Thanks for the update. Looking forward to this series. it would be helpful to me to list the laggard states, so I can tell how good (or bad) my state is doing.
What's the news for California's RFP? Washington State is unbelievably slow at rolling things out. Indeed, the entirety of the west coast seems to be devoid of NEVI progress. It's incredibly frustrating!
California's submission deadline was late January '24. They're due to release provisional winners during the current quarter. I'm not sure why Washington and Oregon are lagging but will take a closer look. My intention is to focus more on the states that haven't yet announced awards in the next update.
This is great coverage, thank you Steve! I'm wondering if it's possible to have a USA map graphic to shade the states that have a) built stations; b) RFP in progress; c) nothing?
Absolutely, I'm aiming to focus more on the states in the slower progress categories in the next update. That will include relevant map visuals and a closer look at why they're behind others and when they plan to announce, if the RFP is underway.
Thanks for this update, Steve. It prompted me to go look at my state's plans. Still inconvenient to drive a Bolt through the mid-west, but it's getting better.
There are certainly gaps remaining, but we've come a long way in just a few years and momentum is building. Hopefully we'll see the results of all these plans on paper from 2022/'23 start to turn into shovels in the ground during the second half of the year.
Great rebuttal to the misinformation that nothing is happening with billions of dollars in Infrastructure Act. The planning process is justifiably slow but at least 20 states are poised to put lots of shovels in ground. In my state of Indiana 39 sites awarded with the bulk of awards going to BP, Tesla, Love’s and Pilot. Looking forward to more updates from you!
Thx Steve & for the callout too. I look forward to your upcoming updates in this new series. If NEVI funded stations are looked at as their own CPO, since they r paid for by it, it will be one of the biggest contemporary build. Will be great to see it unfold.
It's an interesting carve out for the many projects you're monitoring, Walter. A range of privately-funded charging operators overlapping with a publicly-funded project designed to become a de facto nationwide "network", albeit across multiple providers. Hopefully this provides a useful companion series to your weekly updates.
Steve, I've seen on the Tesla Supercharger that they have added a ton of new Magic Dock stations lately in the Northeast, and a few more on the Southeast. I wonder if this is because they use NEVI funds. Why else would they keep adding them after opening their NACS rollout?
Hey Paul. I actually just used the new Lynnfield Magic Dock site but they're V3, so don't qualify for NEVI funding. Doesn't mean that future Superchargers in MA won't make a play for NEVI awards, though. They will just have to be V4 dispensers to include card/payment reader and hit that within one mile of the AFC requirement
@@plugandplayEV Thanks, Steve. Then I can't understand why they keep adding V3 Magic Docks after already opening up the NACS access to Ford and Rivian. I guess it good news for the ones not yet eligible, but it also shows why manufacturers must have the port on one of the 2 spots (passenger's front or driver's rear) for V3's on their upcoming models, since it will be a many, many years before V4's catch up to vast amount of V3's. Especially as they also continue to be added. I thinks it's sales suicide not to have the correct port location.
I'm curious if anybody has a sense of how various state-level or regional programs are doing? NY seems to have a robust program and I know TN has been doling out state level awards. In October 2023, Washington State DOT awarded $30 million for FY 2023-25 for its own version of NEVI called Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnerships (ZEVIP) for 32 stations with a minimum of 4x150kW dispensers. Unbelievably, EVCS won the lion's share of funding. Love's won funding for two stations. Separately, Washington State Commerce Dept awarded in Feb 2024 $85 million in grants for AC and DCFC stations in disadvantaged urban/suburban areas, rural communities, and tribal areas. 271 new DCFC stations with 420 total chargers will be built throughout the state, some in incredibly remote areas. Minimum power requirement is 100kW.
Steve, can you explain how Tesla gets funding under the requirements? There set up has a 360 kW cabinet supplying for units that the capacity would be 90 kW each if there were four semi thirsty cars. They have site distribution, but it does not change that 90 kW limit. Also, I’ve heard there are also installing version three cabinets which would make no sense to me as they have no payment terminals. Have you seen a NEVI Tesla installation yet?
I've been to TOTALLY full Supercharger stations several times and have never gotten less than 200kw. Many times staying above 200kw from around 7% to over 30%.
My understanding is that a clarification was made by the Joint Office that allows Tesla Superchargers to be compliant with the hardware requirements both in terms of voltage and total power.
Yes, Tesla opened its first NEVI site in Rockland, ME a couple of weeks ago. Haven't been able to get up there yet but will do so eventually. The Joint Office of Energy & Transportation has said that they're less focused on voltage requirements, which have been the primary complaint against Superchargers (V4 posts with V3 power, as you mentioned). Rather, as long as Superchargers meet the 150kW of continuous power, they will be compliant. The two scenarios I see as problematic there are: 1) 800V charging models for which the Superchargers won't hit 150kW (like EGMP), and 2) the high-volume use case you describe where power could be limited. Worth noting that both of these could also apply to the Pilot-Flying J installs that are NEVI-funded, based on my testing at other EVgo locations with Delta Electronics kit, but so far compliance has only been required on paper specs for the 150kW requirement. As customers start to test the limits out in the wild, that's when I expect we'll see more serious discussion around compliance.
@@plugandplayEV The 800v architecture getting less than 150kw on 400v chargers issue is on the EV manufacturers side. For example, on the first edition of the Taycan, Porsche knew about the issue and sold an upgrade for a proper on-board 400v DC charger. Without that upgrade, they only get around 50kw. Unfortunately for the E-GMP platform, Hyundai/Kia went with the rear motor inverter (basically regening) for their 400v charging. A rare poor decision on their part which unfairly hurts current owners. They are addressing that with their upcoming 2025 IMA platform so that will no longer be an issue for them. Other 800v EV's split the pack in two when charging on 400v. No 800v EV should have an issue from now on as the issue has been well highlighted and they are all taking the proper action. They should have done it from the start.
The only place it becomes an issue is with Superchargers, which is why Tesla is a last resort for EGMP owners until V4 Superchargers are truly V4, not just rebadged V3. I really don't care personally, as I get 20-25 minute charging at every public charging option other than a Supercharger and don't have a great need to use them. From the federal perspective, however, it seems odd that one NEVI site will deliver full power to any EV, then another will underperform for a sub-segment of owners.
Reminds me of the cell phone roll-outs way back. Been watching the build-out of an EVgo site at a Flying J truck stop in central Florida. Seems to be taking for ever.
I assume most of the upcoming chargers are CCS. I hope the majority of upcoming chargers are NACS so that when many vehicle manufacturers switch to NACS in 2025, the new chargers can natively support those. I think it's a bad idea that only Tesla provides NACS ports in the coming year or two.
It will be relatively easy to retrofit cables from CCS1 to J3400 connectors, or at least add a mix of the two going forward. Adapters will bridge the gap in the interim but we can expect a long transition if the example of CHAdeMO is anything to go by. That connector type is only just starting to transition out, despite Nissan effectively moving on from the standard in North America four years ago.
Yes, easy. But these cables are very expensive, especially when you're retrofitting thousands. Additionally, it will take a lot of time, which I feel should not be wasted. Efficiency is very important, and it makes sense to pivot to NACS cables now. #JustSaying
Same here! Love all the action around the Northeast, especially. Connecticut held its RFP phase from Jan. 29th to March 13th, 2024, so they should be sifting through applicants at this point. I'd expect to see awards by June at the latest, barring any major hitches in their selection process.
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
Here's Walter/tNAC's latest DCFC update: ruclips.net/video/IxQAkLapPhI/видео.html
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to this series. it would be helpful to me to list the laggard states, so I can tell how good (or bad) my state is doing.
Thanks Tom! That's next on my list so I might do a mid-April, v1.5 update to focus specifically on the slower states.
Thanks, Steve! Great coverage.
What's the news for California's RFP? Washington State is unbelievably slow at rolling things out. Indeed, the entirety of the west coast seems to be devoid of NEVI progress. It's incredibly frustrating!
California's submission deadline was late January '24. They're due to release provisional winners during the current quarter.
I'm not sure why Washington and Oregon are lagging but will take a closer look. My intention is to focus more on the states that haven't yet announced awards in the next update.
This is great coverage, thank you Steve! I'm wondering if it's possible to have a USA map graphic to shade the states that have a) built stations; b) RFP in progress; c) nothing?
Absolutely, I'm aiming to focus more on the states in the slower progress categories in the next update. That will include relevant map visuals and a closer look at why they're behind others and when they plan to announce, if the RFP is underway.
@@plugandplayEV cool beans, much appreciated!
Thanks for this update, Steve. It prompted me to go look at my state's plans. Still inconvenient to drive a Bolt through the mid-west, but it's getting better.
There are certainly gaps remaining, but we've come a long way in just a few years and momentum is building. Hopefully we'll see the results of all these plans on paper from 2022/'23 start to turn into shovels in the ground during the second half of the year.
Great video. Wisconsin rfp submissions were due April 1. Awards should be announced around late may or early June!
Excited to see Wisconsin and Minnesota after driving through them both last summer. Thanks for the heads up! ⚡🛣️
Great rebuttal to the misinformation that nothing is happening with billions of dollars in Infrastructure Act. The planning process is justifiably slow but at least 20 states are poised to put lots of shovels in ground. In my state of Indiana 39 sites awarded with the bulk of awards going to BP, Tesla, Love’s and Pilot. Looking forward to more updates from you!
Great to see momentum gathering and I'm happy to be the bearer of (generally) good news. Thanks for the support!
justifiably slow ? Permitting seems to be the main problem nowadays for everything
Thank you. I plan to follow your updates.
Thanks, looking forward to keeping track of progress.
Thx Steve & for the callout too. I look forward to your upcoming updates in this new series. If NEVI funded stations are looked at as their own CPO, since they r paid for by it, it will be one of the biggest contemporary build. Will be great to see it unfold.
It's an interesting carve out for the many projects you're monitoring, Walter. A range of privately-funded charging operators overlapping with a publicly-funded project designed to become a de facto nationwide "network", albeit across multiple providers. Hopefully this provides a useful companion series to your weekly updates.
Steve, I've seen on the Tesla Supercharger that they have added a ton of new Magic Dock stations lately in the Northeast, and a few more on the Southeast. I wonder if this is because they use NEVI funds. Why else would they keep adding them after opening their NACS rollout?
Hey Paul. I actually just used the new Lynnfield Magic Dock site but they're V3, so don't qualify for NEVI funding. Doesn't mean that future Superchargers in MA won't make a play for NEVI awards, though. They will just have to be V4 dispensers to include card/payment reader and hit that within one mile of the AFC requirement
@@plugandplayEV Thanks, Steve. Then I can't understand why they keep adding V3 Magic Docks after already opening up the NACS access to Ford and Rivian.
I guess it good news for the ones not yet eligible, but it also shows why manufacturers must have the port on one of the 2 spots (passenger's front or driver's rear) for V3's on their upcoming models, since it will be a many, many years before V4's catch up to vast amount of V3's. Especially as they also continue to be added. I thinks it's sales suicide not to have the correct port location.
I'm curious if anybody has a sense of how various state-level or regional programs are doing? NY seems to have a robust program and I know TN has been doling out state level awards.
In October 2023, Washington State DOT awarded $30 million for FY 2023-25 for its own version of NEVI called Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Partnerships (ZEVIP) for 32 stations with a minimum of 4x150kW dispensers. Unbelievably, EVCS won the lion's share of funding. Love's won funding for two stations.
Separately, Washington State Commerce Dept awarded in Feb 2024 $85 million in grants for AC and DCFC stations in disadvantaged urban/suburban areas, rural communities, and tribal areas. 271 new DCFC stations with 420 total chargers will be built throughout the state, some in incredibly remote areas. Minimum power requirement is 100kW.
Steve, can you explain how Tesla gets funding under the requirements?
There set up has a 360 kW cabinet supplying for units that the capacity would be 90 kW each if there were four semi thirsty cars. They have site distribution, but it does not change that 90 kW limit.
Also, I’ve heard there are also installing version three cabinets which would make no sense to me as they have no payment terminals. Have you seen a NEVI Tesla installation yet?
I've been to TOTALLY full Supercharger stations several times and have never gotten less than 200kw. Many times staying above 200kw from around 7% to over 30%.
My understanding is that a clarification was made by the Joint Office that allows Tesla Superchargers to be compliant with the hardware requirements both in terms of voltage and total power.
Yes, Tesla opened its first NEVI site in Rockland, ME a couple of weeks ago. Haven't been able to get up there yet but will do so eventually.
The Joint Office of Energy & Transportation has said that they're less focused on voltage requirements, which have been the primary complaint against Superchargers (V4 posts with V3 power, as you mentioned). Rather, as long as Superchargers meet the 150kW of continuous power, they will be compliant. The two scenarios I see as problematic there are: 1) 800V charging models for which the Superchargers won't hit 150kW (like EGMP), and 2) the high-volume use case you describe where power could be limited.
Worth noting that both of these could also apply to the Pilot-Flying J installs that are NEVI-funded, based on my testing at other EVgo locations with Delta Electronics kit, but so far compliance has only been required on paper specs for the 150kW requirement. As customers start to test the limits out in the wild, that's when I expect we'll see more serious discussion around compliance.
@@plugandplayEV The 800v architecture getting less than 150kw on 400v chargers issue is on the EV manufacturers side. For example, on the first edition of the Taycan, Porsche knew about the issue and sold an upgrade for a proper on-board 400v DC charger. Without that upgrade, they only get around 50kw.
Unfortunately for the E-GMP platform, Hyundai/Kia went with the rear motor inverter (basically regening) for their 400v charging. A rare poor decision on their part which unfairly hurts current owners. They are addressing that with their upcoming 2025 IMA platform so that will no longer be an issue for them. Other 800v EV's split the pack in two when charging on 400v.
No 800v EV should have an issue from now on as the issue has been well highlighted and they are all taking the proper action. They should have done it from the start.
The only place it becomes an issue is with Superchargers, which is why Tesla is a last resort for EGMP owners until V4 Superchargers are truly V4, not just rebadged V3. I really don't care personally, as I get 20-25 minute charging at every public charging option other than a Supercharger and don't have a great need to use them. From the federal perspective, however, it seems odd that one NEVI site will deliver full power to any EV, then another will underperform for a sub-segment of owners.
Reminds me of the cell phone roll-outs way back. Been watching the build-out of an EVgo site at a Flying J truck stop in central Florida. Seems to be taking for ever.
I assume most of the upcoming chargers are CCS. I hope the majority of upcoming chargers are NACS so that when many vehicle manufacturers switch to NACS in 2025, the new chargers can natively support those. I think it's a bad idea that only Tesla provides NACS ports in the coming year or two.
It will be relatively easy to retrofit cables from CCS1 to J3400 connectors, or at least add a mix of the two going forward. Adapters will bridge the gap in the interim but we can expect a long transition if the example of CHAdeMO is anything to go by. That connector type is only just starting to transition out, despite Nissan effectively moving on from the standard in North America four years ago.
Yes, easy. But these cables are very expensive, especially when you're retrofitting thousands. Additionally, it will take a lot of time, which I feel should not be wasted. Efficiency is very important, and it makes sense to pivot to NACS cables now.
#JustSaying
It's finally starting to happen!!! excellent job as always sir 🫡... can't wait for Connecticut to get moving and get that report from you 💪
Same here! Love all the action around the Northeast, especially. Connecticut held its RFP phase from Jan. 29th to March 13th, 2024, so they should be sifting through applicants at this point. I'd expect to see awards by June at the latest, barring any major hitches in their selection process.