CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

Orebro

BoatMad wrote: »

I don't see where esbn can be forced to allow virtual charger suppliers, i.e. That for example energia can buy wholesale electricity and sell it through the chargers and bill customers. Esbn could allow multiple " retailers " but I don't see where they are obliged to do that.

What it says is that new operators of chargers , i.e. People that put in chargers for the public should have access to the payment systems of esbn so as to prevent a Tower of Babel , but not access to existing charger network.

So CER have created a monopoly , provided it woth assets for 6million euros , , effectively , subjected it to zero regulation

Sure nothing could go wrong

Gotta say Boatmad, because of the tone of your posts since the announcement you appear to be completely deflated and really disappointed at the outcome, which really worries me!

ELM327

BoatMad wrote: »

I don't see where esbn can be forced to allow virtual charger suppliers, i.e. That for example energia can buy wholesale electricity and sell it through the chargers and bill customers. Esbn could allow multiple " retailers " but I don't see where they are obliged to do that.

What it says is that new operators of chargers , i.e. People that put in chargers for the public should have access to the payment systems of esbn so as to prevent a Tower of Babel , but not access to existing charger network.

So CER have created a monopoly , provided it woth assets for 6million euros , , effectively , subjected it to zero regulation

Sure nothing could go wrong

Orebro wrote: »

Gotta say Boatmad, because of the tone of your posts since the announcement you appear to be completely deflated and really disappointed at the outcome, which really worries me!

I think most sensible EV users are in the same ... boat.. if you pardon the awful pun. We're in a sinking ship, aided and abetted by the CRU "decision".

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Boatmad's posts on this thread.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

KCross wrote: »

Absolutely it means pricing with no regulation. I think we all get that.

I don't get your insistence it's a bad thing that the supply license isn't required.

It means anyone, including existing electricity providers, can access the billing system and sell charging on a per kWh basis which they could not do otherwise. Please explain why you think otherwise.

Whether they will take up that option is entirely speculative of course buts that's a different point.

I don't see where esbn can be forced to allow virtual charger suppliers, i.e. That for example energia can buy wholesale electricity and sell it through the chargers and bill customers. Esbn could allow multiple " retailers " but I don't see where they are obliged to do that.

What it says is that new operators of chargers , i.e. People that put in chargers for the public should have access to the payment systems of esbn so as to prevent a Tower of Babel , but not access to existing charger network.

So CER have created a monopoly , provided it woth assets for 6million euros , , effectively , subjected it to zero regulation

Sure nothing could go wrong

Read my quote in post 381 again. It says purchase access to the assets.

The assets are the chargers!

BoatMad

Orebro wrote: »

Gotta say Boatmad, because of the tone of your posts since the announcement you appear to be completely deflated and really disappointed at the outcome, which really worries me!

Actually no. If you look back at my posts in the lead up , I fully expected the outcome to be as it is . I personally felt that the strategic value of the chargers in ensuring EV takeup was being overlooked and I pushed hard on this point . I might have hoped for some regulation , but I predicted from the from the day I met the chairman of the board of esb , how this would go.

I'm not deflated , rather exasperated.

.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Read my quote in post 381 again. It says purchase access to the assets.

The assets are the chargers!

Yes. But it provides no regulation as to how that's to be controlled esbn can simply charge third parties what it likes. ( hence need to remove the supply license situation )

That not consistent with open access.

Had they mandated esbn to publish a standard access cost that would have been one thing

Equally once the network is sold , I see such access ending. ( it will be in effect a private network )

BoatMad

ELM327 wrote: »

I think most sensible EV users are in the same ... boat.. if you pardon the awful pun. We're in a sinking ship, aided and abetted by the CRU "decision".

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Boatmad's posts on this thread.

Yes sadly the CER are transferring a network ( which they startling admit has minimal value ) to the esbn , to be now run entirely without subsidy ( unless esbn haveva dose of charity )

Then the network can be sold to someone inside or outside the ESB. Group ( let's guess how that executes )

All with 0 regulation , no controls on pricing mechanisms, no access by wholesale electrical companies

And a entirely vague timescale for all of it. Nor any specific undertakings to expand the network.

It's what I expected but that's not to say it's a good thing it's not.

Orebro

I gotta say I would be telling anyone I speak to that's thinking about going EV to hold off a while and see how this all pans out over the next 12 to 18 months. What a disaster.

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes. But it provides no regulation as to how that's to be controlled esbn can simply charge third parties what it likes. ( hence need to remove the supply license situation )

That not consistent with open access.

Had they mandated esbn to publish a standard access cost that would have been one thing

Equally once the network is sold , I see such access ending. ( it will be in effect a private network )

Right, but thats a different position to what you just said earlier that you didn't see it anywhere in the decision. It is in there.

Yes, its unregulated, we all get that and far from ideal but at least the stipulation is in there to allow 3rd party access to the chargers and the billing system.

Overall it is a potential disaster unless the budget is going to bring something to the table tomorrow.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Right, but thats a different position to what you just said earlier that you didn't see it anywhere in the decision. It is in there.

Yes, its unregulated, we all get that and far from ideal but at least the stipulation is in there to allow 3rd party access to the chargers and the billing system.

Overall it is a potential disaster unless the budget is going to bring something to the table tomorrow.

Actually the point I was trying to get across, is that once the network is sold there is no requirement to allow access, the situation about access pertains to the "transition " period , What the ruling effectively says is that any other charger network has to be able to buy " charger electricity "from the ESBN rather like any larger commercial customer does today ( but that is effectively the status quo anyway ) Should a company during the transition period wish to resell charger access, it can do so, but ther his NO requirement for a level playing field ( and none in his right mind would therefore get involved ) , any way ESB overall will not want third party access, as it diverts user base and revenue from its ultimate company ECars


From listening to the ESB board chairman at a few meetings here is how I see it playing out

(a) ESBN is under no specific obligation to expand the network,in the transition period , in fact doing do in the transitional period would simply increases its value and the subsequent payment to the CER.

(b) I expect the board of the ESB to establish Ecars as a wholly owned subsidiary of the ESB group of companies, sooner rather the later

(c) I then expect ecars to bid to buy the network , within shorter ( < 18 month ) timeframe, the longer they wait potentially the more valuable the asset base might become. ( if you assume commercial operation begins to generate income and EV growth picks up ) Equally ESB board know they have to invest , they will not do that in the transition period . The current owner has declared the current network as it now stands is of minimal value !!!!

(d) Board of ESB will fund Ecrs to buy the network and potentially subsidise it for a indeterminate numbers years , they have plenty of resources to do this

(e) a private network, which is what it is then , will be free from any regulation, will buy electricity at whatever costs ESBN agreed. There is no obligation on ECars to share the network at that point, i.e. its an effective private monopoly


(d) IN the meantime, ESB overall gains by not having any significant investment in the charger network, so we will likely get user pricing and still no investment

( The board made it clear to me, that until they " own " the network they will not invest in it )

SO until Ecars actually buys it , we are likely to have the worst of both worlds


By the way , this was always what I saw happening , but I dont think its the right way to stimulate EVs

the best scenario is that some other commercial suppliers would enter the market and offer ESBN/ECars some competition, the problem will be planning laws ( and the fact that you competitor controls the electricity supply ) etc, the ESB benefit from a wide range of exemptions not available to ordinary companies

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Actually the point I was trying to get across, is that once the network is sold there is no requirement to allow access, the situation about access pertains to the "transition " period ,

I agree, but that isn't what you said initially, thats all Im saying.

You said: "I don't see where esbn can be forced to allow virtual charger suppliers"
You said: "... but not access to existing charger network. "

The decision expressly states the above is allowed.

All bets are off once it is sold but in the meantime a service level agreement has to be provided and access given... if someone asks for it... which to be fair is probably unlikely anyway so its a mute point.

BoatMad wrote: »

From listening to the ESB board chairman at a few meetings here is how I see it playing out

(a) ESBN is under no specific obligation to expand the network,in the transition period , in fact doing do in the transitional period would simply increases its value and the subsequent payment to the CER.

(b) I expect the board of the ESB to establish Ecars as a wholly owned subsidiary of the ESB group of companies, sooner rather the later

(c) I then expect ecars to bid to buy the network , within shorter ( < 18 month ) timeframe, the longer they wait potentially the more valuable the asset base might become. ( if you assume commercial operation begins to generate income and EV growth picks up ) Equally ESB board know they have to invest , they will not do that in the transition period . The current owner has declared the current network as it now stands is of minimal value !!!!

(d) Board of ESB will fund Ecrs to buy the network and potentially subsidise it for a indeterminate numbers years , they have plenty of resources to do this

(e) a private network, which is what it is then , will be free from any regulation, will buy electricity at whatever costs ESBN agreed. There is no obligation on ECars to share the network at that point, i.e. its an effective private monopoly


(d) IN the meantime, ESB overall gains by not having any significant investment in the charger network, so we will likely get user pricing and still no investment

( The board made it clear to me, that until they " own " the network they will not invest in it )

SO until Ecars actually buys it , we are likely to have the worst of both worlds

I agree the above is likely although the timeframe of 18 months Im not sure about. CRU mentioned the transition period being several years. I presume the determining factor there will be the level of EV uptake.

Its a catch 22 on the selling... if eCars buy it too early they will be stung for maintaining it with no serious prospect of turning a profit for maybe a decade.

If they buy too late they will have to pay more for it.

BoatMad

I agree the above is likely although the timeframe of 18 months Im not sure about. CRU mentioned the transition period being several years. I presume the determining factor there will be the level of EV uptake.

Its a catch 22 on the selling... if eCars buy it too early they will be stung for maintaining it with no serious prospect of turning a profit for maybe a decade.

If they buy too late they will have to pay more for it.

remember the ESB will be stung one way or the other , no more DUoS, if they are stung while they still dont own it, thats seriously stupid for the ESB , cause in effect they are subsiding the CER price ( they may try and recoup that loss from the selling price , but who knows)

transferring into a commercial subsidiary , allows the board to invest , cause they own the asset , and from my own meeting they think they have the next mobile phone license bonanza on their hands within 10 -15 years .

PS the ESBs own economists ventured at meeting that the discount for fuel for an EV should be 10% less then equivalent diesel , we were aghast !

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

remember the ESB will be stung one way or the other , no more DUoS, if they are stung while they still dont own it, thats seriously stupid for the ESB , cause in effect they are subsiding the CER price ( they may try and recoup that loss from the selling price , but who knows)

transferring into a commercial subsidiary , allows the board to invest , cause they own the asset , and from my own meeting they think they have the next mobile phone license bonanza on their hands within 10 -15 years .

Airtricity and Bord Gais made a good point in their submissions that it should be an open sale process. If it is sold to eCars without being an open process it means the tax payer will have funded the network for eCars.

I wonder would be there any laws (state aid or such) that would force the CRU to make it a open sale process?

BoatMad wrote: »

PS the ESBs own economists ventured at meeting that the discount for fuel for an EV should be 10% less then equivalent diesel , we were aghast !

For a non EV owner/economist perspective I guess that makes perfect sense... however, they hadn't counted on the slow uptake of EV so if they follow through on that they will be on a loser all the way.

n97 mini

Orebro wrote: »

I gotta say I would be telling anyone I speak to that's thinking about going EV to hold off a while and see how this all pans out over the next 12 to 18 months. What a disaster.

Kindof been the same for a while. I consider the public network borderline unusable as it's overcrowded and there are a lot of CPs out of action at any one time. Been advising people who asked me to only consider an EV if they'll never need to use the public network. i.e. they can charge at home and have an ICE as backup.

n97 mini

BoatMad wrote: »

PS the ESBs own economists ventured at meeting that the discount for fuel for an EV should be 10% less then equivalent diesel , we were aghast !

He/she should get a real job!

BoatMad

n97 mini wrote: »

He/she should get a real job!

true, but it gives you insight in the mentality

oh well onwards and upwards, to the next gen charging infrastructure , the current ones junk anyway

Whatever the fees will be won't matter a huge amount because by the time EV is the main form of transport you're likely talking 400+ kms real range so public charging will be so infrequent that if a few charges a year cost 20 or 30 quid it won't be a big deal but the big deal will be when people can't charge where they park be it apartment or on street and this isn't even on the radar in Government to be addressed.

2018 will likely see 250 kms real range and 2019 350-400 kms we're nearly at that point where public charging simply won't be too relevant for the majority of drivers. And I don't expect any real take up in electrics before 2020.

The real issue in regard to public charging will be the lack of DC points and DC points that are 100+ Kw, 45 Kw charging is getting outdated fast. 45 Kw chargers will become the next slow chargers in the not too distant future.

We need a Tesla like attitude where the car manufacturers themselves install charge points and the garage owners.

If I had the choice I'd rather pay 20 Euro for a 30-40 min charge and be guaranteed a charge for the rare time I need it and I expect the majority of people will too by that time range will be 400 Km + and they won't care if for the odd time they have to pay.

If EV owners want to solve real important issues for future EV owners then they need to bring it to the attention og Government the real issue of apartment charging and those with no driveway, this will be the greatest obstcal for ev owners not a few euro for a charge

BoatMad

Whatever the fees will be won't matter a huge amount because by the time EV is the main form of transport you're likely talking 400+ kms real range so public charging will be so infrequent that if a few charges a year cost 20 or 30 quid it won't be a big deal but the big deal will be when people can't charge where they park be it apartment or on street and this isn't even on the radar in Government to be addressed.

possibly true , but we have to get from " here" to " there " and we will still have loads of degraded 2nd hand EVs and cheap short range EVs that need FCP use

The real issue in regard to public charging will be the lack of DC points and DC points that are 100+ Kw, 45 Kw charging is getting outdated fast. 45 Kw chargers will become the next slow chargers in the not too distant future.

you have a self defeating argument, if fast charging will not be needed to any great extent, then it will not get investment . hence it will not expand or develop

We need a Tesla like attitude where the car manufacturers themselves install charge points and the garage owners.

Simply not going too happen , Lack of space and car garages are not the place for chargers, we need 20-30 chargers parks not single ones in " Freds Auto repair "

If I had the choice I'd rather pay 20 Euro for a 30-40 min charge and be guaranteed a charge for the rare time I need it and I expect the majority of people will too by that time range will be 400 Km + and they won't care if for the odd time they have to pay.

Again makes no economic sense that a charger network is installed simply to lie unused until a small number people need it. The way you make money is asset utilisation , what a charger company wants is 24 hour back to back usage , that means queues not high prices

If EV owners want to solve real important issues for future EV owners then they need to bring it to the attention og Government the real issue of apartment charging and those with no driveway, this will be the greatest obstcal for ev owners not a few euro for a charge

The trend is that apartment owners simply will not have cars, the Gov just removed the need to have any parking spaces at all in certain developments , city centres are slowly banning cars.

Thats the solution for apartment dwellers, public transport and UBER and Go. etc. There is solution for people with on street parking or no designated parking at all.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

possibly true , but we have to get from " here" to " there " and we will still have loads of degraded 2nd hand EVs and cheap short range EVs that need FCP use

Yeah and there's plenty of fast chargers for existing users, with the exception of CCS owners but in reality there's vastly more ChaDeMo cars at this time.

In high usage areas hopefully billing for usage will greatly ease this. There's no denying there are a lot of people who use the network just because it's free.

BoatMad wrote: »

you have a self defeating argument, if fast charging will not be needed to any great extent, then it will not get investment . hence it will not expand or develop

I shall try to be clearer, personal use of public charging will be low due to the range of electric cars from 2020 and beyond, however at that point electric ownership will likely increase and this will result in a greater overall demand on the network. So a greater number of people will need to recharge on a longer trip.

BoatMad wrote: »

Simply not going too happen , Lack of space and car garages are not the place for chargers, we need 20-30 chargers parks not single ones in " Freds Auto repair "

Where there is space people will want to charge and should not be prevented.

BoatMad wrote: »

Again makes no economic sense that a charger network is installed simply to lie unused until a small number people need it. The way you make money is asset utilisation , what a charger company wants is 24 hour back to back usage , that means queues not high prices

It won't be unused because as I said above, personal charging will be much less that what us low range ev owners have to endure currently when range is 400 Km + even the 40 Kwh electrics will greatly see less need for public charging.

BoatMad wrote: »

The trend is that apartment owners simply will not have cars, the Gov just removed the need to have any parking spaces at all in certain developments , city centres are slowly banning cars.

Well currently a lot of apartment owners do and until there is form of proper transport that relies on better than bus and Luas then people will continue to need a car and there are apartments outside Dublin city.

jimmycrackcorm

We need a Tesla like attitude where the car manufacturers themselves install charge points and the garage owners.

Why necessarily car manufacturers though? Shopping centres, Aldi, Lidl, Tescos where you get a discount on power for staying and shopping. After all, Tesco has the form for this.

Also, I'm curious why the chargers are so expensive to run and maintain. I get that a nationwide network has overheads such as the call staff. But I'd see a petrol station with space installing them like they do with car washes. Applegreen on the M1, for example, will probably have lots of these to get people to stop for food. Why the need for CER in that example if you want to do it privately?

unkel

Lidl has installed its first fast charger in Ireland a few months ago. Providing free fast charging for customers.

cros13

unkel wrote: »

Lidl has installed its first fast charger in Ireland a few months ago. Providing free fast charging for customers.

And one due at the new Lidl in Wilton in Cork. Aldi have AC chargepoints at one of the South Dublin stores, but they also do rapids in their Bavarian stores.

Having talked to Nissan, they seem to be pinning their hopes on Lidl and Aldi to fill the gap....

BoatMad

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why necessarily car manufacturers though? Shopping centres, Aldi, Lidl, Tescos where you get a discount on power for staying and shopping. After all, Tesco has the form for this.

Also, I'm curious why the chargers are so expensive to run and maintain. I get that a nationwide network has overheads such as the call staff. But I'd see a petrol station with space installing them like they do with car washes. Applegreen on the M1, for example, will probably have lots of these to get people to stop for food. Why the need for CER in that example if you want to do it privately?

Many garages have little space for EV chargers and single points of failure have too be eliminated or you spend hours driving around trying to find a free single charger .

a better model is charger parks with larger numbers of fast chargers

thats not to say I dont welcome any charger and there is no impediment to installing chargers in ireland ( pre or post CRU decision )

Chargers in shopping centres are not really the answer either , there are only a niche solution

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Lidl has installed its first fast charger in Ireland a few months ago. Providing free fast charging for customers.

isnt it only free if you shop

BoatMad

Having talked to Nissan, they seem to be pinning their hopes on Lidl and Aldi to fill the gap....

lot of resistance in dealers to pay for chargers and then provide free electricity ( and many dont want too get into the hassle of charging for it )

so I dont think anyone will follow Teslas model directly

BoatMad

Well currently a lot of apartment owners do and until there is form of proper transport that relies on better than bus and Luas then people will continue to need a car and there are apartments outside Dublin city.

Yes and there will be updates to the planning laws for new builds , but there is little that can be done retrospectively

Anything can be done it's the lack of will to do it is the problem.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything can be done it's the lack of will to do it is the problem.

Seriously Mad_lad, come along to the next task force day

There is, if anything a huge surplus of will towards EVs. Its simply wrong to paint the Gov in the light you continuously do

The issue is that laws cant be enacted to forced existing apartments to provide EV facilities, the constitution largely forbids retrospective enforcement

If you look at DUnlaoghaires planning codes, they now require every 10th apartment to have EV facilities, i.e. a carpark for 100 apartment residence requires 10 chargers minimum

indeed many builders are now fitting EV charging wiring to houses etc, and a development in the dockhands is offering free EV charging for life etc


The situation is improving, but for existing apartments , especially where people have no designated parking, theres not a lot that can be done ( perhaps you could suggest something concrete ?)

I'm not suggesting laws force anything other than the owner or person renting should not be prevented from installing a charge point and that a solution is sought for billing, the same for rented houses.

It's not rocket science.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not suggesting laws force anything other than the owner or person renting should not be prevented from installing a charge point and that a solution is sought for billing, the same for rented houses.

It's not rocket science.

you cant force an existing landlord in a legally compliant house to facilitate a charger install. No more then you cant legally force a landlord to install a dishwasher . The law is clear on this and cant be changed because you would have legal challenges

you can of course make that stipulation in planning , where planning applies

Laws can be changed, and tax incentives can be given to those who allow charging.

Existing apartments who are owned by the EV driver should be able to charge if they are willing to pay for installation. It's hardly that difficult to come up with a solution to billing.

EV take up will be very slow if this isn't solved , not many people will want to wait at public fast chargers which are not fast to non ev enthusiasts , charging will need to be made as convenient as possible.