Volkswagen Begins Installing Chargers Under Electrify America Plan

2 months ago by Mark Kane 99

Volkswagen Invest 410 Into U.S.’ Electric Car Charging Infrastructure

In late June, Volkswagen’s subsidiary Electrify America (which manages a $2 billion post-dieselgate charging infrastructure plan) opened its first charging station.  So the money is being put into action quickly.

Volkswagen e-Golf DC fast charging (J1772 Combo)

In total, eight units were installed in the Washington, D.C. area last month:

  • Pentagon City Fashion Centre in Arlington, Virginia;
  • Ashburn Village Center in Ashburn, Virginia;
  • Leesburg Corner Premium Outlets in Leesburg, Virginia;
  • Newgate Shopping Center in Centreville, Virginia;
  • Stonebridge at Potomac Town Center in Woodbridge, Virginia;
  • Dulles Town Circle in Dulles, Virginia;
  • Bowie Town Center in Bowie, Maryland;
  • St. Charles Towne Center in Waldorf, Maryland.

By September, 50 more stations are to be available in 10 metro markets: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Portland (Oregon), Seattle and Washington D.C.

Currently Volkswagen is installing dual-head (CCS Combo / CHAdeMO) units, with a 50 kW output.

Later there will be also 150 kW chargers in metros, and up to 350kW charging along highways – a step change in the EV charging infrastructure we are really looking forward too (as well as EVs that can actually handle that kind of energy transfer).  Suppliers of the hardware today are BTC Power and ABB.

Chargers are connected to the EVgo charging network, however Electrify America hints at its own network in the future:

“Drivers can access the chargers with an EVgo-compatible account; however, the chargers will also be accessible in the near future via Electrify America’s own open-standard network which is currently under development with industry partners.”

About the Electrify America:

Electrify America LLC, based in Reston, Virginia, will invest $2 billion over the next 10 years in Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure and education programs in the U.S. Over four 30-month cycles, Electrify America will invest $1.2 billion nationwide (in states other than California) and $800 million in California, one of the largest ZEV markets in the world. This investment represents the largest of its kind.

Tags: , , , , ,

99 responses to "Volkswagen Begins Installing Chargers Under Electrify America Plan"

  1. David Lane says:

    Great news!

  2. WadeTyhon says:

    C’mon VW, let’s get some here in Texas!

    We need some fast charging on 45 between Dallas and Houston, stat! Corsicana, Centerville and Huntsville should give enough options with range to spare. You can thank me later.

    1. Rightofthepeople says:

      Yeah, they just installed chargers in places that already had chargers. Wish they would focus on the long stretches of American interstates that have no chargers for hundreds of miles.

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        Exactly. I think if they focus on medium range, heavily trafficed routes (250-300 miles) they will make a big impact.

        I do think more urban charging is good! But right now there is no shortage of chargers in Dallas or Houston themselves. Yet, in-between there are no non-Tesla options other than RV parks for about 250 miles.

        This seems to be the case for highways between most major cities not located on the coasts.

    2. Jeff N says:

      I-45 is already targeted for 2-4 150 kW charging locations with at least 4 charging stalls each which are planned to be installed and running by the summer of 2019. It’s shown on page 22 of VW/EA’s national investment plan available for download on the ElectrifyAmerica website:

      https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/38726

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        Great to hear, thanks for the link! I had looked for more detailed information on their plans a few months ago and found nothing.

    3. JustWillimPDX says:

      Contact your local Senator, and House Representatives. Deservedly or not, Texas is not well known for its support of EVs.

  3. Someone out there says:

    Once this is up one of Tesla’s biggest USPs will be moot, the national supercharger network. It won’t be useless but it will also not be much of a selling point.

    1. Brian says:

      One can only hope that this will come close to rivaling Tesla’s network. If it does, that would truly be game changing.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Tesla superchargers are catering to 200+ miles range EV and spaced as such. What they’re doing would be for shorter range EV (ie. spaced 50 miles or less), so they’d need more sites.

        However, Supercharger sites have multiple units as well as ability to share power, thus utilizing all “handles”. eVgo sites are mostly two units, each unit only capable of using one handle at a time. If one unit breaks, which happens very often, that only leaves one unit. I doubt eVgo will be any different for the foreseeable future.

        1. Brian says:

          Why do you assume that they are building for short-range EVs? VW has spoken openly of plans to bring 200+ mile EVs to market in about 3 years. That’s about when all of this will be rolled out. Chevy already has a pretty good 238-mile EV. Nissan will have one soon. So I don’t understand your basic premise.

          And why do you assume that with $2B to spend, they will only have two handles per site?

          1. SparkEV says:

            VW so far is all talk, no substance when it comes to EV. Have they even released the longer range eGolf yet? Last I read, 2017 eGolf still isn’t available, and we’re half way done with 2017.

            eVgo must cater to short range EV, because that’s what’s out there. That will be the case for the foreseeable future. If they make them only suitable for 200 miles range EV, that will remove >90% of their customer base.

            If they must have more sites to be able to service short range EV, they cannot have too many stations per site.

            Unlike majority of eVgo DCFC users, shortest range EV from Tesla will always be 200+ miles.

            1. subspace says:

              Yes, VW have released the new eGolf, and it’s just about the best-selling EV in the most developed EV nation in the world.

              The charging sites installed under the Electrify America plan are planned to have 5 chargers per site on average. Go read their plan. It’s publicly available, you know…

              1. CLIVE says:

                LOL

                VaporWare !!

              2. Bill Howland says:

                Just went on the VW of America web site.. The pricing of the 2017 EGolf is attractive, but has only a 3300 watt charger, and the fast charging CCS option is $1675. The BOlt ev’s optional CCS is a relative BARGAIN at $750 (canadians get it for free).

                They must be very ashamed of their car since they don’t mention the charger size, and brag that the car gets 126 mpge in the city. Big deal. People will want to know how far you can go, and they say ‘up to’ 82 miles.

                Looks like an ‘ok car’ if you don’t go overboard on the pricey, mostly useless options.

                But for a company who keeps bragging on how much superior they are to other bonafide EV manufactures, I expect A LOT more.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  Of course VW can say that they are the only ones offering the BOSCH HOME FAST CHARGER (25 kw – 165 ampere circuit – I wouldn’t think this would draw any more than 120 amps so in the states a 150 amp branch ckt would be acceptable) for only $8495.

                  Maybe if GM dealers need one of these in their service bays, this relatively cheap solution will satisfy the BOlt ev certification for them.

                2. Taser54 says:

                  Discounted Bolts basically equal free DCFC.

            2. Asak says:

              There’s something to be said for spacing the chargers closer together even in a world with 200 mile EVs. If the stations were only 20-30 miles apart you could then simply look for one when you’re low, rather than having to plan ahead so you don’t miss one and end up stranded in between. On top of that, if one station is down or busy, it’s less serious if there’s another one not too far away and still within range.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            I’m planning on going to the Drive Electric event in Ithaca, NY this fall. I found I can do it if I stop for a bit at the IBEW hall in Geneva.

            When I’m there, I’ll walk over to “Diane’s Garage” and see if the sole CCS/Chademo fast charger is being used/and/or/works now.

            It seems a bit funny that we have many EV’s and PHEV’s in our area, but only sporadic places to charge them when on road trips.

            It will be interesting to see how the next 5-10 years pans out, since there haven’t been many changes for years now.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Why speculate what they are doing? They have plan and it is quite clear, how about reading it?

          1. subspace says:

            Indeed! It’s literally right there on their homepage. I guess it’s too much work, I mean, after all it is like _five_ pages long…

          2. SparkEV says:

            Reading this article “In total, eight units were installed in the Washington, D.C. area last month”. So is that 8 units or 8 sites of 5 DCFC each for 40 units or 2 DCFC as usual eVgo for 16 units? I go by what I read and it says 8 in 8 locations.

      2. ffbj says:

        It won’t even come close.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          Maybe the settlement should have required all stations be built within 15 miles of a Tesla Supercharging location.

          Just copy them VW! 🙂 Tesla has given you an excellent blueprint to start with.

          And it would benefit VWs future EVs. Building near all supercharging stations diminishes that selling point.

          1. Vexar says:

            This will cause places like Lusk, Wyoming will suddenly think so much of themselves. Mauston, Wisconsin will be the nexus of the future, a hub of rethinking the dimensional existence of mankind. I say VW picks other, unsung incorporated villages across the fruited plains! Instead of St. Joseph, MI, I say VW should build in Coloma, MI. Ogallala, NE has had its moment in the cosmopolitan spotlight. It is time to recognize Big Springs, NE.

            VW Group doesn’t know what they are doing. Or they do, and they are jerks.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Think you’re doing enough counting of your chickens before they’re hatched there, Butch? 😉

      One doesn’t need to be an Einstein to see that free Supercharger use and at-cost Supercharger use will still be attractive to Tesla car owners, and will still be a selling point for Tesla, even if VW’s for-profit DCFC network is as expansive as the Supercharger network.

      And 50 kW DCFC’s don’t exactly compete with 120-145 kW Superchargers, either.

      But nice try at creating another Tesla bashing Big Lie there! 🙄

      1. Someone out there says:

        Hello there mr. Fanboy, we meet again.

        Of course the Tesla network will attract Tesla drivers. What I am saying is that it will not be an advantage for someone looking to buy a new car when the CCS network is just as developed as Tesla’s. That is something people should take into consideration when going long on TSLA.

        And it’s not going to be 50 kW, read the article: “Later there will be also 150 kW chargers in metros, and up to 350kW charging along highways”

        Free supercharging will only apply to old model S and X’s. What model 3 drivers will pay we don’t know yet, chances are that Tesla will indeed start running the network for profit when money gets tight.

      2. CLIVE says:

        You can push or pull, you still end up with, wait for it…

        BINGO!

      3. Mark says:

        They said in the article they will be installing faster chargers on the Highway. It can’t be done overnight. They are never going to be like tesla so people are beating a dead horse talking about it. We don’t have non tesla cars that can handle the power yet. Once we do then people need to try and get other manufacturers to work with tesla to use the supercharger network like Elon. Said they could.

  4. SparkEV says:

    Isn’t it interesting that they start in DC area where politicians can see them instead of more EV areas like CA? Gotta kiss those butts!

    I’m curious about the ratio of installed number of BTC (40 kW) vs ABB (50 kW). Most recent additions of eVgo have been BTC units. It might be cheaper, but it adds to charging time. Waiting for those who get free charging is no different since they _always_ take 30 minutes regardless of how slowly their car charges.

    1. Brian says:

      Your theory that free charging is bad for EV adoption is like that old quote attributed to Yogi Berra – “Nobody goes to that restaurant any more, it’s too crowded!”

      1. SparkEV says:

        If you think free charging is so great, obviously you have no idea about the real world. Any time free anything’s been tried, they inevitably decay and crumble.

        Any time you wait at DCFC, chances are you are waiting for someone who live local and could’ve charged at home, and they’re charging as slow as L2 using 50 kW DCFC. I’m pretty patient, so I’ve been tolerating, though noisy about it. Most people would’ve just chucked their EV and turn back to gasser.

        1. Brian says:

          My point is that the crowding is a result of more people buyings and driving EVs. And to me, that’s a good thing.

          I assume that participating networks get a kickback from Nissan for each charge sessions. So more sustained sessions / congestion will ultimately lead to more chargers available.

          In my opinion, the NCTC program is a reasonable alternative for Nissan to Tesla’s Supercharger network. They can sell more cars because of the growing infrastructure, without having to implement the network themselves.

          BTW, I understand you are frustrated and want to express that. At the same time, using hyperbole like “obviously you have not idea about the real world” is counter productive and does not support your point.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “My point is that the crowding is a result of more people buyings and driving EVs. And to me, that’s a good thing.”

            You’re conflating two things. It’s true that free public EV charging is good for EV adoption; that is, it promotes sales.

            But Sparky is entirely correct to say it’s bad for those who actually drive EVs. I completely agree with his point that it would be better to charge a reasonable fee, to discourage casual use by those who don’t really need to use en-route charging.

            An even worse situation would be created if people actually listened to those EV advocates who keep saying that those who can’t charge at home or at work should buy a PEV (Plug-in EV) anyway, and depend on public DCFCs to charge their car on an everyday basis. Talk about creating a backlash against the EV revolution!

            1. unlucky says:

              What is a plug-in EV? What was wrong with BEV?

              1. Brandon says:

                As I understand it, the term PEV covers both PHEV and BEV

            2. Brian says:

              Rather than discouraging people from using the stations, I would rather they be ENCOURAGED to use them as much as possible – so long as that brings revenue to the station holder. The pain of shortages will be short term, and the long term result will be more stations / more plugs per station.

              1. SparkEV says:

                Free is actually discouraging use, because they so often require lots of waiting. People simply won’t use EV and drive gasser instead.

                I’m driving my gas van more often these days, and I attribute that to carrying stuff. But thinking about it, I could probably drive the EV and carry bit less stuff, but my subconscious might be making me avoid using DCFC.

                1. Brian says:

                  “Free is actually discouraging use, because they so often require lots of waiting.”
                  =
                  “Nobody goes to that restaurant any more, it’s too crowded.”

                  We’ve come full circle. Yes, YOU have to wait. But to the network operator, that charger is humming along generating revenue (from Nissan).

          2. SparkEV says:

            ““obviously you have not idea about the real world” is counter productive and does not support your point”

            It does support my point, because anyone who thinks free anything will lead to more has no idea how the real world works. Free charging proves that. “Free” only lead to shortages and frustration.

            If you think it’s only a matter of more EV that’s leading to crowding, you again have no idea why there’s crowding. Go run a survey yourself; any time you wait, chances are extremely high that it’s someone living local who could’ve charged at home.

            1. Brian says:

              You continue to tell me I have no idea. I have addressed your point and you continue to evade mine.

              Since I cannot convince you to consider my points, I am bowing out of this “discussion”. Until next time it comes up (which I’m sure won’t be long)…

              1. Gasbag says:

                …as proof of his point he could provide info on the declining sales of EVs in Southern California.

                If SparkEV’s theory is correct about these free charging Leaf mouchers he should be seeing relief now since the NCTC population declined by about 10% in the first 6 months of this year. Also Leaf owners are a declining percentage of the overall EV population so assuming SCAL’s charging infrastructure is keeping pace the problem should be getting better not worse.

                It is also possible that it is a regional phenomenon. Here in NCAL I haven’t seen much of the problems that SparkEV is having in SCAL. That could also be effective use of Plugshare. When we’re on the road we generally stop at recently rated locations with multiple DCFC stations. Issues are rare.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  The issue MUST be related to the utility price of electricity – in general PG&E, and certainly Southern California Edison are at least double what my area charges for electricity.

                  Yes I know an optional TOU plan will lower your car charging cost, but then all your other usage could get more pricey.

                  Around my area, the public wallboxes (we don’t have any fast chargers within 140 miles in the States) are usually vacant since most people charge at home since it is so inexpensive.

                  California EV drivers are obviously just trying to save a buck.

            2. Asak says:

              The thing is what you’re talking about isn’t really free, it’s subsidized by Nissan. The charging station is making money which will fuel it’s expansion. Eventually there will be enough chargers that it’s not an issue finding an open one.

      2. unlucky says:

        Look at the comment above about how it would be great if there were chargers between Dallas and Houston. The obvious intent of that is to make it possible for people who couldn’t otherwise drive from Dallas to Houston in a BEV to do so.

        So after you’ve done that, what sense does it make to give free charging to local-area drivers and ensure the charger is busy all the time? Is it performing the function it was put there for? Because it is going to discourage BEV drivers from even trying to make that trip.

        If the goal is to make city drivers more able to get EVs, then maybe there’s a good reason to make a charger free. I’d really say try to do it with AC first because it’s cheaper so you can provide more charging for the same outlay. But maybe you have to offer DC out of practicality.

        But if you’re trying to create “through-routes” for BEV drivers making the chargers free undercuts your goals. It means people can’t drive through without huge delays at any price.

        Obviously having more chargers in general is a big part of making things better too.

      3. Nick says:

        Bawahaha!

        Yep, free charging is the only reason I do any ~medium range trips in my LEAF, otherwise I’d be in a minivan (still gets 25 MPG so not too bad).

    2. theflew says:

      Probably started in the DC area because – “Electrify America LLC, based in Reston, Virginia”. Probably easier to start in your backyard versus across the country.

      1. Brandon says:

        Actually that was my thought too!!

    3. menorman says:

      They’re not ignoring CA, it’s just that CARB hasn’t approved their plan yet. But they’ve already announced that Sacramento will be their “green city”.

  5. Carsten says:

    I live in the DC-area and drive a MiEV since 7/2013 and have currently 71,000mi on the odometer.
    I use public charging infrastructure maybe 2-3 times a month. With the general tendency towards longer range EVs, I don’t really see the need for a lot of infrastructure in metropolitan areas. It should be more geared towards covering the roads to the Suburbs and between the metropolitan areas.
    Charging infrastructure for apartment dwellings is a whole separate issue.

    1. Mister G says:

      Nailed it…I had a few conversations with charge point and EVGO about the lack of charging stations in between Tampa and Orlando on I-4 corridor but there plan is to focus on installing charging stations at places where there is something to do while ev charges and not in rural areas that connect big cities. As a leaf driver I cant go from orlando to tampa without range anxiety because there’s only one dc charger at nissan dealership in Lakeland.

  6. CCIE says:

    I just took a look at EVGo’s website for the first time in a while, hoping they would have some maps of future sites.

    Instead I noticed they’ve doubled their L3 charging price for the on-the-go plan from $0.10/min to $0.20/min. Anyone know when that happened?

    1. unlucky says:

      It was that way a week ago. I can say that. Other than that I don’t know as I don’t use that plan.

      DC isn’t “L3” and evGO doesn’t offer any L3 chargers right now.

      1. CCIE says:

        You appear to be correct from the SAE specs. But, in common language, Level-3 implies DC charging. That’s said, I’ll call it DCFC from now on.

      2. Texas FFE says:

        I’ve given up trying to correct people on calling DCFC chargers L3 chargers. Most people that use or talk about SAE J1772 DC Level 2 chargers could care less about being technically correct. Makes you wonder what these people are going to call real SAE J1772 DC Level 3 chargers when they come out (probably going to be the 350 kW chargers since SAE J1772 DC Level is already rated for 100 kW.

        1. CCIE says:

          Probably still call them Level-3. It was foolish to classify based on wattage.

          Level-1 at AC120V makes sense.
          Level-2 at AC240V makes sense.
          Level-3 at DC400-600V makes sense.

          These are the three major charging interfaces people are likely to encounter. Hopefully Chademo dies and we’re just left with CCS and Tesla for Level-3 (DCFC). Doesn’t matter if the wattage ends up increasing for a given interface.

      3. Bill Howland says:

        SAE dropped the ball here… Again! Except this time it is much worse… They should have left bad enough alone.

        First, they called DC fast charging Level 3.

        Then, they changed their mind and decided to come up with the inscrutable AC level 3 (super dumb since over 20 kw single phase is rare, and requires a different plug arrangement than 3 phase), meanwhile just calling DC LEVEL 3 a faster form of DC charging. So they call many different formats, charger and plug configurations the SAME THING.

        Of course, the Level 1 standard (used to be only AC) of 16 amperes is effectively not used, except for some premium arrangements. As you get the car from the factory (even current Teslas) they limit the current to 12 amperes since it is the maximum allowed for a continuous load on a 15 ampere circuit. Even home air conditioners, since they are continuous loads, are also limited to 12 amperes. There are no household loads on general purpose circuits that on a continuous basis draw more than 12 amperes. Intermittent loads such as air compressors, and microwaves, and backyard grilles may be as much as 15 amperes – but that doesn’t apply to car charging.

        As if car manufacturers would ever come up with that many cords/charging arrangements for their cars.. Won’t ever happen.

        The difference between North America and the rest of the world exist because of differing distribution systems, not because of the wet-dream SAE big experts.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      20 cents/minute, at 60KW would be 20 cents per KWh, but these units are probably closer to 40, than a 50KW peak, and then they will taper down depending on which car plugs in. Did your charging finish, before you were done shoe shopping? Charging $$ by the minute gets pricey.

      This is another thing politicians get wrong about providing urbanites means to “fill-up”. Again, it isn’t environmental as much as it is a failing social policy.
      It won’t rival “one third the cost of gas”, a powerful incentive. Instead, people will be paying close to gas prices for their miles (~$.40/KWh). I don’t know if VW’s settlement eats these costs, but even so, that will end.

      Most people with the means to charge where they live, would be fine paying 40, 50, or 60 cents/KWh at a highway charger, because of how seldom they go >200, or 300 miles, or how they only want to finish a trip.

      What will ultimately happen with urban “pay for charging” may be similar to Hydrogen, or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Despite how dirt cheap natural gas is, it gets marked up to just underneath the price of gasoline ($2 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent, or GGE). The policy won’t advance EV adoption as fast, because of the opportunity it gives toll-takers. A lot more than just 1% of the households of this country have an outlet waiting at home, but the faster adoption solution will come later.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        I think you’re wrong. I used to be a huge hydrogen advocate but my experience with electric vehicles has changed that. I don’t think you’re ultimately going to be able to beat the convenience for BEV home charging with any other kind of vehicle.

        And for the other. I could talk to you all day long about avoided cost but I don’t think you will listen. Let’s just say that when the charging infrastructure matures there will be competition among service providers and away from home charging costs should come down.

  7. hpver says:

    It was monumentally stupid to give VW the responsibility for this. The company that just lied and cheated and polluted like crazy was allowed to be involved in how their fines are spent. At best they’ll screw something up. At worst they’ll again engage in dishonesty.

    That amount of money could build a contiguous nationwide network sufficient to enable EV travel almost anywhere in the country. Plus a lot more.

    I doubt very much that will happen.

    What a waste.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      +++++ me too

    2. CCIE says:

      Who should they have had handle it? If the government done it themselves it would be a complete disaster. They’d be doing environmental impact studies on charger sites for the next 10 years.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        LMAO………true

      2. menorman says:

        Ideally, the EPA should do it since they’re party to the settlement, but I’m not sure the Scott Pruitt EPA is the best one for the job.

        1. Asak says:

          Pruitt would probably find a way to build all of the chargers out in rural Alaska only along dirt roads.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Pruitt came up with the concept of “solid hydrocarbon” (eg. COAL), as a strategic security resaource for the USA, since he makes the very valid point that if all the central stations in a area are converted to Natural Gas (methane), and there is a major pipe line break, that an entire area will go dark since you’ll have several station failures simultaneously without strategically located coal-powered plants.,

        2. CCIE says:

          No government agency can run any project well. Too much red tape and too many incompetent/lazy union workers.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      +1 Tesla must be near 1 billion in its network. Contrast that with the upcoming efficiency of VW’s 2 billion. If you don’t want Tesla’s success, don’t do what they did. Seems pretty simple.

    4. menorman says:

      That’s why CARB set certain parameters that they wanted met.

  8. Trond Skilbred says:

    It’s sad they do this with low or no interest.
    They only do it in need for a new up to date brand image…

  9. Nemo says:

    There’s been an EVgo station in Bowie Town Center for years now. I’m not aware of anything happening there in the last month, although they do have to repair it periodically; and they did upgrade it from CHAdeMO-only to dual CHAdeMO plus CCS, but that was well over a year ago.

    1. vdiv says:

      They replaced the original Nissan-provided CHAdeMO only station with a second ABB CHAdeMO/CCS station, the net effect was basically adding a second CCS port to the location.

      1. MTN Ranger` says:

        I noticed they did the same thing at the Stonebridge location in Woodbridge. Last week I saw they added an additional CCS/CHAdeMO next to the old one.

  10. Ocean Railroader says:

    The locations they announced on this website have had chargers at them for over a year or at least three years.

    Vriginia has not had a new charger built in it in over two years.

    Eastern Canada which is fairly rural is having one to three new quick chargers pop up every week there.

  11. pjwood1 says:

    Mark, or Jay,

    Any idea:
    How many plugs per station?
    How much of the “urban center” plan is a result of late changes to the settlement?
    Thanks

    I don’t know what the collective attitude at IEV (writers/readers) is, but I understand politicians wanted people without garages to have a means to keep their EVs charged. Hence, VW’s roll-out. Do we feel these 50KW mall parking lot chargers are up to the task?

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      ” Do we feel these 50KW mall parking lot chargers are up to the task?”

      Excluding Tesla SC’s, We have malls where there’s about 500 cars parked and there are only 2 or 3 J1772 EVSE’s.

      There’s one mall with just 2 EVSE’s and they charge as much, if not more than gas!!

      We have new parking lots (not structures) with over 300 spots and NO EVSE’s!

      Any 50KW charger is welcome. What would work best at these parking lots is to have 10KW to 20KW EVSE’s and limit time to 4hrs.

      1. Jay Cole says:

        pjwood1

        re: “Mark, or Jay, Any idea: How many plugs per station?
        How much of the “urban center” plan is a result of late changes to the settlement?
        Thanks”

        Full details can be found here:

        First $300 Million From VW’s Dieselgate Scandal Goes To U.S. Charging Infrastructure
        http://insideevs.com/first-300-million-from-vws-dieselgate-scandal-goes-to-u-s-charging-infrastructure/

        But this is probably the info you are looking for quoted out (as it refers to the national plan/not CARB’s separata CA plan – recent supplemented app by Electrify America to CARB after the request for redistribution here):

        Highway/high output stations – some 240 of these (up to 150kW, then up to 350 kW): “there is a mandate to be able to service five vehicles at a time, via four to ten charging stations per location.” – max 66 miles apart.

        The city stations (some 300+ in phase 1) will be a similar configuration, but not so much with DCFC, there will be a greater mix of L2 depending on the proximity to higher density areas.

        AFAIK, the “urban center” plan has not changed significantly (in regards to CA), it just had an additional areas designated (~35% of the whole) as such (but don’t quote me on that…just as I remember it off the top of my head).

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…I understand politicians wanted people without garages to have a means to keep their EVs charged. Hence, VW’s roll-out. Do we feel these 50KW mall parking lot chargers are up to the task?”

      It is at least counterproductive, if not woefully uninformed, to advocate for DCFC use for everyday charging. If there are people using it for that, then DCFC stations won’t be available for their intended purpose, which is to extend the electric driving range of EVs.

      The proper response to people not being able to charge at home or at work is to advocate for regulations to require installation of slow (L2) EV chargers in parking lots and at curbside parking.

      EV battery packs are not built to be charged at DCFC stations on a daily basis. When mistreating battery packs like that, the question isn’t whether or not it will prematurely age the pack, but rather how much it will age the pack.

      DCFC stations should only be used for en-route charging of EVs being driven beyond their normal driving range. There is no valid reason for them being used for other purposes, and advocating that they should be misused in that fashion just promotes unnecessary clogging of the infrastructure. See “The tragedy of the commons”.

      1. menorman says:

        As it is, some people could probably get away with a DCFC stop every other day even with a Leaf and with the longer-range options just starting to really appear, the idea is obviously that people would be able to show up and charge maybe once or twice a week.

    3. Jeff N says:

      “Any idea:
      How many plugs per station?
      How much of the “urban center” plan is a result of late changes to the settlement?”

      I only scribble in the comments section at IEV, but the ElectrifyAmerica plan calls for between 4 and 10 charging spaces at each of their 150+ kW highway corridor locations with an average of 5 spaces. Presumably, heavier traveled highways between urban areas would get more spaces and rural highway locations would get fewer.

      I’m not aware of any late changes in EA’s non-California community charging since they filed their national plan with the EPA in April.

      I think what you are seeing with this recent initial spending is EA throwing a bucket of money to an established charging provider (EVgo) in order to show quick forward progress as EA continues to get their broader plans lined up for the coming next two years.

      Here is an article which summarizes EA’s overall plans for both California and the rest of the US and puts it into context against Tesla’s existing Supercharging network and EVgo’s existing network.

      This article is 3 months old but the only thing that has changed is that California’s part of the plan has been delayed about 6 months due to some last minute political wrangling between EA and CA that likely has little practical effect on their plans other than adding Fresno as an additional community charging metro area:

      http://www.hybridcars.com/vw-reveals-nationwide-ev-charging-plans/

  12. Tech01x says:

    Wow… what a waste of money. They didn’t even wait for SAE Level 3 to start?

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Have they even decided on what/how to standardize it?

      If so, post a link, I’m curious.
      Most links refer to L3 as DCFC with Chad or Tesla SC.

  13. Ron Mazuk says:

    Electrics Re here to stay and great. Sooner than later the truth that battery storage with all associated cost are not as environmentally clean as advocates would like you to believe. Big infrastructure waste! Too bad, fuel cells will eventually prove their worth. Thank you

    1. Brian says:

      Trolling fail. Your post is barely intelligible.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Too bad, fuel cells will eventually prove their worth.”

      When it comes to passenger cars fueled by compressed hydrogen gas, they have proved their “worth”: They’re worthless. Claiming otherwise is quite literally being a science denier, as well as denying real-world economics.

      Fuel cells have their place, in certain applications where cost is unimportant. It just isn’t in passenger cars fueled by compressed hydrogen.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        I wouldn’t say fuel cells are worthless, they have their uses. But I would say fuel cells in vehicles are to complex and inconvenient to compete with BEVs.

    3. Bill Howland says:

      Mr. Ron Mazuk:

      While it is true that batteries are not the cleanest thing imaginable, at least their lifetimes are increasing – so the contamination of the environment is not happening that often.

      Its the same complaint about Solar panels, but the panels only have to be made around every 25 years. Yes there is some contamination but in the meantime that is alot of energy recooped from the sunshine.

      Lithium Ion, or Long-Life Lead Acid (25 year lifetimes) can provide a necessary storage and/or buffering function to tolerate the ‘intrinsic disruption’ of Solar and Wind Powering systems. These help keep the ‘grid’ and the central station equipment in good mechanical health, and overall lower costs.

      As far as the fondness for fuel cells goes, I’m sure in Electricity Starved Locales such Hydrogen Vehicles can fulfil an important Niche. But EV’s are so easy to implement (and of those charged at home after midnight, as is typically the case 80% of the time) – they actually HELP the grid become lower cost, and more reliable since those 80% of ev’s smooth out the load – preventing damage to the central plants.

      Batteries also help ‘peaker plants’ absorb load and shed load gracefully – avoiding damage to both themselves, and also traditional central stations.

  14. ev_friendly says:

    I think that Electrify America’s plan is missing the mark when it comes to Florida. Florida ranks fifth in the states with the most EVs. Yet the plan for the new chargers has almost nothing in Florida, just around Jacksonville. Where do people go for vacation in the Winter? Where do students go for Spring Break on the East Coast? Florida. And they don’t just get to Jacksonville and stop there. They go to Daytona, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, Ft Myer, Tampa, etc.

    1. Jeff N says:

      “Yet the plan for the new chargers has almost nothing in Florida, just around Jacksonville.”

      The EA national plan shows 10+ highway corridor locations on I-75 and 15+ locations on I-95 so maybe around 25-30 locations combined.

      Tesla has around 40 Supercharger locations along those two highways today although some are in metro areas where non-EA fast DC chargers are already available.

      Yes, in addition to running up through the coasts of Florida that also run far north up to Boston and Canada. How many of those EA locations will be in Florida? We don’t know yet but EA is only claiming to cover highways in about 40 states within the next two years and I’m guessing Florida will be one of the states with better highway coverage.

      Since Miami is the only metro area getting EA community charging in the next two years, folks will need to rely on level 2 destination charging at hotels and shops once they arrive and also the 90+ CCS and CHAdeMO fast DC chargers from other providers that are mostly located in urban metro areas of Florida today.

      1. Mister G says:

        I-4 corridor completely ignored…terrible.

        1. Jeff N says:

          For context, Tesla also has nothing along the I-4 corridor today except the Supercharger located in Orlando which has 6 stalls. EVgo has the same number of dual-plug CCS/CHAdeMO stalls along I-4 although they are almost all single stalls at different points along the route. Another ~7 CHAdeMO-only chargers are also located along the route. Of course, EVgo and other providers may increase their presence along I-4 over the next couple of years even if EA doesn’t fill that route.

          1. Asak says:

            If Tesla isn’t there either it makes me wonder if there’s some siting issue or some other red tape that’s preventing them from being built.

  15. darth says:

    They are doing the low hanging fruit first. Replacing old many times broken chademo only chargers with new ABB dual standard units is a huge improvement.

    By colocating at existing locations they can roll these out fast. I am using one right now as I write this. Saves me a lot of stress as this spot is popular and only had 1 functioning unit and my Leaf needs a charge to get back home.

  16. Nix says:

    50 kW is fine for fighting Range Anxiety in shorter range EV’s for local travel. It is good to always have somewhere nearby where you can charge for 10-20 minutes just to get home.

    But it is their 150 kW and 350 kW chargers that will really enable long range travel. Unfortunately, the charging standards for 350 kW charging haven’t been completely nailed down yet.

    Chademo says 2020 is the projected date for >350 kW charging:

    https://www.chademo.com/technology/high-power/

    CharIN still describes CCS as having “the future perspective of up to 350 kW”

    http://www.charinev.org/ccs-at-a-glance/what-is-the-ccs/

    I believe part of the court order was that VW has to built chargers to multiple standards and not give an advantage to VW cars. I sure hope VW isn’t stuck waiting until 2020 for Chademo to finish their standards before building any >350 kW chargers. That would suck.

    1. Jeff N says:

      Not too many of the ultrafast DC charging stalls in EA’s plans will be located outside of California during the first two years. The national investment calls for 150 kW highway corridor chargers. My understanding is that the 150 kW standards have been sufficiently approved. Multiple vendors already have pre-production 150 kW chargers in testing and ChargePoint has announced a target availability date for their ultrafast units of this summer.

      1. Jeff N says:

        “Not too many of the ultrafast DC charging stalls in EA’s plans”….

        I meant to write:
        Not too many of the 350 kW ultrafast DC charging stalls in EA’s plans…”

  17. I hope someone enters them into Plugshare.com as soon as possible!

  18. Jason says:

    “Chargers are connected to the EVgo charging network, however Electrify America hints at its own network in the future:”
    Almost doesn’t sound like a penalty to VW, does it?
    I’m waiting to hear that VW cars can charge twice as fast because they use 800v, rather than what they provide to other cars at 400v, such an opportunity for VW to install all this charging infrastructure as a penalty and leverage it for their own gain in the long run.

    1. Jeff N says:

      The chargers have to be based on standards meaning CHAdeMO and CCS today and have to be open and usable on equal terms to cars from all makers. The locations can’t be immediately adjacent to VW dealerships.

      This part of their legal settlement (Appendix C) is not a punishment in the same way that other parts are or that other related dieselgate settlements are.

      This $2 billion zero emission investment is more of a forced investment. VW owns the resulting equipment and is free to operate it to make a profit and that was by design as part of the settlement negotiations. VW still owes well over $10 billion in other fines and penalties.

      Because VW is free to operate the charging network as part of their business and design it to help leverage their BEV sales they will be motivated to make it succeed by putting in quality equipment, maintaining it, and spreading the network rapidly (their plan pace roughly matches Tesla’s early Supercharger installations). Other car companies or other businesses are free to build their own charging networks if they want. VW is required to do it.

Leave a Reply