyone if they’re so good.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rmc523 said:

...why not let customers decide the timeline of the BEV shift rather than force it on everyone if they’re so good.

 

I have always said that market forces and capitalism will dictate the success of a BEV future better than any law that was ram-rodded through to the delight of politicians that spout crap like a "Green New-Deal".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mkizlvr said:

The way I look at all of it is why are we making excuses of why we can’t do it? Why is it that we keep dragging our feet? I thought that people would be excited to have vehicles that you can power with 100 percent American energy. Further than that you can even power with the sun. I just can’t ignore how much damage oil has done. Not only concerning the earths health itself but look at how the economy is beholden to oil. 

 

Since this thread topic is about events in California and is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, it's worth noting that both the state of California and Ford are in agreement that major action is needed to address the global climate emergency. Example. Extreme heatwaves like what prompted CAISO to issue a Flex Alert in the first place!

 

Here is Ford's official statement about CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/08/24/ford-statement-on-proposed-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulations-in.html

At Ford, combatting climate change is a strategic priority, and we’re proud of our partnership with California for stronger vehicle emissions standards, forged during a time when climate action was under attack. We’re committed to building a zero-emissions transportation future that includes everyone, backed by our own investments of more than $50 billion by 2026 in EVs and batteries. The CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is a landmark standard that will define clean transportation and set an example for the United States.

 

bzcat mentioned in another thread that CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is "actually behind the market", which is true. While it would be nice for CARB to issue more aggressive timelines for BEV adoption and the phase out of new ICE vehicle sales in California, the deliberately conservative nature of CARB Advanced Clean Cars II makes it less likely to litigation attempts by automakers and other parties, and more likely that federal agencies NHTSA and EPA will harmonize their own ZEV mandates with CARB's so there's a unified regulatory framework across all 50 U.S. states. 

 

Also, there's reason for optimism that Ford will move its internal targets for a 100% ZEV vehicle lineup sooner. Currently, that is 2035 for what Ford calls "major markets", matching CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ford changes that target closer to 2030 as Ford's new BEV and battery facilities around the world start operations over the next few years.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 9:25 PM, rmc523 said:


As if other forms of energy aren’t damaging to the environment?

 

strip mining for battery materials doesn’t damage the environment?  Having to literally just bury wind turbine blades because they can’t be recycled isn’t damaging to the environment?   What about the excessive amounts of water needed to put out a battery fire?  That’s not good

 

and we could have 100% American energy but that’s not allowed lol.

 

there are benefits and downsides to all options.   There is no utopia of unicorn farts and rainbows, and BEVs aren’t that despite that they’re made out to be just that. They just have different issues.  They’re not excuses, they’re just being realistic with the obstacles and hurdles that exist to follow that path.  Just saying it or passing a law doesn’t wave a magic wand and bam it’s all finished.  There are things to overcome to get there.

why not let customers decide the timeline of the BEV shift rather than force it on everyone if they’re so good.

 

On 9/3/2022 at 8:20 AM, twintornados said:

 

I have always said that market forces and capitalism will dictate the success of a BEV future better than any law that was ram-rodded through to the delight of politicians that spout crap like a "Green New-Deal".

Keep in mind that what is enacted can be unenacted.  There is a good chance there will be a new administration in 2024, and that admin is likely to shift the political landscape hard right and a lot of these mandates will probably be reversed (as we are seeing in Virginia).  Ford and GM will have to revise their "apple polishing" programs at that time for the new administration.  Keep in mind that Ford and GM were against California setting their own emissions rules until Biden and his minions came into office.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Footballfan said:

 

Keep in mind that what is enacted can be unenacted.  There is a good chance there will be a new administration in 2024, and that admin is likely to shift the political landscape hard right and a lot of these mandates will probably be reversed (as we are seeing in Virginia).  Ford and GM will have to revise their "apple polishing" programs at that time for the new administration.  Keep in mind that Ford and GM were against California setting their own emissions rules until Biden and his minions came into office.  

 

I am pessimistic about what you say above happening. I think things will change for the worse, which means the same direction as now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Footballfan said:

Keep in mind that Ford and GM were against California setting their own emissions rules until Biden and his minions came into office.  

 

Ford (along with VW, BMW, and Honda) sided with California and CARB in 2019. GM did not at that time, but eventually came to its senses and actively supported the California framework by mid 2020, before the U.S. presidential election that year.

 

CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule will be the template for federal (NHTSA and EPA) emissions and fuel economy regulations including ZEV mandates in the years to come.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2022 at 6:31 AM, rperez817 said:

 

Since this thread topic is about events in California and is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, it's worth noting that both the state of California and Ford are in agreement that major action is needed to address the global climate emergency. Example. Extreme heatwaves like what prompted CAISO to issue a Flex Alert in the first place!

 

Here is Ford's official statement about CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/08/24/ford-statement-on-proposed-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulations-in.html

 

 

 

bzcat mentioned in another thread that CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is "actually behind the market", which is true. While it would be nice for CARB to issue more aggressive timelines for BEV adoption and the phase out of new ICE vehicle sales in California, the deliberately conservative nature of CARB Advanced Clean Cars II makes it less likely to litigation attempts by automakers and other parties, and more likely that federal agencies NHTSA and EPA will harmonize their own ZEV mandates with CARB's so there's a unified regulatory framework across all 50 U.S. states. 

 

Also, there's reason for optimism that Ford will move its internal targets for a 100% ZEV vehicle lineup sooner. Currently, that is 2035 for what Ford calls "major markets", matching CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ford changes that target closer to 2030 as Ford's new BEV and battery facilities around the world start operations over the next few years.


You don’t think that’s partially because Ford wants to be viewed as a forward thinker/going along with the political winds?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2022 at 9:31 AM, rperez817 said:

 

Since this thread topic is about events in California and is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, it's worth noting that both the state of California and Ford are in agreement that major action is needed to address the global climate emergency. Example. Extreme heatwaves like what prompted CAISO to issue a Flex Alert in the first place!

 

Here is Ford's official statement about CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/08/24/ford-statement-on-proposed-advanced-clean-cars-ii-regulations-in.html

 

 

 

bzcat mentioned in another thread that CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule is "actually behind the market", which is true. While it would be nice for CARB to issue more aggressive timelines for BEV adoption and the phase out of new ICE vehicle sales in California, the deliberately conservative nature of CARB Advanced Clean Cars II makes it less likely to litigation attempts by automakers and other parties, and more likely that federal agencies NHTSA and EPA will harmonize their own ZEV mandates with CARB's so there's a unified regulatory framework across all 50 U.S. states. 

 

Also, there's reason for optimism that Ford will move its internal targets for a 100% ZEV vehicle lineup sooner. Currently, that is 2035 for what Ford calls "major markets", matching CARB Advanced Clean Cars II rule. But I wouldn't be surprised if Ford changes that target closer to 2030 as Ford's new BEV and battery facilities around the world start operations over the next few years.

Hmnnn.  As Farley has staked his career...and maybe the company future on EV's,. what would you expect Ford to put out??

 

As Fordman, Kirby, TwinT, RSC and others have said or at least implied as I see it......"YES, but at a measured pace."

 

Our conservation efforts won't amount to squat, while China is building how many coal fired power plants this year????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...