The worst thing about taking a long trip in an EV is getting held up when you need a charge. It sucks to roll up to a charger only to find someone else is already using it. Electrify America reckons it has found a way to fix this issue, but it could prove highly unpopular with customers.
The idea is simple. Electrify America will enforce a State of Charge limit of 85% at certain stations as part of a new pilot program. At these locations, customers will not be able to fully charge their EV to 100%. Instead, charging will halt at 85%,. The owner will then be given ten minutes grace to move their vehicle before they start racking up idle fees.
The pilot is being branded as a congestion reduction measure, targeted at the network’s busiest stations. All ten stations in the pilot are located in California, though the measure could easily be rolled out further in time.
On a basic level, the idea does make some sense. EV batteries typically charge the fastest in the 10% to 80% range. Indeed, this is why many automakers rate their vehicles fast charging performance on this metric. In this region, charging happens under a constant current (CC) regime until the individual cell voltage reaches the nominal level, usually around 4.2 volts each.
Beyond 80%, the charging process continues much more slowly under a constant voltage (CV) regime. The charging voltage is held at 4.2 volts per cell, while the current applied decreases gradually until the battery is completely filled. Charging speed is dependent on current, so that last 20% takes much longer as the current continually decreases.
Electrify America’s move isn’t unprecedented. Indeed, many EV owners have often considered charging to 80% as good manners when using crowded charge stations. Regardless, it’s already seen some pushback from aggrieved customers. Much of the criticism centers around the poor reliability of EA’s charger network. Many customers allege that the huge number of broken chargers is a bigger cause of congestion than customers choosing to charge to 100%.
You know what would really help congestion? Fixing the chargers. pic.twitter.com/IlLidq0Tjx
— Adam (@adamUCF) July 8, 2024
All goes down the drain when only 2 of the 4 stalls are up and running. You should make it a minimum standard to have 6 stalls at every location.
— Mister Suave (@MisterSuave69) July 8, 2024
For some customers, it won’t be a big deal. However, in some situations, not being able to charge to 100% can be really annoying. If you need every last drop of range to reach your next charging stop, getting cut off early could mess up your whole deal. This is a bigger deal in rural areas where congestion is less likely, of course, but it bears consideration when instituting charge limits that could surprise unwary travellers.
This also, as Matt has pointed out before, might have implications for Uber/Lyft drivers. While there’s no explicit statement saying this is pointed at them, people leasing an EV with no intention to buy it (whether a livery driver or otherwise) are probably not as concerned about battery life. [Ed note: It’s true, when I see an Uber/Lyft license plate at an EA charger I just assume they’re going to 100% – MH]
For now, the program remains a pilot, with Electrify America noting it may roll out the measure to more chargers in future. It could help free up chargers in the short term, particularly in busy periods like national holidays. At the same time, artificial limits on charging are unlikely to make customers happier. They’d probably just prefer the provision of more working chargers instead.
Image credits: Electrify America, Ineltro datasheet
“EV batteries typically charge the fastest in the 10% to 80% range.”
It looks to me like that means that a BEV with a 300 mile range could be said to have a practical range of 210 miles unless you are charging at home or at work or are willing to wait a long time at a public charger. Is this a reasonable conclusion?
At age 78, I probably have a reasonably short driving future ahead of me. I question whether or not charging infrastructure and speed will be ready for prime time in my lifetime, i.e., comparable to the time and effort required to refill an ICE vehicle’s fuel tank today.
I think this is fine in urban/level 3 charger dense areas. EA users are coming from all across the EV adopter spectrum, and the “fill ‘er up” mindset is hard to get rid of.
Last week I drove from South Carolina to the Jersey Shore for a family gathering. The only supercharger I went to 100% on was at a lunch stop (my daughter loves steak) where only 5 of the 12 chargers were used. I did have to wait once on the return journey as there is only 1 supercharger with 4 stalls in all of Delmarva. I was set to only charge to 60% and move along, but all the chargers freed up while I was charging and so I kept going to 90% since there was an open stall next to me. Being able to watch on the camera from the app is a huge help for this, as is the Tesla app showing how many cars are enroute to a charger.
I love long drives (10hr+), but can’t imagine trying any EV for that unless it can use the Supercharger network, and even that isn’t a carefree lock.
LOL.
Huh…this sounds like a decision made by a committee. Why not just charge x3 more for any charging after 85%?
Well, I’m gonna need a software update as my Ioniq 5 only lets me set my charge limits every 10%!
If the charger shuts off at 85%, it doesn’t matter if your car works in 10% increments.
I agree that there are better ways to do something like this – there should be an override of some sort, and incentives to stop at 80 or 85.
That said, charging to 100% is excruciating and is totally a problem. I get that sometimes it has to be done, but in my experience it’s typically uber drivers or people using free charging to fill up to 100.
Overall it’s just one of many problems:
-extremely slow charging past 80%
-broken chargers
-slow charging ex’s like bolt’s
-not enough chargers
Seems like a better idea would to simply start idle charges immediately upon reaching 100%, and have those idle charges be relatively expensive.
Combine this with a consumption charge (per kWh) as well as a reasonable time charge (per minute). So, while you car is really zipping along (20%-80%) you are paying a high kWh but low time charge and zero idle charge. As it goes from 80% to 100% you are paying a relatively small consumption charge and more time charge. Then post 100% you’d be paying a hefty idle charge.
So, something like a fixed $0.25 per kWh, plus $0.10 (no idea if that’s reasonable) per minute of occupancy during charge. Once 100% something like $1.00 per minute for idle occupancy.
At least in my area, idling at DCFC is a non-issue. Almost everyone is just sitting there in their cars waiting to leave at the first moment possible. A good solution, rather than this hard cap would be to have the time fee you suggested, but only after the first 30 minutes of charging. So if you really need the extra juice you can get it, but it discourages most people from doing it most of the time.
Welp, for all those people that sunk huge coin into EV mandates…this has got to sting a bit.
Sabotaging one of the largest objections to ownership is really daft. EA is responding to all the salient points of “Yeah, but public charging is too big of a pain. For whatever the rewards of going electric you claim are beneficial, please convince me that it isn’t a pain…”, by EA telling all those with concerns, “Nah. We think actively making it worse is a better idea.”
The people who support and implemented EV mandates fly and/or are driven everywhere they go. The objections of normal people are non-sensical to them.
Or I think most normal people realize that using a public EV charger is (ideally) rarely used in comparison to at-home charging. Plus, actual EV mandates are still a while away. You can still buy plenty of ICE vehicles.
Right, but for local driving the 85% limit isn’t really important anyways. Home or public charging are both OK.
The edge case is where it matters (road trip) and that experience is now getting worse. The mandates aren’t here yet but every day they get closer and EVs still have short range and poor charging infrastructure.
If you are suggesting the experience is getting worse, I think you need to look big picture. Most brands are shifting over to NACS and thus the SuperCharging network will soon become available. That alone (being an option for new NACS users, plus offloading a bunch of demand from Electrify America) has to count for something. Does that do more than make up for this 85% endueced negative? I’m not sure. But I don’t think this current thing will be more than a blip in time.
I hope you’re right.
Yes but they are doing this at in city chargers where there are a high density of locations. So many of those using it are going to be those who don’t have access to charge at home and relatively few will be those on a road trip. Even if you are on a road trip charging past 80% is something that you will only want to do when it is necessary to reach the next charger with a little buffer.
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good outrage session.
Like any discussion on EVs, this has a bunch of people who won’t own them for cultural reasons yelling about how they don’t work while a bunch of us that do own them talk about real life.
The most vocal against EVs are people that haven’t even used them.
I don’t have one, but I recognize that if I were to swap my current car out for one it would be somewhat seamless. I also recognize that I’m a bit privileged because I have a home with a garage and I’m capable of installing my own L2 charger at home. But even then, the vast majority of my charging wouldn’t be on public chargers. I say this as someone that typically puts ~18,000 miles annually on their car.
I won’t pretend they’re ideal for every use case scenario. But many (most?) households have two cars and one of them being an EV makes a lot of sense. I have a Bolt and it has the DCFC option but guess what – it sucks as a road trip car so I take the other car. I visited a DCFC station once so far – to make sure the function worked on the used car I just bought. Haven’t used it since.
According to Forbes, roughly 59% of households had two or more cars as of 2022.
So, many households? Sure. Most households? No.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
59% is definitely “most”.
I was thinking the same thing.
It’s barely more than half. lol.
Also, go ahead and consider the amount of families that are either on public assistance (roughly 21 million) and those that live in trailer parks (roughly 9.5 million) and there you have about 10% of the adult population in the US.
Not exactly the demographics that owning an EV “makes sense” for.
Yes if we had decent public transit in this country, those people wouldn’t have to buy a car at all.
Why do you insist on switching topics?
We’re discussing transportation policy, right?
I have been discussing the hyper-specific topic of private EV ownership and charging infrastructure. As were you at some point.
For some reason, you want to keep shoehorning trains and buses and whatever else is included in public transportation, as part of it.
You are trying to put pineapple on a pizza, dude.
You brought up the “but what about poor people” part. I said there’s a better way to meet their needs. Seems like a normal conversation to me.
What? Those are exactly the demographics that owning an EV makes sense for. Those are the people that don’t take long trips – they can’t afford vacations. And they definitely still have cars.
Look at Asia and Europe – low range city cars that cost way less are absolutely an option. And, as PIP said, we can also ameliorate this issue with better public transport. This conversation isn’t happening in a vacuum.
Ha! That 10% are supposed to have $50k burning a hole in their pockets?
Catch up to 2024 dude, lightly used EVs are cheap.
Your version of cheap isn’t cheap to those on housing vouchers.
No car is, that’s my point.
Cheap EVs are not $50k, new EVs are. That demo does not buy new cars, they buy used cars.
The average used EV is now less expensive than an ICE car, and that price continues to drop as EVs are more commoditized. You may recall this happening with your smart phone.
At best, you are comparing a pineapple to a pizza. At worst, you’re being disingenuous just to win a point on an internet comment board.
Or perhaps they are good faith objections glossed over by those who assume what works for them works for everyone?
I’ve never wavered in my requirements for what an EV be capable of before buying one, and I don’t ask for any more of them than I ask of my gas cars or trucks.
There are absolutely good reasons why somebody wouldn’t transition to an EV today. Those aren’t most of the reasons we hear in these conversations.
Anyways, the point of EVs is that they are a fairly minor inconvenience for most people that can substantially reduce CO2 emissions, which are starting to cause enormous inconvenience for billions of people.
I’m curious which of the reasons mentioned in this conversation (low range, long recharging time, unreliable and spotty chargers, now with the added bonus of limiting you charging) or others I’ve mentioned before (inability to tow, range loss in cold weather, high upfront cost) don’t meet your approval as reasonable objections to a policy that will as written, prevent people from buying any alternative besides a limited number of PHEVs in a decade’s time.
Wait, what? You’re comparing 2024 tech and infrastructure to an imagined 2034 version of both, and your point is… wait, what?
They are reasonable concerns. How many feet of sea level rise are they worth?
I’m sorry, I will not be shamed into thinking the relatively tiny amount of emissions from my vehicles (or for that matter every light vehicle in the US) makes a drop of difference while China builds new coal plants.
US emissions are 13% of the world’s total.
Transportation as a whole is 28% of the US total.
Light vehicles (ie not semis or heavy trucks) are 57% of that.
US light vehicle total: 2% of world emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation
Even switching every single one of those to electrics tomorrow would save perhaps 1% of CO2, because the electricity is not all from clean sources.
We are talking about upending the transportation sector over a pittance. There are approximately zero feet of sea level rise attributable to switching our fleet to EVs. There are better targets that compromise people’s lives far less.
Switching to EVs is definitely not sufficient to reduce global warming, but it is necessary. And it’s only logical for richer countries to go first and to set targets first.
To be fair:
1) Maybe your requirements aren’t reflective of the majority of American buyers
2) Having the same requirements for electric and ICE probably isn’t good. I mean, when we switched from candles to (eventually) electric lightbulbs, some people probably had the same requirements. At the time, someone was probably out there bemoaning that you couldn’t carry a lightbulb in your pocket and turn it on with a match when necessary. Same thing with the switch from horses to cars; someone was upset than a Model T couldn’t drive through a craig as severe as a horse could and didn’t run off of hay and water. The idea that because you can do X with a gas car and thus you should be able to do exactly X with an electric one is largely a farce and not reflected in the vast majority of buyers actual use cases.
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t valid reasons why you should want to drive 400 miles on a charge and be able to refill in under 5 minutes like you can currently do in a gas car, but that’s certainly not the majority of situations for needing to be able to do that.
The difference of course was that horses and candles were not banned. If EVs are a better solution, there should be no need to ban their alternatives.
But ICEs aren’t banned right now. You are complaining about the current status and trying to apply that to a future time.
Plus, time will tell if the bans actual stand at their proposed dates.
I don’t think they said that at all. I see no glossing over anything, but I do see nuance. Some of it has already been explained in other answers to this comment. You’re seeing something that isn’t there and then assuming.
To be clear, since we seem to be doing a lot of assuming here – did I just read that you expect a paradigm shift in transportation technology to at least equal the utility of the current technology in all facets? Do you do that with all technology? Because that’s a great recipe for constant disappointment considering, ya know, that non-linear progress exists and will continue.
Compromises will be made; that’s how it works. Expecting perfection out of an imperfect system is madness. So is sticking your head in the sand. The world will not come to you, no matter how hard you type. And if you’re one of those, “member when the world was so much better in the past?” people then I’m not sure any of this is worth debating.
I expect when a working solution is banned by the government that its replacement is at least equal in all respects.
Most technology is allowed to develop without the heavy hand of bans. My objections to EVs would shrivel in an instant if I wasn’t going to be forced to buy one before they were ready.
Great, because you won’t be.
Well the trend the last decade has not been great. Same chemistry, same recharge times, minimal increases in range mostly driven by large battery packs. Cost down, yes, but a 2012 Model S had longer range than many new EVs today.
I’m pleased you’re so optimistic the next decade will be better because I haven’t seen the evidence.
“Same chemistry, same recharge times, minimal increases in range mostly driven by large battery packs. Cost down, yes, but a 2012 Model S had longer range than many new EVs today.”
None of this is true except arguably the chemistry part. Recharge times have gotten way better, and there are many cost-effective options with over 250 miles of range.
The median range for a new EV is still something like 270 miles. There are very few over 320 or so, and most of those are very expensive. Gradual improvement, but nothing like the exponential promises, and nothing hinting at the idea that things will be greatly better 10 years from now.
Wow, you have really high expectations for government and society as a whole. That’s admirable, but personally I find it a bit unrealistic and it would lead me to being constantly disappointed in pretty much everything. Sometimes you just need to push the bird out of the nest, ya know?
It looks like you’ve really decided that ‘all this’ won’t be perfectly ready when these laws come in to effect. And you’re probably right – it will suck in some ways and be quite awesome in others. But we will figure it out one way or another, and progress will be made. That’s quite literally the story of human history.
My expectations are limited to the idea that the government shouldn’t generally be in the business of banning things.
If they do, it should be for both good reason, and with ready alternatives available that don’t compromise the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the citizenry.
Yeah but that that’s exactly what the various governments are trying to do here. It’s okay to adjust a little so others can have some of that happiness you’re talking about. You really want all new laws to have zero negative effect on you, no matter what? That’s your standard? I hope you live in Montana.
I think we disagree on the value of human life at large, or at least the value of people you don’t know’s lives, and the role of government in maintaining that value. Best of luck with all of that, but to me that’s not a decent way to think about people.
Ah, yeah, the good ol’ out-of-touch politician trope…
When was the last time you think any of them took a road trip?
Eh, if we go by that metric, then no high-level politicians would be allowed to make policy because virtually no high-level politicians live *regular* lives like the rest of us. We elect them with the expectation that they make policy based on what the people want and what benefits society at large. Sure, it’s not always perfect but it’s what we have. And the majority of the problems with EVs & EV infrastructure actually stems from corporate incompetence (such as multiple broken chargers at multiple charging stations) and corporate malfeasance (such as virtually anything Elon Musk, the face of Tesla, does.)
Did you just cite Tesla as an example of corporate malfeasance, and by extension of thought, the “problem” with EV adoption?
Umm…ok.
I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life before taking away something that 99% of Americans have relied on for a century or more.
Would the majority of citizens in those states with EV mandates have voted for a referendum banning ICE vehicles? I suppose there’s no way to say for sure, but opinion polling generally doesn’t support the idea.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/poll-n-j-voters-dont-approve-of-electric-car-mandate/
https://highlandcountypress.com/index.php/news/poll-show-7-states-oppose-electric-vehicle-mandates#:~:text=The%20national%20polling%20shows%2060,Republicans%2C%20it%20is%2087%25.
https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/poll-consumers-aren-t-buying-government-mandates-for-electric-vehicles
The idea that Elon Musk’s “malfeasance”, whatever that means, is responsible for EVs that have 200-300 mile ranges and hour long recharge times is a bit silly. In fact, his company puts forth probably the best efforts in that regard (but still woefully insufficient).
“I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life”
That’s not really possible these days due to all the idiots making threats against them, attempted assaults and actual assaults.
Here’s an example local to me:
https://www.pelhamtoday.ca/local-news/mp-not-seeking-re-election-due-to-abuse-threats-8740007#google_vignette
And I’m pretty sure it’s at least as bad or worse throughout the USA.
So because of abusive idiots in the general public, politicians these days have to have a security detail. And that alone means they in no way can live “like us normal folk”.
If some of us “normal folk” weren’t abusive, disrespectful jackasses, then it would be possible.
But that’s not reality.
As for people who “don’t approve” of the electric car mandate, that is just a poll that reveals the number of people who are uninformed idiots. They are mostly the people who haven’t done any real research as to why the EV mandates exist. And I say mostly because there are also some who are just selfish assholes who don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.
Ah yes, the “anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” strategy.
Brilliantly conceived to win hearts and minds.
There couldn’t possibly be any objections to the mandates on rational grounds, only selfishness or ignorance.
The government doing things over the objections of the citizenship is not enlightened governance just because you happen to agree in this particular case. If the other party was making unpopular laws (as they tend to do sometimes), you’d be first in line screaming about how unfair it was.
It’s at this exact point in the conversation when rationality has moved on to drier ground.
“Ah yes, the “anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” strategy.”
If you don’t understand by this point WHY we have the BEV mandates, then yes, you are an idiot.
It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not.
You can disagree with me all you want… but I’m gonna call it as I see it.
And if you have an issue, then I suggest you grab a tissue.
LMAO. I usually read this kind of reply from MAGA folks, but it’s always nice to see a diversity of viewpoints represented with grade-school quality arguments.
You know what is also a MAGA type of thing? Saying idiotic things that are flat out lies and bullshit like “I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life before taking away something that 99% of Americans have relied on for a century or more.”
I already covered WHY politicians can’t live a “normal life”
And the other half of what you said about “taking away something” is also bullshit.
Nobody is taking away existing ICE vehicles. Nobody is taking away the ability to fuel them up or use them.
But when it comes to new vehicle sales, those new vehicles have to meet new standards.
Hell let’s take your idiotic statement a step further… Americans also relied on lead for a variety of things… like an additive in paint, an additive in fuel and a bunch of other things. Shall we bring lead back just because “Americans have relied on it for a century or more”?
And maybe we should do the same thing for Asbestos, eh?
Lead paint and asbestos were clear and immediate threats to life and health and still were not banned until suitable alternatives were widely available.
CO2 from cars is a drop in the bucket of a global problem that EVs don’t come close to solving, and yet you can’t wait to put everyone into one.
It doesn’t affect your life negatively to force changes on mine, so you’re all for it. Again, I strongly suspect you would feel differently if things went the other way.
True. Which is why it’s baffling to me that “normal” people advocate so hard for something that isn’t even a net benefit.
I like EVs. They are neat. They aren’t the answer. All the people voluntarily flogging their lives by adding complexity to it is fine, and fun.
However…,
Until something changes in a major way, EVs just won’t be on the radar for the majority of Americans. (I understand Europe/China etc.). It’s all such a waste of money.
Man am I sick of this reverse American exceptionalism that says we’re too broken to have nice things like clean air, public transit, and no need for kids to have bulletproof backpacks.
Huh?
Trinity on a Triscut. No one said anything about exceptionalism, or fucking school shootings.
EVs just aren’t a logical solution for the majority. They aren’t, and won’t be until they are better. Not “almost” as convenient/affordable/logical, but better. I’ll say it again. Better. They don’t qualify as better, because they aren’t yet.
Please try to stay on topic.
“ Which is why it’s baffling to me that “normal” people advocate so hard for something that isn’t even a net benefit.”
That’s a lie. The truth is there is a net benefit in the long run of much lower operating costs as well as environmental benefits.
“I like EVs. They are neat. They aren’t the answer.”
EVs not being the answer is also a lie
They are the best answer we have available to us right now.
“All the people voluntarily flogging their lives by adding complexity to it is fine, and fun.”
BEVs adding complexity is also a lie.
In reality, provided you can charge where you park every day, they actually make life much more simple. No need to find gas stations. No need to watch gas prices. No more oil changes. No more issues like carbon buildup, check engine lights related to emissions, no more tune ups, no more timing belt changes, no more vapor canisters and a bunch of other things you have to deal with on ICE vehicles that don’t exist on a BEV.
“It’s all such a waste of money.”
That’s also a lie.
It’s almost as if it Electrify America was created not because Volkswagen wanted to, but as part of a legal settlement due to VW cheating on emissions.
And that is the root of the problem…
Of course, this is well known by now.
The issue lies with those that decided that forcing VW to develop EA as the punishment was the best possible remedy. Looking at the scenario from a step away, that will always be considered stupid.
The urban part of this makes sense. Lots of chargers around and charging past 80% slows down a lot.
Then again I don’t drive rideshare so I’m not sure what strategy is best for those who do. It seems like it would really bite to be stuck charging for 20 minutes at a busy time, however.
Why not offer a discount as incentive to those who charge to 80 percent or under instead of penalizing those who want or need 100 percent? And until Electrify can improve their charging station in service rate, they’ve got no business rationing customers.
This is a really good idea! I’m generally in favor of incentivizing the wanted behavior instead of punishing the unwanted.
It’s just semantics. “Hey, there’s a surcharge to go from 80% – 100%” vs. “Hey, there’s a discount if you stop at 80%” is just sentence structure.
There’s a fine line between positive and negative reinforcement.
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t implement this only during congested times. If all chargers are occupied, then yes kick in the limit. If a percentage of them are available, then let it ride.
I could see that being an issue if someone arrives to an empty station, plugs in thinking they have an hour, leaves the area, and the other chargers fill 5 min later. You have to know the terms when you plug in.
Can’t the terms be “If no congestion you’ll keep charging to 100%, but if it gets busy you’ll get booted early”? That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, so long as that is readily made clear at the start. It’s really not all that different than pulling up at a gas station afterall; it’s just way easier to consistently enforce. Have your car hogging a Buc-ees pump for an hour on a random Monday night while you’re in the bathroom burning porcelain and they aren’t gonna care cause there are 40 other open pumps, but try the same thing a day or two before Thanksgiving when all 80 pumps are full with other cars waiting and they’ll tow your car.
I think if charging took 5 minutes like filling a gas pump, that would be one thing, but imagine if you plugged in (again thinking you had an hour before you were finished charging), sat down to dinner at a restaurant down the block, and before your food even arrived, the charger started messaging you and hitting you with idle fees. No one is parking at a Bucees pump while they eat dinner.
I suppose you could say buyer beware, but the restaurants and businesses around the chargers might not appreciate it too much.
I’m sure the conspiracy nuts will love this.
“SEE!?!?! THE GUBMINT IS GONNA PREVENT YOU FROM LEAVING THE URBAN CORE!!! ITS ALL A METHOD OF CONTROL”
Just have the Soup Nazi pop up on the video screen when it hits 85%.
No juice for you!
I think they would be smart to also put their own metric that 85% of their own infrastructure will be operational as well. Give something for people to see as the benefit they will see
Perfect response. I wonder how far off they are…
As someone who’s rented an EV and literally needed every last electron to make it to my next stop (the exact situation mentioned in the article) and charged at an initially crowded station to do so, this really irks me. I’d prefer some voluntary nags — for example, default to stopping at 85% but allow overrides, and give reminders about the busyness of the station and timing, courtesy, etc. to encourage compliance. Shoot, even charging extra fees for going over us fine, but make it manageable given the current density of chargers.
Is the issue that the interfaces aren’t capable of such measures because there’s no standardization across OEMs? Because arbitrarily and nonuniformly limiting your customers’ access seems like a bad idea.
In a world where people go to extraordinary effort to block someone from merging into their lane, refuse to put shopping carts into the corral, and don’t refill the office coffee pot because there are still a few burnt drops left… I don’t see that plan being very effective.
There’s a special place in hell for people that don’t refill the office coffee pot.
I think that with the way people behave today, it’s time to begin applying some Monty Python punishments. Say dropping a 80 ton weight on the offender, or blasting them with an old school cannon.
Maybe launch ICE vehicles that block chargers using a trebuche with a comical “BOING” sound…
That’s one for the quiver, and I counter your offer with a set of giant AI driver flippers and bumpers on the roads to reeducate certain types of drivers.
I like the idea of pinball machine style slingshots (those triangular things above the flippers) that will knock left lane hogs into the right lane.
Even better into a disqualified lane for ticket collection.
You seem to be confusing Monty Python with Wile E. Coyote. Monty Python would be assaulting them with a halibut.
I all in for equal opportunity for bad drivers.
This is what dealership Level 2 charging is for. It is just as fast as using L3 to go from 85-100 and much more considerate.
And as a side note to needing every last electron – why do so many EVs have light-up logos, light-show head/tailights, and controls that require a screen or touch-sensitive buttons (needs constant power) compared to a physical toggle (doesn’t need constant power)? Maybe these things mean nothing to the range, I don’t know, but it just seems like with all the area tricks and special tires to extend range, aren’t these things easy ways to save electricity?
All the light-up nonsense is always my cue that a car was designed by committee.
– Marketing demands a showy light signature on the outside.
– Accounting demands that the cost of switches be eliminated to pay for the showy light signature.
– Engineering sighs deeply, then makes it happen.
“We engineered the features you like out of the car, to pay for all the shit you don’t” is pretty much the VW ID4’s slogan.
oof a rental return:
“You must return this with a full charge or $$$$”
vs.
“We’ll only charge you to 85%”
I’m pretty torn about this. The reality of EV charging makes someone charging from 85-100% almost the equivalent of being stuck waiting for someone at a busy gas station playing clicky-click with the shutoff, for OVER AN HOUR…
Given that it is highly unlikely to be implemented in rural areas (where EV are less common, and max range is more critical) it probably isn’t a bad idea. There should however be some accommodation for overrides where max range is a need instead of a want.
There have been some really good ideas in the comments on how to implement this. I like the mentions of having it be charger occupancy based or some increased cost for the last 15% of charge.