ESB public charging plans

Villain

Villain wrote: »

The directive states they must allow ad-hoc access without a contract but it doesn't come into force until November next year.

If that's correct then they're screwed ?

What about the regulator ?

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

If that's correct then they're screwed ?

What about the regulator ?

"All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned"

Villain

Villain wrote: »

"All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned"

Ah you see the per monthly charge isn't a contract, the clever gits have that sorted ! you can opt out at any time, and sign up for a month at a time.

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah you see the per monthly charge isn't a contract, the clever gits have that sorted ! you can opt out at any time, and sign up for a month at a time.

I think you missed the ad-hoc part there.

heliguyheliguy

pwurple wrote: »

The ecars division already exists. Gavin or Gareth, or Gary or whoever is the head of it. I've registered companies, the cost is minimal. 500 euro fee.

Besides... There is the EU directive to comply with. How would they manage it otherwise?


Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014
Article 4 Section 9 - All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.
10. Member States shall ensure that prices charged by the operators of recharging points accessible to the public are reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.


Per minute billing is not clearly comparable or transparent or non-discrimatory. It has to be kWh.

Excellent find this changes everything! the esb are breaking every rule in the directive, now all we need is a regulator that will enforce it.

Hector Mildew

pwurple wrote: »

Per minute billing would be both discriminatory and non-transparent. Different cars will charge at different rates (discriminatory), and cars will charge at different rates at various battery temps, state of charge etc (non-transparent).

They can increase the monthly charge away, but who will pay an exorbitant charge when there is another option.

One of the advertised benefits of the monthly fee is access to live charger information but looks like demanding payment for that is a no no..


(52) In light of the increasing diversity in the type of fuels for motorised vehicles, it is necessary to provide vehicle users with data regarding the geographic location of the refuelling and recharging points accessible to the public of alternative fuels covered by this Directive. Therefore, when companies or internet sites provide this informa­tion, it should be accessible on an open and non-discriminatory basis to all users.

(54) Key information concerning the availability of recharging and refuelling points and any other information neces­sary for Union-wide mobility should be included, where applicable, in traffic and travel information services as part of the intelligent transport system.

shanemkelly

This topic made an appearance on RTE's Liveline... Sweet Baby Jesus, it was a disaster! :eek::eek::eek:

Joe Duffy hadn't a clue and swiftly (and I mean swiftly) took it off the agenda.

Our man Alan started well but the other contributor (James - presumably trying to back Alan up) went into full-scale hysterics, grossly over-calculating what the proposed charges will mean and totally threw the whole debate into the "completely unbelievable" basket! That's when Joe put it out of its misery.

Jaysus...

Who thought bringing this to Liveline was a good idea? Joe completely pi$$ed all over the "480 signatures on the petition" statement with something like "That'll frighten the life out of ESB eCars, won't it"!

Villain

shanemkelly wrote: »

This topic made an appearance on RTE's Liveline... Sweet Baby Jesus, it was a disaster! :eek::eek::eek:

Joe Duffy hadn't a clue and swiftly (and I mean swiftly) took it off the agenda.

Our man Alan started well but the other contributor (James - presumably trying to back Alan up) went into full-scale hysterics, grossly over-calculating what the proposed charges will mean and totally threw the whole debate into the "completely unbelievable" basket! That's when Joe put it out of its misery.

Jaysus...

Who thought bringing this to Liveline was a good idea? Joe completely pi$$ed all over the "480 signatures on the petition" statement with something like "That'll frighten the life out of ESB eCars, won't it"!

Yep I was contacted by someone who spoke with their researcher and the researcher contacted me, she seemed well intended and I did try and get across it wasn't all negative and we needed to stay calm etc.

I reluctantly went on but James got too excited and it went downhill, at least the topic was raised but as can be the case with live radio it can turn into car crash stuff quickly

That's why the do-gooders are doing far more harm to electrics with all the moaning and winging, no end to it.

Instead of concentrating on the positives, they're just throwing up pure negativity and pulling numbers out comparing to diesel where most trips will be completed by home charging.

They're missing the bigger picture, If electric car sales are to be damaged it will be by these people ! Ridiculous !

pwurple

I do think this will come right with a bit of sensible and reasonable discussion, but crikey I wouldn't vilify anyone who is upset by it. Taken at face value it is bonkers. They are genuinely frightened by their expensive purchase becoming a white elephant. Of course that is going to scare the pant off them. If the whole thing tanks, the cars can't be sold, and the infrastructure will crumble. Yes, that is bound to cause a bit of hysteria. Maybe 20-30k is pocket change to you guys, but losing that kind of money is terrifying to a whole lot of people.

And my goodness, if bad PR from this proposal causes sales to tank, then I would point the finger at those who brought out this half-composed plan instead of those reacting to it. On what planet is uncertainty good for any market? And yet they bring out half a plan? I still can't figure out what the thought process was... "Meh, couldn't be arsed finishing this document off with the full plan, let's float what we have sure. A bit of uncertainty will increase market share for sure!"

Villain

Villain wrote: »

I think you missed the ad-hoc part there.

I didn't actually !

I don't see this effects the ability to use the network on an Ad-Hoc basis ?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but the E.U directive as far as I can see doesn't change anything.

pwurple

pwurple wrote: »

I do think this will come right with a bit of sensible and reasonable discussion, but crikey I wouldn't vilify anyone who is upset by it. Taken at face value it is bonkers. They are genuinely frightened by their expensive purchase becoming a white elephant. Of course that is going to scare the pant off them. If the whole thing tanks, the cars can't be sold, and the infrastructure will crumble. Yes, that is bound to cause a bit of hysteria. Maybe 20-30k is pocket change to you guys, but losing that kind of money is terrifying to a whole lot of people.

And my goodness, if bad PR from this proposal causes sales to tank, then I would point the finger at those who brought out this half-composed plan instead of those reacting to it. On what planet is uncertainty good for any market? And yet they bring out half a plan? I still can't figure out what the thought process was... "Meh, couldn't be arsed finishing this document off with the full plan, let's float what we have sure. A bit of uncertainty will increase market share for sure!"

The fast chargers are not intended to be for daily long distance use if this is the case then electrics in their current form are not suitable.

Instead of harping on about the costs of the fast chargers on national radio there needs to be an Emphasis on the positives and not the negatives because the public only hear electric car and high charges in one sentence and that's it.

Now Alan did say on Facebook that he did try express the advantages of electrics and I didn't listen to the debate but it's possible Joe Duffy only wanted to highlight the negatives and directed the conversation in this direction maybe because he himself doesn't like electrics or the idea of them, he probably knows nothing at all about them.

If anyone is debating this on radio or talking to so called Journalists then there needs to be an emphases on the positives of electrics not the negatives. And all this very much puts electrics in a very negative light in the eyes of the public that already have a negative opinion of electrics.

DrPhilG

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's why the do-gooders are doing far more harm to electrics with all the moaning and winging, no end to it.

Instead of concentrating on the positives, they're just throwing up pure negativity and pulling numbers out comparing to diesel where most trips will be completed by home charging.

They're missing the bigger picture, If electric car sales are to be damaged it will be by these people ! Ridiculous !

The "do gooders"?

You mean the people who aren't just rolling over and taking these BS charges without so much as a whimper?

And focus on the positives?

What positives!

People won't be able to hog FCPs. Yay. It's well worth every EV driver in the country getting gouged for monthly fees and outrageous per minute charges just so you don't get to fight with people for using FCPs instead of home charging.

DrPhilG

DrPhilG wrote: »

The "do gooders"?

You mean the people who aren't just rolling over and taking these BS charges without so much as a whimper?

And focus on the positives?

What positives!

People won't be able to hog FCPs. Yay. It's well worth every EV driver in the country getting gouged for monthly fees and outrageous per minute charges just so you don't get to fight with people for using FCPs instead of home charging.

Plenty of positives as the ability to do the majority of your charging form home most of the year for the majority of people saving a lot of money over any diesel !

I Never asked anyone to roll over and I never said the charges were fair for the high user or the very low user.

This can be done in a far better less public way that what will turn the fence sitters of the general public off electrics.

DrPhilG

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Plenty of positives as the ability to do the majority of your charging form home most of the year for the majority of people saving a lot of money over any diesel !

Except many people can't do the majority of their charging at home.

So again, like thierry14 said before, you're ok-screw the rest.

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't actually !

I don't see this effects the ability to use the network on an Ad-Hoc basis ?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but the E.U directive as far as I can see doesn't change anything.

Well I can't use the network on an ad-hoc basis unless I sign up to the monthly subscription fee, I think any independent review of the plan ESB have announced would say it doesn't allow ad-hoc access.

BoatMad

I personally am sick and tired of Mad_lad, answering every poster with quite frankly nonsense

Stating that FCP isn't intended for daily charging or whatever, just sheer nonsense

The FCP access charges are just NUTS, they make no sense and make a journey using FCP, as dearer if not dearer then a small diesel

Given the other issues with current EVs, that makes BEVs , expensive, awkward and difficult to recharge

seriously mad_lad , wake up and smell the coffee, The ESB is doing and will do enormous damage to an emerging market here

Gazing into the future, spouting , nonsense about things that havent yet happened, is just that nonsense

sheesh

Benny_Cake

I can't agree with the notion that we should express only positive sentiments about electric vehicles. The people who are complaining about these proposed charges are those who like their electric cars and have invested a lot of money in purchasing them. This pricing is grossly unfair - just because many (not all) do most of their charging at home doesn't change the fact that it is completely unjustifiable to gouge the roughly 2000 EV drivers in the country.

I want to see EVs succeed in Ireland and that is something that won't happen with this scheme. The responsibility for this mess is with the ESB and the ESB alone.

Villain

Villain wrote: »

Well I can't use the network on an ad-hoc basis unless I sign up to the monthly subscription fee, I think any independent review of the plan ESB have announced would say it doesn't allow ad-hoc access.

I'm not "pro ESB" I'm just trying to understand if they really are breeching any directive.

The per monthly charge doesn't prevent using the Network Ad-Hoc, that is , for it's intended purpose, and it isn't a contract.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

I personally am sick and tired of Mad_lad, answering every poster with quite frankly nonsense

Well if you're sick of me I must be doing something right !:D

Benny_Cake

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I can't agree with the notion that we should express only positive sentiments about electric vehicles. The people who are complaining about these proposed charges are those who like their electric cars and have invested a lot of money in purchasing them. This pricing is grossly unfair - just because many (not all) do most of their charging at home doesn't change the fact that it is completely unjustifiable to gouge the roughly 2000 EV drivers in the country.

I want to see EVs succeed in Ireland and that is something that won't happen with this scheme. The responsibility for this mess is with the ESB and the ESB alone.

Ranting and raving in the media and radio is unproductive.

There are ways and means of doing things. Keep the positivity for the media !

The ESB can be engaged with in a different manner and are more likely to listen .

I want electrics to succeed too or I wouldn't have made over 5,000 posts here on boards and countless PM's !

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not "pro ESB" I'm just trying to understand if they really are breeching any directive.

The per monthly charge doesn't prevent using the Network Ad-Hoc, that is , for it's intended purpose, and it isn't a contract.

So explain how I can use it ad-hoc without paying the monthly fee?

Villain

Villain wrote: »

So explain how I can use it ad-hoc without paying the monthly fee?

That's what I'm saying, the monthly fee isn't a contract as the directive says or did I read it wrong ?

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I'm saying, the monthly fee isn't a contract as the directive says or did I read it wrong ?

Its a monthly subscription required to access the network, thus preventing ad-hoc access, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise

Villain

Villain wrote: »

Its a monthly subscription required to access the network, thus preventing ad-hoc access, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise

Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014
Article 4 Section 9 - All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.
10. Member States shall ensure that prices charged by the operators of recharging points accessible to the public are reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.


What I'm saying is that the monthly charge doesn't prevent you using it Ad-Hoc and it's not against EV directive if it's not a contract , meaning a years subscription. I do hear what you are saying though.

without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.

The monthly charge isn't a contract so noting against the rules as far as I can see.

Regarding the per minute billing, reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.

It's up tot he state to decide and I don't think I need to say where the state would stand on this considering who owns the network or most of it anyway ?

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014
Article 4 Section 9 - All recharging points accessible to the public shall also provide for the possibility for electric vehicle users to recharge on an ad hoc basis without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.
10. Member States shall ensure that prices charged by the operators of recharging points accessible to the public are reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.


What I'm saying is that the monthly charge doesn't prevent you using it Ad-Hoc and it's not against EV directive if it's not a contract , meaning a years subscription. I do hear what you are saying though.

without entering into a contract with the electricity supplier or operator concerned.

The monthly charge isn't a contract so noting against the rules as far as I can see.

Regarding the per minute billing, reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory.

It's up tot he state to decide and I don't think I need to say where the state would stand on this considering who owns the network or most of it anyway ?

So you think that having to pay a monthly fee to access the chargers doesn't restrict ad-hoc access, I'm not sure how you can interpret it that way to be honest and I don't think any independent person would agree with you but I stand to be corrected.

pwurple

Mad lad, have you written this policy personally? I am hugely positive about EV's. I love mine, and tbh, this pricing plan won't affect me at all, because I have a work and home charger, and because I also have a long-range diesel.

But the charging structure is fairly crackers and I don't think I can say it any other way than has already been said. No-one charges a fee for access to petrol stations. You don't get charged by the amount of time you spend pumping the fuel in. Because the customer would basically tell you where to go. The only model I can compare it to, is an all you can eat buffet. Where people go to stuff their faces. Is this what will happen at the scp's? People will stuff their faces with the 'free' charge by parking up overnight instead of using their homes or the FCP's?

As for the regulations, clearly a variable price for the same amount of electricity is discriminatory. I see what they are trying to do, getting people to block it for a short space of time, but just pricing the FCP per KWH at something like 20% higher than domestic will do the exact same thing, in a much fairer manner. People will top up to the bare minimum of what they need, and drive away to their cheap charger.

The vast majority of EV drivers in Ireland are not in it at the luxury end, they are extremely price sensitive.

Requiring a subscription to use the chargers is not ad-hoc.

Now, all that being said, the email I got said there was more of this charging structure to come. So I say let's bloody see it.

Villain

Villain wrote: »

So you think that having to pay a monthly fee to access the chargers doesn't restrict ad-hoc access, I'm not sure how you can interpret it that way to be honest and I don't think any independent person would agree with you but I stand to be corrected.

Because the monthly fee isn't a contract and you can opt in and out as you want and probably the reason it isn't yearly subscription already only that would clearly be a contract.

A subscription doesn't prevent you using it ad-hoc , that is, using the network as it was designed for, to charge electric cars.

Not saying it isn't a pain in the ass. I'll have to sign up for it when I need it and it's extra hassle I don't want + it makes for an expensive fast charge, 17 Euro's + 9 Euro's is 26 Euro's that's mad, but I am a light user, but even so.

Villain

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the monthly fee isn't a contract and you can opt in and out as you want and probably the reason it isn't yearly subscription already only that would clearly be a contract.

A subscription doesn't prevent you using it ad-hoc , that is, using the network as it was designed for, to charge electric cars.

Not saying it isn't a pain in the ass. I'll have to sign up for it when I need it and it's extra hassle I don't want + it makes for an expensive fast charge, 17 Euro's + 9 Euro's is 26 Euro's that's mad, but I am a light user, but even so.

I have many monthly contract subscriptions, just because it isn't yearly doesn't mean it allows ad-hoc use.

pwurple

The ad hoc part is so that people who travel here for a few days can get some electricity into their vehicle.

The subscription will involve forms, direct debits, proof of address. I can't see someone over on the ferry for a few days being able to manage it.

I don't know... The target set by govt for EV market share was 10% of new registrations by 2020. That was set in 2010. More than half the time has passed now. So what progress? 2015 has doubled the previous years sales, started to sound like it was just starting to gain some traction. And what do the ESB do? Insert market damper. Why.

I know they are looking for regulations to be passed to let Evs use bus lanes, but you don't see that kind of positive story coming from them. Nope, instead it's an email with the lámh out for 200 quid from all the early adopters. The people who do a good job of pushing the pr. Pfft.