Feds award $521 million in EV charger funds, but rollout remains slow
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It was awarded today, not ages ago. The grants have been slow but I haven't seen that money awarded has been wasted.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
EVs are about 1% of the total stock of cars in the US, and more than half are Teslas. So we're talking less than half a percent of cars that are CCS. It's not nothing, but it's not all that many.
Anyway there's adapters both ways.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
For comparison, the US electric grid is designed for a reliability figure of 0.9997 or an outage of 2.4 hours per year.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Maybe the the government should take over all of the charging station? Or the government could allow businesses to put in charges and just allow the business to take the cost of the charger off to their income taxes. That might be the way to get the chargers built the quickest. Now filling stations that sell gasoline and diesel because most of these will be torn down in the near future.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
I mean Humboldt county is densely populate compared to the Upper Peninsula to the tune of almost 4.5x more densely populated. The UP also get significantly colder compared to Northern California.
I am not saying it isn't possible but, it will be slower with such a low population density and winters that really push the capabilities of current EVs.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It amazes me that we can have giant underground containers of flammable gasoline dispensers at nearly every street corner, along with the necessary truck rolls and human labor to keep those compartments filled, but we can’t put up electrical outlets in just as many locations,
Upvote
18
(20
/
-2)
I am just noticing that Mississippi got nothing. I drove up to Jackson a few weeks ago and the charging options were very few.
Does the state have to apply with a project plan to get something?
Does the state have to apply with a project plan to get something?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The last time I was in Copper Harbor the road in was seasonal, only accessible by snow machine in the winter. I've read of a new ski resort near there since then so hopefully that changed?
Adding Munising and Manistique would greatly ease range anxiety for a lot of tourists, most of whom are not towing anything. I know I would have appreciated them.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Builders will already have their money and can declare bankruptcy to get out of that requirement. Or they just use a different legal entity for construction that they promptly close upon completion. It isn't like the US gov't has a great track record of going after wasteful spending.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
Most of the population is north of Rio Dell, but fair points. It does rarely get below freezing.
It's been 20 years since I've been to the UP, but I recall a lot of summer tourism. A lot of those people will want chargers. But I agree it will be slower than people will like.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
ColdWetDog
Ars Legatus Legionis
You don't 'just put up electrical outlets'. This is not a cell phone charger. DC fast chargers require significant investment in transmission line and transformer capacity. That may or (more likely) may not exist.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
You can see an unofficial feed of new Tesla Supercharger openings (often more than one per day) at https://x.com/superchargefeed
and this site has a nice table
https://supercharge.info/changes
No federal subsidy needed.
and this site has a nice table
https://supercharge.info/changes
No federal subsidy needed.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Why aren't chargers being installed at interstate rest stops? That has to be the perfect spot for such infrastructure, right?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
For rest stops, it’s illegal. Vending machines are the only thing allowed.
For the grandfathered-in service stops eg on the NY Thruway, there are some but they were down last time I went through. I hope they add new ones.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I think most states have laws against private businesses operating on State/Federal owned Interstate rest areas.
But there are Tesla Supercharges at commercial stops along Florida turnpike.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Correct. California is installing chargers at rest areas but they're free to use.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
It’s a federal law. If you want federal money for interstates, you can’t let new rest areas have commercial services.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The newest (2023 and later) Prius Prime also matches that range, plus gets higher MPG on gasoline, so it may be a better choice unless maximum cargo or passenger capacity is required.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
However, there are more than a few noteworthy exceptions to that: Ohio has all kinds of restaurants and filling stations at rest areas, Illinois has some restaurants on bridges on top of and accessible from the Interstates (at least one of which, Belvidere, Illinois, already has a little bit of level 2 charging), and Wisconsin has test areas with vending machines selling snacks.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
From what I’ve read in places around the ‘net other than this particular thread, the requirement is to include CCS and optionally non-proprietary plugs (CHAdeMO and NACS). The CCS plug must be hardwired to the station, not on an adapter, but the reverse (an adapter to NACS J3400 that is included on the station and tethered in some way) or a separate cable is allowed. NACS also had to be approved by a standards body (in this case, SAE as J3400) to be allowed to be included on subsidized stations by the federal government. I’m not happy with this state of affairs either, although allowing the Magic Dock plus including at least some CHAdeMO stalls at near-urban stations would cause me to be quite pleased.Thanks, that's good to know they can have other ports.
I mean, anyone can get an adapter, but because it's entirely clear that the future will be NACS, the way this should go is that every new charger installed should be NACS and the people with cars with CCS should carry adapters. Building new chargers that require the deprecated standard, when we know eventually virtually all cars on the road will be NACS and they're all going to have to carry and use adapters to use these chargers that overwhelmingly haven't even been built yet... well, it's suboptimal.
At the speeds these funds are being disbursed, these chargers are still going to be coming online with CCS ports when virtually no car that ever charges at them will have a CCS plug.
EDIT: I wonder exactly how the law is worded. If you just have to build them with CCS ports, maybe the crews building them can carry around some CCS cables, and when they build a new charger, attach a CCS cable, take a picture, then immediately swap it for NACS, and then open for business.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Opening up NACS was Musk's bid to derail NEVI and other manufacturers, just like Hyperloop was his bid to derail mass transit in California. It was strategically timed to happen after the legislation was passed to cause maximum turmoil and the most expense for other manufacturers (they have to develop and support both standards).
Open it up, sign everyone on, get them to rework their entire supply chain (at huge costs), then fire the entire supercharger team and ruin the whole thing. GM was supposed to have supercharger access months ago. They still don't have it. Ford's NACS adapters are supplied by Tesla, and surprise, they're having issues getting them. Multiple manufacturers have been debating pulling out of the NACS transition entirely.
I don't think we have to worry about NACS because it's been so botched I won't be surprised if it never happens (which to be clear, is sad, because J3400 is the superior connector).
Upvote
3
(9
/
-6)
CrashingTooFast
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
It might not be so bad as you think: many of those campsites offer 30Amp electric service (maybe even 50A?). Sounds like a DC fast charger to me, the same sort of connection people have in their garages.
Also, Gov Whitmer (bless her!), together with Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana have this Loop Lake Michigan concept going. In northwest Lower Peninsula there is a good supply of chargers between Manistee and Harbor Springs. At State Parks, open for public use. Supposed to expand to UP this year or next.
When I say "good supply", I mean a few. I keep an eye on the chargers at Gaylord Meijer when I go shopping there. I think six Superchargers and five Electrify. Generally there is zero, one, or two EVs connected there. July 30th I saw my first CyberTruck, maybe one other car at the SCs. And four cars at the DCFC - Rivian, Lucid, Polestar, and VW.
"low incomes" - perhaps the fear of EVs will lessen when they learn the cost differential per mile. Like a nickel vs 10,15,20 cents. Used 2016 Leafs at $6000 perhaps less 30% Federal rebate. ??
Oh, I think the OP missed some DCFC in St Ignace, the casino there has some.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
That's a Level 2 AC charger (240V up to 100A).
Level 1 AC charger is a standard 120V wall outlet up to 20A.
Most EV onboard chargers are under 10 kW. Very few go up to 20 kW.
DC fast charging starts at 50 kW (aka slow) and goes up from there. 150 kW, 250 kW, 350 kW are the common ratings. You need a lot more robust infrastructure for that than a few 30A outlets around a campground.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
As I wrote above, vending machines are allowed. Commercial services are not, unless they were already there before the law was passed.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
This is an idiotic take. The folks building out the IT side of things have already done their work on the Tesla side, they already have the APIs and endpoints that interact with Ford and Rivian. The folks building the adapters have nothing to do with the team that was fired. Your entire conspiracy theory is therefore toast.
Meanwhile, Tesla's production ramp is late, but they are being ramped up and they are building 8,000 a week.
Furthermore, NACS/J3400 is actually a different physical plug than CCS Type 1, but the communications is the same. Therefore the transition cost for other automakers is minimal. The software is the same. It's merely a different part for the physical receptacle, and it allows for more design freedom because it is so much smaller. The burden for other automakers is relatively minimal, with the location of the charge port being the biggest issue. And since most automakers have relatively small levels of BEV production anyways, ramping the NACS/3400 port isn't that big of a deal and they are incorporating such into their model refreshes or new vehicle designs.
On top of that, the J3400 transition doesn't require Tesla's involvement at all. The first hardware is shipping and both DC and AC J3400 cables and plugs are now starting to become available. Plus independent J3400 adapters for CCS Type 1 are also available (still requires back end support to access Tesla's Supercharger Network).
For example, you can get a Lectron J3400 L2 EVSE from Lowe's, or an Emporia J3400 L2 EVSE from Best Buy today. A slew of new NEVI sites will be dual J3400/CCS Type 1.
Rivian has already announced that the R2 will move the charge port over to the same location as Tesla vehicles.
Now, back to Hyperloop. The CA high speed rail project was, at the time, supposed to cost an absurd $25-30 billion dollars. Musk proposed that someone, anyone, please work on something like the Hyperloop for less cost than that ridiculously high amount of money. But he explicitly stated that he was not going to work on it. How does that derail mass transit in California? And now that high speed rail project is expected to cost over $100 billion dollars just for phase 1, and over $130 billion including the 2nd phase:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-21/high-speed-rail
That's an absurd level of cost and Musk was right to criticize it based on cost.
Last edited:
Upvote
-8
(1
/
-9)
When they work, which is often not the case. Some of them have been down for years at a time (e.g. Division Creek). They have (with the exception of Tejon Pass) only 1 or 2 units per site and are limited to 50kW, so odds are good that that if you arrive during normal hours, they'll be down or occupied.
California really is a poster-child for how not to build and maintain infrastructure.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
No it's not the same.
No one is saying China funding/investment of its domestic EV charging infrastructure (i.e. installed in China) is an illegal subsidy - that's a strawman argument. They are complaining about China funding of it's domestic (Chinese owner) EV makers for making EV to be sold internationally (outside of China) that compete with other EV makers. China is free to go Oprah it is wants to subsidies EV sales within it's own borders and AFAICT no one is complaining about that specific.
The US for it's basically subsidizing any company, domestic or foreign, that builds EV or chargers on US soil. Electrify America is ultimately owned by Volkswagon Group, a Germany company, through it's wholly own subsidiary VW America, and Siemens, another Germany company.
While China does offer per-vehicle subsidies and tax breaks to foreign companies making EV in the US. It also gives no string attached cash infusions to several EV makers (and only Chinese owned ones).
That's the difference. I think Chinese's investment in EV infrastructure and R&D very laudable and at the same time, it's subsidizing of EVs sold outside of the China to be problematic. It isn't an all or nothing thing as real life has nuance and complexity.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
The NEVI grants aren't paid in advance, the builder has to actually build the chargers with their own money first and then file for reimbursement after the completing certain milestones. Price of the installation is a large factor in picking NEVI grantees. Also the maintenance portion of the bid require a 5-year maintenance plan and that portion of the NEVI grant is spread out across the 5-years
That doesn't mean fraud can't happened, just that it is as simple as you suggest.
That's generally for cost-plus type contract (e.g. SLS) this is effectively a fixed price contract (which Boeing completely failed at with the Starliner).
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
As someone said 50 amp 240V AC (12 kW) is nowhere near DC fast charging. A modern electrical service to a house is 200 Amp 240v which is only 48 kW. DC fast charging at least at new stations require that they have 150 kW stalls.
But I am glad to see that there is progress there working on getting more DC fast chargers installed. If they can get an acceptable DC fast charging infrastructure up in the UP they probably can do it anywhere.
As for people realizing that cost per mile is lower with an EV it turns out it is really expensive to be poor. Sure you could spend more to get a lower cost per mile in the long run, but if you can't afford that additional amount it doesn't really matter. The EV tax credits have improved in that the dealer can collect the rebate which allows for just a lower purchase price. Sadly the charging install rebates still rely on you shelling out the money and then waiting for the end of the year for the tax rebate. So if someone is looking at a used EV they need to shell out additional cash to get it up and running at their home. If that person is financing that car they probably don't have much free cash left after a down payment.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
When a pump is bagged as out of service at my local gas station it’s almost always for longer than that. Not sure why EV chargers should be held to a higher standard.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Out of how many pumps and stations?
If there's like 10 chargers then 1 down isn't a big deal. If there's only 2 chargers 1 down is a bad deal.
And shouldn't a charger be more resilient than all the infrastructure it takes to run a gas station?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Hydrogen fuel cells stubbornly remain ten to twenty years out from mass adoption while BEV is COTS, seeing steadily-expanding roles. End of the day the unavoidable economic problem of hydrogen - massive bespoke infrastructure + ~treble the energy input per unit of output vs electric - remains the unavoidable elephant in the room.
That being said, I expect OTR trucking will not transition any time soon. Short- and medium-haul (i.e. intra-city delivery, distribution) are slowly pivoting to BEV. But long-haul has challenges related to range and the nontrivial expense of installing multi-megawatt service to the likes of truck stops along freight corridors. Not sure what shape this will take.
- Catenaries have been experimented with but those pilots are few and halting; aware of a discontinued pilot in LA/Long Beach and and one ongoing in Germany
- Battery hot-swapping would allow for slower more economic charging of battery packs, albeit with the added capital of hot-spare packs spending time sitting around
- We could maybe - just maybe - incentivize the railroads to handle more freight and operate PSR as originally intended (respond to customer demand!) rather than its present mode of destroying the rail network in order to appease stock market analysts
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
A shame since it is really an interesting area to visit. I know many that go up with snowmobiles in the winter which would not make a difference with EV as yet, but eventually even tow vehicles will get better. That said, the other three seasons are great times to visit also.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Around here the pumps are usually down a day or two unless it is something with the tanks. Then it is weeks.
For charging the impact is higher than gasoline either way since it is not a 10 gal/min equivalent in charging speed. Having more chargers and reliable chargers and fast chargers will all help with the bottleneck at busy locations.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Hydrogen for long haul trucking is going to be tough. Commercial vehicles are all about cost per mile. Requiring highly specialized equipment for hydrogen storage and such, and after all that still paying approximately 3x per mile in the best case versus an battery/electric approach. Also hydrogen doesn't even entirely avoid the need for multi-megawatt electrical services, it just moves it to hydrogen generation plants. Then after factoring in all the wasted power in making hydrogen it becomes a 3x multi-megawattt service.
I am not saying no transport will utilize hydrogen in the future, but it will likely be limited to modes of transport that are extremely difficult to electrify like aircraft.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I wouldn't call the ones in IL a rest area. They are called an Oasis and are basically a fuel stop with places to eat that are accessible form either direction. I think rest stops are defined as a public place with facilities where drivers can stop and take a break from driving and are maintained by the DOT. Most, but not all, have a picnic area. Technichally an Oasis fits that, but they always have a place to fuel the vehicle where a "rest stop" traditionally does not and they are not maintained by the DOT.
WI has had vending machines at the rest stops for many years, though I am not sure some can be called rest stops as they have no restrooms any longer. See definition above.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Yup. Those margins are thin and sensitive to operating costs of which fuel is a significant percentage.
While it doesn't much more the needle in favor of hydrogen, provisioning relatively few industrial sites for massive power is orders of magnitudes less difficult than bumping provisioning for numerous far-flung sites effectively from kilowatts to megawatts. Of course local compressors (merely 950 bar to refill those 700 bar tanks) will likely require some service upgrades anyway...
Aviation is likely to have the margins for such a switch. Trans-oceanic shipping might have enough raw scale.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
A quick glance seemed to show a lot of award winners are city governments which caused me alarm about their long term availability but also means rest stops should be feasible.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)