Thanks for the good notes. Tennessee is a EV leader. Didn't see Nissan and
Volkswagen mentioned.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: knoxev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <knoxev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Overly Jonathan G <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 6:53:21 AM
To: knoxev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <knoxev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel S. <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; savannah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<savannah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [knoxev] Re: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Planning
Robert,
Good notes. Here are some comments as well for you and all.
1. Taking out the Tesla stuff, all seems on target from what we know. In
short it appears that FHWA used what EA has created as it’s “small example”
site plan, like what we have in Knoxville and in Kodak: 4 units that can
provide power at no less than 150 kW (max) to four vehicles simultaneously (if
of course the vehicles are ready to take max power based on SOC). In general
this is a step in the right direction and they have to moderate trying to build
out more units at once with the funding and/or ability of charging partners to
be able to cover the cost of such a site. (I’d love for them to aim for
starting to build locations that have 8-12 units, but we just don’t have enough
a) EVs on the road to justify and b) money or LPC/industry interest to spend
that much on rarely-used-now sites.)
1. Mark Finlay has made a great ARcGIS map that can be found here
(https://www.driveelectrictn.org/maps/, and you can open the map in another, ;
full window from that page); that map as well as several other ArcGIS maps that
relate to corridors and EEJ initiatives are on that page. While we thought we
would be “removing the gray” from that map with many of the stations that TDEC
and TVA are discussing and starting to build now, almost all of those will be
2x120 kW unit sites – that doesn’t meet the brand new specs that FHWA has put
out. Thus that map won’t change in terms of filling the gaps with
‘stations’/sites that meet that new definition… thus the future rounds of
NEVI/TEVI funding are quite important to both filling FHWA gaps and building
out more, larger capacity stations across the state.
1. We are working on a project with TDOT that is building out the criteria
for scoring applicant stations once they get into the round of funding release.
And to that point…
1. Now, back to Tesla. I heard about the TCEQ DCFC funding release and
awards in Texas… and that Tesla had supposedly come in MUCH cheaper than almost
everyone else and what going to include a CCS1 charger on every unit. If you go
here (https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/trust/dcfch) and click on the
“Applications Received” and “Projects Awarded” you can see what Texas received
and decided to do.
* First looking at the webinar slides from 11/2/21, they were requiring:
i. less
than ½ mile (0.5 mile) from an interstate exist, and in a “public place”
ii. only 50
kW (ewww)
iii. OCPI
iv. ADA
compliance
v. They
included a CHAdeMO requirement, which I hope we ultimately decide to NOT do in
TN (there are very few Nissan Leaf drivers who actually take their cars on
longer trips, PLUS Nissan dealerships have CHAdeMO units installed at them… it
just seems like a waste of funds to me in the bigger scheme of things)
* Looking at the applications, they received a bunch, many of which are
in the range of 1-6 “number of activities”, which appears to be units or
chargers at one site (since there are numerous names in that list that are the
same and must be for different locations/sites).
* Across many of those, it looks like they are requesting the max -
$150k/installed unit. There are quite a few that come in under that number but
appear to still be in the $100-$150k range per installed unit.
* You’ll find known partners in that list: ChargePoint, EVgo, Francis
Energy, 7-Eleven, etc.
* There are four line items in there for Tesla – they just say “Tesla,
Inc.” Two are for 9 units, but for the other two each one is for 17 units and
requests only $500k – that is less than $30k per installed unit. (Equals less
than $45k per unit for the other sites.) My understanding is that they were
going to install CCS1 cables as well as Tesla cables from each of those units,
but I am having a hard time finding the article I read recently about this… I
cannot re-find it this morning. They would have to or otherwise they wouldn’t
be meeting the requirements.
* It’s not lost on me that I believe their applications are for just two
sites wherein they will install 17 units – I could be wrong. But even if that
is the case, that is developing what one might otherwise call a mega-charging
site the likes of which none of us have ever seen.
* I think this is where the rubber meets the road and a significant
opportunity exists to create cost savings for the state of TN and perhaps start
finding ways to integrate CCS1 and Tesla charging at the same locations.
By way of this email I would greatly appreciate it if you could connect with
Ziehr/Lipe and determine if we could setup a meeting with the right Tesla folks
(Ziehr thinks the policy folks are better connection to educating some within
Tesla) to discuss the coming funding in Tennessee. I see lots of pros from a
few applications from Tesla to TDOT for future corridor DCFC funding:
1. TN can put in more stations for less funding
2. We end up starting the blending of sites – “we don’t care what type of
plug you have – you can charge here”
3. If they end up being the new standard for Tesla Superchargers, then the
max charge rate for ALL OF THE UNITS would be 250 kW (a full 100 kW above the
150 FHWA is requesting)
4. TN might end up with some mega-charging sites to further put TN on the
EV/EVSE map
5. Imagine the potential cost efficiencies - $600k for 6 units, or $500k for
17 units?
6. Non-Telsa owners would be able to experience the utter simplicity of the
Tesla Supercharging experience – you just plug in. I am assuming that Tesla
would integrate other car owners into their system so that they could be billed
just like the bill Tesla owners now – it just ends up as a charge to your CC
from Tesla, and you can log into the app to see your receipt and charging
breakdown.
Obviously they would have to justify to TDOT that part of the costs of all the
equipment is so that they can provide 250 kW of power to CCS1 cords, but that
seems like a no-brainer and easy to do. If they are going to ask for
dimes-to-dollars funds and would score high based on sites and the criteria,
this could really be a win-win-win-win for Tennessee.
Peace
Jonathan
East TN Clean Fuels Coalition + Tennessee Clean Fuels
311 Conference Center Building
Knoxville, TN 37996-4134
865-974-3625 – office | 865-803-7555 – cell
jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.TNCleanFuels.org<http://www.TNCleanFuels.org>
From: knoxev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <knoxev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Robert Cole
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 10:01 PM
To: knoxev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [knoxev] Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Planning
TN State Site:
https://www.tn.gov/tdot/long-range-planning-home/air-quality-planning/tevi.html<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tn.gov%2Ftdot%2Flong-range-planning-home%2Fair-quality-planning%2Ftevi.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjgoverly%40utk.edu%7C67c81c04fda646c6bf6d08da2e3b0edb%7C515813d9717d45dd9eca9aa19c09d6f9%7C0%7C0%7C637873128785357262%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oOfhqdfOuQFyIQn90wIFqh8DePxufYaQ7hYjlG1xqjY%3D&reserved=0>
I went to the Knoxville session tonight. There were some things that caught my
attention:
* Expected requirements will be minimum of 4 CCS plugs and 150kW.
* No issues with Tesla receiving monies for projects, but ONLY on the
portions that are CCS. It sounded like there would have to be some sort of
contract line item separation for reimbursable portions that are CCS vs. Tesla.
* I specifically asked if a funded project could include proprietary
connectors - they said yes, however, the portion funded would have to be
explicitly CCS only and the proprietary portion broken out with no funds
expended on it.
* They did not seem to have any issues with using apps or plug to charge
for charging in lieu of pay-at-point, but the final requirements are not yet
fully specified.
* Related: The City of Knoxville reps also brought up a need to permit
payment with cash somehow.
* Related: They alluded to a need to be able to pay by phone if payment
methods won’t process. I’m not sure the utility in this as a failure mode that
would preclude payment processing (e.g.: via card reader) seem like they would
preclude remote activation of the session.
* The City of Knoxville is interested in projects on the federal ROW that
would (currently) be restricted from charging for the electricity (fuel) due to
FHWA restrictions - the same that prevent installations at rest areas. This
interest stems from the interstate configuration through downtown and there
being a large city-owned parking area underneath the interstate that is federal
ROW. They asked if a project were pursued there and the city funded making the
charging free-to-use if it would be permissible and the state and FHWA rep
believed so.
* Related: I asked if this scheme would also work for rest areas to
permit installations, and they agreed it would be the same. This may be a way
to get a foothold in rest areas in the event that FHWA rules change in the
future.
* First objective is locations within 1mi of designated corridors
(generally interstates). This will be flexible in that they will review
exceptions where a project location needs to be >1mi from the corridor for
amenities, *safety*, etc. Safety was brought up multiple times as a concern.
* Operation/Maintenance requirements were brought up. Current thought is
minimum of 5 years for funding, but they are seeking feedback.
* I provided written feedback suggesting 10 years minimum per location.
* I provided written feedback requiring high availability of the
location (say, 99.9% or better) with high but lower requirements per plug (say,
95%)
* Feedback was solicited on expandability
* I provided written feedback suggesting that expandability be mandated
to permit rapid expansion as EV adoption grows
* I asked about API access requirements for third-parties to read status
for mapping purposes (say, via ABRP)
* No current requirements, but considering
Attached are my wife’s notes. Happy to answer any questions.
