CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

n97 mini

KCross wrote: »

Absolutely, but EV's are also a tiny proportion of the car market so its all relative.

This consultation paper is all about who should own and pay for the network from now on. eCars or ESB dont pay for it today. Its everyone with a meter pays for it!

Who does everyone here think should pay for the charging network? Obviously we are a biased bunch but I'm still interested in others views.

My own submission is that the infrastructure (like all the other electric infrastructure) should be maintained by the ESB, costs covered by the existing standing charge which we all have to pay. With €201m profit in 2015 any claim that they can't afford it is obviously not true.

The electricity should be added to our current bill, be it from Electric Ireland, SSEA, or whoever consumers chose. For anyone without an electricity account (e.g. tourists) there should be a PAYG option, as there currently is on domestic supply.

There could be tweaks to stop abuses that don't exist in a domestic supply scenario. For example, after you car has stopped charging, either because it has hit 100% or autostopped (like the Leaf can at 80%) that a per minute charge kicks in.

KCross

n97 mini wrote: »

My own submission is that the infrastructure (like all the other electric infrastructure) should be maintained by the ESB, costs covered by the existing standing charge which we all have to pay. With €201m profit in 2015 any claim that they can't afford it is obviously not true.

The electricity should be added to our current bill, be it from Electric Ireland, SSEA, or whoever consumers chose. For anyone without an electricity account (e.g. tourists) there should be a PAYG option, as there currently is on domestic supply.

There could be tweaks to stop abuses that don't exist in a domestic supply scenario. For example, after you car has stopped charging, either because it has hit 100% or autostopped (like the Leaf can at 80%) that a per minute charge kicks in.

Thats basically option 1?

If electricity providers are given the option to charge for usage I'd be concerned they wouldnt just add a per flat kWh charge to our bills. They'd probably look to capitalise on it and come up with a "standing charge" or "administration charge" or something like that. It wouldnt be justified but I'd bet they'd do it.

Your charging regime seems good to me except maybe the per minute charge should start after a fixed time rather than when the charging stops. Isnt that why Ecotricity in the UK limited the charge to 30mins, to stop PHEV's hogging FCP's.

n97 mini

KCross wrote: »

Thats basically option 1?

Pretty much but I was going to email them that suggestion anyway before they published the doc and asked for submissions. So I'm fairly happy option 1 is there.

KCross wrote: »

If electricity providers are given the option to charge for usage I'd be concerned they wouldnt just add a per flat kWh charge to our bills. They'd probably look to capitalise on it and come up with a "standing charge" or "administration charge" or something like that. It wouldnt be justified but I'd bet they'd do it.

I agree. A levy on each kw/h is still usage based so while I wouldn't be happy with it I would put up with it if I had to. I won't put up with another standing charge though, as that's an ownership levy, not usage based. I would opt out of using public chargers altogether rather than pay a flat monthly fee that I may get no use out of.

KCross wrote: »

Your charging regime seems good to me except maybe the per minute charge should start after a fixed time rather than when the charging stops. Isnt that why Ecotricity in the UK limited the charge to 30mins, to stop PHEV's hogging FCP's.

Yeah, first 30 mins free seems fair to Leaf owners on Chademo, but I'm not sure that works for Zoe owners charging at 22kw or other EVs. One size doesn't really fit all when they can't all charge at the same rate.

BoatMad

n97 mini wrote: »

My own submission is that the infrastructure (like all the other electric infrastructure) should be maintained by the ESB, costs covered by the existing standing charge which we all have to pay. With €201m profit in 2015 any claim that they can't afford it is obviously not true.

The electricity should be added to our current bill, be it from Electric Ireland, SSEA, or whoever consumers chose. For anyone without an electricity account (e.g. tourists) there should be a PAYG option, as there currently is on domestic supply.

There could be tweaks to stop abuses that don't exist in a domestic supply scenario. For example, after you car has stopped charging, either because it has hit 100% or autostopped (like the Leaf can at 80%) that a per minute charge kicks in.

yes thats Option 1 BUT it requires that the CER reverse its thinking on the electricity supply license

Note that the asset would be placed on the RAB ( reserved assets) , i.e. like the distribution grid and paid via the standing charge element of a electricity bill

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Thats basically option 1?

If electricity providers are given the option to charge for usage I'd be concerned they wouldnt just add a per flat kWh charge to our bills. They'd probably look to capitalise on it and come up with a "standing charge" or "administration charge" or something like that. It wouldnt be justified but I'd bet they'd do it.

Your charging regime seems good to me except maybe the per minute charge should start after a fixed time rather than when the charging stops. Isnt that why Ecotricity in the UK limited the charge to 30mins, to stop PHEV's hogging FCP's.

There are far better ways to stop hogging, for example for every minute the car remains connected but the session is over, that minute could be deducted from a total " banK of allowable minutes, reach zero and you cannot use that charger today

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

There are far better ways to stop hogging, for example for every minute the car remains connected but the session is over, that minute could be deducted from a total " banK of allowable minutes, reach zero and you cannot use that charger today

Are you saying you have a prepaid allowance of minutes and time spent not charging but connected would cause you to lose your minutes?

That could be complicated to implement with the varying charge times across cars.

I guess you could come up with many systems for it but it seems the chargers and their associated comma are not mature enough yet to handle "complex" billing scenarios. The eCars report explains in some detail the types of issues they are having. You need a simple system until the comma and back office systems and protocols improve.

The eCars own report explains they were having issues in this area.
e.g chargers sending duplicate messages, not sending messages at all, etc.... a billing nightmare.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

Are you saying you have a prepaid allowance of minutes and time spent not charging but connected would cause you to lose your minutes?

That could be complicated to implement with the varying charge times across cars.

I guess you could come up with many systems for it but it seems the chargers and their associated comma are not mature enough yet to handle "complex" billing scenarios. The eCars report explains in some detail the types of issues they are having. You need a simple system until the comma and back office systems and protocols improve.

The eCars own report explains they were having issues in this area.
e.g chargers sending duplicate messages, not sending messages at all, etc.... a billing nightmare.

The idea would be that you have a bank of allowable minutes at any given charger, overtime you charge you use up some of that bank, overtime you remain connected but have completed charge , you use up some of that bank, have no minutes remaining , you have to use another charger. That way you stop repeated hugging of the same charger as well as remaining plugged in with the session ended


from an IT perspective, this is all done by the back office system, and therefore is quite easy to implement .

remember if we want Kwh pricing , then that is all we will get, the alternative is unregulated " access" style pricing not directly related to energy consumption

At present CER seems too be set against KWH pricing

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

The idea would be that you have a bank of allowable minutes at any given charger, overtime you charge you use up some of that bank, overtime you remain connected but have completed charge , you use up some of that bank, have no minutes remaining , you have to use another charger. That way you stop repeated hugging of the same charger as well as remaining plugged in with the session ended


from an IT perspective, this is all done by the back office system, and therefore is quite easy to implement .

remember if we want Kwh pricing , then that is all we will get, the alternative is unregulated " access" style pricing not directly related to energy consumption

At present CER seems too be set against KWH pricing

The back office bit is easy to develop but it is data driven and the data reliability seems to be poor at present. Maybe as they update firmware it will get better.

Why do you say CER are against kWh charging? Have they stated that somewhere?

My interpretation of the CER is that they don't want to get involved in the pricing structure at all and don't see it as their remit. Do you know different?

BoatMad

Why do you say CER are against kWh charging? Have they stated that somewhere?

Both the ESB and the CER have said they see no need for Charge point operators to have a electricity supply license. Thats in both the ESB submission and the CER consultation document.


Without a Supply license, an operator CANNOT sell you energy . They must sell you " access". Hence if you want to ultimately see billing via the retail electricity suppliers, the CER must have a change of fundamental view, i.e. that charge points are merely part of the grid distribution system in total

Option 1 is close to that, but it envisages a retail operator of charge points that would sell " access " and not " energy ", access is likely to be time based and very expensive

Yes but all the ESB have to do then is transfer the Charge point Network to EI from ESBN ? then they can sell electricity no ?

But yes as it stands not the ESB can't bill for electricity only usage/access.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but all the ESB have to do then is transfer the Charge point Network to EI from ESBN ? then they can sell electricity no ?

But yes as it stands not the ESB can't bill for electricity only usage/access.

The ESB do not own the charger network, the CER do.( the pilot project was undertaken by the ESB on the CERs behest) and EI does not own any physical infrastructure, its merely a retail supplier of electricity

CER could transfer it to EI , assuming EI want it, but it would be a most unreasonable thing to do , since it would deny all other retail supplier access to the charger network and be illegal under EU competition law.

The best option for users is to pay by energy usage , that requires the operator or operators of the charge network to be electrical " suppliers" and be licensed so.

The chargers become part of the RAB ( just like the grid ) and the costs to run them are paid by electricity payers in general. Any retail supplier of energy can then purchase wholesale energy delivered via the charger network and billed to the user as per existing billing structures. Visiting and occasional users can be accommodated by " pay as you go " facilities just as exists in domestic networks today

CER control retain pricing for chargers in the same way as they do for retail/wholesale domestic energy.

The alternative , Option4, allows the ESB to do anything it likes , ( i.e. screw the EV community ), The CER could not exercise any control over end user EV pricing

At a recent meeting with them , they strongly expressed their view that Option 4 was the best !!!!!!

KCross

Reading the ESB's submission it is clear they want control of the market (i.e. a monopoloy) as they know Ireland is too small to have multiple charge networks for the foreseeable future.

Imagine another operator coming in and trying to setup a new network. It cost €33m to get the network to where it is today so a new operator isnt going to happen as the EV penetration is so low that the ROI is probably measured in decades, not years.

If option 4 is granted we are most definitely screwed as it gives eCars carte blanche to do what they like knowing that the EV community will have no choice but to suck it up.

Everyone on this forum that cares about EV's should be making a submission to the CER.

I believe in charging for charging when the time is right (mass EV adoption) but most importantly not priced by the ESB who will have a monopoly. Monopoly based pricing is a bad thing and I hope the CER are independent and intelligent enough to see eCars for what they are in that regard.

isnottheword

KCross wrote: »

If option 4 is granted we are most definitely screwed as it gives cCars carte blanche to do what they like knowing that the EV community will have no choice but to suck it up.

When do the open up for receipt of submissions on this matter?

KCross

isnottheword wrote: »

When do the open up for receipt of submissions on this matter?

Now, follow the link in post 3 of this thread.

isnottheword

KCross wrote: »

Now, follow the link in post 3 of this thread.

Thanks for the link. My submission has been emailed on to them.

josip

Would Denis O'Brien have any interest in getting involved in the future?
His has previous in this country with Topaz and SiteServe.
DigiCell's success is also due to getting into markets early in the adoption cycle.

Denis O'Brien, are you serious ? You think he's going to install chargers for free and provide free electricity ?

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Denis O'Brien, are you serious ? You think he's going to install chargers for free and provide free electricity ?

He's already involved. GMC Sierra are the new maintenance partner for Ecars !!

Well, maintenance is different.

Sierra communications, OMG . I hope their management has improved !

Dardania

Made a submission on this. In the hope that my submission is implemented by the time I buy my next car (95% certain to be EV!)
I would actually generally agree with ESB's option 4, with the conditions that:

quality of service to the end user be guaranteed (with financial penalties if not met) - so enough chargers on site, operational, or else the user gets their next chargeup(s) for free.

future investment be encouraged for new chargers - as per BoatMad's point, the revenue from operating the EV network probably wouldn't fund new chargers, so if ESB eCars were required to install chargers at third party businesses that gain a revenue by having the charger there (say a restaurant or a B&B) the cost of future investment can be met. Of course, the complementary businesses would have to pay the install charge, but they would directly and indirectly make money by having the charger on site (by using their business for something, and also a partial revenue sharing on the charge cost)

I agree with n97_minis view that a monthly charge would discourage people from using the chargers (and so, they wouldn't adopt EV) however, only paying the home consumption rate plus a small fee probably wouldn't generate enough revenue for any operator or third party to maintain, and invest in the network.
To be honest, I'd be happy if the cost of a fill up is equivalent to the cost of a fill up of an ICE - I could charge at home if I wanted to save money, and pay an ICE equivalent charge which I pay now for an outside charge, to get the quality of service I expect.
May be a bitter pill for the existing EV drivers...but look at whats happening now with Irish Rail whereby their revenue from tickets barely covers operational costs, let alone new investment. Do we want a repeat of that with the EV network?

I also suggest that the electric supply source should be actual renewable, to ensure decarbonisation takes place...

Chances are by the time you buy an ev then the range will be north of 300 Kms, you will rarely use a public charger.

Dardania

Deleted User wrote: »

Chances are by the time you buy an ev then the range will be north of 300 Kms, you will rarely use a public charger.

After reading the thread on cheap deals possible due to PCP, I'd be inclined to take the risk with a 24kW leaf if the charger network worked well.

Also...while I would tend to use home charger mainly (just received planning permission to convert garden to driveway, complete with charger spot), I'd be concerned if I drove around the country to hotels, B&Bs etc. and not having access to a good network to charge up

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

Made a submission on this. In the hope that my submission is implemented by the time I buy my next car (95% certain to be EV!)
I would actually generally agree with ESB's option 4, with the conditions that:

quality of service to the end user be guaranteed (with financial penalties if not met) - so enough chargers on site, operational, or else the user gets their next chargeup(s) for free..

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Made a submission on this. In the hope that my submission is implemented by the time I buy my next car (95% certain to be EV!)
I would actually generally agree with ESB's option 4, with the conditions that:

quality of service to the end user be guaranteed (with financial penalties if not met) - so enough chargers on site, operational, or else the user gets their next chargeup(s) for free..

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Yeah, you're right about my option 4 with conditions isn't option 4 as given, but option 1 doesn't fully cover my intent either. In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

I agree the penalty should be large enough to discourage them from not providing enough capacity. A way I was thinking it could work would be if everyone queuing was incentivised to swipe, then there would be good realtime feedback to motivate ESB to react. As the risk is that ESB would leave you waiting there until the one operational charger is free / they would get the same revenue... or if the charger is altogether failed, your flatbed scenario.
From reading ESB's document, it sounds like they had a mare of a time from their perspective dealing with the dodgy chargers too...


Interestingly, I just saw this consultation pop up, on the same topic approximately:
http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure

Will have to give it a read and have a spoke

Public Consultation

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure for Transport

Draft National Policy Framework

The Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport is inviting submissions from stakeholders, interested parties and the general public on a Draft National Policy Framework on Alternative Fuels Infrastructure for Transport in Ireland. The closing date for submissions is Wednesday 23rd November 2016

KCross

Dardania wrote: »

In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

Im not sure I get your logic.
If option 4 is picked eCars will charge what they like and a government duty will be the least of your worries!

I presume you are aware of the charging regime eCars proposed this time last year which they had to withdraw on the orders of the CER?

I also want ESB to own the network but under regulation like the grid.

Dardania

KCross wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

In principle, I'm happy for ESB to take on the network (as it also means there is less chance the government will try adding a duty charge onto charging as people move away from ICE if ESB already provide the service, and are competing with home chargers/bigger batteries)

Im not sure I get your logic.
If option 4 is picked eCars will charge what they like and a government duty will be the least of your worries!

I presume you are aware of the charging regime eCars proposed this time last year which they had to withdraw on the orders of the CER?

I also want ESB to own the network but under regulation like the grid.

I think we're viewing things the same way. Absolutely - the upper cost should be regulated per recharge. So not option 4 as it is given by ESB. My theory would be that the cost should be calculated on a demand & supply basis e.g. 22kW car connects pays a flat rate of say 10, and then the kWh consumption of actual energy supplied. Similar to how commercial electrical connections are charged now, or how domestic bins are paid for (lift fee & weight)
I don't envisage this cost being cheap to the motorist. It would be naive to think that the consumption charge per connection would merely be the 15c/kWh we're accustomed to at home. There would have to be a realistic amount on top to cover maintenance of the charge points, and an amount to allow future investment. I reckon the charging network should be financially self sufficient. Otherwise we could find ourselves in a situation where the EV network wasn't self sufficient financially, and there was a reliance on the government to fund investment & maintenance - which they have shown to be very poor at if we look at Irish Rail.
Looking at ESB's short report, the OpEx costs were less than half compared to the CapEx costs. And I suspect the actual kWh costs were a small portion of those OpEx costs...
Thinking about the cost of a recharge, I would honestly be happy with something similar to what I get from my ICE - my old Ford Focus petrol was working out around 11.60 per 100km of driving in fuel. That's what I would value the EV charge up at. Or possibly even a bit more to allow investment on top. I can always charge up at home if I'm unhappy with the cost, so they would be in competition with home rates - that would provide a balance to the upper cost.
My badly explained point about excise duty is, trying to phrase it better: The government takes in quite a lot of money per year from motorists: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/motorists-pumped-62million-fuel-levies-7196743 - 2.3 billion in 2015. This doesn't solely go on the roads - it probably gets siphoned off pretty fast to pay for healthcare, social welfare etc.
As people switch to EV from ICE in the future, the government will have a budget hole that they'll want to fill. So my theory is, if the ESB run the charger network, an argument could be made that as ESB is a semi-state, who pays a dividend to government, there is already a route by which funding goes back to the exchequer, to replace the lost ICE fuel excise.
Or alternatively, they'll just increase the Electricity Tax duty, which would be applied to all electricity customers (not just EV) so EV users would be insulated against bearing the burden of a lost 2 billion tax revenue per year...
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/duties/excise-duty-rates.html

isnottheword

Dardania wrote: »

I don't envisage this cost being cheap to the motorist. It would be naive to think that the consumption charge per connection would merely be the 15c/kWh we're accustomed to at home. There would have to be a realistic amount on top to cover maintenance of the charge points, and an amount to allow future investment. I reckon the charging network should be financially self sufficient. Otherwise we could find ourselves in a situation where the EV network wasn't self sufficient financially, and there was a reliance on the government to fund investment & maintenance - which they have shown to be very poor at if we look at Irish Rail....
Thinking about the cost of a recharge, I would honestly be happy with something similar to what I get from my ICE - my old Ford Focus petrol was working out around 11.60 per 100km of driving in fuel. That's what I would value the EV charge up at. Or possibly even a bit more to allow investment on top. I can always charge up at home if I'm unhappy with the cost, so they would be in competition with home rates - that would provide a balance to the upper cost.

I couldn't disagree more. You can't have rates the same as what it costs to fuel a petrol or diesel. Early adopters of EV's have major issues to deal with right now.
eg. integrity of the battery over time (for which any savings they need to put aside for a replacement or for refurbishment - not cheap!); less than satisfactory range; far greater potential for increased asset depreciation (by comparison with EV) at the moment.

What you're proposing needs to happen when the market matures i.e. when the 60kW range EV's come onto the market. Otherwise, what you propose is going to leave current EV drivers/owners frustrated and in limbo. Secondly, it will stunt the development of and progression of the switch to EV. i.e. who in their right mind is going to put up with the short comings (in terms of convenience and cost as you propose it to be) until a 60kW car is available on the market?

As with every other implementation in Europe, this will have to be government subsidised. However, I doubt very much that it could ever reach the levels of investment in Irish Rail!

dardania wrote:

he government takes in quite a lot of money per year from motorists: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/motorists-pumped-62million-fuel-levies-7196743 - 2.3 billion in 2015. This doesn't solely go on the roads - it probably gets siphoned off pretty fast to pay for healthcare, social welfare etc.

Yes, but that's not ethical. Revenues raised by the motorist should be used to finance the network - and not for other means. IF they have a deficit in healthcare, social welfare, etc., then this has to come out of general taxation.
Of course, we could also strive towards leaner government and public services (yeah, I know - good luck with that in IRL!). Funding currently raised by ICE users should be used to support the fledgling EV network right now. When it approaches critical mass, then I have no problem with what you propose - or that electricity rates are manipulated - to even out usage over 24 hour periods and also levied if necessary to maintain the road and ev network - not anything else.

BoatMad

KCross wrote: »

A fatal flaw in your position is that option 4 states that there will be no conditions. If you add conditions it means it is under regulation and that's the polar opposite of option 4 and not what eCars want at all! It's more like option 1.

I hope they don't go with option 4!

Also, the idea of getting your next charge free is meaningless in reality as a failed charge probably has you on a flatbed and your day ruined. One free charge won't alleviate that pain!

I like the idea in general of financial penalties to eCars for maybe queuing or out of service chargers. It means they have skin in the game but a penalty of one free charge would mean nothing to them!

Correct , no right minded EV driver would reccomend option 4.

Option 1 can have retail competition at energy prices with the EV charger network paid for via the whole grid contribution.

You cannot arrive at your conclusion about economic viability with the lack of data provided , hence you are arriving at a false conclusion by way of a false assumption.


This should most definitely be the situation for the next 10 years.

When we have a 50% penetration of EVs and usage patterns at chargers becomes established , then the whole network could be commercialised

It's much more likely that a few large scale supercharger locations will be the requirement rather then this current scatter gun approach. It's likely this " pilot " network will prove to be outdated within that time scale anyway

KCross

BoatMad wrote: »

Option 1 can have retail competition at energy prices with the EV charger network paid for via the whole grid contribution.

While I like the idea and it is what I'm "voting" for I could understand how someone would say "why should we subsidise it". We need a compelling argument for that question. I believe we do but it needs to be a well communicated argument.

My gut instinct is that CER will go for option 4 and hide behind EU competition law stating that a state subsidy on the infrastructure will inhibit additional competition in the market. The market doesnt need multiple networks but I feel they might try that argument.

BoatMad wrote: »

You cannot arrive at your conclusion about economic viability with the lack of data provided , hence you are arriving at a false conclusion by way of a false assumption.

This should most definitely be the situation for the next 10 years.

There would definitely need to be 10s of thousands of EV's using the network daily to make it commercially viable. As soon as a charging regime is brought in people will scurry back to their home chargers and eCars will be left with an ongoing unviable network based on the current EV uptake.

I see the network today as a piece of public infrastructure that supports EV adoption. Commercialise it when its possible to do so. eCars saying its possible today is nonsense.

Its hard to tell whether it will be commercially viable in 10yrs or not. The longer range EV's could catch on very fast. You could see exponential growth. The CER reports and the eCars report both predict very large increases in EV adoption by 2020 and beyond. I dont know what exactly they base that on. Probably nothing since they had originally suggested 50k by 2020 and are now downgrading that to 20k! I'd say 20k by 2020 is very unlikely but beyond 2020 it could go exponential.

It will be like the switch from petrol to diesel after the CO2 emissions based motor tax came in in 2008. Once the longer range EV's come and the government add incentives to meet our 2020 targets people will start switching to EV at a much higher rate.

BoatMad wrote: »

It's much more likely that a few large scale supercharger locations will be the requirement rather then this current scatter gun approach. It's likely this " pilot " network will prove to be outdated within that time scale anyway

The alternative-fuels-infrastructure consultation paper suggests the network will grow significantly! I dont know, maybe you are right but a few large scale superchargers isnt much good to someone down in Bantry or up in Gweedore if the superchargers are 50-100 miles away.




Thanks to @Dardania for pointing out that additional consultation paper:
http://www.dttas.ie/public-transport/english/alternative-fuels-infrastructure


We should start another thread on that one and everyone submit their opinion on that as well, as that is the one which discusses in detail how to encourage EV uptake which obviously the charge network is an integral part.

This thread is more about who should own the network.

BoatMad

In my opinion, to not view the current infrastructure as a strategic investment to promote EV uptake is a major flaw in the thinking of the CER. This is the core of my own submission. There is no need for a charging network at all unless there is significant EV growth , the likelihood is that diesel will remain comparatively cheap as the western worlds demand is falling. in iteland , de-incentivising diesels will be very politically difficult, certainly in advance of any mass EV uptake.

Therefore we need EV incentives , one key one is to keep running costs low , at or near night rate electricity as an incentive for X years. Holding the charging network under the cers control is therefore a key enabler. Handing it in an unregulated manner to Ecars could result in disasterious premature commercialisation

The fact is the likelihood is that an EV charger network in 10 years time could be sold off , rather like early mobile phone licenses , for a considerable sum, creating a significant return on investment for the electricity payers of Ireland that have funded the pilot project