Proposal: 100% subsidy for free public EVSE installs

I think what is really needed to promote EV adoption is EVSE's in every parking lot.

In MA, I think there are only two places with more than two spots, Logan Airport with ~20 and one forward thinking Stop and Shop with 9. Other than that you are lucky if you town has two. Many with large shopping centers have none.

To facilitate this, I would have a 100% subsidy on the installation for up to 5% of the parking spaces, on the condition that the the usage of the equipment was open to the public and free of charge for 5 years. This is a basic infrastructure program and the results good for all purchasers of BEV and PHEV no matter what their income.

Discuss!

(Ok, it is REALLY good for EVSE makers but beyond that....)

i think the right way to go is the opposite tact. make driving gas cars hurt more. raise gas taxes. London's congestion tax is not a bad idea either. Raise it enough to where a business model for public charging can be realized

but like all "right" ideas, it will be the hardest to implement because its not a unanimous decision and the problem is the ONE guy at the table with 99.94% of the wealth who is simply unhappy with the thought of losing his chance of getting that .06% of the wealth who will vote against a thing that would benefit someone other than himself

I think Making ICE driving more costly needs to go hand in hand with More QC and EVSE availability, and more EV availability. It would give people an option to go to to avoid the penalty. EV production capacity isn't there yet, and apartment dwellers need charging options.

IMHO L2 charging stations, even free ones, is not the way to go. To make the use of EV's more acceptable there needs to be a network of L3 DCFC's every 30 miles or so would be so much more appropriate.

As long as the EV driver installs an L2 in their garage, or have one available when they park overnight there will normally be no need to pull into one for a couple of hours of charging. It is just too much trouble for what we can get at home.

On those occasions when longer range is needed the DCFC is a much more attractive option (only 10 to 20 minutes to top off rather than a couple of hours).

Just my 2 cents.

I'm not a huge fan of the "free for 5 years" part. Free promotes waste/hogging. There's no incentive to move. Even 50c per hour or 10c/kWh would help alleviate this problem (at least in my experience).

How do you intend to fund this subsidy? Will it involve theft (known to statists as taxation)? Are you just reducing the theft (non-refundable tax-credit) or are you redistributing stolen property (refundable tax credit / single-payer)?

I think your best bet is to get behind projects like OpenEVSE, or support manufacturers that are producing low-cost EVSE's such as Bosch and EMW. Government subsidization creates a money-grabbing environment where installations and equipment cost many times more than what they would with no subsidy. Just ask people here who qualified for the ChargePoint America / EV Project subsidy- contractors knew they had $2500 to work with, so they provided outrageous quotes to these people.

Then, when the subsidies go away, service and maintenance costs cause companies that used the subsides to get rid of the troublesome stations (see Whole Foods).

What is wrong with the Tesla business model? Build the best car. Build the best charging network, (which is spaced out and optimized for the range of the car). Give owners full access for life.

Government incentives are a double-edged sword. Most of the blink stations around my area were installed with free government money. And what did we get for our trouble? Overpriced stations that don't work most of the time. Even in places like Kohl's that allow free charging, it doesn't help if the stations don't work. Kohl's would have been better off putting in some "dumb" stations that don't even require an RFID card to operate. I mean if it is going to be free, why not? They would be much cheaper and much more reliable.

kubel said:

How do you intend to fund this subsidy? Will it involve theft (known to statists as taxation)? Are you just reducing the theft (non-refundable tax-credit) or are you redistributing stolen property (refundable tax credit / single-payer)?

I think your best bet is to get behind projects like OpenEVSE, or support manufacturers that are producing low-cost EVSE's such as Bosch and EMW. Government subsidization creates a money-grabbing environment where installations and equipment cost many times more than what they would with no subsidy. Just ask people here who qualified for the ChargePoint America / EV Project subsidy- contractors knew they had $2500 to work with, so they provided outrageous quotes to these people.

Then, when the subsidies go away, service and maintenance costs cause companies that used the subsides to get rid of the troublesome stations (see Whole Foods).

What is wrong with the Tesla business model? Build the best car. Build the best charging network, (which is spaced out and optimized for the range of the car). Give owners full access for life.

Click to expand...

Kubel finally asked the right question. I didn't specify WHO would pay for the stations on purpose. There are a couple of potential winners other than the government that could be providing funding. Power companies (around boston NSTAR help install many stations), EV builders (really the tesla model) are the two that come to mind. A share from the government as it is now doesn't bother me as it evens the playing field with big oil's tax breaks. Public private partnerships help to create controls on fraud.

I don't see this as a "charge from 20% to 80%" quickly solution that is needed on the highway. I would put in level 2 J1722 plugged chargers because they are the most universal at this point. That's what Tesla's use to charge in town too. I see it as being able to run errands around the metro area all day, stopping for 30 to 45 minutes and picking up a 2 or 3 KW each time. Volt and PIPs would never resort to gas, and Leafs would stay topped off at 80%.

unfortunately the "greater good" debate on any subject is overridden by the money concerns of the few who have way more than they need but still want more so that is out.

the real option is to make other options less attractive. raising gas prices is a sore subject because it hurts the people who can most benefit with an EV the most.

I know a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck who have cars due to necessity and NEVER drive it more than 10-20 miles from their home. A few don't because they don't feel their car is reliable enough to make the trip. Some don't because they don't have the money to make the trip and the rest i know, don't have a car at all.

But they opt for gas cars because they are cheap. If we were to increase taxation on gas cars concentrating on penalizing gas guzzlers in the POV area, this would help to push people into more affordable options.

the real market for EVs I feel is going to be the super cheap mid range commuter. It would be a mistake for Nissan to abandon the 80 mile EV just because battery tech has improved enough to offer a 150 mile at the current price point.

there is a real market for a 5 passenger EV for under $20,000 and it is the best benefit to the economy and environment at this level because this level does not replace late 2000's Priuses and such. its replacing a 1999 Ford Tarus or a 2001 Chevy Impala or 1997 Nissan Maxima or any other leaking 20 mpg car...

but the move cannot be made unless there is a huge movement to put plugs on every corner. in some areas, electricity is expensive but in many other areas, it is not and renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper by the day.

Won't work in KS where they are trying to recover the vast quantities of lost revenue from diminished gas taxes by implementing a separately metered tax on all public (ok with that) and PRIVATE evse's. If this actually passes you can probably not only get no more public evse's installed in KS but you will probably watch the existing one's get dismantled as if they were owned by Whole Foods.

DaveinOlyWA said:

But they opt for gas cars because they are cheap. If we were to increase taxation on gas cars concentrating on penalizing gas guzzlers in the POV area, this would help to push people into more affordable options.

Click to expand...

Most of the people I know that are too broke to buy an EV are really too broke to buy ANY new car. Thus, they buy used cars. It is going to take some time for EVs to start spreading into the part of the used market that caters to these people. In another few years it should start becoming more affordable for the low income class to be able to pickup used Leafs and Volts.

adric22 said:

DaveinOlyWA said:

But they opt for gas cars because they are cheap. If we were to increase taxation on gas cars concentrating on penalizing gas guzzlers in the POV area, this would help to push people into more affordable options.

Click to expand...

Most of the people I know that are too broke to buy an EV are really too broke to buy ANY new car. Thus, they buy used cars. It is going to take some time for EVs to start spreading into the part of the used market that caters to these people. In another few years it should start becoming more affordable for the low income class to be able to pickup used Leafs and Volts.

Click to expand...

Where did the money go?

adric22 said:

DaveinOlyWA said:

But they opt for gas cars because they are cheap. If we were to increase taxation on gas cars concentrating on penalizing gas guzzlers in the POV area, this would help to push people into more affordable options.

Click to expand...

Most of the people I know that are too broke to buy an EV are really too broke to buy ANY new car. Thus, they buy used cars. It is going to take some time for EVs to start spreading into the part of the used market that caters to these people. In another few years it should start becoming more affordable for the low income class to be able to pickup used Leafs and Volts.

Click to expand...

ya that is usually the case which means some sort of program is really needed here. already there is talk of structuring the tax break based on income which is a great idea that Tesla is not going to like since it would be primarily their customers having to pay more but keep in mind; used EVs are going for dirt cheap and if on a specialized loan program for low income buyers, could work out a payment plan that might not be much more than their monthly gas bill.

either way, I do see a trickle down economic benefit concerning EVs which is why we need to continue to make 80 mile EVs long after the technology has improved. Sell them for $15,000 if we have too. it will provide the greatest benefit