EVgo DC chargers were horrible up until the beginning of 2018. They're still not perfect, but improvement is being made.

[DucRider]

That Tesla executive's article is in 2013!!!

So you are saying they have since changed the protocols they use for charging (both L2 and Supercharging)?

They in one night, without letting anybody know, made a software change to all existing Superchargers, home charging units and customers vehicles? And did it is such a way the precludes the use of an adapter? :roll:

You asked for links. They were provided.

Please provide a link for your statement:

That Tesla's Supercharging protocol is very close to the CCS spec.

Do you have anything at all to back up your position that the Supercharging protocol is so radically different that an adapter is not possible? Like maybe a link?

 

[michaellax]

Well, admittedly I am having trouble finding the original source behind my statement, so I am unable to link it. Consequently, I will back off the statement for now.

Furthermore, my understanding is that the CCS standard does not allow for "adapters" but I am also currently unable to find a link for that statement right now as well.

Unfortunately, having a "life" I only have a limited amount of time and must stop doing this research for now.

So, rather than continue to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, since we are talking about waiting for Tesla to open up their Supercharging networks to Bolt EVs, I will back off the debate and wait for Tesla to do just that!

When Tesla does that*, which I predict they will given their current financial condition and the income it will generate for them, be sure to link me to that announcement! :lol:

*Which may or may not require additional hardware to be installed if CCS is or is not compatible and/or allows adapters!

 

[SparkE]

Really? :roll:

Yes, really. Unlike you, I want an EV to replace gasoline. Judge me if you want, but that is my personal goal. Superchargers are well placed and always in groups of 4 or more. You never have to think about whether they'll be working when you get there. No other charge network is anything like it.

NRG is a pretty big company. Let's not pretend otherwise. This entire debate would be settled if they would simply up their installations from 2 to 4. I can live with 50 kWh charging. But they need to up their game. And for occasional inter-city travel I'll pay a premium to fund more chargers.

One of the problems *I* have with NRG is how they were funded at start ... in California. NRG's parent company (or NRG itself) was implicated in the 1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts) in California. They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions). Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

 

[cyaopec]

Yes, really. Unlike you, I want an EV to replace gasoline. Judge me if you want, but that is my personal goal. Superchargers are well placed and always in groups of 4 or more. You never have to think about whether they'll be working when you get there. No other charge network is anything like it.

NRG is a pretty big company. Let's not pretend otherwise. This entire debate would be settled if they would simply up their installations from 2 to 4. I can live with 50 kWh charging. But they need to up their game. And for occasional inter-city travel I'll pay a premium to fund more chargers.

One of the problems *I* have with NRG is how they were funded at start ... in California. NRG's parent company (or NRG itself) was implicated in the 1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts) in California. They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions). Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

You should research the "Monterey Amendments" to the California water laws if you want to see the old boys network at work. Nothing like giving public water from the aqueduct to a private water company in Kern County . . .

 

[michaellax]

One of the problems *I* have with NRG is how they were funded at start ... in California. NRG's parent company (or NRG itself) was implicated in the 1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts) in California. They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions). Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

Can you provide a link to a reliable source verifying this story?

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts your version (starting with your third sentence) is a complete fiction that does not even rise to the level of an urban legend, and is potentially trade disparagement of NRG as well!

I will save you the time: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17463

The true summary of the history is that during the "1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts)" as you call it, then Governor Gray Davis signed long term energy contracts with several companies in an effort to stabilize both the price and distribution of electricity at that time; a strategy that worked!

When it later was disclosed that the energy "shortage" which resulted in the rolling brownouts was a massive fraud implemented by Enron, Davis and California attempted to void or otherwise negotiate their way out of these now high priced long term contracts. Many companies renegotiated, but some had to be sued to void the contracts.

NRG's position was that it had nothing to do with the fraud and that under contract law they were entitled to the "benefit of their bargain' and decided to aggressively defend their position in litigation.

When Jerry Brown became Governor, the NRG litigation was over 10 years old, costing more and more money to prosecute and going nowhere fast!

Gov. Brown then negotiated a $120 million settlement of the lawsuit as described in more detail in the linked publicity release.

 

[SparkE]

One of the problems *I* have with NRG is how they were funded at start ... in California. NRG's parent company (or NRG itself) was implicated in the 1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts) in California. They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions). Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

Can you provide a link to a reliable source verifying this story?

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts your version (starting with your third sentence) is a complete fiction that does not even rise to the level of an urban legend, and is potentially trade disparagement of NRG as well!

I will save you the time: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17463

The true summary of the history is that during the "1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts)" as you call it, then Governor Gray Davis signed long term energy contracts with several companies in an effort to stabilize both the price and distribution of electricity at that time; a strategy that worked!

When it later was disclosed that the energy "shortage" which resulted in the rolling brownouts was a massive fraud implemented by Enron, Davis and California attempted to void or otherwise negotiate their way out of these now high priced long term contracts. Many companies renegotiated, but some had to be sued to void the contracts.

NRG's position was that it had nothing to do with the fraud and that under contract law they were entitled to the "benefit of their bargain' and decided to aggressively defend their position in litigation.

When Jerry Brown became Governor, the NRG litigation was over 10 years old, costing more and more money to prosecute and going nowhere fast!

Gov. Brown then negotiated a $120 million settlement of the lawsuit as described in more detail in the linked publicity release.

I hate to use the term "fake news", but ...

"NRG Energy of Houston, agreed to invest $120 million in a network of EV stations as part of a 2012 settlement for overcharging customers for electricity during the 1999 energy crisis" :
https://www.ecowatch.com/nrg-complying-with-settlement-opens-second-ev-charging-station-1881800744.html

"The subsidiary EVgo was founded as a settlement of a decade long legal battle fought by parent NRG’s former self – Dynegy, which did not honor long-term power contracts/over-charged customers during California’s 2001 power crisis."
https://insideevs.com/with-legal-settlement-complete-evgo-network-now-officially-sold-to-vision-ridge-partners/


"The state of California had sued what was previously known as Dynergy for the utility company's role in the state's power crisis in 2001 (yes, the same crisis that involved Enron and was profiled in the fine documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"). As part of a $120 million settlement the California Public Utilities Commission reached with what became NRG, the utility company was tasked with allocating $100 million towards setting up a charging network. "
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/26/nrg-sells-evgo-fast-charge-network/

 

[cyaopec]

One of the problems *I* have with NRG is how they were funded at start ... in California. NRG's parent company (or NRG itself) was implicated in the 1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts) in California. They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions). Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

Can you provide a link to a reliable source verifying this story?

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts your version (starting with your third sentence) is a complete fiction that does not even rise to the level of an urban legend, and is potentially trade disparagement of NRG as well!

I will save you the time: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17463

The true summary of the history is that during the "1999-2001 energy-price-fixing scandal (and blackouts)" as you call it, then Governor Gray Davis signed long term energy contracts with several companies in an effort to stabilize both the price and distribution of electricity at that time; a strategy that worked!

When it later was disclosed that the energy "shortage" which resulted in the rolling brownouts was a massive fraud implemented by Enron, Davis and California attempted to void or otherwise negotiate their way out of these now high priced long term contracts. Many companies renegotiated, but some had to be sued to void the contracts.

NRG's position was that it had nothing to do with the fraud and that under contract law they were entitled to the "benefit of their bargain' and decided to aggressively defend their position in litigation.

When Jerry Brown became Governor, the NRG litigation was over 10 years old, costing more and more money to prosecute and going nowhere fast!

Gov. Brown then negotiated a $120 million settlement of the lawsuit as described in more detail in the linked publicity release.

I hate to use the term "fake news", but ...

"NRG Energy of Houston, agreed to invest $120 million in a network of EV stations as part of a 2012 settlement for overcharging customers for electricity during the 1999 energy crisis" :
https://www.ecowatch.com/nrg-complying-with-settlement-opens-second-ev-charging-station-1881800744.html

"The subsidiary EVgo was founded as a settlement of a decade long legal battle fought by parent NRG’s former self – Dynegy, which did not honor long-term power contracts/over-charged customers during California’s 2001 power crisis."
https://insideevs.com/with-legal-settlement-complete-evgo-network-now-officially-sold-to-vision-ridge-partners/


"The state of California had sued what was previously known as Dynergy for the utility company's role in the state's power crisis in 2001 (yes, the same crisis that involved Enron and was profiled in the fine documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"). As part of a $120 million settlement the California Public Utilities Commission reached with what became NRG, the utility company was tasked with allocating $100 million towards setting up a charging network. "
https://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/26/nrg-sells-evgo-fast-charge-network/

This is very depressing. I always assumed Tesla's Supercharging network was funded by investors and not operating profits (at least until Tesla becomes profitable--whenever that may be.) But I at least assumed EVGo was an actual "free market" investment that pointed to at least the slim possibility that someone might get a non Tesla fast charging network going because it might be profitable to do so. Guess I was wrong . . .

 

[SparkE]

Also ...

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrg-energy-prepares-to-deliver-100mil-to-california-for-plug-in-car-infrast#gs.rA6Jwfk
NRG Energy Prepares to Deliver $100M to California for Plug-In Car Infrastructure

This is what the $100 million that NRG Energy is obligated by a legal settlement to invest in battery electric vehicle (BEV) charging infrastructure in California will buy for plug-in car owners {...}




https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059991181
NRG finds installing chargers in Calif. harder and slower than it bargained for

A deal to install electric vehicle charging stations in California in order to alleviate a penalty for a predecessor's role in the state's power crisis is proving tougher than NRG Energy had in mind.

NRG is required to install electric vehicle charging infrastructure in California's major metropolitan areas by 2016 but is well behind schedule. The New Jersey-based power company has installed just a fraction of the chargers it said it would by the end of 2013 {...}

 

[michaellax]

A 10 year old civil litigation was settled by Gov Jerry Brown.

Now most of the time, when these cases are settled, neither side admits responsibility for any liability. Not having read the actual settlement agreement, I presume that to be the case here.

You find internet sources that quote the original claims against NRG and Dynergy, but none of them actually verify that NRG acknowledged liability in the settlement agreement.

You can disparage an oil and gas extraction company all you want and you will get no dispute from me. But defame hard working civil servants in California and that is another matter!

You said:

They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions).

This did NOT happen and is not in any of the links you provided!

You said:

Then some genius at NRG made the proposal that instead of paying the cash, they should just spend the money on installing charging stations for EVs. In other words, they money that they should have given up would be used to give them the chance to create a pretty dominant position in EV charging in the state. And the stupid oversight committee agreed to it - despite complaints from watchdog groups. The consumer groups said "sure - fund EV chargers - but have THEM pay for it and open it up to independent bids - don't just let them build their private network!" It was such an obvious backroom, "old boys network" deal it was disgusting.

This did NOT happen and is not in any of the links you provided!

So, what was the term you used?

I hate to use the term "fake news", but ...

EXACTLY!

Now you have had a prejudice against EVGo for as long as I have been a member of this board: just go reread the 3rd and 4th posts of this thread:

Now, I really dislike EVgo for many reasons (the first post outlines one of them)...

But you don't have to drag hard working California civil servants lead by our future looking Governor Jerry Brown into the mud for your dislike of EVGo and its NRG parent!

 

[SparkE]

You said:

They were handed a WHOPPING large fine (can't remember if it was 10s or 100s of millions).

This did NOT happen and is not in any of the links you provided!

What part of "This is what the $100 million that NRG Energy is obligated by a legal settlement to invest in battery electric vehicle (BEV) charging infrastructure in California will buy" did you not understand? Or do you differentiate between "fine" and "legal settlement"? There may be a legal distinction, but most people wouldn't make one.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

The EVgo app is now available. Pretty much the same as the recent website.

I like EVgo. They monitor Plugshare for problems and start repairs promptly. They’re upgrading hardware and putting 2 QCs at most sites.

We often go from Boston to Philadelphia and EVgo will allow us to do that without the ICE. Sure, they could be better, but for now, they’re the best resource available to me.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Thanks for the update, I'll take a look at the App. EVGo is pretty much the only option for DCFC in the DC-Boston corridor. They have lower New England (MA, CT, RI) pretty well covered too.

I'm glad to hear they are upgrading sites to 2 units. Bolt sales are picking up, and many new cars will hit the showrooms in the next 2-3 years. These chargers will suddenly get very congested, but for now EVGo has a huge head start.

 

[user 1485]

The primary requirement of a fast-charger is that when you arrive at the charger, it is working. The second requirement is that it delivers at least 50 kW so that you can charge a Bolt EV with about 72 miles in 30 minutes. This keeps you on the road and happy. Third requirement - cost: I don't like the pricing structure of EVgo. It somehow always ends up being more money than you expected, no matter which plan you choose. Hopefully, we will have a choice in future, so that prices will be more competitive. In the end though, I don't feel inclined to be too mad about it because the Bolt EV is such a great car, and running an EV is pretty inexpensive anyway.

 

[DesertSprings]

They’re upgrading hardware and putting 2 QCs at most sites.

What are they putting in out your way? Here it is usually 1 CHAdeMO and 1 that supports either CHAdeMO or CCS.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Here, they’ve gone from a single CHAdeMO, to the set up you described, to two dual plug QCs per site. Haven’t seen better than that yet.

 

[user 1485]

Bolt sales are picking up, and many new cars will hit the showrooms in the next 2-3 years. These chargers will suddenly get very congested.

Most Bolt EV driving is likely to be within the 238 mile range of home, so I anticipate that congestion at DC fast chargers is likely to being slowly, rather than suddenly, possibly peaking in the summer vacation weeks, but even then many will opt to take an ICE car on vacation because of range anxiety.

 

[SparkE]

Here, they’ve gone from a single CHAdeMO, to the set up you described, to two dual plug QCs per site. Haven’t seen better than that yet.

In the SF Bay Area, there's a 4-DCFC site in San Mateo (about 20 miles south of SF) and an EIGHT port DCFC site in Mountain View (40 miles south of SF), both less than one mile from the closest US-101 exit. All units are dual plug, 125 Amp (50 kW) DCFCs.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Cool. Makes sense as CA has more EVs than we do. That will be the model to follow as EV density picks up in other places. More units, higher power, food courts/convenience stores/lounges.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Seeing a few comments on Plugshare that the 30 minute limit isn’t happening anymore. But that could lead to more congestion, so wondering if they’ll restructure fees to limit time on the plug. Would take a while as contracts are yearly. Unless there’s a clause for that.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

As of last month, the 30 minute limit was in full force still in New England and Albany NY.

I hope they do change it. The Bolt really needs a full hour on these 50kW stations.