Progressive Policies In Some States Will Accelerate Tesla

2 months ago by EVANNEX 26

Tesla

Tesla combines a full line of integrated products in an effort to limit reliance on the traditional energy grid

ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND THE GRID — A LOOK AT PROGRESSIVE POLICIES EMERGING IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK

With Tesla CEO Elon Musk forecasting the market for Model 3 vehicles could swell to 700,000 vehicles, the streets may soon be flooded with electric cars. To put that in perspective, the popular BMW 3 Series only has an annual production rate of about 400,000 per year. However, having electric vehicles like Tesla’s Model 3 selling in these larger volumes could have some unintended side effects.

Ecowatch reports on what could occur if we experience a sudden, large-scale surge in electric vehicle charging — impact on our electricity grid.

Rory Christian and Larissa Koehler report that “Utilities must ensure their customers are well-positioned to take advantage of EV benefits by educating them about how their charging behavior can impact the grid and the integration of renewable energy.”

*This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Matt Pressman.

Above: Broad overview of potential impact of EVs on utilities and our electricity grid (Youtube: Rewired); Editor’s note: This useful, albeit older video has a few factoids not updated (i.e. EV penetration has now reached 2M units worldwide)

As noted in the video, energy storage solutions (i.e. the massive Tesla Powerwall installation in South Australia) can act as a key protective measure against fluctuations in the grid. In addition, Ecowatch highlights progressive policies underway here in two U.S. states — California and New York.

California

With more than 300,000 EVs and more than 12,000 charging stations, California leads the nation in clean car sales. Moreover, that number is poised to grow rapidly—California EV sales rose 91 percent in the first quarter of 2017 from the same time last year. And, recently it was reported that electric cars now represent 5% of California’s new car sales.

  • The California Air Resources Board has reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining stronger vehicle emissions standards.
  • Volkswagen updated its plan for investing $800 million to accelerate electrified transportation in California, with input from the California Air Resources Board.
  • Senate Bill 350 prioritizes widespread transportation electrification.
  • In Los Angeles, half of all municipal vehicle purchases will be electric starting this year, and that share will increase to 80 percent by 2025. The city is also moving forward with a pilot EV ride share program to extend their benefits to communities with fewer car owners.

And, as part of Senate Bill 350, investor-owned utilities filed applications with the California Public Utilities Commission for investments in light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty sectors.  The utility plans, in particular, represent an exciting new opportunity to accelerate electric transportation in all its forms. With planned projects from placing charging infrastructure for passenger EVs in single family homes, to providing car dealers with incentives and education to sell more EVs, to electrifying buses and ship ports—and everything in between—these plans are well-designed to clean the sector most responsible for harmful emissions.

Tesla

California accounts for the lion’s share of US EV sales (Source: CleanTechnica)

New York

Earlier this year, New York State committed to the purchase of two thousand electric vehicles by 2025, more than doubling its current fleet of government automobiles. New York is also doing its share to expand electrification to make it easier for customers to buy and use electric vehicles. The State’s Reforming the Energy Vision aims to align utility needs with marketplace innovations, and is doing the following:

  • Decentralizing the electric grid so customers can make and buy renewable energy, New York is working toward a future where EVs and less pollution are commonplace.
  • Developing favorable electricity rates to encourage charging of EVs at times when renewable energy is readily available and affordable. This way, EV adoption will benefit the grid and the environment.

Con Edison’s Smart Charge NY program, an early stage effort in New York City, is paving the way for mainstream EV use; the results will be an example for how other cities can adopt the policies and tools necessary to seamlessly integrate EVs.


Hopefully, more states like California and New York will implement progressive programs to stay ahead of the curve. Meanwhile, “More and more automakers are shifting their focus to EVs, a market that is expected to grow faster every year.” One prime example: “Tesla invested $5 billion in its Nevada gigafactory—where they will make batteries for EVs—and is grabbing headlines with the rollout of its first mass-market EV, the Model 3… [and] it gives a hint of a clean energy future that can’t come fast enough.”

*Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX, Check out the site here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

26 responses to "Progressive Policies In Some States Will Accelerate Tesla"

  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “Utilities must ensure their customers are well-positioned to take advantage of EV benefits by educating them about how their charging behavior can impact the grid and the integration of renewable energy.”

    Oh, what feldercarb! Electric utilities must build out infrastructure ahead of demand, as more and more people switch to EVs, charging at home and at work. That’s their job. They laid plans years ago for how the grid needed to be beefed up to handle EV charging, and they are already doing exactly that.

    The utilities did not educate their customers about balancing electrical supply vs. demand when people installed central air conditioners in their homes and businesses back in the sixties and seventies, and they don’t need to do so for the EV revolution.

    It certainly would be an improvement to have a “smart grid”, with the electricity provider able to communicate wirelessly with homes and businesses, to regulate demand. But this needs to be invisible to consumers; it’s not the job of Joe Average to figure out how to regulate or time-shift his home’s demand for electricity.

    People don’t need to be master mechanics in order to drive a gasmobile, and they don’t need to have a degree in electrical engineering to drive an electric car!

    1. georgeS says:

      Oh, what feldercarb!

      def-“an expletive used by the characters of battlestar galactica that refers to the putrid and crusty black grime that would acc-mulate on various pieces of machinery and required scr-ping off during maintenance. possibly battlestar-speak for bullsh-t.”

      1. I think a couple of your keys are stuck or missing! Like your ‘a’, & ‘i’.

        1. Oh yea…also your ‘u’ is missing too!

          1. SJC says:

            must ensure..
            I see a lot of that sort of thing, we must do this, we must do that…we don’t have to DO anything.

      2. SparkEV says:

        “Oh, what feldercarb!”

        Is that your polite way of calling him a smeghead (from Red Dwarf)? 🙂

  2. Bill Howland says:

    That rewired video was rather dumb – and contradictory……

    They didn’t mention the traditional way utilities have smoothed out demand – that of demand charges.

    (Many Europeans defacto already have this – except their arrangements are as “Demand Contracted for”.

    – eg: you pay one fee for a 25 ampere electric service but pay more for a 35 ampere service – irrespective of actual usage.)

    Electric utilities should WANT ev sales, and then encourage the vast majority of charging to be either off-peak, or, at least when a homeowner’s solar system is functioning.

    Demand charges implemented for residence (domestic) customers would solve the problem of the duck curve (customers are charged if they send unwanted, unneeded solar into the grid at a bad time), or if they insisted on 20-25 kw charging of their individual EV’s during peak hours.

    A big BENEFIT to utilities (hardly Breaking them, but HELPING them) would be to charge after the midnight hour over the whole shift.

    The above policies would ‘encourage’ ev owners not to charge their cars any faster than necessary.

    Since I have to sleep, I’ve never seen any personal discomfort or hardship by having to charge slowly.

    Those who simply HAVE TO charge at ridiculously high charging rates will be charged commensurately- just like mailing a package over several days is much cheaper than over-night mailing.

    If you need a premium service – it is totally fair that you pay for it, and not affect your next door neighbor who is trying to trip costs by charging as economically as possible.

    1. georgeS says:

      A bit OT but I must report.

      My utility company in AZ informed me that my net metering plan is grandfathered in for 20 years from the time I put in my system (6 years ago)…..as long as I don’t change the rate structure I am on.

      I’m on flat rate not on time of day rate structure so this is good.
      By the way this is the mean old, totally corrupt Arizona Public Service utility that bought the Arizona Corporation Commission thru dark money contributions..

      1. Waiting says:

        @georgeS Left APS two years ago into SRP. They have an EV plan that charges from 5.9-6.1 cents EV Super Off-Peak from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. During the summer they hit us up from 19.37-22.06 cents from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Being retired, it will be interesting how I can mitigate the 1-8 p.m. usage. Another Arizonian has told me that he saves money on this plan and he has two EV’s. WE shall see. The difference between all of SRP’s plans is about $74 a year…not earth shattering.

        1. georgeS says:

          @waiting
          Yeh I was touting my flat rate plan but they do charge me 18 cents/kwh.

          Luckily I don’t have A/C bills in the summer as I migrate to higher altitudes…but still on APS at both places.

          With those off peak rates it would be nice to be able to store your off peak electricity and use it during peak hours.

          Unfortunately it looks like Tesla’s power wall won’t let you do that.

          http://insideevs.com/fully-charged-presents-its-own-tesla-powerwall-2-installation/

          1. The load time shifting idea, might be just a Tad early on the Battery Price Curve, as a potential Cost benefit, but we are getting closer!

            As to that, my concern, first was fridges and freezers, which cycle regularly throughout the day and night. To power them from the grid directly at off peak time, while charging up the battery, then either powering 100% of the Mid Peak AND ON PEAK time from the Battery, or at least ALL the On Peak Fridge Loads from the Battery, and some of the Mid Peak Loads for it.

            In Arizona, Air Conditioning is probably your heaviest grid load in most homes, for OnPeak usage! That is where Net Metering Home Solar benefits you most! And if big enough, it can cover A/C plus Fridges/Freezers, Eletric Vehicle Charging, and other things!

            I would suggest that the 24 Hour energy consumption of an older PC, could be as much as 20-30 Miles of EV Driving!

  3. SparkEV says:

    Progressive policy CA removed EV subsidy for those making more than $150K (about average income for experienced engineer). Meanwhile, they increased the subsidy for the poor who won’t be able to buy Tesla. Progressive policy actually hurt Tesla.

    If anything, we need equality policy to help Tesla where equal percentage is given to the high income. $4K rebate to those making $15K should mean $40K rebate (ie. free Tesla 3) to those making $150K and above.

    1. Unplugged says:

      @SparkEV – Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that those who make MORE money should get a LARGER rebate than those who make LESS?

      So if you happen to make $150K, you should receive a $15K rebate. Why stop there? How about if Elon Musk decided to buy a loaded Tesla. Shouldn’t California just give it to him for FREE? I mean, he makes soooo much money (off of other investments, not his Tesla salary) that California should just give those poor (rich) citizens free cars.

      Who the heck cares about a progressive tax policy anyway? Let’s just make it regressive, where the poor pay a HIGHER percentage of tax than the rich.

      I think you forgot the sarcasm sign for your post.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Sort of sarcasm. My point being that contrary to the article stating that progressive policies benefit Tesla, progressive policies favor the poor who tend not to benefit Tesla. But equality policies will definitely benefit Tesla (ie, free Tesla 3 for $150K income).

    2. Neil says:

      You are essentially admitting that progressive policy is to subsidize luxury vehicle purchases for the rich. I am completely fine with electric vehicles and they seem to offer some nice benefits, but, I believe strongly that buyers should pay for them in full.

      “According to the Census ACS 1-year survey, the median household income for California was $64,500 in 2015, the latest figures available.”

      http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/

      1. SparkEV says:

        Progressive policies do not subsidize the rich. As mentioned, you get no CA subsidy if you make over $150K/yr. In many parts of the state, that’s barely a living wage for a family.

        1. Just how many Mocha Non-Fat Soy Lattes a day would one have to give up to afford a Model 3 in California, anyway? I mean, the horror and depravity of it!
          ;÷)

          1. SparkEV says:

            When I heard $150K as barely living wage, that’s what I thought, too. But when you throw in few kids, both working and need child care, and living in Palo Alto, I can see how things can become very expensive.

            I heard some parts of Canada (eg. Vancouver) are also very expensive, though probably not as bad as CA.

    3. Neil says:

      “If anything, we need equality policy to help Tesla where equal percentage is given to the high income. $4K rebate to those making $15K should mean $40K rebate (ie. free Tesla 3) to those making $150K and above.”

      That is completely absurd. Even the People’s Republic of California won’t support such an absurd idea. You aren’t entitled to an electric sports sedan at tax payers expense. Sorry, but that is just juvenile.

      1. SparkEV says:

        It is absurd so I can make a point: progressive policies do not benefit Tesla.

        But it’s not so absurd that those making $150K probably paid the taxes and will likely do so in the future. Giving them a tax break via free Tesla 3 is not a terrible idea. If anything, increase productivity with self driving Tesla 3 in their commute will result in more income for them, which means more tax for the state.

        Maybe it’s a great idea to give out free self driving Tesla 3 to high income so more of their income can be confiscated later! 🙂

  4. Bob Nan says:

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

    There is absolutely no concern about power shortage.
    The power consumed has declined from
    1,997,752 in 2015-H1 to
    1,949,253 in 2016-H1 to
    1,918,074 in 2017-H1
    because of energy efficiency thru LED bulbs, better air conditioners, etc.
    which means there is lot of surplus capacity.

    Even if millions of plugins are sold, we can add more
    solar panels
    wind turbines
    complete the construction of nuclear reactors
    uprate the nuclear reactors
    add natgas generators and so on.

  5. Roy_H says:

    I think all cities should pass laws requiring all dedicated (as in this parking spot is for a particular tenant) overnight parking spaces (primarily apartments and condos) to have a minimum 230Vac 25A service. Lack of available opportunity to plug in is a major factor in deciding not to buy an EV.

    1. Roy_H says:

      That’s not really enough is it? 230Vac 40A minimum service per parking spot.

      1. 25 Amp might not be enough for a busy Real Estate Agent, Salesperson, or such, with a Tesla 100D (Model S or X), but for their pitched 40 miles a day commute, that would be fine! And a similar capacity in Employee Parking could double that benefit and support 80 Miles a day commuters, easy enough! General Public Access Fast chargers could do the rest!

  6. kent beuchert says:

    Every house has 220 volt circuits, and a 200 amp panel. I see no reason for installing “charging stations” and even les for taxing McDinald hamburger flippers to subsidize a charger for a million dollar home. That’s just plain unethical, no matter what your viewpoint. Subsidizing Tesla millionaire owners $7500 is likewise indefensible in any civilized country. Referring to these states as “progressive” is an oxymoron. Anyone taken a look at he enormous waste and
    utter stupidity of California’s “high (actually low) speed rail project?
    Electric car buyers these days need subsidies about as much as Warren Buffet.
    As for the electrical grid, renewable power makes zero sense when practically all electric cars are going to be recharged overnight. Centalized power production is FAR more efficient than “everybody his own power maker” since no homeowner can possibly produce all of the power he uses, at least not without severe duplication of capacity and lots of batteries. Even then he must still depend upon the grid. And the grid of the future is going to be one technology :: molten salt nuclear power. Nothing else is as safe or as cheap or as flexible – these plants can be sited in towns, cities, anywhere – they don’t need water for cooling the reactor. Decentralized power is not
    even an implementable concept.

  7. Get Real says:

    So says the longtime anti-EV, anti RE troll kent beuchert.
    Google this loser and you will see his FUD on other sites.

Leave a Reply