Beverly Hills bans plug in hybrids from public charging stations...

It's funny my back of the cocktail napkin estimate comes out almost identical. Using numbers from the BMW website for the 2018 i3:

BEV MSRP $44,450 Range = 114 miles
BEVx MSRP $48,300 Range = 180 miles
Cost difference $3,850 Additional range = 66 miles

The extra range of 66 miles is 58% of the 114 mile BEV range. Increasing the 33kWh battery by 58% would be 52kWh. If we use $200 per kWh as the battery cost then the additional battery capacity will cost $3,828, nearly identical to the cost of the REx option.

However even if you increased the battery size to give the BEV model an equivalent range of 180 miles, that range is still finite, plus or minus depending on conditions. There would definitely be range anxiety driving somewhere even as close as 90 miles from home. Whereas with the BEVx you are assured of making it home in that scenario, you just may have to fill the little gas tank along the way.

In some situations someone might burn a little more gas if they can't manually turn on ICE earlier in the drive, but that occurs only when someone drives in extended mode in a manner that uses up their remaining 5% SOC (I have read 6.5% but will go with 5%). From comments that I have read, those situations should be pretty rare. As for CARB, I somewhat see their point of view of what constitutes a BEVx (ducks as projectiles are thrown). A PHEV is expected to have normal gasoline range for out of town trips, but also capable of near BEV operation on days when when the miles driven are within the BEV range. Most PHEV drivers will also have days that fall in between, like say 1/3 BEV and 2/3 HV.

BEVx on the other hand is supposed to be designed for people who would consider a BEV, but the range is borderline with their expected daily driving, thus pushing them towards a PHEV (and more gasoline). The range extender is supposed to be a type of insurance for a BEV owner so that in case of miscalculation or lower than expected performance they can still make it home. And in case of an unplanned need to drive somewhere farther comes up (close friend or relative goes into the hospital, etc.) you can go well beyond even the extended range by filling up the little gas tank every fifty miles or so. And in extended mode you shouldn't normally be underpowered, because you still have leftover SOC available to supplement ICE when needed. From many comments that I have read, even 5% SOC is enough to handle an incline here or there, an occasional high speed pass, etc. Power becomes an issue only when you use up your SOC either by driving continuously faster than 70 mph (avoidable) or a lot of high speed passing of other vehicles (avoidable) or long hill climbs (unavoidable). I have read several comments from i3 owners who say the underpowered situations are not exactly pleasant, but are very rare and they know when they are coming (hill climbs) so it doesn't bother them. The ones who are complaining would seem to people who regularly push their cars past the EV range and then start climbing hills and/or driving fast. For that type of driver the car was probably not a good fit.

So back to CARB, even with 5% SOC there are drivers who learn how to use the system, and how to preserve their remaining SOC during extended mode, and take their i3's on relatively long trips by filling up every 50 miles or so. Somewhat defeating the idea of BEVx, but only to a certain extent. However if drivers could start extended mode at 25% SOC remaining (like they can in Europe) that would make it even easier to routinely run in extended mode and more people would be doing it. CARB decided that would be more like a PHEV and that is how they would have classified the i3 REx if BMW allowed U.S. drivers to switch on extended mode earlier in the drive. BMW would have forfeited thousands of dollars per vehicle in credits, which I am sure they would have passed most of that on to the consumer, likely pricing the i3 REX completely out of the market.

 

BMW implemented it as a modifiable software table entry. If BMW had used GPS data to reset the enable range threshold with each start using a GPS map of CARB states, I would have no problem.

A second option would be for BMW to use the vehicle registration data from the CARB states to download a reset of the range extender enable threshold. Alternatively upload the settings and send a letter to the CARB authorities when the range extender menu exceeds some CARB defined level.

Bob Wilson

 

The BEVx is a political construct from CARB and BMW negotiations to allow BMW to get ZEV credits on the REx model which normally wouldn't as a PHEV. The hobbling keeps the car from operating as BMW intended.

As intended, the driver could go into hybrid mode virtually whenever they want. As in taking the Prime on a trip longer than its EV range, the i3 REx could be put into hybrid mode once on the highway in order to save EV miles for use once it gets near its destination. That would more than likely be the most efficient use of the i3's fuels instead of forcing it to use grid electric on the highway, and then burning gasoline and releasing emissions in town.

Having the engine sized to just provide less than the car's full EV power was actually how I pictured the Volt would work on first announcement. For a series hybrid, it would save some cost on the engine and transmission.

CARB's point of view was in keeping PHEVs less attractive than a hydrogen FCEV. The i3 REx already had a tiny gas tank, which was plenty for getting the car between European cities. It already was impractical as a long range cruiser to much of the US driving public. Limiting BEVx hybrid range to 110% or 120% of EV range is just as easy as limiting it to EV range. Making the i3 lose a half gallon of capacity is just spiteful to what is essentially a city car to begin with.

It is enough of an issue that BMW has to deal with lawsuits in which CARB should be a co-defendant.

The i3 REx likely had a design goal along that of the old A1 E-tron concept. To run on electric for local use, with a range extender for trips to neighboring cities, which were much closer together in Europe than in the US. Some of those cities might have no ICE zones, so saving EV range for arrival is important. As a BEVx, the ability to keep emissions out of residential areas is negated.

Was that a typo? Europeans can turn the ICE on at 75% charge, though there might be some markets that put a lower limit on it, but no where near that of in the US.

The ZEV program is supposed to be about reducing vehicle emissions. Even though PHEVs have been shown to be effective doing this. Yet PHEVs don't earn any ZEV credits currently. I want manufacturers offering BEVs, but punishing them because the public wants PHEVs doesn't help emissions and efficiency, which is the same flaw in CAFE. California's plug in incentives make buying a PHEV and not plugging it in attractive. No one planning that would buy a i3 REx because of the limited performance in hybrid mode. Even operating at EU specs, each one would displace 70ish miles of ICE driving a day.

Eyeballing UK prices, BMW charges about the same for the i3 as they do in the US. It is about $50k starting, which includes VAT, for the BEV without the rebate incentive. The REx adds over $4000 to that.

 

Simple. It takes a couple of minutes to add the fuel for 100 miles, so maybe 5 minutes to add 200 miles and 10 minutes to add 400 miles.

Would you like to guess at the cost of adding battery/redesign/suspension/safety to cover 400 extra miles ? Or even just 200 extra miles ?

 

For a more apples to apples comparison, the US flow rate of petrol at a refueling station is 10 gallons per minute, so about 400 miles a minute for REx. That is an ideal number of course, but so is the 125 kW (about 8 miles a minute) charge rate of the fastest Tesla out there.

Easily 50x speed difference for refueling stops.

Don't take my post as being anti-EV -- I am really looking forward to buying a Tesla Model 3. But that in part reflects the fact that the lion's share of my refueling is at home.

 

I assume (guess, speculate, think wishfully) that CARB wasn't just trying to placate BMW, but they are trying to define a different class of vehicle that they think will reduce emissions by encouraging people who are hesitant to purchase a BEV. I am not talking about people who are worried about not being able to make long road trips, those people are already going to PHEV (or more likely ICE). I am talking about people who feel that a BEV will fit their lifestyle and driving habits nicely, perhaps as a second car, or someone who just doesn't do long driving trips. But while 114 miles (as an example) might be just about right for the type of driving they do (50-100 miles a day), they worry about having to constantly calculate trip distances and factor in current efficiencies based on temperature, daytime nighttime etc. and perhaps making a mistake on the days when they need close to the maximum range.

So instead they purchase a PHEV and drive only 25 miles a day on EV and the other 25-75 miles a day on gas. Or even worse they purchase an ICE (or they purchase a 200 mile range BEV but that's not always an option)

But if they are told don't worry, if you make a mistake you have a backup gas engine that will take you 66 additional miles, which should be enough to get you home, and if that's not enough you can keep filling it up 66 miles at a time. Suddenly for that person a BEV is something they are no longer afraid to own.

Yes but that would be a type of vehicle which is different than the BEVx concept that CARB is defining. As I mentioned, I think CARB's concern is that this type of vehicle will likely use much more gas than they intended for BEVx, so they don't want to give it full EV credit. So BMW created a BEVx version via a few software changes.

BMW could sell the non-hobbled i3's in other states, but I guess they don't see a big enough market outside of CARB states for an i3 SREx (Super Range Extender - my name construct, but BMW can have it for free )

This gets complicated. The bigger picture is, cars can run out of gas, can run out of electricity, and as long as there is an indication of fuel or SOC level on the dash then I think legally it's hard to make a case when the driver gets themselves into that situation if things don't go well.

I do see the point that suddenly experiencing greatly reduced power can be dangerous, just as much I suppose as running out of gas. But I suspect that BMW will argue that the driver is informed of this approaching situation by the SOC indicator which would be approaching 0, and they should have read the manual which informs them what happens in that case. I haven't read the lawsuits but I am guessing the plaintiffs are claiming that if they could manually turn on the range extender sooner they could avoid this. But that's very technical driving which I don't expect an average driver is capable of, and it's not a sure thing anyway as you can't exactly predict how much power you will need on that upcoming series of hills in 32 miles, assuming you even know that there is an upcoming series of hills in 32 miles. Probably to avoid lawsuits the car should pop up all kinds of warning lights when SOC is reaching 0 informing the driver that the battery is approaching depletion and that the car will operate with extremely limited power.

No I was just misinformed. 75% even more turns it into a PHEV. I'm not saying it's wouldn't be a really nice ability but even more so I understand why CARB doesn't see this as BEV and is unwilling to credit it as such.

Yes I think that's the direction CARB needs to move, find a way to better credit PHEV's.

 

CARB and BMW worked their deal and I’m OK with it but there are the unintended consequences.

One would be those who pass on the BMW i3-REx because they don’t want or afford or rent a dedicated cross country car for vacation and weekends. So they buy a gasser or diesel and live with it.

In Alabama, EV miles are half the price of gas miles. I also get 1/3d of my EV miles free. Driving EV is quieter than REx extended miles. So the BMW i3-REx in EV can reduce range anxiety.

Bob Wilson

 

90210

reruns

J's garage

 

What's important is that a variety of electric vehicle types be available which a consumer can match up with the one that best fits their driving needs. However each type also needs to be affordable in order to make any inroads. At the moment affordability in many ways is tied to government incentives, which affects availability, so things get a bit dicey. It's an imperfect situation that will hopefully pass when EV technology becomes more mature, widespread, and inherently affordable in its own right.

 

Your assumption is wrong.

"In the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) published prior to the Board meeting, ARB staff noted that “some manufacturers” proposed this new class of advanced vehicles for separate treatment as part of the ZEV program. (During the public hearing on the ACC rule package, comments from ARB staff and the Board indicated that BMW was particularly interested in this classification.)"
- California’s new ZEV rule introduces the BEVx; ARB staff expects these vehicles to play a longer-term role than plug-in hybrids - Green Car Congress

BMW was bringing the i3 to market with the range extender option. Between it having reduced performance in hybrid mode and the range of the EV range of many BEVs of the time, they wanted ZEV credits for it because many sales would likely be with that option. The BEVx definition we got from CARB was the result of discussions between them and BMW.

It could be more than that with EU operating parameters. I get CARB wanting to limit when the ICE can be used, but 6.5% SOC limit can result in more emissions when it does get used.

It's more CARB didn't want to give any PHEV ZEV credits, and the limitations for a BEVx are them compromising.

@bwilson4web and other i3 REx owners simply pay a third party to turn those restrictions off. I'm sure some of that group are in California and other CARB states.

I think it is more people wanting full performance from their BMW all the time.

They won't as long as they support hydrogen FCEVs.

 

There are three, do it yourself options.

Bob Wilson

 

I know BMW initiated it but I don't think CARB just hands over classification types, I would expect that it would have gone through the normal level of decision making in terms of overall strategy. No doubt they considered BMW's input on what it would produce if the classification was done a certain way, after all a classification is no good unless someone actually builds it and people actually buy it.

 

Charging for charging does sound like the best alternative. I don't see the logic in restricting charging stations to EVs. As another poster pointed out, it will only be a small percentage of EVs using the charging stations that are actually in dire need of a charge. It would seem foolish for any EV owner to count on being able to charge at a remote location. Other vehicles could already be using the charging stations, the power could be out, charging stations could be malfunctioning, etc. I would take my Maxima beyond half of its range if there was only a chance I'd be able to fuel up at my destination in order to get home. If you buy an EV, you're buying this charging headache. That was the deciding factor for me in choosing a Prime over an EV. For this policy to make sense (at least more sense), they'd need to restrict the chargers to low-range EVs.

If you apply the "plug in drivers can use gas" logic, why should a Tesla or other EV with hundreds of miles of range get the same consideration as a Leaf or other short-range EV? As a matter of fact, it would make more sense to allow the plug-ins AND low-range EVs over the Teslas because, if you don't, you're causing more driving to be done with gasoline (by the plug-ins that couldn't charge), whereas the Tesla owners could simply plan their charging schedules better to charge at home.

 

I forgot to put brownout in my list above.
Does cali still get them in the summer? Will the grid grow fast enough to keep up?

 

I don’t know. I don’t think the utilities are concentrating on growing the grid. They seem to focus on token programs to aide in increasing efficiency. They are simultaneously making installing solar less attractive by reducing incentives and changing policies surrounding the rate at which you get “paid back” for excess generation during the day in nighttime hours. I’ve heard they’re even trying to limit residential customers to systems that will only generate up to 100% of their needs.

It’s a pretty sweet setup. Instead of producing more, they charge more for what they produce (like the water utilities here that tell you to use less and then raise your rates because they’re not getting enough income). Imagine having an ice cream shop (I used to manage one) and charging more for each successive scoop of ice cream on a customer’s sundae. One scoop sundae? $2.00. Two scoops? $5.00. Three scoops? $8.00. That’s what they do here. The first tier costs you something like $.20 per KWH, the second around $.30, and the third around $.50. I forget how many KWH are in each tier, but it’s not all hard to reach the second tier, and many delve into the third.

Having a CPAP machine gets me an extended first tier, and I have solar, so I never leave the first tier, luckily.

It’s all a scam. They don’t maintain the power lines in the eastern parts of the county well (the rural areas), so they end up causing huge fires. They get sued for the fires, and then they want to raise rates so it doesn’t affect their bottom line (and their investors). That means they don’t need to maintain the lines. Doing so only affects their bottom line and angers investors. Better to let the fires happen. Although recently they have started shutting off electricity to some areas when the fire risk is particularly high (dry and hot conditions) as a preventative measure! It’s insane.

Of course, encouraging more rooftop solar would help as solar generates electricity during peak usage hours (when its needed most, and when rolling blackouts would be necessary). The utilities were willing to encourage solar installations while they were rare, but now they see a threat to their monopoly on selling electricity. They don’t want to become a company that just maintains a grid for off-peak hours.

I just checked. Electricity charges in the San Diego area (SDG&E customers) are very confusing. You basically pay $.23 per kWh for the first 400Kwh, then you hit Tier 2, in which you $.40 per kWh for until you reach 400% of your Tier 1 allotment (which varies by home size, I guess). If you go over 400%, you then pay $.45 per kWh for however many more use.

But, if you are one of the customers covered by time-of-use charges (not everyone is, and I don't know what decides that), in the summer you'll be paying $.47 per kWh for the first tier, and then something like $.61 per kWh for the second tier. Peak hours are 4-9 p.m., so you don't want to charge your Prime then.

Of course, 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. really aren't the actual peak usage hours. Those are something like 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., when the sun is out and it's hot. But, of course, residential customers aren't using a lot of electricity during the actual peak hours since so many people are at work or school, so they choose 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. for residential customers so they can be sure to charge you more for the electricity you want to use. If all of this isn't confusing enough, rates vary between winter and summer months!

 

I hate to see otherwise sensible people devolve into conspiracy theories.

10 years ago the peak started around 9am and continued until 9pm. The rise of PV has cut into the peak load until about 4pm, when PV generation is dropping rapidly. This is the so called 'duck'

California has very nice grid data in graph form for public consumption. Check it out.

 

The fact that there is now more solar energy available during those hours (1:00 - 3:00 p.m.) does not alter the fact that that is the time of peak usage. The reason they had the rolling blackouts (which I haven't heard anything about in quite a while) was because there was not enough electricity generated in those hours to cover the electricity used in those hours. If that has been solved with solar, then that issue is gone, there should be no rolling blackouts. With the threat of rolling blackouts gone (meaning the threat of running out of juice and overloading the grid), the only justification for peak usage charges is gone. The fact is that the utility companies are for-profit and are, like any corporation, interested in maximizing those profits.

I don't know what their stated justifications for charging more during their currently-designated peak hours are, but you can rest assured that they are being designed with profits in mind (and likely primarily with profits in mind).

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theorist (and I don't care for the implication). Oswald shot Kennedy, those planes brought down the towers, Queen Elizabeth II did not have Diana killed, we did land on the moon and Elvis has been dead since 1977.

 

Why don't you look at the graph.

And you are in fact engaging in the same warped thinking of a conspiracy theory, building a paper thin construct from facts omitted when inconvenient and facts distorted when needed.

The simple fact is that a quick transition to PV stresses a system designed to balance and market fossil fuel resources. Coal and nuclear plants close abruptly from financial losses and cracks open up in the supply chain that are exploited. California is a pretty good example, but NSW in Australia is an even better one. If you think CA has been hit by high electricity prices, check out NSW.

I'm not defending the utilities. I'm well aware of the political machinations, the corrupt lobbying, the public deceit and the profiteering. No reason to mix in nonsense.

 

Again, you seem unable to accept the basic fact: The peak usage hours, the hours when the most electricity is used, have not changed. Consumption habits did not change because solar energy came into wider use. They’re based on when the sun shines brightest and hottest, and that has not changed.

You may continue your insults to my intelligence (which are what you led with as you are trolling) as much as you like. I’d put my education and level of intelligence up against yours anytime.

 

You are refusing to look at the graph, aren't you ?
Let me try to confuse with some facts:



Self-described intelligent person that you are, tell me:
When is peak demand ?
And then reconsider your earlier statement that

As I understand it, the situation used to be fossil fuel load being about 20 GW through the night, ramping up to 25 GW through the day, ramping up to ~ 27 GW in the evening hours, and then ramping down to 20 GW from midnight.

Due to PV the situation for some of the cheap (read: coal) fossil plants is that they are not called on for extended periods of the day and are not profitable or cannot be turned on fast enought for a few hours in the evening so much more expensive resources are called on for those hours.

I've often wondered why hydro resources are not shifted towards the evening load.