Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Ottawa-Gatineau

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CyrusKafaiwu

It doesn’t have to be an OnRoute. As long as there is proper amenities around, I think it is a good placement for EV chargers.

It doesn't have to be an OnRoute but they certainly make the best sense to scale because they are already designed to cater to long distance driving. Imagine, it wasn't an EV and we were discussing where to install gas stations. Putting them at service centres would be the obvious response. It's the same here.

And scale will matter when it comes to wholesale adoption.
We're only at ~2% EV penetration? Imagine 10%. 20%.
30%. The infrastructure demands start looking quite different. Even a lot of those Tesla Supercharger locations might face challenges with adding more stalls as they start maxing out on grid service at their locations. So at some point charging networks will have to be designed and built for large scale use. Not just for a small niche of drivers (or a subset of those who only drive a certain brand).

What's interesting about the Gridserve station was that private capital financed that. Doesn't seem to have attracted much government grants. Seems to me there's probably a case to do something like fund OPG grid upgrades to the OnRoutes and then let a private investor build out and manage the chargers there. Similar to how Canadian Tire sells gas at the OnRoutes. Give them the grid capacity and they can keep adding chargers as demand grows.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tesladom

This approach works well for now for Teslas, but as mass market manufacturers do release their EVs they will need a spot to recharge, assuming a 10x increase in EVs in the next 5 years on the road (not difficult to imagine), these malls will need 100+ stalls.
Tesla Superchargers are still boutique.

Correct. This is what I'm getting at. With mass adoption, the issues with charging also grow substantially. What Tesla is doing works for them. But it's not really a great solution to scale for when BEVs start hitting 10, 20, 30% of car sales. With the fleet mix following the sales mix, 10-20% of vehicles on the road will be EVs by 2030. At that point, they'll need dozens of 100+ kW chargers at every service centre. By 2040, that might be something like 100-200 150+ kW chargers at every service centre. The infrastructure prep work for that needs to start today.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

By 2030 would estimate that 75% of new vehicle sales will be BEVs, with many jurisdictions mandating it to be 100%. By 2040 gas stations will be relics of the past.

I hope you're right. But I can't see it. Right now, we're supposedly not even on track for meeting the 30% by 2030. Hopefully as more models come online and prices drop, maybe adoption will pick up.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Today, if you are spending $50k+ on a gas car (approx 25% of sales), and not buying a BEV, give your head a shake... sorry I'll be this blunt about it

Anybody buying a $50k+ car is not very likely to be an economically sensitive buyer though. Luxury cars depreciate quickly and they all take premium gas. Yet, buyers in this price class still buy them. Mostly because they are looking for luxury, performance, brand appeal, etc. Cost of operation or ownership isn't likely to be high on their list.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

While it is nice having the canopy with solar panels on it, to me it would be more efficient to have vehicles parked either at an angle or perpendicular than having parallel parking. They will also need longer, pull through spots for those towing a trailer.

The lane and curb design seems a little odd. But then again, it's the UK. There's probably not as much towing going on. I would assume any such facility built in North America, would be laid out differently.

Also, canopies can be built to accommodate cars parking in any orientation relative to the curb. It's always been odd to me actually that the OnRoutes were built without solar canopies. EVs aside. It's the perfect place to put a solar farm to power the service centre.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There seems to be a lot of wasted space in the service building. That might work a luxury service centre with fees to "weed out the peasants" , but for the masses, you need a more space efficient environment.

I don't see that. Looks like same footprint as one of our OnRoutes, but with two floors. And the second floor doubles as their sales centre. They lease and sell EVs.

Originally Posted by roger1818

This is also based on the false premise that you need to sit around waiting for your car to charge. The reality is with the faster charging that is rolling out, in the time you need to go to the washroom and grab some drinks/snacks you can get enough charge to get you to the next place you are wanting to take a quick break.

They have lots of 150 kW and some 350 kW chargers. So I don't think they are assuming you sit around. The whole downstairs looks designed for a quick bathroom and snack break. Very little seating downstairs. But lots of retail.

What's interesting to me is that this got done with private capital. They were able to gin up a business model that works on selling services to EV drivers. I'm wondering why the OnRoutes who have 80% of the infrastructure built can't do the rest and make money on it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The quibble is when that point is. This is what you don't seem to understand. You are imagining that plenty of owners would agree to such a scheme. I don't see that number of owners being a majority before 2030.

Where did you get that I thought it would be before 2030?

How many condos have you heard of that have pursued wiring up every single resident parking spot? Do you know of any (that weren't done so right from construction)? This is just not a thing. And won't be a thing for a while. Much as you or I wish it were different.

Is it 2030 yet?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The lane and curb design seems a little odd. But then again, it's the UK. There's probably not as much towing going on. I would assume any such facility built in North America, would be laid out differently.

It isn't just towing. It just doesn't seem as space efficient. This layout requires a larger canopy and more land for fewer cars.

Also, canopies can be built to accommodate cars parking in any orientation relative to the curb.

That is my point. Their design seems strange.

It's always been odd to me actually that the OnRoutes were built without solar canopies. EVs aside. It's the perfect place to put a solar farm to power the service centre.

The cost of PV panels has dropped significantly over the past decade. They were expensive when the OnRoutes were built and cheap now.


Source: renewableenergyhub.co.uk

I don't see that. Looks like same footprint as one of our OnRoutes, but with two floors. And the second floor doubles as their sales centre. They lease and sell EVs.

It is the sprawling lounge area upstairs that I was looking at. I didn't get a good look at the lower level. Maybe it is better.

They have lots of 150 kW and some 350 kW chargers. So I don't think they are assuming you sit around. The whole downstairs looks designed for a quick bathroom and snack break. Very little seating downstairs. But lots of retail.

Okay. Maybe it isn't as bad as I thought.

What's interesting to me is that this got done with private capital. They were able to gin up a business model that works on selling services to EV drivers. I'm wondering why the OnRoutes who have 80% of the infrastructure built can't do the rest and make money on it.

First of all, from what I have heard, EV adoption in the UK is considerably ahead of Canada. This article says that as of September, "pure-electric models accounted for 6.7% of total new car registrations," I can't find Canada's Q3 EV sales, but in Q1 and Q2 light duty ZEVs represented 3.8% and 3.3% respectively. That is about half, making us about 3 years behind by my estimation.

Secondly, if you watched the Fully Charged episode, Gridserve isn't expecting to make money on it in the short term, but want to get a foothold in the market early. The ONRoute stations already exist and are popular, so they can afford to wait until there is a larger deployment of EVs and they can see a return on their investment faster.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, in June 2029, all 23 ONroute centres were sold, "to Arjun Infrastructure and Fengate Asset Management. Arjun is a British company which is the minority shareholder in the similar Welcome Break chain of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom." It will be interesting to see what they do, if anything, regarding EV charging.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CyrusKafaiwu

Focus needs to move onto new routes such as to Timmins, ON or between Quebec City to PEI, etc.

Dunno if you've kept track of Ivy, but they are building a network that would get you to Timmins. Actually, their network will get you to Thunder Bay by the end of next year.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, from what I have heard, EV adoption in the UK is considerably ahead of Canada. This article says that as of September, "pure-electric models accounted for 6.7% of total new car registrations," I can't find Canada's Q3 EV sales, but in Q1 and Q2 light duty ZEVs represented 3.8% and 3.3% respectively. That is about half, making us about 3 years behind by my estimation.

We may be 2-3 yrs behind, but I would also argue that it's odd that we haven't built any fast chargers at all at service centres on literally the busiest expressway in the country, in the most populated region of the country. There's at least a case for the small 6-8 stall stations like Tesla builds.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Secondly, if you watched the Fully Charged episode, Gridserve isn't expecting to make money on it in the short term, but want to get a foothold in the market early. The ONRoute stations already exist and are popular, so they can afford to wait until there is a larger deployment of EVs and they can see a return on their investment faster.

Gridserve had to build the whole service centre. Not just the chargers. And they won't have to many ICE drivers providing revenue by stopping at the service centres. They also chose to build their own solar farm to source green electricity. That's a substantially more expensive business model than simply installing chargers at an existing service centre. But the model is different. Gridserve is planning 100 locations in the UK. This seems less like a highway service centre building than some hybrid of gas station, service centre and auto dealership. I'd like OnRoute to copy the EV charging part. Don't think we need the rest of it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, in June 2029, all 23 ONroute centres were sold, "to Arjun Infrastructure and Fengate Asset Management. Arjun is a British company which is the minority shareholder in the similar Welcome Break chain of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom." It will be interesting to see what they do, if anything, regarding EV charging.

I'm not holding my breath. They are an infrastructure company that also owns service centres in the US. They also resorted to high leverage to make the deal. So they are really gonna want top dollar from any network wanting to install chargers there. I hope I'm wrong, but their service centres in the UK aren't anything special and do the absolute bare minimum for EV charging. Though, I guess that's better than what we have now... We'll see I guess.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We may be 2-3 yrs behind, but I would also argue that it's odd that we haven't built any fast chargers at all at service centres on literally the busiest expressway in the country, in the most populated region of the country. There's at least a case for the small 6-8 stall stations like Tesla builds.

You are really stuck on this idea aren't you. The thing is, ONRoute is a business that is there to make money and EV Charging won't make them money today. At best a provider will want free rent and more likely they would expect to be paid for the privilege of installing and maintaining the chargers. Unless ONRoute can turn around an charge their other tenants more rent as a result (which considering only about 1% of the vehicles on the road are EVs isn't likely) there is no incentive to do anything, yet.

As the number of EVs on the road grow, the business case will change. Not only will the business of charging EVs become profitable, but the loss of business resulting from EV drivers going elsewhere will have their tenants put pressure on them to do something.

Gridserve had to build the whole service centre. Not just the chargers. And they won't have to many ICE drivers providing revenue by stopping at the service centres. They also chose to build their own solar farm to source green electricity. That's a substantially more expensive business model than simply installing chargers at an existing service centre. But the model is different. Gridserve is planning 100 locations in the UK. This seems less like a highway service centre building than some hybrid of gas station, service centre and auto dealership. I'd like OnRoute to copy the EV charging part. Don't think we need the rest of it.

The thing is, the EV charging part is a loss leader. It is there to encourage people to come and pay for the other services. As a new business, they need something to make them stand out from the competition. ONRoute already has a hold on the market and until they start loosing market share or see a way to make money from EV charging there is no incentive to change.

I'm not holding my breath. They are an infrastructure company that also owns service centres in the US. They also resorted to high leverage to make the deal. So they are really gonna want top dollar from any network wanting to install chargers there. I hope I'm wrong, but their service centres in the UK aren't anything special and do the absolute bare minimum for EV charging. Though, I guess that's better than what we have now... We'll see I guess.

You are probably right, for now.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You are really stuck on this idea aren't you.

I don't suffer bad political decisions easily. And I don't like mediocrity.

Not installing them at OnRoutes was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 decision and I don't see the issue in calling it out. It should have been mandated as part of the renewal program.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, ONRoute is a business that is there to make money and EV Charging won't make them money today.....The thing is, the EV charging part is a loss leader.

And you seem stuck on this concept despite the emergence of several private charging networks now pursuing EV charging as an actual business.

Charging may be a loss leader for Gridserve. But that's not true globally. And more to the point, it doesn't have to be for OnRoute. Might not be high margin. But it doesn't have to be a loss leader either.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't suffer bad political decisions easily. And I don't like mediocrity.

Not installing them at OnRoutes was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 decision and I don't see the issue in calling it out. It should have been mandated as part of the renewal program.

The question is, who are you calling out? Don't forget that Host Kilmer Service Centres obtained a 50-year concession to operate them in 2010. Back then no one was taking EVs seriously and I would doubt if the Ontario government has much influence on how they are operated.

There may also be contractual issues whereby Canadian Tire has exclusivity on energy sales. Since Canadian Tire doesn't have any significant retail presence at the ONroutes, they wouldn't see any secondary benefits from investing in chargers.

And you seem stuck on this concept despite the emergence of several private charging networks now pursuing EV charging as an actual business.

Do you know how the private charging networks operate? There are several different business models.

Most networks (ChargePoint, FLO, etc) get paid by the property owner/lessor a fixed fee to install and maintain the charging stations and any revenue generated is given to the contractee (possibly minus a commission). These typically operate at a loss for the contractee, but they see other benefits (looking green or attracting new customers to their business). These networks are profitable because they receive fixed fees to cover their costs.

The hydro sponsored networks (Ivy, BC Hydro, etc) see EV adoption as a way of balancing their grid and getting better utilization of their infrastructure and thus want to promote their adoption. They also have the advantage of being more vertically integrated in the electricity generation and distribution process.

Some deep pocketed networks (Electrify Canada, Petro‑Canada, Shell, etc) don't mind loosing money now so that they can get their foot in the door once the business becomes profitable. The petroleum companies also see it as a way of looking green and providing a path for them to pivot their business model once gasoline sales start to drop.

Then of course there is Tesla, who builds their network to encourage the sale of their vehicles.

Charging may be a loss leader for Gridserve. But that's not true globally. And more to the point, it doesn't have to be for OnRoute. Might not be high margin. But it doesn't have to be a loss leader either.

What charging companies are profitable without being subsidized one way or another? What makes you think ONroute would make any money at all with EV charging?

Networks like Ivy, Electrify Canada and Tesla might install and maintain chargers for free, but they likely wouldn't be willing to pay any rent. Networks like ChargePoint and FLO would expect to be paid to install and maintain chargers.

[SidetrackedSue]

As a resident of a rental high rise, owning only an EV, I'll add up that 110V charging is more than enough for us. We get ~150km of range per 24 hours which is more than enough for us. I don't work outside the home but for those that do, parking where there is a charger offered would increase their charging options.

So Condo owners who want to be EV owners can start smaller and not scare off their Condo board.

We've only had the car since the end of September but have yet to be limited by range. We keep the car at 70% charged and one day decided to go out to Smiths Falls after being out all day in the east end. That day we had range to get home but took the opportunity to test the free L2 charger in Smiths Falls, and then popped over to Perth for dinner and a Supercharger top-up (eating after the top-up because they are so fast there's not time to go for a meal.)

As an high-rise dweller, the biggest issue with Tesla ownership is the frequent updates (we've had at least one every 2 weeks.) For now, we combine them with trips to our son's where we can hop on his WiFi from the driveway and we go for a walk or have a yard visit with him while the download happens. The last one, I did on the Tesla guest WiFi at the SC. Two have been pushed over the LTE network when we didn't update fast enough (therefore were safety issues being corrected.) This wasn't something we figured on when we bought the car, my focus was on range and charging options.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, who are you calling out?

The government which tendered the contract.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Don't forget that Host Kilmer Service Centres obtained a 50-year concession to operate them in 2010. Back then no one was taking EVs seriously and I would doubt if the Ontario government has much influence on how they are operated.

There were/are ways to write a contract that ensured openness to any emerging technology. The Nissan Leaf was already in production at that point, and there was already discussion of transitioning hybrids to plug-ins at minimum at that point. The same government was also promoting alternative energy at that point and started offering EV rebates in July of 2010. Seems pretty incompetent to me to hand out subsidies for EVs and then not insist that the service centres being turned over allow charging if the technology matures.

Originally Posted by roger1818

There may also be contractual issues whereby Canadian Tire has exclusivity on energy sales. Since Canadian Tire doesn't have any significant retail presence at the ONroutes, they wouldn't see any secondary benefits from investing in chargers.

This is almost assuredly a major obstacle. And again, down to the incompetence of those who negotiated the contract at that point. HKSC should have given CT exclusivity only on servicing ICE vehicles at the time.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Do you know how the private charging networks operate? There are several different business models.

Most networks (ChargePoint, FLO, etc) get paid by the property owner/lessor a fixed fee to install and maintain the charging stations and any revenue generated is given to the contractee (possibly minus a commission). These typically operate at a loss for the contractee, but they see other benefits (looking green or attracting new customers to their business). These networks are profitable because they receive fixed fees to cover their costs.

The hydro sponsored networks (Ivy, BC Hydro, etc) see EV adoption as a way of balancing their grid and getting better utilization of their infrastructure and thus want to promote their adoption. They also have the advantage of being more vertically integrated in the electricity generation and distribution process.

Some deep pocketed networks (Electrify Canada, Petro‑Canada, Shell, etc) don't mind loosing money now so that they can get their foot in the door once the business becomes profitable. The petroleum companies also see it as a way of looking green and providing a path for them to pivot their business model once gasoline sales start to drop.

Then of course there is Tesla, who builds their network to encourage the sale of their vehicles.

What charging companies are profitable without being subsidized one way or another? What makes you think ONroute would make any money at all with EV charging?

Networks like Ivy, Electrify Canada and Tesla might install and maintain chargers for free, but they likely wouldn't be willing to pay any rent. Networks like ChargePoint and FLO would expect to be paid to install and maintain chargers.

We're talking about installing at the OnRoutes. So they can absolutely accomodate a number of business models. The easiest argument to make for the networks to make is that their chargers don't in any way impact the sales of CT gasoline, and they boost the income of HKSC's food retailers. Failing that, the networks that are non-exclusive (Ivy, Electrify Canada, etc.) would most assuredly consider paying rent, if it's reasonable to the amount of power they retail at those locations. Even exclusive networks like Tesla might consider it. The impact on the network's brand, being at every OnRoute is huge. It's the same as Canadian Tire paying up to get exclusivity on retailing gasoline (not a hugely lucrative enterprise in and of itself) at the OnRoutes. Heck, if I were a manager at Tesla, I would be willing to pay to make sure only Teslas can be charged at an OnRoute for the next 20 years. Imagine the advantage gained from that as other EV models and brands gain traction in Canada.

In any event, the business model isn't really a concern of the OnRoute operators. All they have to do is be open to some network setting up and willing to pressure Canadian Tire to drop their resistance to EV charging. To that end, government should absolutely be putting pressure on the new owners to get it done. Given what Canadian Tire is doing installing chargers at all their stores nationwide, I am not even sure, they'd need much effort to convince. Just a suitable business offer.

[Tesladom]

Perhaps OnRoute operators have been courting Tesla, you never know...
https://electrek.co/2020/11/19/tesla-exp...k-canada-launches-search-new-site-hosts/

It seems that Superchargers are appearing at Canadian Tire locations (like latest one in Ottawa).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by SidetrackedSue

As a resident of a rental high rise, owning only an EV, I'll add up that 110V charging is more than enough for us. We get ~150km of range per 24 hours which is more than enough for us. I don't work outside the home but for those that do, parking where there is a charger offered would increase their charging options.

So Condo owners who want to be EV owners can start smaller and not scare off their Condo board.

We've only had the car since the end of September but have yet to be limited by range. We keep the car at 70% charged and one day decided to go out to Smiths Falls after being out all day in the east end. That day we had range to get home but took the opportunity to test the free L2 charger in Smiths Falls, and then popped over to Perth for dinner and a Supercharger top-up (eating after the top-up because they are so fast there's not time to go for a meal.)

Thanks for the update! Certainly Level 1 charging at home is far better than nothing and many can make it work if their mileage is low. Even if it isn't enough, it is better than not being able to charge at home at all and you can top up here and there.

As an high-rise dweller, the biggest issue with Tesla ownership is the frequent updates (we've had at least one every 2 weeks.) For now, we combine them with trips to our son's where we can hop on his WiFi from the driveway and we go for a walk or have a yard visit with him while the download happens. The last one, I did on the Tesla guest WiFi at the SC. Two have been pushed over the LTE network when we didn't update fast enough (therefore were safety issues being corrected.) This wasn't something we figured on when we bought the car, my focus was on range and charging options.

Interesting. I assume you get a bill for LTE data use? How much would an update cost in data? That is a downside of OTA updates that I hadn't heard of before.

[CanadaGoose]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting. I assume you get a bill for LTE data use? How much would an update cost in data? That is a downside of OTA updates that I hadn't heard of before.

For Tesla updates, you need to either have an wifi connection to your car or hotspot your phone’s data plan to the car. Updates range from 400mb to 5gb.

Regarding the cost of data, if you need a cheap plan that can adjust, I hear Fizz is fine.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by CyrusKafaiwu

For Tesla updates, you need to either have an wifi connection to your car or hotspot your phone’s data plan to the car. Updates range from 400mb to 5gb.

Regarding the cost of data, if you need a cheap plan that can adjust, I hear Fizz is fine.

I wonder if anyone's ever tried pulling into a Starbucks parking lot and trying to download it there....

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government which tendered the contract.

So you are calling out the former Dalton McGuinty's liberal government?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There were/are ways to write a contract that ensured openness to any emerging technology. The Nissan Leaf was already in production at that point, and there was already discussion of transitioning hybrids to plug-ins at minimum at that point.

The Nissan Leaf went on sale on December 20, 2010. As for PHEVs, they typically don't support rapid charging, so would be expected to use gas for road trips.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The same government was also promoting alternative energy at that point and started offering EV rebates in July of 2010. Seems pretty incompetent to me to hand out subsidies for EVs and then not insist that the service centres being turned over allow charging if the technology matures.

And the deal with HMS Host was announced in April 2010. Government contracts usually take years to negotiate, so even though the government announced an EV rebate 3 months later, EVs likely weren't foremost in mind when they started the negotiations. While hindsight is 20/20, few people knew much about EV charging back then.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is almost assuredly a major obstacle. And again, down to the incompetence of those who negotiated the contract at that point. HKSC should have given CT exclusivity only on servicing ICE vehicles at the time.

CT has been at ONroutes since 2010. You seem to be putting todays standards on a decision that was made a decade ago.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're talking about installing at the OnRoutes. So they can absolutely accomodate a number of business models. The easiest argument to make for the networks to make is that their chargers don't in any way impact the sales of CT gasoline, and they boost the income of HKSC's food retailers.

While it may not affect CT's gasoline sales, they may want the option to transition to electricity once it becomes a profitable endeavor and thus may not want to give up those rights, even if they aren't using them today.

As for the income of the HKSC's food retailers, with only about 1% of vehicles on the road being BEVs (many of which are secondary cars and not used for road trips), do you think they would even notice enough of a boost in sales from EV drivers to be willing to pay more rent?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Failing that, the networks that are non-exclusive (Ivy, Electrify Canada, etc.) would most assuredly consider paying rent, if it's reasonable to the amount of power they retail at those locations. Even exclusive networks like Tesla might consider it.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The impact on the network's brand, being at every OnRoute is huge. It's the same as Canadian Tire paying up to get exclusivity on retailing gasoline (not a hugely lucrative enterprise in and of itself) at the OnRoutes. Heck,

Do you really believe gas stations aren't very lucrative, especially in locations that have such a huge captive market?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

if I were a manager at Tesla, I would be willing to pay to make sure only Teslas can be charged at an OnRoute for the next 20 years. Imagine the advantage gained from that as other EV models and brands gain traction in Canada.

Tesla might consider it because of the exposure they would get for vehicle sales, but they would want exclusivity. Would it be wise for ONroute to sign an exclusive contract with Tesla and alienate every other brand of vehicle?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In any event, the business model isn't really a concern of the OnRoute operators. All they have to do is be open to some network setting up and willing to pressure Canadian Tire to drop their resistance to EV charging. To that end, government should absolutely be putting pressure on the new owners to get it done. Given what Canadian Tire is doing installing chargers at all their stores nationwide, I am not even sure, they'd need much effort to convince. Just a suitable business offer.

The business model of ONroutes is to make rental income. If they can't make money from EV charging today, why would they bother? From their perspective, what is the downside of waiting until it is profitable? Unless someone else comes along and installs something like Gridserve nearby, they can just wait it out.

Originally Posted by Tesladom

Perhaps OnRoute operators have been courting Tesla, you never know...
https://electrek.co/2020/11/19/tesla-exp...k-canada-launches-search-new-site-hosts/

Note how the article says they are "seeking businesses to apply to become a Supercharger site host."

Originally Posted by Tesladom

It seems that Superchargers are appearing at Canadian Tire locations (like latest one in Ottawa).

Yes, but I expect CT is hoping that people who are charging will spend time shopping in their store. They don't have CT stores at the ONroutes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are calling out the former Dalton McGuinty's liberal government?

Certainly didn't help that a staffer from that government went to work for Tesla after....

Originally Posted by roger1818

The Nissan Leaf went on sale on December 20, 2010. As for PHEVs, they typically don't support rapid charging, so would be expected to use gas for road trips.



And the deal with HMS Host was announced in April 2010. Government contracts usually take years to negotiate, so even though the government announced an EV rebate 3 months later, EVs likely weren't foremost in mind when they started the negotiations. While hindsight is 20/20, few people knew much about EV charging back then.



CT has been at ONroutes since 2010. You seem to be putting todays standards on a decision that was made a decade ago.

Hardly. You seem to be making a lot of excuses for what is obvious incompetence. You have family who work for the Ontario Liberals or something? It's not like they didn't know that transport electrification was a trend at that point. Their own EV subsidies launched that year. So they were finalizing the subsidy program at the same time as they were negotiating the contract to privatize the service centres and somehow didn't think to mandate that the new owners be open to whatever new fuel would come along in the future.

It's pretty obvious to me that they simply didn't think of anything but prettying up the OnRoutes. And that is actually incompetence. Not revisionism. Let's say it was not BEVs but Hydrogen that took off. We'd be in the same positions where CT has a monopoly on selling ALL fuel but refuses to adopt and deploy new technologies.

Originally Posted by roger1818

While it may not affect CT's gasoline sales, they may want the option to transition to electricity once it becomes a profitable endeavor and thus may not want to give up those rights, even if they aren't using them today.

But that's the issue for CT and HKSC (or Arjun Capital) today. As a taxpayer, I don't give a damn about that. I want better service for their exclusivity on an asset owned by taxpayers.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for the income of the HKSC's food retailers, with only about 1% of vehicles on the road being BEVs (many of which are secondary cars and not used for road trips), do you think they would even notice enough of a boost in sales from EV drivers to be willing to pay more rent?

You're right. Good job making the usual arguments for why we shouldn't invest much in electric infrastructure.

Let's say that CT decides it's too expensive to install/support chargers. And simply refused to do so, doubling down on exclusively retailing gas. At what point would you actually call them out? If they double down on only retailing gas when a quarter of the cars on the road are BEVs are you going to be here saying, "It's only a quarter."?

Originally Posted by roger1818

Do you have any evidence of this?

I was speculating. That was obvious. But I don't think I'm wrong in thinking they would pay if a location generates enough revenue or brand recognition for them. This isn't some far fetched business idea.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Do you really believe gas stations aren't very lucrative, especially in locations that have such a huge captive market?

Define "lucrative". Are they profitable? Absolutely. But retailing gasoline isn't exactly a high margin business. There's a reason every gas station has a convenience store attached. And CT has to pay higher rent premiums to operate at the OnRoutes.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Tesla might consider it because of the exposure they would get for vehicle sales, but they would want exclusivity. Would it be wise for ONroute to sign an exclusive contract with Tesla and alienate every other brand of vehicle?

If they get paid enough for it? Sure. We gave HKSC carte blanche in that deal, remember? You seem to think that's okay. So I guess you should be okay with HKSC pocketing a good chunk of change by making sure only Teslas can fuel at OnRoutes till the end of the current deal.

Personally? It would 🞵🞵🞵🞵. But then I'd just go with the obvious decision. Guess you'd have to stick with Tesla at that point.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The business model of ONroutes is to make rental income. If they can't make money from EV charging today, why would they bother? From their perspective, what is the downside of waiting until it is profitable? Unless someone else comes along and installs something like Gridserve nearby, they can just wait it out.

This is exactly the problem though. Thanks to the contract the province negotiated, OnRoutes have exclusivity on all 400 series controlled access freeways. Something like Gridserve wouldn't even be possible unless its off-highway. So we've essentially created a scenario where we aren't building charging infrastructure in literally the most obvious locations to build them (where lots of cars stop for 20-30 mins) because we gave some company a half-century exclusivity that cover any and all technological evolution. How anybody can defend that is beyond me.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Certainly didn't help that a staffer from that government went to work for Tesla after....

Not sure how that is relevant, but it is interesting.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Hardly. You seem to be making a lot of excuses for what is obvious incompetence.

Not trying to make excuses, just trying to be realistic.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You have family who work for the Ontario Liberals or something?

No I don't have any friends or family who work (or have worked) for any political party.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not like they didn't know that transport electrification was a trend at that point. Their own EV subsidies launched that year. So they were finalizing the subsidy program at the same time as they were negotiating the contract to privatize the service centres and somehow didn't think to mandate that the new owners be open to whatever new fuel would come along in the future.

I still don't remain convinced that it was as obvious that the trend was towards electrification back then as it is today. The reality is, who cares. The decision was made by a former (arguably corrupt) government that is no longer in power. There is no point worrying about what they should have done back then.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's pretty obvious to me that they simply didn't think of anything but prettying up the OnRoutes. And that is actually incompetence. Not revisionism. Let's say it was not BEVs but Hydrogen that took off. We'd be in the same positions where CT has a monopoly on selling ALL fuel but refuses to adopt and deploy new technologies.

I guess I am more jaded and my expectations from governments is lower than yours.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But that's the issue for CT and HKSC (or Arjun Capital) today. As a taxpayer, I don't give a damn about that. I want better service for their exclusivity on an asset owned by taxpayers.

And I want more reasonable tolls on the 407, but a contract is a contract. At least this one is only for 50 years. You can moan and complain all you want about bad decisions former governments made all you like, but it won't change anything today.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're right. Good job making the usual arguments for why we shouldn't invest much in electric infrastructure.

There is a big difference between public and private investments. I fully support and expect government investment in infrastructure that is for the public good, but I don't expect private companies to make a similar investment unless they can see some benefit in return.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's say that CT decides it's too expensive to install/support chargers. And simply refused to do so, doubling down on exclusively retailing gas. At what point would you actually call them out? If they double down on only retailing gas when a quarter of the cars on the road are BEVs are you going to be here saying, "It's only a quarter."?

Without getting too philosophical, as a general life rule, I try to not create expectations and instead convert them to desires. Having said that, I do beleive that they will install them within the next decade (and probably within the next 5 years).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was speculating. That was obvious. But I don't think I'm wrong in thinking they would pay if a location generates enough revenue or brand recognition for them. This isn't some far fetched business idea.

It really depends who you are talking about.
I don't think Ivy (being supported by two provincial crown corporations) has deep enough pockets to pay rent at this time, and they are less about getting their name out and more about promoting the adoption of EVs.
Regarding Electrify Canada, assuming they have the same business model as Electrify America, they do have a large amount of cash now, but their business model requires that they be sustainable after their 10-year implementation period (when the money from VW runs out). The question becomes, are they better building more chargers at more locations that provide free rent or fewer chargers at fewer locations and pay rent.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Define "lucrative". Are they profitable? Absolutely. But retailing gasoline isn't exactly a high margin business. There's a reason every gas station has a convenience store attached. And CT has to pay higher rent premiums to operate at the OnRoutes.

The profitability of a gas station comes down to the real estate mantra of "location, location, location." Sure the rent will be higher at an ONroute but with a large flow of traffic, the income will also be much higher. And being a large network rather than a small owner-operator, the risks are mitigated.
It is true that convenience stores add revenue (why not sell an overpriced chocolate bar or some cigarettes with some gas) but the main reason is to try and differentiate themselves from other nearby stations (if I need gas and want a snack, I will chose the station that can sell me both).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they get paid enough for it? Sure. We gave HKSC carte blanche in that deal, remember? You seem to think that's okay. So I guess you should be okay with HKSC pocketing a good chunk of change by making sure only Teslas can fuel at OnRoutes till the end of the current deal.

Personally? It would 🞵🞵🞵🞵. But then I'd just go with the obvious decision. Guess you'd have to stick with Tesla at that point.

It comes down to which option will make them more money in the long run? While most BEVs on the road today are Teslas, in 5 years time things are likely to be totally different. An exclusive contract with Tesla would probably have long term revenue implications for the ONroute stations. They are likely better off to hold out for a better deal.

Also, I never said I way okay with the decision, just that I understand why it was made at the time. If someone bought Nortel stock in 1999 (and not sold it before the crash) as part of their portfolio, it might have seemed a good idea at the time, but in hind sight it would be viewed as a bad decision. Sure you can second guess and and say as an investor you should have seen that bad decisions were being made that led to the crash, but that isn't always obvious at the time as it is in hindsight.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is exactly the problem though. Thanks to the contract the province negotiated, OnRoutes have exclusivity on all 400 series controlled access freeways. Something like Gridserve wouldn't even be possible unless its off-highway. So we've essentially created a scenario where we aren't building charging infrastructure in literally the most obvious locations to build them (where lots of cars stop for 20-30 mins) because we gave some company a half-century exclusivity that cover any and all technological evolution. How anybody can defend that is beyond me.

I am not saying it was a great decision and should be repeated. I am saying that it seemed like a good decision at the time. There is a big difference.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not saying it was a great decision and should be repeated. I am saying that it seemed like a good decision at the time. There is a big difference.

That's the difference between you and me.

I don't think it was a great decision even by standards of the era. When giving a multi-decade exclusive contract, there should be language accounting for technological change.