Setting aside all the political rants in this thread (I'm an independent, BTW), I was a lawyer for a local transportation agency once upon a time and we had to deal with the Calif. state constitution provision forbidding any "gift of public funds." I'm not going to give an opinion as to whether the NY lawyer is right since that would require examination of the NY constitution's wording and case law interpreting it back there. However, it is not frivolous to suggest that electricity does not constitute money or property within the meaning of the provision. Just because something can be stolen does not mean it is property. Typically criminal statutes now refer to "things of value" instead of "property", which historically has required something be tangible. In federal law (I was also an FBI lawyer even farther back) we had trouble prosecuting cases involving theft of digital "property" or trade secrets for very similar reasons. The theft statutes did not cover intangible things, or at least there was mixed case law on the issue, so Congress passed the Economic Espionage Act in 1996 to make it a crime.
In the transportation context, we had no trouble providing free "stuff" for public purposes, such as free or heavily subsidized bus/rail passes to certain groups (students, disabled people, etc.) which NY does also, by the way. Municipalities around the country give free land or long-term land leases to profit-making corporations, e.g. Walmart, in order to lure them there. They believe the jobs and sales tax will more than pay for the land cost, but it is still a gift benefiting a private entity, and not considered unconstitutional if it is for a legitimate public purpose such as providing this sort of financial boon to a city. I would be very surprised if providing free power to EV's in order to reduce air pollution and dependence on foreign oil was found by a court to be an unconstitutional gift of public funds in California since these are considered valid public purposes. There are various municipalities around here that provide free power to EVs and I've never heard of any legal challenges to it. I think most objections to the practice are political, with some see it as favoring some sort of liberal agenda and therefore it must be bad. I do know that George Schultz, Reagan's Sec'y of State and architect of his foreign policy, drives an EV (a Leaf, I think) and when he charges up, likes to mutter, "Take that, Ahmadinejad." A least so he has said in an interview.
I wouldn't be surprised to find the NY lawyer's opinion was heavily influenced either by his own political views, or, more likely, those of the board, council, or mayor of whatever entity provides him his living. There is certainly no obligation on the part of any municipality to subsidize EV drivers and I suspect the decision to do so around here anyway, is largely political, too, i.e. for reasons of voter appeal, not really for the purpose of reducing air pollution or national oil independence. Whether the glass is seen as half-liberal or half-conservative will depend on your political views.
