CRU (formerly CER) review of charging infrastructure

BoatMad · 14-10-2016 12:56pm #1

The CER review is taking placed and open for consultation

BoatMad · 19-10-2016 6:37pm

the views fo suers should be sent to mvencius@cer.ie

every EV owner should read the documents and submit an opinion

Davy · 19-10-2016 8:29pm

http://www.cer.ie/document-detail/Electric-Vehicles/413

Response Deadline: 25/Nov/2016

Consultation Open - Responses to: Mantas Vencius

The CER has today, 14th October 2016, published a consultation paper on ESB eCars’ proposal on the ownership of the Electric Vehicle Charging assets installed as part of a Pilot Study approved by the CER in 2014, and the Report on the completed EV Pilot Study. As the Pilot has now concluded ESB eCars has submitted its proposal on the future ownership of the charging infrastructure. The CER welcomes comments on any of the issues raised in this consultation paper, the ESB eCar proposals, and the report on the EV Pilot. Comments on this consultation should be sent to Mantas Vencius available at mvencius@cer.ie by 17.00 Friday 25th November 2016.

n97 mini · 19-10-2016 10:33pm

I will be giving my feedback shortly to CER. I am happy to pay a unit rate, billed to my current electricity supplier, preferably the same unit rate as I'm currently paying as I shop around and want to keep being rewarded for same. I would settle for a small amount extra per unit to be added on to cover capital costs but I don't feel this is necessary as $13 million is a drop in the ocean in the electricity market. The ESB paid its €203 million surplus into the exchequer in 2015.

As regards a monthly fee. Like motor tax I feel this is an ownership charge and not a usage charge (and I already pay a standing charge for my domestic supply). As we would only need the public charging network maybe once a month (drawing maybe €4 worth of electricity at current rates) we wouldn't get any value from it, and would opt out altogether rather than pay another monthly fee. I think others would do the same, essentially dropping EV's off the public network grid, and thus would be counter productive.

19-10-2016 10:35pm

There needs to be multiple chargers on site, and there needs to be 100 + Kw chargers installed when electrics can charge at this power.

When electrics sell in large numbers in Ireland range will be 350+ kms so the need for charging will be rare, what is really needed is for EV charging to become a legal right so that apartment management agencies can no longer refuse a charge point installation and Co. Councils will have to provide street charging for those who have no designated parking space.

The greatest issue now is only a single DC charger on site.

n97 mini · 19-10-2016 10:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

When electrics sell in large numbers in Ireland range will be 350+ kms so the need for charging will be rare

It might actually be the opposite, and something I've been thinking about for a while. Your typical domestic supply is rated for just under 15kw, but if you drive it full bore there is no head room for electric showers, cookers, immersion heaters, washing machines etc, so 7kw is probably a realistic maximum domestic load for charging an EV.

In the case of the Leaf, if there was such a thing as a 60kw, it would take around 2.5 times longer to charge fully from home than a 24kw. Not feasible at all with a 3.3kw charger as you could be waiting 24+ hours. At 6.6kw it's potentially borderline, time-wise.

Should we ever get a 100kw Leaf, or any other EV, you'll never be able to fully charge it from home, so owners will be more reliant than ever on having access to public chargers.

Tesla has probably thought of this and it's one of the reasons it is carpet bombing places with Super Chargers.

So in summary, it could get worse, not better. More EVs on the roads, and more looking for public chargers as home charging will have hit a brick wall.

Cookie_Monster · 19-10-2016 11:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Co. Councils will have to provide street charging for those who have no designated parking space.

why on earth would they have to do that, or why would anybody want that? Councils don't have to provide petrol pumps all over the place, do they?

The provision should be no different to the current setup, let private businesses cater for it on designated sites and stop trying to force everyone to subsidise further EV infrastructure that only clutters the place up.

19-10-2016 11:30pm

n97 mini wrote: »

It might actually be the opposite, and something I've been thinking about for a while. Your typical domestic supply is rated for just under 15kw, but if you drive it full bore there is no head room for electric showers, cookers, immersion heaters, washing machines etc, so 7kw is probably a realistic maximum domestic load for charging an EV.

In the case of the Leaf, if there was such a thing as a 60kw, it would take around 2.5 times longer to charge fully from home than a 24kw. Not feasible at all with a 3.3kw charger as you could be waiting 24+ hours. At 6.6kw it's potentially borderline, time-wise.

Should we ever get a 100kw Leaf, or any other EV, you'll never be able to fully charge it from home, so owners will be more reliant than ever on having access to public chargers.

Tesla has probably thought of this and it's one of the reasons it is carpet bombing places with Super Chargers.

So in summary, it could get worse, not better. More EVs on the roads, and more looking for public chargers as home charging will have hit a brick wall.

You certainly won't use 60 Kwh in a day so house supply won't be a major issue.

A full 60 Kwh work of juice can be charge in 10 Hrs at 6.6 Kw over night if needs be. No major issue. Even at 3.3 Kw over a couple of nights.

350 odd kms range is a lot really. You're not going to go through that in a day.

2 ev's charging at home at 3.5 Kw each most of the time will suffice or maybe a quick visit to the fast charger for a bit extra.

n97 mini · 19-10-2016 11:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A full 60 Kwh work of juice can be charge in 10 Hrs at 6.6 Kw over night if needs be. No major issue. Even at 3.3 Kw over a couple of nights.

10 hours is really too long. More than 9 hours and you can't charge within the nightsaver window. And that's just with 60kw batteries. As regards 3.3kw charing.... who's going to want to leave their car charging for a couple of nights just to fill it, when they can go to a public fast charger and do it all in one go?

My point still stands, once you get to about 60kw, home charging is less attractive as it'll take too long.

20-10-2016 12:19am

n97 mini wrote: »

10 hours is really too long. More than 9 hours and you can't charge within the nightsaver window. And that's just with 60kw batteries. As regards 3.3kw charing.... who's going to want to leave their car charging for a couple of nights just to fill it, when they can go to a public fast charger and do it all in one go?

My point still stands, once you get to about 60kw, home charging is less attractive as it'll take too long.

10 hours too long ? so what if you have to use 2-3 hrs worth of electricity on peak rate, it's still cheap. But you're missing the point, the majority of your daily driving will not even consume half the battery. So there'll be plenty for the long trip if you need it.

n97 mini · 20-10-2016 12:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

10 hours too long ? so what if you have to use 2-3 hrs worth of electricity on peak rate, it's still cheap. But you're missing the point, the majority of your daily driving will not even consume half the battery. So there'll be plenty for the long trip if you need it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree I think! 10 hours puts you outside the nightsaver window *and* is (more importantly) starting to be inconvenient from a charging perspective; having to charge your car over two nights for a trip to Cork is not something many people will put up with when they can just pop down to their nearest public quick charger. There is also the non-availability of the car while spending extended periods charging to take into account. By your own admission there needs to be more 100kw+ chargers, something which can only be delivered by public chargers.

If ICE owners are to be won over, improving range won't be much good if it involves a lot of inconvenience. They're used to a 2-min "charge", widely available, giving them 900+ kms at the moment.

20-10-2016 1:06am

n97 mini wrote: »

We're going to have to agree to disagree I think! 10 hours puts you outside the nightsaver window *and* is (more importantly) starting to be inconvenient from a charging perspective; having to charge your car over two nights for a trip to Cork is not something many people will put up with when they can just pop down to their nearest public quick charger. There is also the non-availability of the car while spending extended periods charging to take into account. By your own admission there needs to be more 100kw+ chargers, something which can only be delivered by public chargers.

If ICE owners are to be won over, improving range won't be much good if it involves a lot of inconvenience. They're used to a 2-min "charge", widely available, giving them 900+ kms at the moment.

You're simply not getting it, no offence intended.

even if you charge all the 10 hrs on peak rate electricity it's still cheap compared to diesel so even if you get 7 hrs on night rate and 2-3 on peak rate it really is no big deal.

Here's an example. I consume currently between 24-28 Kwh of electricity for my commute of about 135 kms so 3/28 = 9.3 hrs @3.3 Kw or at 6.6 Kw (6-6.1 to the battery) about 4.6 hrs to charge.

So 11pm- 8am winter is the night rate and Midnight to 9 am Summer.

So lets say I have a 60 kwh battery, this commute leaves me with 32 Kwh in the battery for Saturday heading to Cork needing 9.3 Hrs at 3Kw to charge Friday night, perfect , done while I sleep.

IF I charge at 6.6 kW it needs 4.6 hrs to charge for the trip to Cork.

So when I come home Friday night I have still just over half the battery charge , I don't need a full charge and I won't be driving to Cork or whatever every weekend or week.

If I charge at 3.3 Kw I need 20 Hrs to charge or 10 at 6.6 Kw.

It's unlikely a 60 Kwh EV will come with 3.3 Kw charging on AC but your home charge point could be 3.3 Kw depending on what you get and depending if you have 2 EV's or not, one can charge at 6.6 Kw and the other at 3.3, still probably plenty off peak, that's about 10 Kw.

You can always upgrade your home supply on single phase.

People's electricity bills will get more expensive but they will only really notice because they get a bill, people paying for petrol and diesel will pay a hell of a lot more and people will be able to install Solar PV and wind turbines to generate their own energy or part of it. But even if not, it's still a lot cheaper than petrol or diesel.

n97 mini · 20-10-2016 1:19am

Deleted User wrote: »

You're simply not getting it, no offence intended.

None taken, but your post has some assumptions, namely that people charge every night. We drive both the ICE and the EV from (almost) full to (almost) empty, and then refill. The EV does a 30km commute (15km each way), so it doesn't get refilled every day. If it's empty on Friday evening, it needs to be refilled. If we had a theoretical high capacity EV and we're going to Cork on Saturday morning, then we need to start thinking about how much is charge is left on Thursday. Have you met my wife?!

Reality is it's going to be one big blast at a public point, or bring the ICE instead.

Remember my argument is that all-in I reckon bigger batteries will lead people to rely on public charging more, not less.

20-10-2016 1:26am

n97 mini wrote: »

None taken, but your post has some assumptions, namely that people charge every night. We drive both the ICE and the EV from (almost) full to (almost) empty, and then refill. The EV does a 30km commute (15km each way), so it doesn't get refilled every day. If it's empty on Friday evening, it needs to be refilled. If we had a theoretical high capacity EV and we're going to Cork on Saturday morning, then we need to start thinking about how much is charge is left on Thursday. Have you met my wife?!

Reality is it's going to be one big blast at a public point, or bring the ICE instead.

Remember my argument is that all-in I reckon bigger batteries will lead people to rely on public charging more, not less.

So if it's empty on Friday evening plug it in over night, 10 hrs at 6.6 Kw no big deal.........

n97 mini · 20-10-2016 1:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

So if it's empty on Friday evening plug it in over night, 10 hrs at 6.6 Kw no big deal.........

For a 60kw, which I did say is borderline. 100kw+ and why would you not get it in a fraction of the time at a public charger?

20-10-2016 1:47am

n97 mini wrote: »

For a 60kw, which I did say is borderline. 100kw+ and why would you not get it in a fraction of the time at a public charger?

Well I don't think I need a 100 Kwh battery but my point still stands, if you can charge 60 kwh over night at 10 hrs you can a 100 Kwh in 16.6 hrs at 6.6 kw or 10 hrs 60 Kwh and the rest on the road.

I don't see why you would not charge at home if you could, makes no sense.

BoatMad · 20-10-2016 4:10am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why on earth would they have to do that, or why would anybody want that? Councils don't have to provide petrol pumps all over the place, do they?

The provision should be no different to the current setup, let private businesses cater for it on designated sites and stop trying to force everyone to subsidise further EV infrastructure that only clutters the place up.

There is no business case that says that the public infrastructure can be privately funded solely by EV users, in all of europe the infrastruture is state supported in on form or another

in ireland with 2000 users, there is no commercial case AT ALL for the foreseeable future

The decarbonisation of private transport is a stated national and european aim. to order for that to occur, we need to think differently for example the state could view charging pointd in the same way as roads and bridges , and provide free electricity and recover the costs via road pricing for example,

You'd cant compare a 70 year historical product and its supply chain with electricity and in effect a transport revolution

20-10-2016 4:12am

You're up early BoatMad.

BoatMad · 20-10-2016 4:14am

Deleted User wrote: »

You're up early BoatMad.

never went to bed, wrote a 8 page submission to the CER!

20-10-2016 4:15am

I presume you'll share that with is over at the FB Group ?

BoatMad · 20-10-2016 4:18am

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume you'll share that with is over at the FB Group ?

not sure . my personal views are not necessary the same as the IEVOA dont want to create a rumpus !

Havant decided

20-10-2016 4:25am

Ah sure they'll be alright too , I wouldn't worry about that.

I think Multiple daily DC chargers is probably the main issue , if one goes down then at least there is a backup, not only that, 3-4 Chargers in the busier spots. They need to get serious about this.

The big question has to be funding, I've no idea where it's going to come from and why would the ESB continue to pour money in with no real return ?

BoatMad · 20-10-2016 4:27am

The big question has to be funding, I've no idea where it's going to come from and why would the ESB continue to pour money in with no real return ?

The ESB hasn't put a penny into the network, everything has been billed back to the CER and payed out from the DUoS funds, ( rather like the grid).

The network has in effect been subsidised by the electricity payers of Ireland ( approx to the value of 32million euros ) there is actually no practical reason by the DUoS funding cant continue in the short/medium term, its a pimple of a cost to the CER.

PS; off to bed now !!!!!, day off tomorrow and lie in !!!

20-10-2016 4:39am

You mean day off today,

More E.U funding would be nice, or rather donation of chargers at least then there'd be no money to be squandered.

BoatMad · 20-10-2016 4:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean day off today,

More E.U funding would be nice, or rather donation of chargers at least then there'd be no money to be squandered.

the EU contributes less then 10% of the total costs of the CER sponsored Pilot project

so much is mis understood and how DUoS charges funds ESB distribution

KCross · 20-10-2016 10:47am

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Multiple daily DC chargers is probably the main issue , if one goes down then at least there is a backup, not only that, 3-4 Chargers in the busier spots. They need to get serious about this.

The CER dont care about that in this case. Their job in this consultation paper is to make a decision on who owns the network going forward. It will then be up to "them" to deal with that issue. If you are submitting something to the CER on this they will just throw that idea/feedback in the bin.... IMO.

Deleted User wrote: »

The big question has to be funding, I've no idea where it's going to come from and why would the ESB continue to pour money in with no real return ?

I've been having a scan through the CER docs. They need to keep getting the money from the same source as before and forget about charging for charging until we hit a tipping point... not sure how you would define that.... maybe X number of EV's on the road.

BoatMad wrote: »

The ESB hasn't put a penny into the network, everything has been billed back to the CER and payed out from the DUoS funds, ( rather like the grid).

Based on my reading, I think they paid €6m of their own money but they are requesting it back from the CER. Not sure I'd disagree with that viewpoint. They have provided the network for free to the users so no reason why they shouldnt be reimbursed for it.

BoatMad wrote: »

The network has in effect been subsidised by the electricity payers of Ireland ( approx to the value of 32million euros ) there is actually no practical reason by the DUoS funding cant continue in the short/medium term, its a pimple of a cost to the CER.

I havent figured out. yet, from reading the docs what this DUoS is(Distribution Use of System). Do you know exactly what that is and where that money comes from?
If its the ordinary bill payers it must be on our bils? Where is it? Is it a subset of the "PSO Levy"? Or is it some central government fund or what?

Whatever it is, I would agree with you that eCars need to request the same funding for, say, the next 5years and keep it free and keep it off the ESB's asset book.

Any funding they request should also include expanding the network and improving the real time telemetry.

KCross · 20-10-2016 8:10pm

KCross wrote: »

I havent figured out. yet, from reading the docs what this DUoS is(Distribution Use of System). Do you know exactly what that is and where that money comes from?
If its the ordinary bill payers it must be on our bils? Where is it? Is it a subset of the "PSO Levy"? Or is it some central government fund or what?

A bit of googling later....

Distribution Use of System tariff (DUoS).
The set of tariffs paid by suppliers to the DSO in respect of use of the distribution system for each connection point registered to them.

The DSO is ESB Networks who own the distribution network. The suppliers are Airtricity, BordGais, Energia etc

My interpretation of that is that we all have a specific tariff we pay for electricity to our suppliers (Airtricity, Energia etc). That is so many cent per kWh for day and/or night rate electricity. A % of those tariffs has been set aside to subsidise the EV charging network... so everyone with a meter has been paying to subsidise the charging network.

It has cost €33m upto Dec 2015. €25m from DUoS. €3m from EU. The rest from ESB. It costs €4m/yr in Opex costs.

n97 mini · 20-10-2016 8:20pm

KCross wrote: »

It has cost €33m upto Dec 2015. €25m from DUoS. €3m from EU. The rest from ESB. It costs €4m/yr in Opex costs.

All of which are a tiny drop in the ocean when compared to overall turnover and even profit. Last year ESB paid €201 million (i.e. profit) into the exchequer.

KCross · 20-10-2016 8:44pm

n97 mini wrote: »

All of which are a tiny drop in the ocean when compared to overall turnover and even profit. Last year ESB paid €201 million (i.e. profit) into the exchequer.

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.

Villain · 20-10-2016 10:03pm

The Government need to invest in EV's if they want to have any hope of reaching the new low target of 20k cars.

That includes the public charging points especially at this early apodtoon and short range stage.

20-10-2016 10:25pm

Good luck with that, there was nothing other than an extension of the Grant and VRT relief for electric cars in the budget, we have to wait until Budget 2018 too see what's next, and I wouldn't hold my breath !

n97 mini · 21-10-2016 1:14am

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 · 21-10-2016 9:11am

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 · 21-10-2016 10:37am

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 · 21-10-2016 5:42pm

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 · 21-10-2016 5:44pm

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 · 21-10-2016 6:39pm

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 · 21-10-2016 7:27pm

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 · 21-10-2016 9:47pm

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 · 23-10-2016 3:16pm

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

23-10-2016 3:21pm

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 · 23-10-2016 3:29pm

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 · 23-10-2016 9:16pm

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 · 23-10-2016 9:43pm

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 · 23-10-2016 9:47pm

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 · 23-10-2016 10:19pm

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 · 24-10-2016 10:02am

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.

24-10-2016 10:49am

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

BoatMad · 24-10-2016 12:30pm

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 !!

24-10-2016 3:20pm

Well, maintenance is different.

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

Dardania · 26-10-2016 9:39pm

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...