From Mild To Wild Roundup

In case you didn’t see it, this won’t spoil the whole plot or anything, so don’t worry...but before seeing The Dark Knight Rises, I didn’t know what Bane sounded like. With his ripped muscles, his cold, malevolent glare, and his whole scary head I just assumed he’d have a certain deep growl full of venom and seething rage...but no. Back me up on this, people, but didn’t he sound just like Sean Connery trapped in a toilet while eating a sub sandwich? And guess what, Bane...that wasn’t a sub sandwich! C’mon, Tom Hardy, ever since seeing you in Bronson, I have been a huge fan of yours and I still am. Really, I am. And I know they’ve done some post-production tweaking to make you more easily understood through that Hannibal Lecter/ Darth Vader respirator thingy, but even you have to agree that voice didn’t quite match the sinister persona...it was better suited for a kind old man who wants to sit in a rocking chair and tell me war stories. Don’t worry, big guy, I’ve poked fun at some big and powerful people around here...just ask your co-star Christian Bale. Anyway, Tom, and the rest of you, hope you like grown-ass men playing with Legos, because here is the From Mild To Wild Roundup where we take last month’s mild entries and customize them into some truly wild creations. Lets see how we did.

Jonathan Derksen sets the mood for the challenge and shows us all how its done. You’d never guess that this bubble top space age Ed Roth looking surf-mobile thingy was once a plain old ’69 El Camino. Balsy as is, but super wild in the hands of Jonathan, this creation would even have Bane saying “WHERE DOESH HE GET THOSH WONDEWFUL TOYS!”



Last month Technicfenix13 entered a technic bicycle thingy. This month he entered two more technic bicycle thingies, customized from the original.The black version with the water bottle is for touring while the red and white is for racing.



Then later in the challenge he comes back with a color swapped technic version of his own bike, with the real thing posted for reference. he also tells us that he ordered a plain white studio background so future entries will be top notch sparkling clean! I hope he didn’t spend a bundle on this...cuz mine are just three pieces of foamcore.



No stranger to spending a bundle on his entries is Bricksonwheels with a trucking beast he simply calls The Dragon. With its copious chrome and Magic card graphics, this Scania R730 was already one of his most tricked out trucks ever. So how does he make it even more so? With an additional 2000 bricks in an equally pimped out trailer and a fresh new spoiler, that’s how!



On the 4th of July, what better way to wish us Americans a happy Independence Day than Lego911 (an Aussie) building a 1956 Oldsmobile 88 Holiday Hardtop Coupe all-American 4th of July-mobile. Its just as American as the Statue of Liberty (built by the French) and french fries! (apparently the French not involved with that one) Thanks, Peter!



These LUGNuts roundups would be nothing without a whole slew of entries from Lego911. In case our American 4th of July celebrations get out of hand, what with the fireworks and whatnot, the world’s most prolific LEGO builder saves our crispy bacon with a Ford Ranger P375 Offroad Fire Response Vehicle. In was inspired by Matchbox, who decided to make a real brush truck. neat!



This next Lego911 model Alfa Romeo 105 Coupe Giulia Sprint GTA replica has been outfitted for racing with a high output engine and a round white target on the side...which makes it go faster. The engine, not the white target. The target just makes it look faster...plus it provides a place to put your racing number. Or a smiley face drawn with a sharpie. Yeah, that’s it.



Fear not, Alfa Romeo fans! If one wasn’t enough Peter pipes in again with this MAGNUS Racing Alfa Romeo 105 Giulia Sprint GTA Coupe. I know, I could totally tell you all were going to cry yourselves to sleep, then wake up in a puddle of your own puke. Am I right? Well, crisis averted. Nicely done.



Lastly Peter shows us many ways to customize a 1957 Chevy in all of its various forms. First the stock version, then exposed headers and custom zig-zag paint job in the hard top, convertible topless model, and finally my fave, the wagon. Somewhere down the line some perv is gonna keyword “topless model” looking for boobies and find this roundup instead. Hah! Jokes on you, pervs!



No stranger to perving the net is Rolic. Probably. I don’t know. Anyway, when he entered his Mercedes Popemobile last month as his Plain Jane entry, even the most devout of us had hoped he would commit the ultimate sacrilege with this month’s entry. Our prayers were answered with this Popemobile Dragster...or Pogster. And now His Holy Grace can bless our heathen souls at a breakneck 280MPH. Praise the Lord, bitches!



Wait, what? That was rude, even for me. Speaking of me, Lino Martins pays tribute to the late, great Boyd Coddington with this custom surf wagon called Lizard King. It used to be an ugly rusted 1960 Mercury Colony Park but now its all shiny, new and green, both in color and good for the environment. Boyd built his original version for Sobe, mine was built for me and my shelf. And to possibly take the top prize at BrickCon 2012. In your face, Inman!



And speaking of Tim Inman, he just might swipe that top trophy with this chrome-laden pimped out donk GMC Sierra 3500 HD simply called Malevolent. This entry went from big and badass last month to OMFG! this month, with its Monster logo, strip of sponsors and its huge donk rims. I never thought I’d say this, but Tim, your hefty badonkadonk has got me straight up trippin’, boo!



Tell that to a girl in a bar and she’ll either slap you or sleep with you. One or the other. Maybe both, I don’t know. But presumably too young for girls and going to bars is Raphy with his A-Team van. I totally called this entry when he posted his plain white van last month. I pity the fool who don’t like this van!



Next, Raphy chimes in with yet another retro van from before his time, but this one honors Cannonball Run. You ask Raphy why and he’ll tell you...cuz Burt Reynolds, that’s why! Incidentally, I can assure you that is the only reason you’ll ever need for most things in life. Its the same reason I used recently for why my dog puked on the carpet, why I didn’t pay my cable bill, and why I ate an entire 2 1/2 lb. can of Chef Boyardee ravioli. True story.



They said all that junk food would go to my thighs. Well, it didn’t. (see also reason for why my dog puked on the rug) But all that junk food did go to Dylan Denton’s 1997 Toyota MR-2 Turbo Widebody. With its alloy rims, body kit, and lowered stance, this sports some nice customizations from his original entry. Plus the Japanese Coca-cola graphics really makes ties it all together. In Japan, Coca-cola translates to bite the wax tadpole or something. True story.



Jmaokoen probably knows very little about biting the wax tadpole but surely knows all about the Austin Healey Endurance. In 1953 Donald Healey set out to create a land speed record car. The result: Averaging 132.29 mph. of Austin Healey badassery! I’ve got only one thing to say about that: Praise the Lord, bitches!



Well, with that we end the From Mild To Wild Roundup. It was only one entry less than the month before so I think we did pretty ok. I’m hoping next month will be one of the best challenges ever. We call it Order By Numbers, and with a menu of 10 vastly different automotive ideas to choose from I’m hoping to see some truly stunning entries. As of this writing, we have only one entry, but the month is still young so we’ll see how it goes. I hope more will enter, and when they do, I hope they bring their A-Game. You know why? Burt Reynolds, that’s why. But also...the all LUGNuts issue of BrickJournal will come out in September. Yep, a lot of new eyes will be on us, so lets show them we’re worth the hype. Got it? Good! Oh and Tom Hardy, if you’re reading this, even with the silly voice you were still one of the most badass villains in cinematic history. I mean that. Those glittery twinks over at Twilight had nothing on you, big guy. So no hard feelings, OK? Are we friends now? Wait, let me say that in a way you’ll understand. AHHH WE FWENDS NOW!

New Chevy Volt Video

Please check out my latest video about the Chevy Volt on youtube:

Clever Little Chevy to the tune of "Surrey with the Fringe on Top"

CPUC set to raise electric rates for EVs

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is set to give permission to PG&E to raise rates for electric vehicles on August 23.  In a letter dated July 24, Bob Benjamin, Supervisor for the CPUC Energy Division argues in support of PG&E's latest proposal (see PG&E rate proposal for EVs for a detailed discussion of the proposal).

Mr. Benjamin also discourages further debate on the subject saying, " Comments shall focus on factual, legal or technical errors in the proposed Draft Resolution.  Comments that merely reargue positions taken in the advice letter or protests will be accorded no weight and are not to be submitted."

The resolution is as follows:

Resolution E-4508. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Advice Letter 3910-E and Advice Letter 3910-E-A.

 PROPOSED OUTCOME:  This Resolution approves PG&E’s request to create a new electric vehicle rate schedule EV that eliminates the tiers but retains time variant pricing and to grandfather existing customers on E-9 electric vehicle rates until a decision in Phase 2 of PG&E’s 2014 General Rate Case or until December 31, 2014, whichever is later.    

ESTIMATED COST:  The proposed changes are revenue neutral on a class average basis.   

By Advice Letter 3910-E, filed on September 26, 2011, and Advice Letter 3910-E-A, filed on May 9, 2012.

__________________________________________________________

Given that only "factual, legal, or technical" arguments are allowed, the one issue that jumps out is the statement:  "The proposed changes are revenue neutral on a class average basis."  This appeared to me to be factually incorrect, so I called Adam Langton of the CPUC staff to see what is meant by "class average basis".  From that conversation, I came away with the impression that the change does not have to be revenue neutral for the specific E9 tariff, but rather for the whole class of residential customers.  I think the argument is that the new rate would not be higher than if people used the standard E1 rate, and in that sense the change is "revenue neutral."

I would be happy if anyone reading this can give a better explanation of "revenue neutral on a class average basis."

In any case, I'm not able to challenge this resolution on a factual, legal, or technical basis, so I am assuming it is a done deal.   I do feel that the current proposal is much better than the original one that PG&E proposed on September 26, 2011.  And I'm hopeful that PG&E will start advertising the new rate so more people understand that charging an EV at night is a bargain.

Also on the positive side, Mr. Benjamin's letter states, " We will not direct PG&E to discount the off-peak rates at this point in time.  (emphasis added) We appreciate the logic behind arguments for setting off-peak rates based on marginal costs and intend to consider the feasibility of super-off-peak rates set at marginal cost of service to incent off-peak electric vehicle charging, and whether non-bypassable changes can be discounted in this context, when we re-examine electric vehicle rates in the near future."

Mr. Benjamin's letter also adds, "we expect that the TOU [Time-of-Use] periods will be examined for all three utilities in a more complete electric vehicle rate review to take place in the near future".

From this I encourage EV supporters to weigh in on rate discussions in the near future.  In view of those upcoming discussions I feel there are two key points that the CPUC should address:

1.  Is the PG&E price proposal accurate in terms of its costs?

2.  Should the CPUC support a lower price that will promote more widespread adoption of EVs? 

 1.  The key price for EVs is the off-peak, since people normally charge their cars at home overnight.  The price of electricity is the sum of non-bypassable costs, distribution costs, and generation costs.  PG&E's letter from Brian Cherry dated June 5 defends the rate change; it discusses non-bypassable costs and distribution costs and goes on to say that the proposed "off-peak rate is comparable to other rate options and is fully cost based."

 But the letter does not explain what the generation costs actually are.  Mr. Cherry points out that the price is "comparable to other rate options."  However, no evidence is provided that the comparable other rate options are priced appropriately.   From discussions with CPUC staff I understand that non-bypassable costs and distribution costs come to about 7 cents/kwh.  Since the off-peak proposed price is 10 cents per kwh, this means that PG&E is adding 3 cents for generation in the off-peak. 

 My question, which I think the Commission should require an answer to, is whether there is really a generation cost in the off-peak?  Just saying that the price is comparable to other existing rates does not answer the question.   The issue is this:  PG&E has to turn off some of its generators at night when there is less demand.  PG&E should show that the cost of turning off the generators is less than the cost to keep them running at a low level.  If it is cheaper to keep them running, then the off-peak generation cost should be zero, since anyone using electricity at night is actually saving PG&E money. In this case the charge to customers should be no more than 7 cents/kwh to cover fixed costs.

  2.  My understanding is that the CPUC asked PG&E to modify the rates to encourage EV use, not to discourage such use.  PG&E has presented a proposal which they feel covers their costs.  I suggest that the CPUC should be looking at a price structure that promotes conversion of all automobiles to electric.  When there are millions of EVs, then the off-peak energy demand will doubtless be much higher than today, and modification of rates would be appropriate. Until those millions of EVs are charging overnight, however, the existing E9 rates are an appropriate way to encourage EVs.

PG&E states that their proposed rates offer a "gasoline equivalent charge of roughly $1.00 per gallon which PG&E believes is a significant incentive for EVs compared to the current cost of gasoline."  Although this is indeed an incentive for EVs, it is not as great as the current incentive which is closer to $0.50 per gallon. For the next few years, while battery technology improves and prices drop for EVs, maximizing savings on gas purchases is necessary to make the economics of EVs practical.  Any step that reduces that incentive is a step in the wrong direction.