CA Drivers - Sign Chargepoint Petition against PG&E

I reluctantly signed the petition.

1) I don't believe in free stations. As much as I enjoy using them, I really don't see them being provided in the long run - nor does their existence influence whether or not to buy an EV.
2) Regarding paid stations hardly being used, the same could be said of existing Blink, Chargepoint, etc. stations where the cost per kWh is more than at home.

So, I signed it because I don't believe that my PG&E bill should be increased to pay for the stations to make PG&E look like some green company that's doing me some kind of favor. I also think PG&E should spend every last cent instead on system maintenance - especially since I have relatives that live less than 1 mile from the San Bruno blast zone. Every time I see a commercial on radio, TV, etc., I think of how many miles of gas line or electrical line weren't being serviced to pay for that commercial.

 

First off, let me state that I am no fan of PG&E. However wouldn't more competition for charging stations choices be good?

 

Interesting reading the PG&E link saying 100000 chargers needed in their coverage region by 2020.
I am wondering what % of CA that PG&E covers? and what that total charger number looks like for all of CA for 2020? Then how many gaso stations do we have in CA?

I recently read one EV blogger saying that Japan already has more EV charging stations than gaso stations, so I wonder how CA compares?

 

I received the email from Chargepoint which charges that "PG&E has sent a proposal to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to use your money to own and operate new EV charging stations in your neighborhood. This extension of PG&E’s monopoly will destroy the competitive charging station market and stall the innovation of new features and technologies."

Chargepoint needs to provide evidence why they say that PG&E will be using our money to own and operate new EV stations. Besides, PG&E will be just starting out on the stations and so how is that a monopoly?

I'm thinking PG&E's proposal is a threat to Chargepoint's survival, and hence the email blast from the Chargepoint.

 

Here's a discussion on the Leaf forum on the same topic

My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Chargepoint Petition against PG&E charger build-out in CA

 

Why do plug in hybrid owners need free charging stations as an incentive? Who is paying for that subsidy? I'm not saying I'm any better because if I could get free gasoline from my employer's gas pump or the pump at the mall, or a car dealer I'd take it.

As a member of an EV club I see the other side. The EV is the vehicle of choice. They are used like any other car or pick up truck. Members have availed themselves of opportunity charges by plugging in at the school where we meet or at Conicelli Nissan. On some trips they have to stop and charge. Sometimes it is prudent to charge to ensure not getting stranded. Not all EV owners are out there sponging free electricity. Some do patronize pay chargers.

On some of my trips I have to stop & buy gas. I plan to buy gas on some trips because it is cheaper enroute.

The problem with electricity is that it is cheap so it doesn't have perceived value. This is reinforced when it is given away as a loss leader.

The interesting part of the PG&E program is that it is being proposed for the regulated utility portion of the corporation. If it was part of the unregulated energy portion of the corporation would the opposition and animosity still be there?

Electric utilities used to sell appliances. I have friends who bought appliances from BG&E and that purchase was posted to their utility bill. I remember the PSE&G store in downtown Burlington. They got into the business to promote the sale of electricity and natural gas. They got out when it was no longer profitable because every appliance store carried electric & gas powered appliances.

People whine "x isn't popular because there's no infrastructure". Here's a company that sees an opportunity and is taking it.

 

You need to do a bit more research. PG&E has already stated they want to increase rates to support this plan. See this link on PG&E's website:

PG&E Proposes Major Build-Out of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations | PG&E

"The cost of PG&E's plan, if approved, would be shared by all electric customers as a contribution to helping the state meet its clean air and climate goals... A typical residential customer would pay about 70 cents more per month over the period 2018 to 2022."

If you have nearly limitless resources to build and own an EV charging network, you can very easily create a monopoly.

 

Thanks for this. Chargepoint should have included a reference to the above.

 

Considering all the monkey business between the previous Chair of the PUC and PG&E (where he worked prior to the PUC, and apparently while presiding over the PUC he was a "double agent"), the AG needs to thoroughly investigate the way-too-tight relationship between the regulators and regulated utilities.

It's gotten ridiculous. SoCal Edison is also playing games, moving TOU windows to purposefully reduce solar generators' credit for excess production.

 

I haven't decided if I will sign the petition. I might be persuaded to pay the $42 ($0.7 x 12 x 5) that PG&E wants so as to promote EVs, but can PG&E be trusted with this promise...

 

What part of the PG&E rate structure is the huge overcharge for transmission? Is it the $0.14784 per meter per day or around $4.50 per month?

 

the real problem here is that there is no free market. these utilities will try anything they can to roadblock alternative fuels. including overbuilding charging stations that few will use so they can then point to the fact that the public doesn't want them. the same is done with public transportation all over the country.

 

I find it ironic that Los Angeles DWP charges $.18 per kWh on their most expensive tier. That's almost 50% cheaper than SCE.

Thieves, these IOUs are.

 

it's not that, but it is difficult to control utilities, there is so much politics involved. what i find ironic is that the same governing bodies who advocate for bev's, can't seem to get a handle on electric rates.

 

I attended a meeting of the San Francisco Electric Auto Association chapter today which featured a presentation from a PG&E staffer on this charging station buildout proposal.

The plan is to build approximately 2,500 sites of about 10 stations each in PG&E's Northern California service area where location owners agree to the installation (at no cost to them). So, PG&E will pay the construction cost to install the power lines to the location in the garage or parking lot, pay for the station hardware, and will contract with a 3rd party company (like ChargePoint, for example) to maintain the stations in good repair, and provide user authentication and billing services. The installation would occur during a 5 year period beginning around 2017.

Rates to EV owners would be based (at least initially) on existing commercial time of use rates and would be billed per kWh of consumption. The present plan apparently calls for about 25,000 level 2 (3.6 kW) station plugs and about 100 fast DC stations (I suspect dual plug stations with 1 CHAdeMO and 1 Combo CCS like EVgo is doing). The rates would be subject to regulatory approval.

Some stations might be installed in controlled access areas like gated workplace or apartment parking and other stations would be at public locations like shopping areas.

ChargePoint and other similar companies don't like this plan because they think PG&E won't pay them enough to perform the billing and maintenance services. They probably also think they can make more money selling smaller clusters of stations directly to businesses rather than selling a large number under a competitive contract to PG&E.

Various opinionated people at the meeting shared their views. One theme was that many airport long-term parking and also workplace stations should be level 1 (120V) in order to service more cars at less cost per car since those cars can remain plugged in for 7+ hours a day.

My perspective is that stations which are generally free to use create economic distortions and are a bad idea. They are fine as an initial "here I am" advertising awareness promotion but as a permanent pricing policy it causes people to charge that don't really need to. It also encourages daytime peak charging in place of overnight off-peak charging at home. I also have no problem with "loss-leader" arrangements like at some Target stores that allow free charging for 1-2 hours and then require a fee.

As 150+ mile EVs become available in the next 5 years I suspect many of the users of these stations will be emergency charging for EVs and routine opportunity charging for PHEVs.

The CPUC chairman is/was a past CEO of SoCal Edison, not PG&E, but presumably he is favorable to the positions put forward by large utilities.

I understand the skeptical attitude toward PG&E and this proposal. I suspect the plan which is eventually approved will be significantly revised after regulatory feedback from EV owners and ChargePoint etc. SoCal Edison has apparently submitted a very different proposal for their coverage area with decentralized maintenance and control of the stations by the location owners but I don't understand the details.

In many parts of California there is almost no charging infrastructure. In SF and LA and other nearby urban areas there are charging stations but they are mostly at private employers and public stations are often either too expensive to routinely use or are free and almost continuously occupied. There are few public stations that are non-free but reasonably priced, in my experience.

The number of public stations is not presently on a track to keep up with the large number of plugin cars being sold or projected to be sold in the future. The governor has recently called for half of all existing state-wide petroleum use to be eliminated by 2030.

There will also be a need to buildout 90+ kW DC charging stations for long distance driving in large battery EVs not made by Tesla. The PG&E plan does not address that so it may need later revision or long-distance DC charging for CHAdeMO and combo CCS (SAE standard) may need to be built out nationally by manufacturer consortiums or other providers.

 

WOW! It looks like I should be glad I just deal with PG&E. Last NEMS-year I used a total of 8257 kWh of which PG&E supplied 2791 kWh. My total PG&E usage was within the baseline except for 18 kWh into tier 2 in July. About 1200 kWh of the total was for charging the PIP.

My total PG&E cost for the year was 338.01 for electricity and 53.96 for monthly fixed charges and a "Climate credit" of 59.64 hence a total of $332.33 or $0.119/kWh supplied by PG&E on the E-6 rate. Considering my total kWh consumption for the year my cost was about $0.04/kWh.

Of course there was an up front investment. Estimating my PG&E cost without solar, my 2.8 kW AC solar installation saved me about $1120 for a $12,000 installation cost or about an 9.3% ROI.