Updating California's Grid For EVs May Cost Up To $20 Billion (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0173630622
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/04/24/2110253/updating-californias-grid-for-evs-may-cost-up-to-20-billion
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/06/valve-begins-offering-refunds-for-all-steam-games/
> Two researchers at the University of California, Davis -- Yanning Li and Alan Jenn -- have [1]determined that nearly two-thirds of [California's] feeder lines don't have the capacity that will likely be needed for car charging. Updating to handle the rising demand might set its utilities back as much as 40 percent of the existing grid's capital cost. Li and Jenn aren't the first to look at how well existing grids can handle growing electric vehicle sales; other research has found various ways that different grids fall short. However, they have access to uniquely detailed data relevant to California's ability to distribute electricity (they do not concern themselves with generation). They have information on every substation, feeder line, and transformer that delivers electrons to customers of the state's three largest utilities, which collectively cover nearly 90 percent of the state's population. In total, they know the capacity that can be delivered through over 1,600 substations and 5,000 feeders.[...]
>
> By 2025, only about 7 percent of the feeders will experience periods of overload. By 2030, that figure will grow to 27 percent, and by 2035 -- only about a decade away -- about half of the feeders will be overloaded. Problems grow a bit more slowly after that, with two-thirds of the feeders overloaded by 2045, a decade after all cars sold in California will be EVs. At that point, total electrical demand will be close to twice the existing capacity. The problems aren't evenly distributed, though. They appear first in high-population areas like the Bay Area. And throughout this period, most of the problems are in feeders that serve residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. The feeders that serve neighborhoods that are primarily business-focused don't see the same coordinated surge in demand that occurs as people get home from work and plug in; they're better able to serve the more erratic use of charging stations at office complexes and shopping centers. In terms of the grid, residential services will need to see their capacity expand by about 16 gigawatts by 2045. Public chargers will need nine gigawatts worth of added capacity by the same point. The one wild card is direct current fast charging. Eliminating fast chargers entirely would reduce the number of feeders that need upgrades by 12 percent. Converting all public stations to DC fast charging, in contrast, would boost that number by 15 percent. So the details of the upgrades that will be needed will be very sensitive to the impatience of EV drivers.
>
> Paying for the necessary upgrades will be pricey, but there's a lot of uncertainty here. Li and Jenn came up with a range of [2]anywhere between $6 billion and $20 billion . They put this in context in two ways. The total capital invested in the existing grid is estimated to be $51 billion, so the cost of updating it could be well over a third of its total value. At the same time, the costs will be spread out over decades and only total up to (at most) three times the grid's annual operation and maintenance costs. So in any one year, the costs shouldn't be crippling. All that might be expected to drive the cost of electricity up. But Li and Jenn suggest that the greater volume of electricity consumption will exert a downward pressure on prices (people will pay more overall but pay somewhat less per unit of electricity). Based on a few economic assumptions, the researchers conclude that this would roughly offset the costs of the necessary grid expansion, so the price per unit of electricity would be largely static.
The findings have been [3]published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2317599121
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/06/valve-begins-offering-refunds-for-all-steam-games/
[3] https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2317599121
Wishful Thinking (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the source article on Ars, which is actually [1]https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com] and not the link the Slashdot Editors posted, they provide no more detail about how the cost was actually calculated. I have absolutely no confidence in their estimate of $20 billion, and suspect they are using some pretty conservative numbers on top of all the other sleight of hand they're using in their analysis.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/04/updating-californias-grid-for-evs-may-cost-up-to-20-billion/
$200 billion would be perfectly okay (Score:2)
California is a big place with a lot in it. Electricity is kind of useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no confidence in their estimate either. I think they are underestimating the cost. I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up double that.
This isn't actually a lot? (Score:4, Interesting)
California has a GDP of $3.9T and the state budget is $295B. Seems like a fair cost for what you get and in reality is closer to $2B a year over 10 years.
Re:This isn't actually a lot? (Score:4, Interesting)
It works out to $638/per registered car.
Re: (Score:3)
So, about 3-4 years of car registration fees in California. Doesn't seem like too much for something amortized over basically forever.
Re: This isn't actually a lot? (Score:2)
That's optimistic. My 9 year old Volt cost $278 at the most recent renewal. 7 year old Bolt was $276.
The Volt is probably due for a replacement in the next few years, and registration on the average new car is likely going to be at least $600 /year depending on value.
That said, the $20 billion for the grid are peanuts on a per capita basis, or per electrical customer. That's $500 per capita. The utilities already increase their rates more than that each year already. The CPUC would just rubberstamp the rate
Re: (Score:2)
your ideas intrigue me and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter
Re: (Score:2)
That's too simple a story. $20B is a lot of money, and California has major budget deficits, [1]currently projected to be $73B [calmatters.org].
And you can't look at the budget of $295B like that's money available to spend. That's money already spent. They'd have to cut programs or raise taxes or issue a bond, all of which is politically unsavory in California. California already has the highest taxes of any state with a sales tax of 7.5% and a top income tax bracket of 13% over the existing Federal rates. They could
[1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/04/california-budget-deficit-questions-deadlines/#:~:text=The%20Legislature's%20budget%20analyst%2C%20Gabe,the%20gap%20to%20%2473%20billion.
Re: (Score:2)
> Some people would look at this as a way to target Prop 13 again for the umpteenth time, which proves to be political suicide in the state particularly given the high price of housing.
And this is why we can't have nice things, Prop 13 and other laws are definitely share in the reasons it has the housing crisis it does and to me is the plurality of California's problems, economically and politically, but people as you said are going to flip their top while digging themselves in a deeper hole.
Let me rephrase it this then maybe, it "shouldn't be a lot" for a state like California. Hell, they should be able to spend a bit more than that. The thing with spending like this is that it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Politically unsavory to issue a bond? I've been voting in California for over 20 years and every fucking Bond I've ever seen on the ballet gets passed, regardless of what it's for. I've voted against every single one of them but clearly I'm outnumbered by people that either can't do math or don't realize that we the tax payers have to pay that shit back. Zero accountability for any of this spending, ever.
So given that, I'd say the lemmings in this state LOVE to let the state government issue bonds and for A
Re: (Score:2)
California does not have a history of major budget deficits. It has a major deficit this year, but has had recent surpluses . [1]Over 25 years it is close to balanced most years and about as likely to be in surplus as deficit [statista.com]. This year is an anomaly - not a pattern. Look at the data.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/313176/california-state-government-revenue-and-expenditure/
$4 billion less than we spent on homeless (Score:3)
We spent $24 billion in the last 5 years on homelessness (spoiler alert: we now have more of it), so I think we can swing $20 billion on super beneficial green infrastructure over a longer period.
I remember what the skies in Southern California looked like in the 70s and 80s. It was bad . We have made a lot of progress, and I hope we don't stop.
What's the cost of NOT updating the grid? (Score:3)
i.e. what's the cost of continuing massive consumption of fossil fuels?
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong question. The question is who pays that cost. It's one of those things where it's easy to externalize those costs onto somebody else. Especially early on
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is a silly analysis without comparison to the alternative.
Even totally ignoring the environment, Californians bought 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2022. At a cost of $4.50 that's $61.2B per year on gasoline, every year, forever, until we invest in other options. $20B towards kicking that habit - permanently - isn't necessarily unreasonable.
Of course there are some recurring costs to maintain the grid (though a non-upgraded grid might be higher or lower, I don't know), and other costs to
Others complain the grid isn't being used enough (Score:2)
Then there is this article which notes that the abundance of solar panels on residential homes is causing the grid to not get enough delivery fees: [1]https://environmentamerica.org... [environmentamerica.org]
So the people living non-solar, high density without batteries for charging their cars are going to see ever increasing electrical fees to pay for the grid and we have a whole new reason to have urban sprawl.
[1] https://environmentamerica.org/california/media-center/new-report-californias-solar-success-story-in-jeopardy/
Re:Others complain the grid isn't being used enoug (Score:4, Informative)
> Then there is this article which notes that the abundance of solar panels on residential homes is causing the grid to not get enough delivery fees
Let me share actual numbers from my latest PG&E bill.
Note: this is from my business.
My home bill is not subject to the additional fees or delivery charges -residential users in my area are only billed for usage (the "Electric Generation Charge") per the deal with the local electric supplier (Central Coast Community Energy rents the lines from PG&E directly).
Electric Generation Charges : 62.95
PG&E Electric Delivery Charges : 157.44
Other Fees and Services : 152.74
PG&E is charging nearly 3x as much for delivering the power over their lines as the cost of the power itself...and another $150 in misc fees and services (whatever that means...)
The delivery fees are plenty fucking high enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's crazy.
Meanwhile, my latest bill has a basic service charge for electricity of $20.50. That's the grid maintenance portion of the bill.
That's in TVA territory, of course. No profits here.
Socialism WORKS!
California should seize the grid instead of allowing for-profit companies to screw the people over.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch. My Basic Charge, the same as your electric delivery charge) is 57 cents a day.
Lots of assumptions (Score:2)
This study looks at EV charging growth over 20 years. There are a lot of assumptions about not only EV proliferation but how people will charge those EVs.
For example, I have a PHEV and a BEV, and I currently charge both via Level 1 chargers. Why? Because my family's driving habits fit this type of charging, and I don't care to spend the money to upgrade my circuits for the moment. If there are a lot of EV users like me, then the need for upgraded electrical distribution will be muted.
The study had to as
Re: (Score:2)
> EV sales are going to grow, because ICEs have been banned. You have a choice. Buy that Tesla, or better enjoy riding that bicycle. Pure as that. The point is really moot, because there will be only EVs to choose from in a couple of years.
2035 in most places. That is eleven years.
I expect 2033 and 2034 are going to be really good years for ICE sales. Will probably have to pre-order.
This is expected, can be mitigated, and is good (Score:4, Interesting)
This is expected:
1. Replace as much stuff that burns gas with stuff that runs on batteries as possible
2. Charge those batteries with low-carbon energy
The challenge isn't just step 1; it's step 2 as well. Replacing all the gas cars with electric ones means you need more electricity; just because electricity can be zero-emissions doesn't mean you don't have to build infrastructure for it. Building new electric infrastructure to replace gasoline infrastructure is a good thing. Yes, it costs money. We should happily pay it -- this is part of the point. We built a huge amount of gasoline infrastructure (filling stations, tanker trucks, refineries, etc) -- we can build power lines/wind+solar+nuclear generation to replace it.
There are a number of ways to soften the impact here. The most obvious is even mentioned in the article: "coordinated surge in demand that occurs as people get home from work and plug in". With proper time-of-day pricing, this won't be a thing; if this surge is an issue, then energy should be more expensive at 6pm than at 3am. Home charging on 220V is fast enough that you don't need all night to replenish a day's usage; home charging on 110V doesn't draw as much power.
Way more than $20B (Score:2)
There's one EV that's going to eat up a massive chunk of infrastructure improvement for that - the Brightline high speed railway to Vegas. That's an easy $10B alone or more just to make that power distribution network happen.
Your best bet is around $50B as a conservative estimate as to how much it will really cost to outfit CA for EV/solar futures.
between $6 billion and $20 billion (Score:3)
So you are saying we could solve the whole fucking problem for a fraction of what Musk paid for Twitter.
Fuck Yea!
I'm starting a tire fire. (Score:1)
Can't we just run everything forever off what we already have for free? Sure, Reaganomics kicked off decades of neglected infrastructure. But any attempt to rectify that now would be communism.
Another EV hit-piece (Score:2)
The EV hit pieces are accelerating. I'd bet money that the legacy auto industry is paying for a lot of these stories. "Could" "up to" these are generally the hallmarks of BS stories. I COULD be selling back rubs to random internet strangers for UP TO $1,000,000. With that many modifiers who knows if it's true.
start by implementing dynamic line rating (Score:2)
We can start increasing the grid capacity at relatively low cost by implementing [1]dynamic line rating [inl.gov] - making use of the unused headroom in the transmission/distribution capacity based on actual conditions, instead of the theoretical capacity if conditions were as bad as they'd ever get (low wind, high temperature). The authors seemed to have used PG&E data for the cost to expand capacity - I don't know if that already incorporates techniques like DLR, or just building new lines.
[1] https://inl.gov/national-security/dynamic-line-rating/
EV and solar panels (Score:2)
I am trying to combine an article about California have too much solar power (from residences) and the need for vast upgrades to the electrical system.
Maybe change your EV at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Charging the EV at home is a match for work from home. Charging from solar power at night is an issue ;-)
I don't think the nova of T Coronae will be helpful.
That cheap? (Score:1)
I mean really, compared to what is spent on gas and new cars etc. in CA, that is a drop in the bucket. That is less than 10% of a single year's CA state budget. Chicken feed really.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you remembered i would hope that cali has already a 60+ billion budget deficit...
And that's just the start (Score:2)
Massive levels of maintenance/repair is needed to get it to the state where it can handle the increased loading, and load cycles. And then there's the trivial matter of expecting apartment complexes to completely upgrade their systems. And then you get to the point of... But wait, there's more.
dumb charging vs smart charging (Score:2)
If you go to the PNAS study this is all based on, they make a distinction between smart charging and I'll call it dumb charging. They really only analyze current dumb charging. They assume that the cars can't do anything to smooth the load as a simplifying assumption. The authors of the study say this is a first step, and then proceed to ignore that this is a simplistic assumption. They point out that most cars start charging when they are plugged in. I have my car set up to charge so it's ready at 8am
How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:5, Interesting)
We keep reading about high pressure on the nation's grid, its security issues, etc., and have for some time. So it would be good to know how much of this upgrade is really stuff that should be (should have been?) done by now regardless, and how much is specifically in support of EVs. Many reports I've read suggest that just dealing with the non-EV part would likely require major grid changes, if not wholesale replacement over time.
Re: (Score:1)
Hello, Russian troll. Or maybe Chinese, because the CCP has reorged for better control over its psy-ops minions.
That cash going to Ukraine is a lot cheaper than sending over US and European troops, and it isn't NATO that is doing the invading and warcrime atrocities in that theater, since Russia doesn't have any plans on stopping anytime soon, and atrocities that Russia did in Ukraine (and previously in Afghanistan, including putting mines in teddy bears and children's toys) will be happening in the Baltic
Re: (Score:1)
When enlightened centrism and Putin bootlicking overlap, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
The grid is not made of copper. You thought it was? Copper is for home wiring, if that . Up to that point, it's alumium, bundled with steel on major lines for tensile strength. Does it look like copper to you?
As for the article: grid operators don't build out grids on a lark. They do it to sell power , because they make money selling power . If people want to buy more power because they want to charge an EV, then that's more money available for them . EVs are a boon to grid operators. They're almost an
More demand means more money available (Score:2)
> ...in short, EVs can greatly improve their profitability. Which translates to any combiation of three things:
> 1) More profits
> 2) A better, more reliable grid
> 3) Lower rates
> ...As for the above article: the study isn't wrong , it's just - beyond the above (huge) problem - it is based on stupid assumptions.
to the contrary. If you read to the bottom of the summary, it draws a similar conclusion:
> But Li and Jenn suggest that the greater volume of electricity consumption will exert a downward pressure on prices (people will pay more overall but pay somewhat less per unit of electricity). Based on a few economic assumptions, the researchers conclude that this would roughly offset the costs of the necessary grid expansion, so the price per unit of electricity would be largely static.
This makes sense. Expanding t
Re: (Score:1)
" Daytime / fast charging isn't, but that's a minority. "
And just to touch on the idea, the solid state battery and it's projected 700 miles (Toyota) or 900 miles (Porsche) range will have more charging performed at home at night than is currently accomplished with EV's running out of their range and being charged at fast chargers during the day. Instead, those in long range EV's will run all day, and if away from home, charge all night at their motel parking lot. The grid hardly needs upgraded since not
Re: (Score:2)
Or how much of the necessary maintenance and upgrades to the Calif grid were delayed / deferred by frivolous lawsuits from 3rd parties claiming some sort of harm to persons or animals due to the presence of those power transmission & distribution towers.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have figures but from what I understand this is just getting the grade to the point where I can handle the number of electric cars they want to put on the road by 2030. It doesn't solve any of the security or reliability or maintenance issues. It just builds out enough capacity that the whole grid doesn't collapse under the weight of all those of EVs.
That said 20 billion dollars is peanuts. To put things into perspective California's annual GDP is well over $3 trillion. I'm no longer a fan of el
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm no longer a fan of electric cars after I learned that they don't really solve the smog problem
That's stupid. EVs might not be a 100% perfect fix, but they will dramatically improve air quality. (Including a reduction in o3, a major component of smog). That's a good thing.
EVs are an essential and important step towards a cleaner future. Walkable cities and high-speed rail are ultimately better, but we're not going to see that in the US in our lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
I mean, they DO solve the smog problem. And they can solve the personal transportation CO2 emission problem. They don't solve the for-profit grid problem, but at least here in socialist TVA territory we don't have that nightmare, and the few remaining coal plants here will all be dark by 2035.
They just do absolutely nothing for the horrific zoning laws problem, nothing for the HOA problem, and nothing for the functional cities problem. Still, if I'm going to have to be stuck in a traffic jam anyway,
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is maintenance that should have been done but has been put off.
EVEN IF all of the power lines in CA were upgraded, we still don't have enough power generation to charge a quarter of the proposed amount of EV's.
Re: (Score:2)
> All of this is maintenance that should have been done but has been put off.
Grid maintenance is done regularly. There is a very close link between the grid and power generating companies that sell power -- much closer than the link between any commercial user of highways for example. Decades of deferred maintenance does not happen on power grids since that would prevent the generating companies from selling power. They invest, and see to it that there is investment.
> EVEN IF all of the power lines in CA were upgraded, we still don't have enough power generation to charge a quarter of the proposed amount of EV's.
Maybe you should read the study. It obliterates your fake statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity grids require an maintenance investment of about 2.5% a year -- you effectively replace the grid every 40 years. If the spending is tripled during the build-out, then 1/3 of that is the grid maintenance cost that would be present anyway. After the EV build-out finishes the cost would be 2.5% of a ~50% larger grid.
The headline was the most extravagant sounding aspect of the report "cost up to 20 billion dollars!" instead of highlighting the conclusion "electricity costs will remain stable".
There