APCD
By the Air Pollution Control District
A ribbon-cutting ceremony [Monday] celebrated the opening of a new electric vehicle charging station in Carpinteria – the first direct-current fast-charging station in the city.
The station, located at The Shepard Place Shops at 1001 Casitas Pass Road, was installed by The Towbes Group and supported by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD) Clean Air Grants program.
The new station is open to any person wishing to charge their electric car, and it provides two charging ports to allow for two cars to charge simultaneously. The direct-current fast charger can charge an electric car up to 100 miles in 10 minutes.
“I’m excited for this new fast-charging station in Carpinteria,” said Carpinteria Mayor Al Clark, who also serves on APCD’s Board of Directors and spoke at today’s ribbon-cutting ceremony. “It’s easy to use and provides a quick charge – perfect for charging your electric car while running errands or stopping for a meal nearby. I appreciate all of the partners who made this project possible.”
“I am thrilled that The Towbes Group has installed the first DCFC electric vehicle fast charger at the Shephard Place Shops right here in Carpinteria,” said County Supervisor Das Williams, who also serves on APCD’s Board of Directors and spoke at today’s ribbon-cutting ceremony. “Increasing the use of electric vehicles is vital to our air quality and climate protection, and a convenient fast charger right next to great restaurants and shopping is a needed step.”
The Towbes Group secured approximately $100,000 in funding from APCD’s Clean Air Grants program to help cover the installation costs for this project. Since 2011, APCD’s Clean Air Grants program has contributed more than $3.1 million toward electric vehicle infrastructure projects in Santa Barbara County, including 274 chargers that are currently publicly available or in development. Those 274 chargers are a mix of fast chargers (also known as Level 3 chargers) and Level 2 chargers, which charge cars at a slower speed than the direct-current fast chargers. Countywide, there are 97 publicly available direct-current fast chargers already installed or slated to be installed, with 24 of those receiving partial funding from APCD’s Clean Air Grants program.
Photo: Maxx Hennard
“APCD is excited to partner with The Towbes Group to bring the first fast chargers to Carpinteria,” said APCD Executive Director, Aeron Arlin Genet, who spoke at today’s ribbon-cutting ceremony. “We encourage all eligible entities to consider our Clean Air Grants program for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Convenient access to charging stations is essential for more drivers to choose electric cars, benefiting our local air quality and the environment.”
“The Towbes Group and the owners of Shepard Place Shops are proud to partner with FreeWire and Pardagim Electric to bring the very first DCFC EV Fast Charger to our patrons and neighbors in Carpinteria. We are resolute in our commitment to support and foster the vibrancy of the communities where our properties are located and firmly believe that promoting environmentally sound practices is an integral part of what we do. Bringing this new high-speed EV charger to our community is a source of pride for our team and we hope that these efforts will encourage other important community partnerships and green initiatives,” said Robert Skinner, CEO of The Towbes Group.
Today’s ribbon-cutting ceremony also featured a demonstration of using the charging station and an informational booth about electric vehicles, with information provided by APCD, the Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition, and the Community Environmental Council.
This charging station, as well as other all other stations funded by APCD’s Clean Air Grants program, can be found on the Alternative Fuels Data Center Station Locator: Alternative Fuels Data Center: Alternative Fueling Station Locator (energy.gov). Community members are invited to view the following website for information on different cars and rebates: https://www.electricforall.org/which-car-is-right/.
Waiting for the comments from the triggered pro-petrol usual suspects.
“That’s all you people do….” – go re-read your own comments.
Then what? You can start an argument? That’s all you people do….
Typical woke fuel antics. Taking up spots that could be used for gas dispensers or even mini oil wells. Just more woke bs brought to you be Big Electricity. The sheeple need to watch my You Tube documentary on how the environment is in cahoots with Telsa (who is really run by ANTIFA) and innocent oil producers are being attacked for their efforts to clean electricity from dolphins’ blowholes….. smh. Wake up, but don’t be woke, folks!
CHIP!
That’s a good one Sac. I am very curious about whether the power is “free” or if users of this charging device have to pay. It would be a bit ridiculous for the county government to spend $100k in taxpayer funds and pay thousands of dollars per month for electricity on a permanent basis all so rich people can pretend their conspicuous consumption and gratuitous exploitation of the earth’s mineral wealth in the form of ginormous luxury vehicles powered is somehow righteous and beneficial to society as they charge up at taxpayer expense. If you can afford an $80,000 car, you can afford to pay for the power to charge it.
We’ve watched refineries burn, platforms explode and pipelines leak for decades at the expense of the taxpayers.
” people can pretend their conspicuous consumption and gratuitous exploitation of the earth’s mineral wealth in the form of ginormous luxury vehicles powered is somehow righteous and beneficial to society” So, you’re talking about the digging up of the remnants of dinosaur bones and plants out of the earth so we can fuel Hummers and Cadillacs?
Sounds a lot like sour grapes, especially since you’ve been shown numerous times that the environmental impact of EVs is an order of magnitude less than that of gassers.
Sac, if we pursue “renewable” energy at the expense of reliable and cost effective energy infrastructure our economy will slow, costs will rise, and we will lose our position of global leadership and strength. If we proceed down that path and allow countries like Russia and China who do not share your concern about CO2 emissions to take our place as the leading world powers then we will truly be f’d as you put it.
Pretending wind and solar can reliably provide all the power we need 24/7 at a competitive cost is denying reality.
“The future will be coal, oil, gas, and nuclear.” – If it is, we’re f*cked. Good thing that intelligent, forward thinking people are supporting the subsidization and research to stop your deadly vision of the future from coming true. Instead of complaining about them, you should be thanking them.
CHIP – if we pursue oil and coal at the expense of researching and working toward reliable and cost effective renewable energy infrastructure our economy will be irrelevant, costs of cancer treatment will rise, and we will lose our position of global leadership and strength – because there will be no more globe.
Merely repurposing the billions of dollars expended annually in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, and using them instead to support development of sane power sources, would assure us world leadership in energy technology. Continuing to dig the carbon hole deeper is just plain idiocy, since we will all have to bear the increasing financial burdens to mitigate the harm.
What billions of dollars n subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are you referring to? Far more is spent subsidizing the “renewable” industry which would basically cease to exist if it wasn’t funded / mandated by the government.
CHIP – here, it’s easily verifiable: “Calculating the cost of U.S. subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is complex because the incentives stretch across the U.S. tax code, but estimates range from $10 to $50 billion per year.” https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-budget-target-us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2023-03-09/#:~:text=HOW%20MUCH%20ARE%20THEY%20WORTH,to%20%2450%20billion%20per%20year.
So. Much. Facts.
Chip are you capable of making a statement without total hyperbole? Which is it? 100k or 80k for that rich guy to buy an electric car?
You do know that there is an entire class of EV in the 30-40k range right? Factors in gas and repair and maintenance and your monthly expense is comparable to ICE vehicle in the low to mid 20s
Try and be honest every now and then.
I’ve heard people say that taxpayers subsidize the oil and gas industry over and over. However, the government also subsidies so-called renewable energy. Subsidies for oil and gas are relatively small, and the government spends way more subsidizing “renewable” energy. Below is an article with a bar chart comparing subsidies for different types of energy. Finally, consider what would happen if all oil and gas subsidies were eliminated. How many people would continue to fuel their vehicles and heat and power their homes with oil and gas? Pretty much everyone. It wouldn’t change anything. Now consider what would happen if all subsidies for “renewable” energy were eliminated. How many people would pay to install a solar system if they couldn’t get a tax rebate and sign up for net metering to reduce their electric bill? Pretty much nobody.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/
CHIP – “so-called renewable energy” – again…. do you honestly believe the sun and wind are NOT renewable sources of energy? A little science goes a long way.
Also… “Subsidies for oil and gas are relatively small, and the government spends way more subsidizing “renewable” energy.” — this is GREAT, why the ho hum? Renewable energy isn’t cheap, the government SHOULD be subsidizing it until it’s financially viable for all. Good and smart leaders recognize we can’t be choking on oil smoke any longer and need to adopt RENEWABLE forms of energy – sun, wind, water, etc. If that means helping it get a foothold in our country while the tech catches up with demand and becomes affordable to all, then that’s what a good government does.
I’ll never understand why you hate and bemoan clean energy.
If you think he hates and bemoans clean energy you’re not actually reading and understanding his comments but taking your usual course of assuming his position is the exact and extreme opposite because he dared disrupt your echo chamber.
Chip will only see what he’s inclined to see, facts be damned. Politics over truth. He and VOR and some of the other blabbering oilies are blind to the fact that they’ve been duped.
VOICE – once again speaking for others and once again absolutely wrong.
He calls it “so-called renewable,” and constantly complains about it’s implementation, ie, “bemoans” it.
He’s upset it’s getting more subsidies than coal and still believes the warped and fanatic idea that renewables are dirtier than coal and oil, ergo he pretty surely “hates” it if he is clinging to those beliefs. Or, would you be happier if I said instead he “dislikes” it? There, for you I will change my comment.
CHIP – “I’ll never understand why you dislike and bemoan clean energy.”
There you go.
The sun and the wind are both forms of unlimited free energy. Since the sun rises every day, I suppose you could say it’s “renewed” every day if you wish. The problem lies in harnessing that energy. Solar panels are made from lots of toxic materials and require energy intensive mining and manufacturing processes that have significant environmental and humanitarian consequences. I will concede solar panels are “renewable” but only in the sense they need to be renewed (replaced) after about 20 years. The old panels need to be disposed of and cannot be recycled, and new panels must be manufactured which causes more environmentally destructive mining and manufacturing. That’s why I say so-called renewable energy, it’s important to be clear about what it really means. Wind energy has similar issues since windmills have a limited lifespan and have their own environmental impacts. As far as whether an electric car costs $80k or $100k, that depends on how gratuitously oversized and luxurious it is, and how much taxpayer money is given to the millionaire who buys it to subsidize his purchase.
CHIP – I’m glad to see you “concede” that the wind and sun are renewable, as is the energy they provide. As for solar panels, you’re a bit off with the 20 year lifespan. More like 30+. In addition, as with the recent breakthrough tech to recycle wind turbine blades, the tech will be there to efficiently recycle solar panels. Again, this is about the future, not what is available today. We can’t afford to wait another decade or 2 before we finally start weening off oil and gas which, despite your numerous statements to the contrary, are far dirtier than wind and solar.
We can put a robot on Mars. We’ll be able to figure out how to efficiently recycle solar panels. It’s in the works as we speak.
Sac, wind and solar are simply not practical or economically viable. The only reason these technologies have been utilized to the extent they have been is because the government provides financial incentives and mandates. The only money to be made with “renewable” energy is government money. There are a ton of companies cashing in on this fad. While interest rates were zero, these companies could collect subsidies and/ or lose money on an ongoing basis and roll their debt without any consequence. Those days are over, and most “renewable” companies will soon go out of business. Ask Silicon Valley bank how lending to “climate startups” worked out. As we adapt to inflation and recession, we will no longer be able to waste money on on the false promises of “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar. Instead, practicality and economic viability will once again be our top priority. In order to sustain our modern standard of living and stand our ground against adversaries like Russia and China we need secure, low cost sources of energy. The future will be coal, oil, gas, and nuclear.
12:54 – Clearly, denying reality is a trademark move for you.
How does a user pay for this service? Can one just use a credit card or do you have to have an app?
I hit the button for charge rate for kicks and it simply stated ‘insert card”
Is there going to be a time limit? Tesla super chargers will start to bill you an idle fee if you don’t move after full. I own a Tesla and what I’ve seen from free charging stations is people plug in and walk away for hours if they do not have to pay, even if their battery is completely charged they don’t move it because they are lazy or inconsiderate a$$holes.
No, it will be chaos and the same car will be parked there for three years and noone will be able to use it. We’re doomed.
It’s amazing how Tesla is light years ahead when it comes to chargers. I had to laugh when I saw this. A literal ribbon cutting ceremony for 2 DC chargers. There are something like 30 Tesla chargers in SB & Goleta. I don’t recall the mayor coming out for a ceremony.
We signed up for green/renewable energy (electricity) back when all SBers had a chance to switch. MY bills are now MORE than double what they were less than a year ago. These are the things we’ve done to reduce our bill, which has not reduced our bill:
– Added another 100-watt solar panel to two 100 amp-hour deep-cycle batteries to charge our laptops, cell phones, power banks, numerous rechargeable devices (AA & AAA batteries, flashlights, spotlight), and even run our 12-volt USB-powered deck lights.
– We don’t run our gas dryer much due to the huge increase in our SC Gas bill, which means that we’re are not using electricity to power the dryer motor.
– Unplugged a mini-fridge.
I thought and still think I’m doing my part to save the world and be an eco-warrior, but I suppose that is just going to cost me more, and more, and more while China/India build untold numbers of coal plants (NPR: “China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It’s the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021.”)
If this is where we are headed, I want no part of it.
I assume nothing. I find it curious you conveniently avoid the pollution aspect of the airport issue.
If you were truly impassioned to reduce emissions and reduce green house gases, you would be vehemently opposed to any increase in air traffic. Instead you believe taxpayers should subsidize renewable energy instead of admitting the current technology is not sustainable.
Voice of reason spelled it out clearly to you, but you simply do not listen to others or fact.
This short video may help you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NvFlsgE8s
“I assume nothing. I find it curious you conveniently avoid the pollution aspect of the airport issue.” You did and I didn’t.
“If you were truly impassioned to reduce emissions and reduce green house gases, you would be vehemently opposed to any increase in air traffic. – I never said I support an “increase in air traffic.” You’re really grasping. Stating that re-routing is not always safe and that cancelling early morning flights is not viable and may actually INCREASE air traffic by requiring more flights in shorter time spans (unless you also get LAX and SFO to change their schedules so you in Hope Ranch don’t have to hear any airplanes).
“you believe taxpayers should subsidize renewable energy instead of admitting the current technology is not sustainable.” – Yes, it’s necessary for our future. Yes, I admit the current tech isn’t enough to completely replace oil and gas. I’ve never said it was. THAT is the reason we need to subsidies, so that we can conduct the necessary R&D so that renewables can replace oil and gas as much and as effectively as possible. Why is this a bad thing to you?
VOICE? Is that you?
Whoops, didn’t finish my sentence:
Stating that re-routing is not always safe and that cancelling early morning flights is not viable and may actually INCREASE air traffic by requiring more flights in shorter time spans (unless you also get LAX and SFO to change their schedules so you in Hope Ranch don’t have to hear any airplanes) is NOT stating that I support an increase in air traffic. You’re making things up out of thin air again.
Called out once again Sac.
BASIC – lol where and by whom? Dude, you might want to actually read the comments. Nice troll move either way.
…infor666 adding quality to the conversation … again? although Still wrong
By Goleta, above.
Just what do you believe I was “called out” for? Hahaha! Dude…. whatever makes you feel happy.
So where does the power come from to power this charger. Mostly fossil fuels, right? So aren’t EV’s essentially running on oil and gas anyway (at least for the next 20-30 years)?
6:23 – Mostly fossil fuels? Not around here, and not anywhere in the future, if we’re smart.
Yes! In some areas where coal power is common electric cars can actually put more CO2 in the air than burning gasoline which is a bit ironic since most EV supporters think CO2 is more harmful than actual pollution and toxic waste. Another concern is where the power will come from. A typical home uses about 30 KWh of electricity in a day, and this charger can burn that much power in a matter of minutes. Depending on how many people use it, this charger could require as much power as a neighborhood. Since we don’t built power plants in california anymore it will become increasingly challenging to increase power consumption with more electric vehicles. It won’t be long until the power gets shut off at the neighboring apartment buildings every time some rich guy plugs in his $100k plus luxury car.
Look at these dill weeds posing like they are out in front of Bob’s Big Boy. The left is so ass backwards. So much more damage from the EV’s and their batteries. We can’t support the power needed just to live even before these stupid cars. And “fast charging” only makes the batteries wear out faster. The best way to charge is slllloooooowwwwwwww but these dim wits don’t want to wait. Libs suck
STEVE O – I’m confused. VOICE has repeatedly assured us the all the “hate, condescension and insults” ONLY comes from the left. You sound like you’re not a liberal. Weird……
You are confused and weird. You run around arguing with everyone you SAC….what a life. Mom says the meatloaf is ready, and no crocs on the carpet, you know that….
edhat = CNN
I guess solar and wind are issues, unless we are talking about jet planes flying out of SBA spewing pollution?
GOLETA – No, the airport noise and your wish to cancel flights is NOT on topic here. To entertain you though, here you go:
If there were available EV alternatives for commercial jets, I would 100% support them. There isn’t, therefore, it’s a moot point.
Just because I support using renewable energy wherever possible and support the subsidies to help make it more widespread and affordable, does NOT mean I can’t also support the existence of commercial jets. You make a LOT of unwarranted assumptions to reach your fallacious and illogical conclusion that I think it’s “ok for aircraft to pollute, but not cars.” 1) You ASSume that by redirecting air traffic away from your home in Hope Ranch, aircraft pollution will decrease. 2) You assume that by cancelling early morning flights to reduce noise aircraft pollution will decrease. 3) You assume that because I don’t think forcing pilots to reroute landing/take off will be a safe idea, that I support aircraft pollution. 4) You assume that my skeptism to cancelling flights being an effective means of reducing aircraft noise, means that I support aircraft pollution.
None of those assumptions are correct, nor are they relevant to the issue at hand: renewable energy exists and we should use it as much as possible.
Come back and find me when solar and wind power commercial aircraft are available and I’m nevertheless encouraging jet fuel as the only source of aircraft power. THEN you might have an argument. Until then, nope.
GOLETA – “Are you saying it’s okay for aircraft to pollute, but cars are not because the market is not there?” – No, I never said either of those things any where at any time. Sorry to see you’re so confused about this. Also, way off topic.
On topic, we are talking about electric cars and pollution.
Your are okay with increasing air traffic in SB knowing they are gross polluters, yet promoting ‘clean energy”? I am certainly not who is confused here.
Hypocrisy holds no bounds. Are you saying it’s okay for aircraft to pollute, but cars are not because the market is not there?
If the government can ban combustion engines to millions of consumers, where is the outcry regarding aircraft?
Why were aircraft not included in the Paris climate agreement? Answer – MONEY.
Elitism at it’s core.
GOLETA – oh man…. you did, didn’t you? Well, if you want to go down that fallacious road, it’s pretty simple: Unless there are gliders that can transport thousands of tons of cargo and human beings, we’re kind of stuck with conventional fuel for jets.
I’m disappointed to see you use that tired old fallacy: “You can’t complain about x if you don’t also complain about y.” Sure I can, they’re not related at all.