Jump to content

California Regulators Request EV Charge Pause Over Labor Day Weekend


Recommended Posts

On 9/5/2022 at 3:03 PM, rmc523 said:

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

 

Ultimately, it's about Farley's desire for Ford to survive and thrive long term, beyond the end of this decade. A business strategy based on transitioning to a 100% ZEV product lineup is necessary to achieve that goal. Part of that is staying ahead of government regulations regarding ZEV mandate timelines. Ford is in good shape here regarding CARB Advanced Clean Cars Rule II, which as mentioned earlier is the template for future regulations at the federal level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 10:05 PM, rperez817 said:

 

Ultimately, it's about Farley's desire for Ford to survive and thrive long term, beyond the end of this decade. A business strategy based on transitioning to a 100% ZEV product lineup is necessary to achieve that goal. Part of that is staying ahead of government regulations regarding ZEV mandate timelines. Ford is in good shape here regarding CARB Advanced Clean Cars Rule II, which as mentioned earlier is the template for future regulations at the federal level.

I guarantee you by 2030 California's waiver will be challenged in court and likely to be overturned or modified.  Just as Biden reinstated the waiver, a Republican president will block it.  Again, I see this issue eventually ending up in the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

I guarantee you by 2030 California's waiver will be challenged in court and likely to be overturned or modified.  Just as Biden reinstated the waiver, a Republican president will block it.  Again, I see this issue eventually ending up in the Supreme Court.


And if it does I can easily see them kicking it back to the states like they did with roe v. wade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

I guarantee you by 2030 California's waiver will be challenged in court and likely to be overturned or modified.  Just as Biden reinstated the waiver, a Republican president will block it.  Again, I see this issue eventually ending up in the Supreme Court.

 

Highly unlikely-they tried doing that already a few years ago. Plus Auto makers where trying to sue California over the time, line but relented

https://landline.media/industry-group-drops-carb-lawsuit/

 

Keep this is mind-Auto makers want stability and almost all of them are going  electric. They need to figure out what they are doing five years from now and having a change like that would cost them dearly. Data and sales are showing that people want them (that actually buy cars) and there is just a vocal minority that is fighting this because they don't like change. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Highly unlikely-they tried doing that already a few years ago. Plus Auto makers where trying to sue California over the time, line but relented

https://landline.media/industry-group-drops-carb-lawsuit/

 

Keep this is mind-Auto makers want stability and almost all of them are going  electric. They need to figure out what they are doing five years from now and having a change like that would cost them dearly. Data and sales are showing that people want them (that actually buy cars) and there is just a vocal minority that is fighting this because they don't like change. 

 

 

Companies have relented suing CA at this time, because it is the politically correct thing to do.  

 

The people who do not want EVs at this time are not adverse to change.  They just want reliability and value.  I can get in one of my ICE vehicles right now and travel anywhere I want in the US and not have to worry about fueling my vehicle.  I cannot do that at this time with an EV.

 

I would consider buying an EV only under these conditions:

 

1)  The EV cost no more than an ICE vehicle at the time of purchase

2)  The EV will get just as much range per charge- if not more- than an ICE Vehicle fill up

3)  Charging times will be no longer than it would take to fill up my gas tank

 

Anything less that what I listed above does not work for me when I pay $50k plus for a new vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

The people who do not want EVs at this time are not adverse to change.  They just want reliability and value.  I can get in one of my ICE vehicles right now and travel anywhere I want in the US and not have to worry about fueling my vehicle.  I cannot do that at this time with an EV.

 

I would consider buying an EV only under these conditions:

 

1)  The EV cost no more than an ICE vehicle at the time of purchase

2)  The EV will get just as much range per charge- if not more- than an ICE Vehicle fill up

3)  Charging times will be no longer than it would take to fill up my gas tank

 

Anything less that what I listed above does not work for me when I pay $50k plus for a new vehicle.

 

But your also missing the point that currently BEVs can work for the vast majority of people 85-90% of the time.

 

The charging times are bullshit for daily use-the average commute for people is 30 miles a day, so lets round that up a bit for extreme drivers and say 60 miles day-that means you can, worst case scenario go to and from work at least 3 days before worrying about recharging.

 

Then add in the convenance of having not to have to stop at a gas station, just parking your car at home and letting it charge overnight for pennies.

The charging situation is the old chicken or egg-it will improve as more BEVs are on the roads-why isn't it NOW? because there isn't as much demand at the moment.

 

Like I said before, this will be like smartphones, with in the next 3-5 years there will be a tidal wave of BEVs that make up new car sales. Just because it seems like it is not working now doesn't mean it will always be that way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

Companies have relented suing CA at this time, because it is the politically correct thing to do.  

 

The people who do not want EVs at this time are not adverse to change.  They just want reliability and value.  I can get in one of my ICE vehicles right now and travel anywhere I want in the US and not have to worry about fueling my vehicle.  I cannot do that at this time with an EV.

 

I would consider buying an EV only under these conditions:

 

1)  The EV cost no more than an ICE vehicle at the time of purchase

2)  The EV will get just as much range per charge- if not more- than an ICE Vehicle fill up

3)  Charging times will be no longer than it would take to fill up my gas tank

 

Anything less that what I listed above does not work for me when I pay $50k plus for a new vehicle.

^To say nothing of the big issues associated with raw material questions-political/environmental-and power generation/transmission.

As I've said..."at a measured pace" but we are too focused on the political agenda IMO

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But your also missing the point that currently BEVs can work for the vast majority of people 85-90% of the time.. 


Can we please stop saying this?   You guys are severely overestimating the number of people who can charge at home.  There are tons of older houses that still have 60 or 100 amp service.  Tons of apartments and condos/townhomes without garages.  At least in the South I bet it’s less than 30% who even have the ability to charge at home.  Then you throw in the cost of the charger, service upgrades on top of the high vehicle cost and the market is much smaller than some of you think it is.

 

Yes they work fine for most people who can charge at home and who can afford a $50K vehicle but that is nowhere near the vast majority.  And most of those would still have an ICE vehicle.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a discussion yesterday on one of the talk radio stations and they noted what aKirby said.  My garage is wired for 230V because I have a welder.  If your garage isn't wired figure on $1500-2000 to bring a circuit in and then add the cost of the charger, maybe another grand or so.  Then double this if you have two cars.  If you want a turbo charger then the sky is the limit because many homes have only a 100 Amp or 200 Amp service.  In our state, you may have to upgrade all the panel and wiring if you go over a certain amount of changes - add another ten grand or so.  He did point out that you can charge your car from a 110V outlet if you have three days to kill.  Our power company quietly charges for EV infrastructure on the second page of the bill.  I don't have an EV and the cleaner air they help preserve is clogged with forest fire smoke from California, Idaho, and Montana - in fact today is a stay inside day.  EVs won't help this at all.

 

As has been mentioned, BEVs will serve a purpose for some if you can rationalize using natural gas or coal for recharging.  I have a neighbor with a Leaf and he loves it but he also has a Volvo SUV and a Cummins powered motor home for when he needs to get serious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:


Can we please stop saying this?   You guys are severely overestimating the number of people who can charge at home.  There are tons of older houses that still have 60 or 100 amp service.  Tons of apartments and condos/townhomes without garages.  At least in the South I bet it’s less than 30% who even have the ability to charge at home.  Then you throw in the cost of the charger, service upgrades on top of the high vehicle cost and the market is much smaller than some of you think it is.

 

Yes they work fine for most people who can charge at home and who can afford a $50K vehicle but that is nowhere near the vast majority.  And most of those would still have an ICE vehicle.

 

Roughly 31% of Americans live in multifamily housing (apartments, condos, etc.)

 

100 amp service has been standard since the 1950s and if you haven't graded to that or higher since then you might want to reevaluate what your doing with your house.

Charging with only 100 amp service is possible



Have a 100-amp panel? You may be able to avoid a service upgrade

 

There are a couple of alternative options that may enable homes with a 100-amp panel to have an EV charging station installed. These options come in the form of two devices: a Load Management Unit (typically a DCC-10) or a Transfer Switch.

Each of these devices gives your home greater flexibility in how power is used. Load management units measure the amount of power used by your home and cut power to connected devices if energy usage reaches 80%. Transfer switches, on the other hand, enable two appliances with high electricity demands to alternate when they use power. Both of these devices enable homeowners to get more from 100-amp panels alone, and they cost less than an electrical panel upgrade.

 

As things go on, incentives from the power company/car companies etc will help offset costs of installation.

 

Your making this out to be something impossible when that is far from it...its going to take time and its not going to be a light switch solution either. Where we are now and where we will be at in 10 years will be much different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, UT_Grandpa said:

There was a discussion yesterday on one of the talk radio stations and they noted what aKirby said.  My garage is wired for 230V because I have a welder.  If your garage isn't wired figure on $1500-2000 to bring a circuit in and then add the cost of the charger, maybe another grand or so.  Then double this if you have two cars.  If you want a turbo charger then the sky is the limit because many homes have only a 100 Amp or 200 Amp service.  In our state, you may have to upgrade all the panel and wiring if you go over a certain amount of changes - add another ten grand or so.  He did point out that you can charge your car from a 110V outlet if you have three days to kill.  Our power company quietly charges for EV infrastructure on the second page of the bill.  I don't have an EV and the cleaner air they help preserve is clogged with forest fire smoke from California, Idaho, and Montana - in fact today is a stay inside day.  EVs won't help this at all.

 

As has been mentioned, BEVs will serve a purpose for some if you can rationalize using natural gas or coal for recharging.  I have a neighbor with a Leaf and he loves it but he also has a Volvo SUV and a Cummins powered motor home for when he needs to get serious.

 

Just as an example, my local power company is offering a couple Thousand incentives to upgrade your panel and install a charger. 

The other thing your completely missing is that for every BEV on the road your removing a polluting source in for the form an ICE engine. That is a net loss vs pilling on to power plant emissions etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Your making this out to be something impossible when that is far from it...its going to take time and its not going to be a light switch solution either. Where we are now and where we will be at in 10 years will be much different. 


I never said it was impossible.  You implied that the vast majority of the public could easily buy a BEV today because of at home charging.  It’s more like 20% once you factor in cost and service upgrades and most of those would only be willing to buy it as a second vehicle.  
 

That’s why public charging is so important along with faster charging and cost reductions for wide adoption.  It’s not feasible to upgrade every home and every multi family dwelling so everybody can charge overnight.

 

If you can buy a 200 mile range BEV that can recharge publicly in 10-15 minutes for $25K, then it becomes viable for 80% of buyers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT_Grandpa said:

 He did point out that you can charge your car from a 110V outlet if you have three days to kill.

 

If the 30 miles/day average commute mentioned before is accurate, then he's just blowing smoke to fit his agenda.  Below is from the Mach-E charging page, at 3 miles/hour on a conventional 120V outlet, an over-night top-off is certainly possible.

 

HRG

Mach E 120V charging.JPG

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Roughly 31% of Americans live in multifamily housing (apartments, condos, etc.)

 

100 amp service has been standard since the 1950s and if you haven't graded to that or higher since then you might want to reevaluate what your doing with your house.

Charging with only 100 amp service is possible
 

 

 

As things go on, incentives from the power company/car companies etc will help offset costs of installation.

 

Your making this out to be something impossible when that is far from it...its going to take time and its not going to be a light switch solution either. Where we are now and where we will be at in 10 years will be much different. 

Agree but you make the case ....at a measured pace.   Jamming this down our throats is not the answer and I don't want to pay for it because that IS what is happening.  IMO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, akirby said:

That’s why public charging is so important along with faster charging and cost reductions for wide adoption.  It’s not feasible to upgrade every home and every multi family dwelling so everybody can charge overnight.

 

This is behind a paywall, but the headline and the sentence beneath the picture says it all.

 

https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ev-charging-issues-deter-renters-condo-dwellers

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

If you can buy a 200 mile range BEV that can recharge publicly in 10-15 minutes for $25K, then it becomes viable for 80% of buyers.

 

We might be arguing semantics here-but the average car costs $47K...so why does a BEV need to cost 20K less to be successful?

 

If someone can do a "well equipped" BEV that is roughly the size of a compact SUV for $35K average price, that would meet the vast majority needs and wants of buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

We might be arguing semantics here-but the average car costs $47K...so why does a BEV need to cost 20K less to be successful?

 

If someone can do a "well equipped" BEV that is roughly the size of a compact SUV for $35K average price, that would meet the vast majority needs and wants of buyers.


How many current sales are $20k - $34k?  A lot of buyers can’t afford even a $35K vehicle. 
 

We’re only arguing about the degree of current viability vs the future.  You think it’s closer to 80% and I think it’s closer to 20% or 30% if you look at the entire universe of buyers.  I agree we’ll get there I just think it will take a lot longer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, UT_Grandpa said:

I don't have an EV and the cleaner air they help preserve is clogged with forest fire smoke from California, Idaho, and Montana - in fact today is a stay inside day.  EVs won't help this at all.

 

While the deployment of BEV won't directly prevent forest fires, de-carbonization of transportation overall is necessary to address the ongoing climate emergency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

If the 30 miles/day average commute mentioned before is accurate, then he's just blowing smoke to fit his agenda.  Below is from the Mach-E charging page, at 3 miles/hour on a conventional 120V outlet, an over-night top-off is certainly possible.

 

HRG

Mach E 120V charging.JPG

Looks like 4 days of charging to me.  Take a weekend trip, and you will need 3-4 days to fully charge it back up for another one.  Drive 30 miles per day and your overnight 10 hour charge is just keeping up with daily use.  If all you do is commute to work with it, the 12amp 120v charger can keep up.  Anything extra and you are looking at public charging or faster at home charging solution.

 

if most driving is 30 miles per day, just get a PHEV with a 15-20kwh battery.  It can be kept charged off of a standard outlet for daily use and use gas for the occasional long trips.  You’re dragging around an engine and transmission instead of a large heavy battery that occasionally needs a full charge for maximum range.  Both are compromises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, akirby said:


How many current sales are $20k - $34k?  A lot of buyers can’t afford even a $35K vehicle. 

 

I'll see if I can find something, but average price of a new car is now $48K and the average used car is now $33K.

 

I don't think we will see a huge decrease in either one-given how tight the market is and manufactures are no longer "dumping" cars into rental fleets like they did 30 years ago, supply is drying up on the used car end too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I'll see if I can find something, but average price of a new car is now $48K and the average used car is now $33K.

 

I don't think we will see a huge decrease in either one-given how tight the market is and manufactures are no longer "dumping" cars into rental fleets like they did 30 years ago, supply is drying up on the used car end too. 


Sales are skewed right now to luxury vehicles and high priced trucks and SUVs.  Those that would normally buy sub $35K vehicles just aren’t buying right now.  That’s why SAAR was down several million vehicles per year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, akirby said:


Sales are skewed right now to luxury vehicles and high priced trucks and SUVs.  Those that would normally buy sub $35K vehicles just aren’t buying right now.  That’s why SAAR was down several million vehicles per year.


Uh the pandemic didn’t have anything to do with it? 
 

The average price of a new car in 2019 was 38k along with incentives being high

 

https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2020-01-03-Average-New-Vehicle-Prices-Up-Nearly-2-Year-Over-Year-in-December-2019-According-to-Kelley-Blue-Book

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:


Uh the pandemic didn’t have anything to do with it? 
 

The average price of a new car in 2019 was 38k along with incentives being high

 

https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2020-01-03-Average-New-Vehicle-Prices-Up-Nearly-2-Year-Over-Year-in-December-2019-According-to-Kelley-Blue-Book


Which means even more buyers were paying < $35k when you consider how many trucks and SUVs were selling for $50k-$90K.

 

All those buyers of entry level vehicles like Ecosport, Maverick, civic, Corolla, Kona, Soul, Niro, Seltos, Venue and many more that typically sell in the $20ks have no BEV options.  That is a HUGE portion of the market that you can’t just ignore or tell them to pay $40k.  They can’t afford it.

  • Like 2
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...