EV-COMUTE Act - Federal Workplace Charging Bill in Congress

[EVDRIVER]

They may not be barred but they are certainly not motivated to do so either.

What we need is a California ZEV Mandate 2 that REQUIRES/FORCES employers of certain size businesses to provide charging for employees.

I finally persuaded my employer to consider it (400 employees). I suggested 10 stations with 20 parking spaces. What I will get is 2 stations with 2 spaces. That would be 2 years from now, I'm told. I'll be retired by then.

Oh really? I guess we should mandate employers install fuel cell stations as well? Government regulation is the wrong answer in this instance and would be a waste of money for employers that don't happen to have employees that drive EVs. The better employers will offer it as a perk, and as vehicle ownership increases, more and more employers will get on board.

+1. Any mandate for private business would be a joke.

 

[Nubo]

They may not be barred but they are certainly not motivated to do so either.

What we need is a California ZEV Mandate 2 that REQUIRES/FORCES employers of certain size businesses to provide charging for employees.

I finally persuaded my employer to consider it (400 employees). I suggested 10 stations with 20 parking spaces. What I will get is 2 stations with 2 spaces. That would be 2 years from now, I'm told. I'll be retired by then.

Oh really? I guess we should mandate employers install fuel cell stations as well? Government regulation is the wrong answer in this instance and would be a waste of money for employers that don't happen to have employees that drive EVs. The better employers will offer it as a perk, and as vehicle ownership increases, more and more employers will get on board.

Mandates would be too inflexible. But the same goal could be achieved in multiple ways. Tax incentives would be one way to make it attractive.

 

[nosuchthing]

We would have exactly 2 EVs today if Ca DID NOT MANDATE ZEV, people! Now we have no less than dozen EVs to choose from. Most other states do not because they do not mandate it.

You have to twist everyone's arm, be it the auto maker and now the employer to nudge them not-so-gently forward, get them off their duff and get something going. Otherwise it's business as usual for all involved. Heck, we would not have seat belts in cars with this kind of thinking. Didn't they fight it all the way to the senate?

I mean, everybody hates the new cheese. I almost got myself fired when my administrator found out I was charging L1 at the hospital wall (my place of employment). So this is about the extent of employers' interest to provide charging: get that Leaf outta here!

Twist their arm and all of a sudden, success! Charging happens.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

They may not be barred but they are certainly not motivated to do so either.

What we need is a California ZEV Mandate 2 that REQUIRES/FORCES employers of certain size businesses to provide charging for employees.

I finally persuaded my employer to consider it (400 employees). I suggested 10 stations with 20 parking spaces. What I will get is 2 stations with 2 spaces. That would be 2 years from now, I'm told. I'll be retired by then.

Oh really? I guess we should mandate employers install fuel cell stations as well? Government regulation is the wrong answer in this instance and would be a waste of money for employers that don't happen to have employees that drive EVs. The better employers will offer it as a perk, and as vehicle ownership increases, more and more employers will get on board.

Mandates would be too inflexible. But the same goal could be achieved in multiple ways. Tax incentives would be one way to make it attractive.

maybe inflexibility is what is needed. Remember corporations do not have our best interests in mind so a volunteer program is pretty much a joke for all but super rich tech companies who might toss a few million towards something out of their multi-billion dollar cash fund while impacting the immediate area to the tune of hundreds of millions. and yes, they do provide a huge boom to the tax base but too many are relocating based on getting tax relief or in some cases; free rent.

there can be good things coming out of mandates. I am living in the midst of what I consider to be a great solution.

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/12/14/2884727/olympia-plugs-in-to-lease-program.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Said it a MILLION times and it is worth repeating; the LEAF is not a "buyable" car but for leasing its a no-brainer and finally the State gets that. EV adoption on a fleet level can be expensive especially if the "buy it or nothing" attitude is taken. Its tough to get $200,000 in one chunk to buy cars but allocating less than $2,000 a month ($1850 actually) with an immediate estimated savings of $500 a month in fuel savings makes pulling the trigger an easy one.

But all this happened due to mandates. Why it took that? don't know but sometimes even the most obvious of answers needs a little push

 

[Lanny]

The EV-COMUTE Act language was amended to the Surface Transportation bill which was approved by the House, and Senate this week. The bill now goes to the White House for the President's signature.

It took an act of Congress but the major roadblock will soon be lifted for employees and contractors on Federal facilities to charge their electric cars.

Lanny

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Thanks Lanny, and congrats. Is there anything new in this bill on EV incentives?

 

[camasleaf]

Section 4117 is two pages. More of half of the second page is too exclude their chargers at Capitol from the bill. It just doesn't seem right.

At least they don't ask the money paid for charging to be send to the big bucket and the be send back to field through appropriation. Good thing overall.