All New Homes In Palo Alto Must Have Electric Vehicle Chargers

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
As long as they aren't requiring people to retrofit their homes, I don't see a problem with this requirement. What do you think?

While the council's action on Monday likely won't lead to a sudden proliferation of charging stations on residential blocks, it will ensure that newly constructed houses will have the necessary circuitry to accommodate installation of charging stations. The ordinance will be drafted by staff, with input from the council's Policy and Service Committee, in the coming months before the council officially adopts it.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed - as long as it's not retroactive, sounds like a good thing.

Electric cars really are better than gas - once we get the infrastructure in place. The trick is getting that infrastructure in place. This will go a long way, at least in Palo Alto.

Now if only we could modernize the whole electrical grid so that IT can handle large numbers of electric cars. (If the solution is distributed neighborhood-scale generation - fine.)
 
So what are they requiring and how much does it cost over existing circuitry?

If it's just like a $10 breaker and some wiring so that a charger can be installed at a later date I don't see much issue... If they are mandating $500 worth of bullshit most people won't use, I think it's a terrible idea.
 
The government needs to stop mandating shit like this for personal property. For safety, sure, but this isn't about safety, it's about forcing people to pay for something they may or may not want to look good to the unwashed masses.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd be putting in charging stations in place of parking meters. Now THAT would actually be useful and doesn't infringe on our personal freedoms.
 
I am not an electrician but a quick google search lead me here, from which we learn that there are three levels of EV charging:

Level 1: Uses 120 volts and takes 8-12 hours to fully charge
Level 2: Uses 240 volts and takes roughly 6-8 hours to fully charge
Level 3: Converts 208 volts or 480 volts into direct current (DC). It can take as little as 30 minutes to fully charge. Level 3 technology is currently impractical for home-based charging units.
Click to expand...

Level 1 can just be done from your standard 120V power outlet, so the article is obviously not talking about that.

Level 2 means an outlet like what you'll find for most clothes dryers, and most existing home fuse boxes are set up for one for each of the common appliances that need one, but may well not have room for another one. So retrofitting could be a pain for those needing a whole new fusebox and new wiring to the garage (if the fuse box isn't there) but when building a new home, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Level 3 sounds like a whole new and probably expensive deal.

Unfortunately the article doesn't mention whether they're talking about Level 2 or 3. Could be either one.
 
evilsofa said:
I am not an electrician but a quick google search lead me here, from which we learn that there are three levels of EV charging:



Level 1 can just be done from your standard 120V power outlet, so the article is obviously not talking about that.

Level 2 means an outlet like what you'll find for most clothes dryers, and most existing home fuse boxes are set up for one for each of the common appliances that need one, but may well not have room for another one. So retrofitting could be a pain for those needing a whole new fusebox and new wiring to the garage (if the fuse box isn't there) but when building a new home, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Level 3 sounds like a whole new and probably expensive deal.

Unfortunately the article doesn't mention whether they're talking about Level 2 or 3. Could be either one.
Click to expand...
Probably Level 2. If I'm reading what I'm reading correctly they essentially want a second plug like your dryer uses to be put in a build time. At build time adding another breaker and some wiring and an outlet in the garage is fairly trivial and adds probably less than $50 to the cost of the house. After the fact to have an electrician come in and do it is probably $500+.

Disclaimer: Numbers pulled out of ass. Correct my facts, I'm probably wrong.
 
Probably nothing more than installing a NEMA 14-50 outlet in a garage or outside panel,.....practically free at time of construction. Highest currently supported electric vehicle consumer draw is 80 amps so at most you'd need an extra 100 amp breaker and connector somewhere. It's not retroactive and may recoup greater than its nominal cost in added value as EVs proliferate, especially in a place with EV adoption rates as high as CA.
 
Some of the rapid charging systems that work off of 240 can cost a few thousand dollars, but there are a few competing standards right now, I'm guessing this is just going to be an additional 240 circuit dedicated to car charging, in which case the added cost is almost nil.
 
I agree if this is something like a building code for electrical standards akin to requiring homes have a circuit capable of running washer/dryer and an outlet for it, no biggie. If they are requiring them to have more, keep the government out of our house.
 
CharonPDX said:
Agreed - as long as it's not retroactive, sounds like a good thing.

Electric cars really are better than gas - once we get the infrastructure in place. The trick is getting that infrastructure in place. This will go a long way, at least in Palo Alto.

Now if only we could modernize the whole electrical grid so that IT can handle large numbers of electric cars. (If the solution is distributed neighborhood-scale generation - fine.)
Click to expand...

In what way?

Short range, far more pollution in production and disposal than most gas cars will ever produce, extremely expensive to maintain, overpriced, obnoxiously long charge times compared to filling up a gas tank..Oh yes..so much better. :rolleyes:

EV's are for schmucks who want to act like assholes and pretend they are doing something good for the environment. That "May" change years down the road, but isn't going too anytime in the next decade.

Back on topic.

The ordinance is pretty mundane and falls into most Codes that get passed really. Honestly most modern houses are going to have power grids in the Garage to support a Tier 1 anyhow provided the Electrician did his job right.
 
great place to plug in your welder, not a fan of govt rules, but this is not a terribly big deal compared to plenty of crap they require
 
Surprised that a place like Palo Alto doesn't already have this, Tesla is headquartered there. At any rate, this would be about as controversial as oxygen there.
 
My first thought is......if it's not a safety issue, I don't see how they can require you to have such a circuit in your house. I think a court might even side with anyone wishing to challenge it.
 
Since electric cars are still not going to be the standard for decades to come, I think it's a stupid idea. Stop forcing people to spend more money just to have a place to live.
 
Forcing people to do this is still stupid and repressive. If people want this, they'll ask for it.
 
250,000,000 cars in the United States.

Less than 150,000 are electric.

Let's force people to alter their houses to accommodate .06% of the cars on the road.

Those cigarette lighters have to go, though.
 
CharonPDX said:
Agreed - as long as it's not retroactive, sounds like a good thing.

Electric cars really are better than gas - once we get the infrastructure in place. The trick is getting that infrastructure in place. This will go a long way, at least in Palo Alto.

Now if only we could modernize the whole electrical grid so that IT can handle large numbers of electric cars. (If the solution is distributed neighborhood-scale generation - fine.)
Click to expand...

The electricity still has to come from somewhere. A lot of the "green" energy missions that get peddled to us actually damage the environment more than what we were using before. Ethanol fuel was a huge scam, and has had large environmental and economic impact in the negative direction.

I haven't read up on it in awhile, but originally hybrids caused less pollution over their life-cycle than electrics do.
 
Synful Serenity said:
Probably nothing more than installing a NEMA 14-50 outlet in a garage or outside panel,.....practically free at time of construction. Highest currently supported electric vehicle consumer draw is 80 amps so at most you'd need an extra 100 amp breaker and connector somewhere. It's not retroactive and may recoup greater than its nominal cost in added value as EVs proliferate, especially in a place with EV adoption rates as high as CA.
Click to expand...

Considering current code is a 200 amp service, that's a bit of a problem.

to meet that sort of draw, an additional line from the transformer is required, and thats a lot more expensive than adding a breaker.
 
tazeat said:
Probably Level 2. If I'm reading what I'm reading correctly they essentially want a second plug like your dryer uses to be put in a build time. At build time adding another breaker and some wiring and an outlet in the garage is fairly trivial and adds probably less than $50 to the cost of the house. After the fact to have an electrician come in and do it is probably $500+.

Disclaimer: Numbers pulled out of ass. Correct my facts, I'm probably wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article for specs but the breaker shouldn't be more than $20-30 max, wire on the other hand might be a little expensive depending on where your circuit box is. Hard to say because we don't know what the 'code' will be for this install, especially in CA. 10/3, 8/3 copper?

Bottom line, I can't agree with this mandated idea, though I can see how certain people would be all over having it. Having it at your house is one thing but infrastructure in the common place is the biggest problem in America and I don't see that changing any time soon, even with Obama the current poster puppet that happens to be in office. I don't want to be stuck in Colorado with no place to charge up!! I may be wrong but I think this kind of tech will be localized for commuting and nothing more, a mandated drive your own Light Rail, M.A.R.T.A., what have you.

Extra bottom line to the tech: I don't want an electric car, I want a hydrogen car! However unless I make my own and have a hydrogen generator in the trunk to travel a distance, it won't be in my lifetime (in the US anyway.)
 
Stiletto said:
Since electric cars are still not going to be the standard for decades to come, I think it's a stupid idea. Stop forcing people to spend more money just to have a place to live.
Click to expand...

This is Palo Alto, it's the 2nd most expensive city in the US for housing. The average house there goes for like $1.5 million. I don't think the charging station would change the economics of living there much.
 
I had to laugh at the part in the article where they bragged about being carbon neutral. Electricity generation is not exactly a big ball of cleanliness.
 
tazeat said:
So what are they requiring and how much does it cost over existing circuitry?

If it's just like a $10 breaker and some wiring so that a charger can be installed at a later date I don't see much issue... If they are mandating $500 worth of bullshit most people won't use, I think it's a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

The cost of materials is miniscule, it's a plug... if it's 120 (slow charge) it's just like every other plug, if it's 240V it's slightly different slightly more for the breaker since they take up two spots, and possibly slightly more for a plug if you don't have an enclosed garage and need an outdoor weather rated box.

However the electrician doing the job might be the one charging you $500 to install it, it's like codes that changed with service panels that require a plug be directly attached AND their be a light fixture. Maybe $10 worth of materials, however it'll end up costing a couple hundred for an electrician to do it (and that's when they're already there doing work on your panel or what not).
 
tazeat said:
So what are they requiring and how much does it cost over existing circuitry?

If it's just like a $10 breaker and some wiring so that a charger can be installed at a later date I don't see much issue... If they are mandating $500 worth of bullshit most people won't use, I think it's a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Yes because $500 or even $2000 when you are building a house really matters. Especailly when you are spending over a million on a house.

spugnor said:
The government needs to stop mandating shit like this for personal property. For safety, sure, but this isn't about safety, it's about forcing people to pay for something they may or may not want to look good to the unwashed masses.

If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd be putting in charging stations in place of parking meters. Now THAT would actually be useful and doesn't infringe on our personal freedoms.
Click to expand...

This is nothing new for city council to come up with things that they want built into areas. When it comes to small stuff like this they are just trying to make sure that every new home is ready for major things. No different from making sure every new house is wired with fiber, is wired for network connections in every room or anything along those lines.

Yoda4561 said:
Some of the rapid charging systems that work off of 240 can cost a few thousand dollars, but there are a few competing standards right now, I'm guessing this is just going to be an additional 240 circuit dedicated to car charging, in which case the added cost is almost nil.
Click to expand...

even at a few thousand, when you are spending over a mil on a house, that is still nil

heatlesssun said:
This is Palo Alto, it's the 2nd most expensive city in the US for housing. The average house there goes for like $1.5 million. I don't think the charging station would change the economics of living there much.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
heatlesssun said:
This is Palo Alto, it's the 2nd most expensive city in the US for housing. The average house there goes for like $1.5 million. I don't think the charging station would change the economics of living there much.
Click to expand...

The amount isn't the point. The point is it being forced. Giving a tax deduction for voluntarily doing it would be less coercive.
 
Stiletto said:
The amount isn't the point. The point is it being forced. Giving a tax deduction for voluntarily doing it would be less coercive.
Click to expand...
It's not federally mandated so who gives a fuck? If you don't like it, you don't have to live in Palo Alto (and if you do live in Palo Alto, you have enough money that this isn't even a blip on your radar).
 
Nice feature for new homes. Now we just need more electric powered cars and mandatory photovoltaic systems on new homes would be a step in the right direction as well.
 
Why not make natural gas fillers standard too? Give people the option to use electric or natural gas. Your electricity, in most areas, is likely natural gas fired anyhow.
 
Stiletto said:
People in Palo Alto, clearly. Why ask a silly question?
Click to expand...
It's not a silly question. People who live in a community are clearly able to elect their own representatives who work for their interests. If people in Palo Alto didn't want this, they would much more easily be able to enact change by voting those people out. I'm not sure why this is a story to anyone outside of that community. I understand people don't like the idea of "big government", but this isn't an example of that.
 
Rizen said:
It's not a silly question. People who live in a community are clearly able to elect their own representatives who work for their interests. If people in Palo Alto didn't want this, they would much more easily be able to enact change by voting those people out. I'm not sure why this is a story to anyone outside of that community. I understand people don't like the idea of "big government", but this isn't an example of that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be "big government" for people to disagree with it. Do you have a problem with people doing that?
 
Stiletto said:
The amount isn't the point. The point is it being forced. Giving a tax deduction for voluntarily doing it would be less coercive.
Click to expand...

This is Palo Alto, it's kind of conservative hell. It's home of Tesla and a high rate of electric vehicles.
 
This is only for new homes in palo alto of all places. Any yuppies buying houses there are going to want this anyway. The value that it'll add to the resale of your house is worth the initial investment (which isn't even that large).

From a prior article I read it was saying it would add $250 the cost of new house construction vs $1000 to retrofit the same equipment later.
 
Honestly, I'm just shocked by how few electric vehicles there actually are in the US. I thought they were in the millions by now. Living in Madison...another insulating town.
 
Stiletto said:
It doesn't have to be "big government" for people to disagree with it. Do you have a problem with people doing that?
Click to expand...
I just don't understand how you are so staunchly opposed to something that is being implemented in an area where you don't live.
 
Rizen said:
I just don't understand how you are so staunchly opposed to something that is being implemented in an area where you don't live.
Click to expand...

I also have strong opinions about the European Union, as well as British and Canadian politics. Sorry if that bothers you.

Or, put another way, Steve put this here for us to discuss. How is that hard to understand?
 
Existing Palo Alto Real Estate on average runs for $1MM+. Absolute junker 2BR/1BA goes for insane prices and very quickly gets bid up. The vast majority of people living in that city won't really care about this especially considering the cost of new construction on a single family residential unit.
 
Stiletto said:
I also have strong opinions about the European Union, as well as British and Canadian politics. Sorry if that bothers you.

Or, put another way, Steve put this here for us to discuss. How is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

He's trying to stop the argument on the technicality of your eligibility to comment. Rather than justify the idea on its own merits. When you consider he probably believes he's saving the world, alls fair.
 
There aren't even any new homes being built in Palo Alto... If there is you are paying around a mil to buy something to tear down and are also paying another mil, probably a couple mil, for your new house.
 
It's not a big deal. Housing in that area (not just in Palo Alto), is insanely expensive. Adding a 240v plug or 2 in the garage just isn't going to matter. Furthermore, I believe that in CA, an electric car/ev hybrid qualifies solo drivers for the car pool lane.
 
I don't really see a problem with it. Just part of building a house there. I view it as being equal to neighborhood restrictions (keeping the yard mowed for example, which if you hire someone to do it will cost you a lot more in the long run than even retrofitting an older house). Or I guess more like my neighborhood requirement of maintaining 2 trees in the front yard (yeah, sounds really stupid doesn't it). If one of them dies... according to the deed restrictions you are responsible for removing it AND replacing it with a new tree. All just part of buying a house here. If you don't like it, there are plenty other areas to buy homes and live...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top