California To Pay BMW i3 Owners $1000 To Delay Charging Vehicles

Yeah, this is just one more snag that we've known about regarding pure EVs and Plug-In Hybrids:
- People are encouraged to get EVs and Plug-In Hybrids
- These vehicles consume electricity from the power grid (well duh!)
- North America's grid is already stretched beyond capacity, and planned expansion is not even keeping up with today's demand

One reasonable work-around is what Tesla is already doing: You plug in your car when you get home, but the charger only starts drawing power from the grid during off-peak hours, usually later at night. If this works for you, then you have a solution for charging your car and not impacting the grid.

California is the land of idiots and I see them every day here. Idiots drive EVs to have "like totally no pollution and stuff" could not care less where the energy is produced. Of course California is pushing EV (because Liberals see them as good) but steadfastly refuses to increase power production (because Liberals see that as bad).

MDarringer: Your posts often make good points, but the way *MY* brain works, I often find myself (mis)interpreting your posts to "sound" angry, unhappy, and sometimes even hateful. If other reads are coming to the same (possibly wrong) conclusion as I am, it could explain why your posts get voted down even when they say the same thing (though using different words) as a nearby post that gets voted up.

For example, if your post above read like the one below, I speculate more people would read your post rather than automatically voting down MDarringer posts.

"A lot of people in California believe that EVs are a good idea because they run on "clean" electricity, yet they have no idea where or how that power was generated, or even the true unsubsidized cost of that power. We also have politicians who are one one hand enamored with EVs and Plug-In Hybrids, and creating laws and policies to make them more numerous, while simultaneously turning a blind-eye to our strained-beyond-its-limits power grid, thereby compounding the problem of increased electrical demand and insufficient supply. This is not a recipe for success."

(PS: I didn't cast a vote on your post)

@TheSteve All of us here are words on a screen. The up arrow / down arrow thing shouldn't even exist because we are all just words on a screen.

I, for one, take no offense to being down arrowed because--were I to care--that would bring with it facets of codependence i.e. to live my real life worrying what folks on a car site think of me personally and having that bother my soul.

It simply doesn't.

The way *MY* brain works would be to bark like a dog and then snicker as all the dogs respond.

Yeah, sure, we can all go Barney and sing "I love you. You love me. We're a happy family., but where's the fun in that.

I'd rather snap your butt with my towel in the locker room than say "Hey, buddy, I love you."

If you catch my drift...

With so much solar radiation CA has so much power they could be desalinating the whole Pacific. This is really unnecessary.

Solar is not as widespread in California as you seem to think, but the power grid IS overburdened. Most Californians have experienced rolling blackouts because demand far outstrips supply.

Solar isn't uncommon, but it's nowhere near where it could be.

For example, why isn't there a mandate for all new buildings to have to incorporate solar panels? Why aren't all government buildings solarized?

Solar can be done for zero cost for the components and then pay for the power.

Good point. What the idiots with an agenda to burn don't bother to read up on is that:
California is home to ~46% of the countries Plug-ins
California is also next to the most efficient state in terms of Total Annual Energy Consumed per Capita(million Btu):
- California #3 at 201
- Wyoming last at 949
- Texas 5th from the bottom at 471 - - - or more than twice the energy use per capita than California

@FAQMD Let's assume that's so. Why so long? Houses do not require special engineering for solar panels. Waiting to 2020 is moronic. Commercial construction by 2030? Moronic beyond belief.

One of my endeavors is a rather large body shop that flips muscle cars, old pickups, and occasionally a TVR or a Jensen and we solarized the roof. Our cost for electricity--and we use a lot--plummeted 60% and we're guaranteed the rate for 20 years. After 20 years the rate can only be increased by a fixed amount.

It took 2 weeks for the panels to be up, but 6 weeks for Pacific Gas and Electric to install the meter.

Mr. Darringer,

We're waiting until 2020 in order for the requirement to not be over-burdensome to the homeowners and builders. While solar has become much less expensive, the prices will (relatively)be that much lower in a few years. Also, most solar systems aren't currently designed with the Title 24 'net zero' requirement - as you mentioned, your business dropped their 'use' by ~60%. They're currently designed to drop customers into lower 'tiers' of billing, while reducing demand on the grid during peak hours. Most importantly, the electric 'storage' market will be more developed in the coming years.

If i understand correctly, currently all new homes are required to be designed to be 'solar ready' in order to have solar arrays tied into their meters. While a more aggressive approach than the 2020 deadline would have some immediate benefits, they are essentially phasing this in incrementally, allowing the construction/solar/real estate/finance industry to acclimate.

Don't worry, solar is about to pick up steam like we've only imagined.