LET'S BUILD THE CALIFORNIA WEST COAST ELECTRIC HIGHWAY

BMW i3 Forum

Help Support BMW i3 Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TonyWilliams

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
107
California Energy Commission
Fuels and Transportation Division
1516 Ninth Street, MS-27
Sacramento, CA 95814

16 February 2015


LET’S BUILD THE CALIFORNIA WEST COAST ELECTRIC HIGHWAY !


Dear California Energy Commission Members,

I was the first person to drive an all-electric vehicle (EV) from Mexico to Canada, and first to travel across both Oregon and Washington using only DC quick charging along the newly opened West Coast Electric Highway in June 2012. Since that time, travel along intra-state corridors within California is nearly as non-existent as it was then (except for Tesla cars).

What follows are my suggestions for our state's financing of a true "California West Coast Electric Highway" that should be BETTER than what Oregon and Washington state have already done now, almost three years previously, with great success. California has been a signatory partner to the venture since 2009, along with Oregon, Washington state, and the province of British Columbia.

For the purposes of my discussion, an “electric vehicle” is one that is solely “refueled” with electricity that comes from a charging station into the vehicle. Vehicles that are primarily refueled with electricity, but can also be refueled from bio-fuel, alcohol, gasoline, diesel, natural gas or hydrogen are “hybrids” for my discussion. Because hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered by some to be “electric vehicles” too, I want to be clear that I am referring to the refueling infrastructure in the following comments, and therefore a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is not an electric vehicle for my discussion, but it may be a hybrid.

I propose that our state fund a logical California West Coast Electric Highway system comprised of 40 multi-charger (2 minimum) “Plazas” that are powered by onsite batteries, and the batteries are replenished with solar, wind power where applicable, and “single” phase sub-20kW grid power to mitigate or eliminate “demand charges”. These sites would cost approximately $250,000 per site and be placed at 60-100 miles apart along the major corridors that already have freeways:

1) Los Angeles to Sacramento, via 5 and 99
2) Los Angeles to Las Vegas, via 15
3) Los Angeles to Phoenix, via 10
4) Los Angeles to San Francisco via 101
5) San Francisco to Reno via 80
6) San Francisco to Oregon via 101
7) Sacramento to Oregon via 99 and 5
8) San Diego to Yuma via 8

These are the logical routes the Californians actually drive to already. With numerous 100-200 mile electric cars on the horizon from major auto manufacturers like General Motors and Nissan, and also premium auto makers like Tesla and Jaguar, these routes must be planned for the near future, but made capable with existing cars that have sub-100 miles ranges. For those cars, I recommend placing small 20kW DC chargers in between each Plaza site, which will not need batteries or infrastructure to eliminate demand charges.


For just half the amount of money devoted to hydrogen cars for just one year (just $10 million) by our state, California could have the premier EV infrastructure that is the envy of any place outside of Japan (Japan is heavily promoting hydrogen, yet they also have a VERY robust EV quick charge infrastructure; literally THOUSANDS of DC quick chargers, and it's growing by one thousand or more per year!). An addition $2.5 million would fund the 50 additional low powered (20kW) sites at $50,000 per site.


People who live in small towns in California deserve the same proportional level of EV infrastructure as those in metro areas. All Californians need to be able to drive their EV's anywhere along heavily traveled routes with high confidence, like they currently do in Japan, Washington, Oregon, and large parts of Europe. It's embarrassing how far behind we are, and that we're now debating whether it should be done properly (while also considering diverting those state resources to more at-work charging).


Building that critical corridor EV charging infrastructure will not only allow mobility without CO2 emissions, but also gain confidence for the next wave of EV purchasers who have never had an EV, and might not own one were it were not capable of driving to "drive to Vegas / Reno / Tahoe / Yosemite / ski slope / etc.


With the aforementioned 200 mile range cars from GM, plus our own California company Tesla and, of course, Nissan (it has been announced that GM is only 20 months away from production of their 200 mile Chevy Bolt, for instance, with plans for 25,000 - 30,000 annual production), BMW and VW are certainly likely to make their EVs longer range, sooner than later.


The folks who want to travel in their EV (or any car) may not be those "rich" homeowners with multiple cars sitting around, one specific for each type of drive. A singular EV may be their only car. They may be retired, unemployed, student, traveling sales person, airline pilot, stay at home mom, and lots of other personal situations where more at-work charging doesn't help them. 200-300 mile EV's don't need at-work charging anyway.


Folks who currently own 75 mile range cars can still use this proposed EV highway. Just because one of the corridors might go from Sacramento to Ashland, Oregon (southern most build out of current West Coast Electric Highway) doesn't mean that all people would drive that whole length (that seems to be a common thought... nobody will drive a 75 mile car that whole route, so don't build it).


One 75 mile range car may only want to go from Sacramento to Red Bluff (131 miles of flat terrain) and another 75 mile car may go from Redding to Yreka (99 miles in the mountains). A third may do the entire route to visit their family in Medford, Oregon for the holidays.


Yes, a 75 mile EV is bit of a pain in comparison to those new 200-300 mile EV's coming (or any gasoline car), but this might be the only option... drive the 75 mile EV, or don't go. That corridor made all this possible.


Without the corridor, even the driver of the 200 mile range car isn't likely to want to make the trip to Medford. Heck, you wouldn't drive your gasoline or hydrogen car there if there wasn't infrastructure!


Much like putting in Coke machines, California companies are fully capable of putting in low powered charging for their employees at the work place. If we want to promote at-work charging, give them a tax credit or state sponsored education promoting the virtues of EV charging at work. This view may not excite charging equipment companies (of which I am one) who are lobbying for state money, but it's the tough love our industry needs.


Our nation didn't build its interstate highway system only to major metro areas and at work places. It is the same high quality roadway in eastern Nevada or Montana (where nobody lives), and even Yreka, California as it is in any major metro area.


The California West Coast Electric Highway should be that same high standard everywhere in our state. It will help all people in California with an electric car, not just a select privileged few with employment in major metro areas. It brings jobs and business to rural areas.


It promotes EV emission free driving and EV sales. It connects us to the existing West Coast Electric Highway that our state has been a signatory of since 2009. It entices neighboring Nevada and Arizona to build their infrastructure, at least connecting Reno, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson to California, places that Californians drive to every day.


It puts California on the forefront of demonstrating to other states and the world how it should be done. It will ensure we attain the millions of Zero Emission Vehicles that the governor wants on the road. Our infrastructure can be the gold plated standard and inspiration that our state's Air Resources Board rules are to a multitude of states, including Washington and Oregon.


Toyota, the world's largest auto manufacturer and biggest proponent or hydrogen refueled cars (and public opponent to EV's) has publically stated that they will only build "up to" 3000 hydrogen cars for California in the near term and "hope" to have as many as 6000 in Japan by the 2020 Olympics in Japan.


Hydrogen cars won't be the driving force that puts millions of cars in California displacing fossil fuel cars any time soon, and certainly not by 2020-2025.


Soichiro Okudaira, chief officer of Toyota’s research and development group, told Automotive News Europe said that, "fuel cell vehicles won't be priced to compete with battery electrics before 2030." If hydrogen cars are our state's future, according to Toyota, we have at least 15 years to have the best EV infrastructure in the world.


Then, if that hydrogen future doesn't quite work out by 2030, we were not sitting on our hands just waiting for what has always been the "fuel of the future" while everybody burned gasoline to go to Las Vegas and Reno. I predict that 200-300 mile cars will be the norm by then, and refueling times will be double or triple the existing speed, adding 150 miles of range in 10-15 minutes or less while on the road.


Hydrogen really has a significant number of hurdles to overcome, and EV's really only have a few simple ones. Range, refueling time and refueling infrastructure. The first two will be smartly addressed in the coming decade, and the last one is something our state needs to bootstrap to make the first two worthwhile.


We should never be falling behind in any technology, but our state is woefully being other states and countries in this venture, including those that are "sold" on hydrogen and have work place charging. Hopefully, today is the turning point.

LET’S BUILD THE CALIFORNIA WEST COAST ELECTRIC HIGHWAY!!!

Thanks,


Tony Williams
R&D Manager
Quick Charge Power LLC
 
Who's to say batteries are best and why should the tax payer pay for an minority group who are not saying the truth about their pollution and running costs.

So you are going to dig large holes in the ground to mime copper and it can take years of digging this large hole just to find copper. If we even have enough copper in the world to mine.

So what's so wrong with drilling for oil with only a small drill hole and having much clearer running engines which we do. The oil is from our last global warming then an ice age.
 
SUBJECT: Comments on DC Fast Charger Installations for CALIFORNIA West Coast Electric Highway

FROM: Electric Auto Association, Electric Vehicle Corridor Charging Group

DATE: March 16, 2015

Introduction and Purpose

What follows is the our input for the completion of the West Coast Electric Highway (WCEH) in California with DC Fast Charger (DCFC) along corridors. We are addressing the following questions:

1. What is the order of the roll out by corridor and why?
2. Is a spacing of 40 miles between DCFCs acceptable?
3. Is starting with one CHAdeMO / SAE unit with conduit for additional chargers acceptable?
4. What are the minimum requirements for a site?

We believe a statewide Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure plan should be based on the following principles, and we used these criteria in making our corridor recommendations:

● Connect existing EV metro areas with corridors and complete the WCEH.
● Meet our state’s obligation to the WCEH.
● Maximize population areas served.
● Provide leadership by investing in important corridors with locations that may not be attractive to private industry for economic or logistical reasons.
● Maximize benefits to Environmental Justice Communities.
● Maximize exposure to communities with low EV adoption with access to charging infrastructure that currently only exists in large metro areas.

A patchwork network of DCFC stations already exists in parts of California. Existing stations should be included in the WCEH if they meet the standards discussed in this proposal. To foster this, the state should consider providing grants to existing station responsible parties along the proposed WCEH route if they agree to the proposed California WCEH standards.

In applying these criteria, we have considered the needs of current EVs with driving ranges of 80 miles in addition to the potential 150-200 mile range cars that are expected in calendar year 2017 and beyond. Furthermore, older, lower range cars with long lifespans will also be available for modest sums in this period; opening up EV travel to a wider range of economic classes.

Corridor Roll Out Order Recommendations:

1. Our highest priority recommendation is to develop a charging corridor from the Oregon border at the town of Yreka, then south on Interstate 5 (I-5) to Red Bluff, then State Highway 99 (CA-99) through the Central Valley to connect to I-5 again south of Bakersfield, and finally to the US / Mexico border in San Diego. In considering the routing of the WCEH and evaluating the choice between the I-5 and CA-99 corridors, we strongly urge the selection of the CA-99 corridor. This route serves the heart of the Central Valley with its current population of 5.7 million. These counties combined had a faster population growth rate than other regions of California. CA-99 connects the largest number of metro areas, can provide fast charging within these underserved communities, and supports air quality improvements in regions needing it most. The Valley’s air quality remains at non-attainment levels throughout. The Valley has the most people at risk for asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.

State support for the CA-99 corridor creates the opportunity for EV ownership for those who currently can't participate in the EV community. This will maximize the long-term investment the public has made in these vehicles by allowing the use of used EVs the ability to serve a wider geographic area where they are needed the most. Also, it opens up these routes for users who do not have the economic means to purchase new EVs. The per capita income of the Valley is significantly below the state average. While the cost of new EVs may make them beyond the reach of these residents, the used car market for EVs is showing these vehicles will likely be affordable if there is adequate public charging support to deal with the reduced range.

2. After the I-5 / CA-99 / I-5 North-South corridor is completed, then we recommend installing DCFCs on US Highway 101 (US-101) between Los Angeles and San Jose as the next highest priority. This will connect the San Francisco Bay Area and Santa Barbara / Santa Ynez regions with the Salinas Valley, Monterey, and the Central Coast (population 2.3 million). There will be approximately a 200 mile gap once the Sunspeed Network DCFCs are completed in San Luis Obispo later in 2015, and this gap could be filled with only 4 charging stations separated by approximately 40 miles. For example, these locations could be in Gilroy, Gonzales, San Lucas, and Paso Robles. The Gonzales and San Lucas stations are located in relatively remote regions of the Salinas Valley so it is important for the state to develop these locations than may not be attractive to private industry. This corridor could connect the Central Valley to the Central Coast.

Is a spacing of 40 miles between DCFCs acceptable?

We are concerned about ensuring that a failed station does not strand a driver. A 40 mile distance means a failed station requires an 80 mile range. This exceeds the range of the most common short range EVs such as the Nissan LEAF. The EPA range on these cars of 80 to 85 does not cover freeway speeds, or travel with significant heater or air conditioning use, or a reduced range expected after a few years of operation from “battery degradation”, and / or the 80% maximum charge limit with some DCFCs.

The backbone of the Central Valley corridor should have stations in larger existing communities to maximize the overall goals of the program. Placing stations at Yreka, Weed, Dunsmuir, Redding, Red Bluff, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, Sacramento, Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Merced, Madera Fresno, Selma, Tulare, Delano, Bakersfield, Lebec, Castaic serves these communities and provides a spacing between 14 and 40 miles. This will also provide service to the large number of Environmental Justice Communities identified in this corridor. In the rural areas north of Redding, it may be necessary for stations to be placed outside of a town.

A 40 mile separation can work if there are several L2 backing up failures of the DCFC. In the case of a DCFC failure, a limited range vehicle would have to take time to add additional miles with the L2 charge station. Assuming 1 hour of incremental L2 charge is necessary to reach the next station, two backup L2 chargers would handle an arrival rate of one per 30 minutes, and four would handle one per 15 minutes. In addition, L2 can serve local needs as well as a backup to a failed DCFC.

Shorter than 40 miles spacing will be required for corridors with significant elevation gain and / or cold climates. Approximately 6 miles of range are lost for every 1000 foot increase in elevation for a typical EV. This will affect the northern part of I-5 between Redding and Yreka and over the “Grapevine” between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

Is starting with one CHAdeMO / SAE unit with conduit for additional chargers acceptable at each location?

Yes, a single station with both CHAdeMO and SAE charging standards should be the minimum. We recommend alternating 50 kW and 100 kW units to provide a network that is adequate for both the current short-range EVs (charge at 50 kW every 40 miles) and support the longer range EVs to be introduced in 2017 and later (charge at 100 kW every 80 miles).

As stated above, there needs to be at least two L2 charging stations at each location (with infrastructure to add more if needed) to serve as backup for failure as well as overflow capacity. More than two may be required for higher traffic areas and local needs.

Since no current 100 kW DCFC units are currently available, we recommend that these alternating sites have transformers and other infrastructure capable of 100 kW operation. All sites should have conduit installed to meet this future eventuality.

What are the minimum requirements for a site?

Sites should provide (in descending order):

● 24 hour / 7 day availability (not locked in a parking garage or limited access private area)
● Safety / security & comfort (lighting, adjacent to some services, etc)
● Highway exit signage that conforms to existing WCEH standards set by Oregon, Washington and British Columbia
● Parking lot signage with logical and easy to follow directions
● Parking stalls marked with California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22511 language

Highly valued criteria (in descending order):

● Restrooms
● Food service
● Shading from sun, possibly with solar PV panels

Additional Remarks

The DCFCs will have to be easy to use and be well maintained for long distance corridor charging networks to be successful. It would be ideal if all corridor DCFCs could accept at least one common form of payment, e.g., a credit card and optionally the addition of a common network card. Second, locating them close to the corridor highways (within 5 minute drive time). The stations need to be publically available at all times (24 x 7 x 365) to all compatible vehicles.

Reliability / Uptime

The CEC provided significant leadership in prior years to support the rollout of charging stations with significant value enabling EV sales growth. Unfortunately, we are seeing that several brands of DCFCs have shown high mortality rates and are undergoing expensive repairs and / or have long lead times to repair. Certainly, a downed charger increases costs, but beyond that, a downed station may create a break in the chain that prevents many EVs from transiting the corridor. Just as important, it takes away confidence in the use of public charging stations.

We recommend three actions:

● With respect to failure rates, require 10 year warranties on all equipment. The warranty might have two components, a 5 year base warranty by the DCFC manufacturer and / or distributor of that equipment, and an extended warranty which might be funded by the station owner. The warranty should cover parts and labor.

● A target of 99% uptime should be required. Each proposal for a station should have a manufacturer’s preventive maintenance plan supported and implemented. The uptime requirement would be exclusive of rare preventive maintenance with published down times at late night. Lack of preventive maintenance is a high source of failures, particularly with high amperage equipment in hot locations, as is with much of WCEH.

● Reliability issues often arise from the payment and networking components. The individual DCFCs must be capable of operating when the network, card reader or fob reader doesn’t work. In other words, the default setting is that it ALWAYS works, and that the networking and payment methods are additions. This is a significant change from the status quo. Care should be given to avoid solutions that increase station failure rate. It’s not uncommon for us to see failures with credit card readers at gas stations. In that case, a gas car driver can switch to another reader or go inside a station to pay, ensuring they won’t be stranded. We need a level of dependability and driver confidence on the same level as gas stations.

Maintaining the DCFCs in operational status with infrequent faults is essential for providing a reliable network. Status information (vacant / non-operational / in-use) must also be available via the internet (for instance, on the CalTrans site) or a mobile app (ideally in real time).

To win the struggle of our current and future transportation needs, we must decide to accept the challenges and move forward with funding and action. Let’s demonstrate strong leadership for EV adoption through completion of the WCEH.

Thank you again for providing this opportunity to comment, and please do not hesitate to contact us in the future.

Sincerely,

Ron Freund,
San Francisco Bay Area Chairman EAA
Randal Friedman Sacramento
EAA Member

Guy Hall
Sacramento
President SacEV
EAA Board Member

Randal Friedman
Sacramento
EAA Member

Tony Williams
San Diego
Quick Charge Power LLC
BC2BC Rally Organizer

Tom Greene
Redwood City
EAA Member

Paul Gipe
Bakersfield
Author, Renewable Energy Industry Analyst
EAA Member
 
Tony, I welcome and applaud your efforts to encourage the development of the "corridor." I would add that alongside the corridor or even before building it, I would like to see more fast charging units installed in the Los Angeles basin and other major metropolitan areas. For me, I purchased the i3 as advertised, that is, as a city car that could traverse the freeways and local roads where I live. That happens to be the Los Angeles/Orange County area. Twice a week I drive across the Los Angeles basin for a total roundtrip of about 120 miles. With the REx, I have no worries. But for my friends with the BEV, they are limited to battery alone. Indeed, in the best of all possible worlds, we would all just be driving on battery. Most American drivers drive locally--and i include commuters in that. So, while I certainly encourage the building of the corridor, please let us focus first on where the drivers of most EVs live and work and drive.
 
I live in LA and it looks like under your scheme to go to Portland, I would either have to travel through the Central Velley on 99 or go through the SF/SJ metro. What's the deal? Why bypass the 5 from Sac to LA?
 
Whoa! Hold your kilowatts! If I read this proposal correctly it is advocating that the first phase of the WCEH completely bypass the section of I5 between Red Bluff and (almost) The Grapevine, diverting over onto California Route 99. OMG, have you driven on 99 between, say, Turlock and Bakersfield? OK, it's been a few years for me, but I remember a congested, two lane, diesel-belching truck-infested, winding grind, with short on-ramps, multiple slow-downs and some vehicles barely faster than an ox-cart. This area, if it were a separate state, would be the poorest in the Union, and the social-justice rationale being promulgated is that at some point in the future the very-poor drivers in these agricultural towns will actually be able to afford the hand-me-down EVs being traded in by the coastal elites.
Earth to Electric Auto Association: let's start the WCEH where the EVs are today, which is I5 between Sacramento/San Francisco and Los Angeles/San Diego. Run it along the I5 highway not the 99 byway.
 
Can you imagine having to drive an i3 over that buckled and potholed pavement for the extra hour or two it took to get to Sac? That road is horrible!

I didn't see this in the details, but I sure hope they are planning on having more than just one CCS plug at each location. Otherwise it could be a long wait for a charge on a busy summer weekend......
 
drb said:
Tony, I welcome and applaud your efforts to encourage the development of the "corridor." I would add that alongside the corridor or even before building it, I would like to see more fast charging units installed in the Los Angeles basin and other major metropolitan areas. For me, I purchased the i3 as advertised, that is, as a city car that could traverse the freeways and local roads where I live. That happens to be the Los Angeles/Orange County area. Twice a week I drive across the Los Angeles basin for a total roundtrip of about 120 miles. With the REx, I have no worries. But for my friends with the BEV, they are limited to battery alone. Indeed, in the best of all possible worlds, we would all just be driving on battery. Most American drivers drive locally--and i include commuters in that. So, while I certainly encourage the building of the corridor, please let us focus first on where the drivers of most EVs live and work and drive.

Yes, yours is a common issue; "Please serve my personal needs."

There are over 100 DC fast chargers in the SoCal metro areas for you to use today. NRG / eVgo has an agreement with the state to provide 110 in the Los Angeles are in four years. Virtually all the existing DC charging is currently in metro areas, like yours.

But, this is a statewide transportation plan, not a local one. It is designed to ultimately join Oregon with California and California with Arizona and Nevada. It has already been implemented in Oregon, Washington, and the province of British Columbia.
 
WoodlandHills said:
I live in LA and it looks like under your scheme to go to Portland, I would either have to travel through the Central Valley on 99 or go through the SF/SJ metro. What's the deal? Why bypass the 5 from Sac to LA?

We parallel the I-5 freeway from just south of Bakersfield until Red Bluff (well north of Sacramento).

As stated in the document, this is where people live and can use the charging infrastructure for local needs while others can use it for long distance needs.

If you draw a "London Underground" style map with the following routes, you'll get the "big picture":

1) San Diego to Oregon, via I-5 and CA-99 (interchange circle at Los Angeles and Sacramento)
2) San Diego to Las Vegas, via I-15 (interchange circle at San Bernadino)
3) Los Angeles to Phoenix, via I-10 (Interchange circle at San Bernadino)
4) Los Angeles to Oregon via US-101 (interchange circle at San Francisco)
5) San Francisco to Reno via I-80 (interchange circle at Sacramento)
6) San Diego to Yuma / Tucson via I-8 (interchange circle in San Diego)

Eventually, you could drive up to Portland via US-101 or I-5 (except for the portion of I-5 that nobody lives by).
 
WoodlandHills said:
I didn't see this in the details, but I sure hope they are planning on having more than just one CCS plug at each location. Otherwise it could be a long wait for a charge on a busy summer weekend......

Initially, there would be at least one CCS and one CHAdeMO plug at each location.

Currently, the West Coast Electric Highway in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia is all CHAdeMO.
 
i3an said:
Whoa! Hold your kilowatts!...
Earth to Electric Auto Association: let's start the WCEH where the EVs are today, which is I5 between Sacramento/San Francisco and Los Angeles/San Diego. Run it along the I5 highway not the 99 byway.

I-5 does not go between Sacramento and San Francisco.

The portion of the I-5 through Los Angeles and San Diego is covered.
 
TonyWilliams said:
i3an said:
Whoa! Hold your kilowatts!...
Earth to Electric Auto Association: let's start the WCEH where the EVs are today, which is I5 between Sacramento/San Francisco and Los Angeles/San Diego. Run it along the I5 highway not the 99 byway.

I-5 does not go between Sacramento and San Francisco.

The portion of the I-5 through Los Angeles and San Diego is covered.

Tony, you are failing to make your case for running the WCEH along CA 99.
Right now the main arteries (north of LA) that today's EVs would like to use are San Franciso-Sacramento on I80, Sacramento-LA on I5, and San Francisco-San José-LA on 101-152-I5. You are proposing to start by bypassing most of these (most critically, the heavily travelled Los Baños-Gravevine segment) and diverting EVs over to CA 99, which is longer in time & distance, and just plain out of the way. It doesn't make sense - why would anyone choose to go from Sacto to LA by way of Fresno?! Yes, the people are over along 99, but the EVs are not, at least not yet. Better to put the first chargers where they will get the most immediate use, then expand them to routes that (we hope) will soon be getting on board the electric highway.
Look, I guess you're in a tough spot, having to make a weak case for an out-of-the-way West Coast Electric Byway, maybe because the mayors of mid-size Turlock and Fresno and Bakersfield have more sway over your subsidies than those of tiny Los Baños and Coalinga and Buttonwillow, but please could we just this time make infrastructure decisions based on need not politics. We in the Bay Area are saddled with the embarrassment of a $5B bridge whose design was driven by mayoral vanity and is now rusting in place, and soon there may be a lonely bullet train forlornly shuttling between Fresno and Bakersfield, duh. Let's not make it a fiasco trifecta by running the WCEH segment between Red Bluff and The Grapevine along CA 99 instead of I5.
 
Tony, you write:

"Yes, yours is a common issue; "Please serve my personal needs."

There are over 100 DC fast chargers in the SoCal metro areas for you to use today. NRG / eVgo has an agreement with the state to provide 110 in the Los Angeles are in four years. Virtually all the existing DC charging is currently in metro areas, like yours."

Tony, I support the corridor concept, indeed, welcome it as I said above, but your response, namely, that I have turned this into a matter of self-interest suggests to me the disingenuousness of your argument. It employs a slur to attack a legitimate argument. I have a REx, so I have no problem driving across the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. But others without the REx, need to be able to recharge in order to get the most out of their city vehicle.

It may be that 100 DC fast chargers are planned for the SoCal metro area but they do not exist in reality. I know where those in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties exist--but at the present moment, they are no where near 100. Four years, perhaps. I won't hold my breath.

The corridor project is a bit like the bullet train, a project few will use. Again, I would like to see the corridor built but not at the expense of developing infrastructure for the metropolitan areas, the areas in which most folks will use their electric vehicles. Sales will grow not as a result of the corridor electric grid but as a result of ample charing opportunities in the cities and suburbs of California and elsewhere.
 
Hi Tony,

Sorry to hijack the thread but do you have any plans to bring out an AC > CCS unit? Over here in the UK there's hundreds of dual 3 phase AC/Chademo units but only a handful of CCS. We additionally have a lot of 22kW AC chargers especially on the continent. Likewise 440V 3phase AC is available nearly everywhere, even at home if you wish (once you've paid to be upgraded). The only unit I've seen capable of doing this is €16,000 and runs at 22kW not the full 43 available from the AC units on the UK's Electric Highway. I Guess BMW saw the future as 7kW at home and CCS on the road, but us early adopters of DC/CCS are wondering when we'll be able to plan a long distance trip (without using the REX) as the roll out is a bit slow. Something that fits in the frunk and can pull AC > DC and add the control signals would be a good seller - as long it was around the $1,000 mark. That would make it about £1,000 after shipping and taxes.

I'm sure you've seen it but this sounds like what you are trying to build... http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-the-road/our-electric-highway. Not perfect yet, we've had lots of problems with CCS units going offline, and site power problems. Still it's a start and they are rolling out updates to the DBT chargers which hopefully will stabilise the network which will triggers out an update of sites which currently only have Chademo / AC to having a second CCS/Chademo/AC triple head. All we need then is to get Mitsubishi outlanders to stop sitting on them for an hour to charge a 8kWh battery :( That will come when they start charging for them by the minute.

Hope your ideas start to move, I'd love to come out there for a road trip holiday. Have done New England, Florida, and Phoenix > San Diego > Las Vegas. But Still haven't gone up the coast via San Fran to Seattle. Tell the powers that be - there's at least 1 person who's going to delay his next US tourist trip until I can do an electric fly drive on just the route you've mentioned. ;-)
 
A good comparison for you – we’re close enough in numbers to get some officials to realise how far they are behind…

UK population 64 million, land area 94,000 square miles
Electric Highway as tweeted today has 445 Rapid Chargers active: 211 Chademo 50kW, 164 AC 43kW, and 70 CCS 50kW.
Note these are not the only rapids – just the national network located on motorways and trunk roads.

http://www.zap-map.com list the total locations (not individual charge heads) as 362 50kW DC and 202 43kW AC plus a number of 22kw which are hard to separate out as they are in with the 7kW Fast AC units ??? I and most other people class 22kW as a Rapid not fast!

California population 40 million, land area 163,000 square miles.
Hopefully you can find the numbers for that. Nothing like a bit of bench marking to use as thumbscrews. UK isn't that different to CA, Lots of urban areas, with a large number of people out in the sticks.

If things go well – California will leap ahead of the UK and then I can use the numbers to show how we are lagging behind etc etc ;-)
 
TonyWilliams said:
i3an said:
Whoa! Hold your kilowatts!...
Earth to Electric Auto Association: let's start the WCEH where the EVs are today, which is I5 between Sacramento/San Francisco and Los Angeles/San Diego. Run it along the I5 highway not the 99 byway.

I-5 does not go between Sacramento and San Francisco.

The portion of the I-5 through Los Angeles and San Diego is covered.

Really? You are going to troll us by pretending to not understand the concept of I5 running from southern Cal (Los Angeles/San Diego) and northern Cal (Sacramento/San Francisco)? Can you really be that obtuse or do you just want to avoid discussing your crappy route?
 
i3an said:
Look, I guess you're in a tough spot, having to make a weak case for an out-of-the-way West Coast Electric Byway, maybe because the mayors of mid-size Turlock and Fresno and Bakersfield have more sway over your subsidies than those of tiny Los Baños and Coalinga and Buttonwillow, but please could we just this time make infrastructure decisions based on need not politics. We in the Bay Area are saddled with the embarrassment of a $5B bridge whose design was driven by mayoral vanity and is now rusting in place, and soon there may be a lonely bullet train forlornly shuttling between Fresno and Bakersfield, duh. Let's not make it a fiasco trifecta by running the WCEH segment between Red Bluff and The Grapevine along CA 99 instead of I5.

I thought we spelled out the justification quite well. I've gotten plenty of push back from SF Bay Area folks since apparently this doesn't serve them as well as I-5. Okay. It's not about your particular region.

Please give me a single reason for I-5 over CA-99.

The cities of any size are on CA-99.

There's long segments of I-5 that don't have electric power availble every 40 miles required.

The entire state of California could covered many times over for the cost of the "bullet train" and your rusting bridge.

I-5 will, of course, get done. Just not first.
 
Here are two reasons against the 99E route: there are no electric cars in the Central Valley and the folks who DO have EVs have no desire whatsoever to travel between north and south via Fresno and Bakersfield.

Other than seeking to expand your business, what qualifies you and your co-signers to speak for California EV owners? Have you or they been elected or appointed by anyone or any organization to agitate in "our" behalf or did you nominate each other?
 
WoodlandHills: please let's keep it civil, here, OK?
Tony: I appreciate your engaging in this discussion, but I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
To my mind the main North-South West Coast artery from Mexico to Canada is i5, and to run a 440-mile segment of the WCEH over on 99 is pure folly, which would be underused by many of today's EV drivers, and there just aren't that many Central Valley locals who drive EVs (yet). I am sure there are many like myself who also still own an ICE, and would leap at the opportunity to take my EV from the Bay Area to the Southland, but the prospect of schlepping over to 99 and enduring hours of bad air and worse traffic would tip me over to just saying, screw it, I'll take the Global Warmer instead.
As to the challenge of bringing enough electricity to 40-mile sections of I5, that really shouldn't be a deal-breaker, it's the kind of thing California used to be able to do before breakfast. Besides, there's a ton of drought-striken land that could be solared over — I'm thinking in particular of those nauseatingly stinky cattle pens just off i5 by Coalinga, they could sure use some shade; actually, on second thoughts, perhaps putting the charging station up-wind would be better.
Here's a pice of advice: don't alienate your wanna-be allies by trying to guilt-trip us by trotting out the line that "it's not about you/your region". Frankly, for the next five years or so when we are all trying to get EV usage up to critical mass, it is about us, and our regions are better served by i5 than 99. By then, the EV price/performance arc will bend towards 99 and they can then reap the benefits of our experimentation.
 
WoodlandHills said:
Here are two reasons against the 99E route: there are no electric cars in the Central Valley and the folks who DO have EVs have no desire whatsoever to travel between north and south via Fresno and Bakersfield.

Other than seeking to expand your business, what qualifies you and your co-signers to speak for California EV owners? Have you or they been elected or appointed by anyone or any organization to agitate in "our" behalf or did you nominate each other?

I'm going to put you on my ignore list.
 
Back
Top