
California approves $768M for electric vehicles - prostoalex
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Energy-revolution-California-approves-massive-12957685.php
======
barnesto
we have an overabundance of "green" energy here in California, yet energy
prices are through the roof, we are looking at potential, rolling blackouts
this summer, and we have to sell excess power to other states each month. why?
well none of that green energy is connected to the public grid. with the
wealth of energy, consumer prices should be zero. only that's not the goal of
energy companies as they're all profit driven companies. meanwhile the CPUC is
a corrupt as they come and haven't done anything to lighten the consumer's
burden. that Clean PowerSF program? not voluntary in the sense you can opt out
of it. you can choose how much more money you will be charged each month with
that money going to produce clean energy. see the problem? they want us to pay
for energy we can't even use and are hiding behind this clean energy program.
as usual the consumer is getting hosed.

~~~
tathougies
> we have an overabundance of "green" energy here in California, yet energy
> prices are through the roof, we are looking at potential, rolling blackouts
> this summer, and we have to sell excess power to other states each month.
> why?

You're absolutely right.

Here in Marin county, you can opt in to using renewable energy, which my wife
and I have. The public renewable utility rate is significantly cheaper than
the standard PG&E rate. However, I am forced to pay more than the actual cost
that the public renewable utility charges, because -- due to California state
law -- my electric bill comes from PG&E, who -- despite not making the
electricity -- has responsibility to charge the consumer. Of course, PG&E
charges a 'convenience and distribution' fee that eradicates the difference in
pricing between the renewable resource and their own electricity. Note that,
if I opt in to using PG&E generated electricity, they kindly 'waive' the fee.
Thus, despite the renewables being cheaper, I do not get the benefit as the
consumer.

I have contacted my state senator and representative, and they sent me back a
form e-mail about how they are 'standing' up to PG&E. Give me a break.... this
is something that is easily legislated.

~~~
casefields
That's because solar usage has created a "duck curve" I would imagine it would
be even more unfair to make normal energy users pay for that:
[https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs](https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs)

~~~
Retric
Nope, you can smooth that out by moving power east to west. 1000 miles is ~two
time zones and has minimal transmission costs. Get their solar in the morning
and give them some solar in the evening and you can kill off one bump at each
end. Continental US is 4 time zones wide so you only have a morning bump on
the east coast and an evening bump on the west coast to deal with. Extra cheap
wind capacity in the middle of the US can provide power for either bump.

It's really more about corruption than anything else. PG&E still charges
vastly increased rates in California despite huge drops in wind and solar
prices.

~~~
opo
>Nope, you can smooth that out by moving power east to west. 1000 miles is
~two time zones and has minimal transmission costs.

That is probably a bit more complex and a bit harder than you are implying.
Attempts to interconnect the main grids are large projects that take many
years to do. The Tres Amigas SuperStation is an attempt to unite the Eastern
Interconnection, Western Interconnection) and the Texas Interconnection).
First announced in 2008. It will carry 5 GW of power which seems like a lot
until you consider that the US uses about 4,000 terawatt hours per year,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation)

>...It's really more about corruption than anything else. PG&E still charges
vastly increased rates in California despite huge drops in wind and solar
prices.

PG&E gets maybe 10% of their power from solar, Much of that power they have to
pay the RETAIL rate for since rooftop solar is heavily subsidized - of course
it is going to have to increase what it charges other people.

------
Brakenshire
> The programs unanimously approved Thursday by the California Public
> Utilities Commission focus on creating the infrastructure to support
> charging stations particularly for electric trucks and buses, in contrast to
> previous expenditures, which have focused more on cars.

Interesting that they're focusing on these high-utilization vehicles, you'd
have thought that a percentage of bus transport and a percentage of freight or
delivery transport would already fit the right profile for electric vehicles.
For instance UPS or DHL must have some routes which have a lot of deliveries
in a small area, in the centre of towns or cities, which are stop start for
deliveries and for traffic. Using electric vehicles under those circumstances
seems like an open goal.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
They do. But why would they pay for charging stations when they can get the
tax payer to cover it for them and keep all the profits to themselves?

~~~
Brakenshire
I was looking recently at a report about the costs of running electric buses,
and it seems to be on the edge of profitable at the moment, which is why
private investment isn't piling in.

It does seem like the right place to make a public investment, though, that
will be one of the first areas where electric vehicles will be the hard-nosed
cheapest option.

Especially given the money will presumably go in part to public institutions
like schools, which can potentially reduce bills, certainly in the long-run.

~~~
ams6110
Even if the buses are not strictly profitable, buses are usually diesel
powered and probably contribute quite a bit to smog-forming emissions. So
electric buses have the benefit of removing (or relocating) those emissions,
which is a public benefit.

~~~
BRAlNlAC
why is relocating smog and all of the industrial waste associated with the
production of a new bus and bus batteries a "public benefit"? Diesel engines
last a long time, as do bus bodies, I don't have first hand experience
managing a fleet but I'd be very interested to know how the pollution stacks
up--is generating, transmitting, distributing, and storing the power, with all
the losses incurred, along side making the batteries, which I assume wouldn't
last that long in a fleet vehicle, really that much better than just burning
diesel?

I need to see a spreadsheet or something.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
California doesn’t get much if it’s energy from coal anyways, utility
generation is fairly clean. Not as clean as Washington, which has a lot more
hydro, but close.

------
ghouse
I drive a EV with a range > 200 miles. Utility-customer funded chargers strike
me as a solution tomorrow for a problem of yesterday -- limited EV range.

~~~
xyhopguy
Maybe ten years ago I watched Bob Kennedy Jr or 3 or something talk about
having battery swap stations instead of charging stations. Seemed interesting
but I don't know much about batteries!

~~~
scrooched_moose
Although great in theory, I can see two major obstacles to adopting that:

1) Essentially requires a standard battery form factor. Tesla alone already
has between 8 and 13 batteries (not bothering to check if e.g. the Model S 60
is the same as the Model X 60). Throw in other manufactures and any future
Tesla sizes and this becomes infeasible pretty quickly as your "gas station"
begins to look like a warehouse.

2) Warranty. When you're swapping out the most expensive part of the car
several times a week, what happens when you get a dud? Is it covered by
Tesla's warranty, the swap service, or are you just screwed?

Or, what if I trade in my 8 year old essentially depleted battery for a brand
new one? Obviously I should pay some sort of "upgrade" fee, but tracking that
will be a headache.

~~~
maxerickson
If the charging station (or network) refuses to again swap a battery that they
have recently swapped into your car, why would anyone use it?

I get that switching in $10,000 of hardware is kind of a big thing, but the
question is like asking about how can I be sure every station has real
gasoline (which hey, with ethanol, they don't!).

------
ironjunkie
Taking a step back from the fact that this is "Green energy", and all the
usual virtue signaling associated with it nowadays.

From a pure economic point of view, this is literally tax-money that will help
the top 10% buy EVs more easily (because the other 90% cannot afford anything
else than traditional vehicles). It is literally subsidizing a lifestyle on
Tax Money.

If this made sense economically, people would buy EVs without the need for
state and federal subsidies.

~~~
gregable
Read the article. This isn't going towards buying EVs, it's going towards
installing a public network of charging stations. Wealthy or not, you won't
buy an EV if you can't charge it.

It also explicitly places an emphasis on placing stations in disadvantaged
communities, and focuses on heavy duty vehicles including buses. This is not
primarily putting in Tesla charging stations.

~~~
en4bz
Nope. That's 137M going directly to home owners.

> San Diego Gas & Electric Co. will provide rebates for as many as 60,000
> customers to install home charging stations and offer installation services,
> for a total of $136.9 million.

------
st26
Apparently in a break from the usual, they've at least determined where they
will get new revenue to pay for this.

------
melling
Don’t we still need a standard supercharging plug for electric vehicles?

~~~
xsmasher
> 230 direct-current fast-charging stations, which can add 50 to 70 miles of
> range to a car’s battery in 20 minutes

Not quite a supercharger, but not too shabby. Faster than my Level 2 home
charger.

~~~
r00fus
We have an L3 DC-Fast charger at my work - I take my 110mi range Ford Focus EV
from 10% to 95% in 30m.

From near-zero I can get enough to drive home (40mi) in 20m.

------
Camillo
So the money comes from utility customers? That seems amazingly fiscally
regressive, especially for California.

At least early on, the main beneficiaries of this will be affluent people.
That is hard to avoid when you're trying to incentivize a new technology
(early adopters usually tend to be wealthier, for obvious reasons), but at
least they could have funded this from general state revenue.

But instead they seem to want to get the money from utility customers. That
seems like one of the most regressive forms of "taxation" imaginable... pretty
much everyone uses electricity, and while bigger households use more, the
multiplier will certainly be much smaller than the one for income.

Then there are industrial and commercial customers, for sure, but it seems
equally misguided to specifically increase the burden on productive activity
(rather than, say, on investment income, whose taxation would contribute to
the general revenue).

~~~
pyoung
Most CA utilities have low income programs[1]. On top of that, most rate plans
are 'progressive' in that they charge more the more you use[2].

[1][https://www.pge.com/care](https://www.pge.com/care) [2]
[https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-
plan-o...](https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-
options/tiered-base-plan/tiered-base-plan.page)

------
killjoywashere
There are 11,502,870 in California. That's $67 per household. That's a night
out for the wife and I. I guess it depends on how many chargers we get for
this price. I suspect they will be clustered around political hotspots and I'm
out in the 'burbs, so I'll never see one unless I drive into the city.

Man, I'm shocked by how ambivalent I am to this. There must be some political
backstory I'm missing. Somebody's nephew 7 years ago started working on
something, that guy has since moved out of state, and it's surely tied up with
his tax attorney representing someone involved in a secondary suit related to
Vinod Khosla's gate across the path to Martin's Beach.

~~~
gkoberger
I think your math is a bit off. 11.5 million what? There's only 369,300
electric cars in CA currently. That's about $2k per car being invested.

Plus, this isn't the limit of the charging infrastructure spend. It's just a
one-off budget approval. There can (and will!) be more invested.

I think a billion dollar investment in something like this is a great start.

~~~
JoshuaDavid
Households maybe? Though the numbers I see for that are a hair over 12
million.

~~~
killjoywashere
oh, sorry, yes, households.

------
aphextron
Count me as someone excited for this. I was literally just sitting in line at
a charger at Whole Foods yesterday thinking about how silly it is to have
public transportation infrastructure reliant on corporate subsidies. We need
massive public spending on EV infrastructure for it to be at a point where
regular people will switch over.

------
rconti
One takeaway I saw from another article was that of the ~31M cars on the road
in CA, 390,000 of them are EVs (slightly higher number than the one cited in
this article). Either way, I'm fairly impressed that 1% of all cars in CA are
already electric.

~~~
syncsynchalt
Once you work out what the EVs look like (it's more than just Leafs and
Teslas), you see them everywhere. 1% becomes more believable with each new
model that you find out about.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_production_plug...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_production_plug-
in_electric_vehicles) take a look, you wouldn't give some of these a second
glance. You have to look at the badging in a lot of cases.

~~~
stephengillie
The link includes many plug-in hybrids where charging wouldn't be an efficient
use of time. If you're on a road trip in a Chrysler Pacifica (33mi electric
range), would you bother to charge it at your destination?

------
IronWolve
I just wish they would have a standard for charging, they got multiple
versions for levels 1,2,3 and Asian, American and Tesla.

We finally force mobile phone manufacturers to use USB standard, and now cars
are all over the place.

Crazy to have Tesla only charging spots.

~~~
jacobolus
> _We finally force mobile phone manufacturers to use USB standard,_

You can thank the European Commission for that one.

------
Animats
Did they get rid of the hydrogen station scheme, or is that still in the bill?

~~~
ghouse
This didn't come from the legislature. Approved by the CPUC yesterday morning.
No H2 as part of this. You can watch it here:
[http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc/voting_meeting/201805312...](http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc/voting_meeting/201805312/)

------
mortdeus
They have $768M and this is the best they can come up with when it comes to
improving the state? Fuck, use that money and build the hyperloop like you
should have, so we can race the slow as fuck bullet train the state decided to
agree to spend billions on; only to find out that they received an overly
optimistic bid.

------
cahomeown456
This is a mitigation required because of the terrible housing situation in
California. If normal people could afford to buy a home, they could install
chargers themselves and this massive public construction effort would be
unnecessary.

~~~
newnewpdro
California is a large state, the problems you're referring to are pretty local
to relatively few specific city centers. I think it's at least a little
disingenuous to claim the "terrible housing situation" is state-wide, it
isn't.

------
newnewpdro
Neat

Now who do I have to nag to get laws passed compelling landlords to install
charging infrastructure for tenants?

This is my main barrier to replacing my antique with an EV; most of the
rentals I'm likely to occupy will not have access to charging.

~~~
dangrossman
California AB 2565, "Rental property: electric vehicle charging stations",
passed in 2014, requires landlords approve all written requests from tenants
to install EV charging stations (at the tenant's expense, with some reasonable
caveats).

~~~
jpao79
If a YC company hooked an Arduino with a charging meter mechanism and did some
Square/Stripe integration and then deployed them to apartments such that it
was an additional source of revenue for the landlord similar to a coin
operated washer, there is the potential for some serious adoption.

~~~
floatrock
[https://www.chargepoint.com/drivers/apartments-and-
condos/](https://www.chargepoint.com/drivers/apartments-and-condos/)

------
en4bz
A quick search reveals that ~35-50% of California's electricity comes from
Natural Gas. Basically EVs in California are methane powered ICEs by proxy. I
find it quite annoying that government keep subsidizing EVs when the
infrastructure to make them actually environmentally friendly is not in place.

The only place owning an EV is actually environmentally friendly in North
America is Quebec since 95% is generated by Hydro.

~~~
dangrossman
California also now requires solar panels on new homes. The electric
generation mix will only get cleaner over time. A car purchased today will
likely still be on the road until 2029; what percentage of its power will be
from gas versus renewables in 2029? I think you need to think a bit more long-
term.

~~~
en4bz
Cars generally charge overnight when solar is no longer available.

~~~
dangrossman
That's not a major problem long-term IMO. Solar power can be stored at home or
at grid-level, charging can be scheduled to coincide with daylight hours
before/after work, EV batteries are getting bigger every year so they need to
be charged less often (which means more flexibility with what time they're
charged), overnight also coincides with low-consumption hours for the grid
which has its own benefits, V2G and V2V even allow parked electric cars to
potentially become solar storage batteries for a smart grid and other neat
things in the more distant future.

~~~
en4bz
This is just a round about way of accomplishing the same goal. There are much
better clean energy investments that will have payoff sooner and will benefit
more people, not just those than can shell out tens of thousands of dollars
for roof solar and a power pack.

~~~
veemjeem
It's expensive right now because demand is low. When everyone is buying solar,
I'm sure the price will drop even further. This could still happen in parallel
with any other clean energy investments as well.

There aren't that many clean energy options available to the end consumer
right now, other than solar. You could have a wind turbine which could run
day/night, but they're just not as cheap per watt, and has far fewer
competitors on the market making that stuff.

