Infrastructure Bill to Invest $7.5B into EV Chargers Along Highways

[mswlogo]

One huge gap on EV ownership is figuring out how to get Condo’s, apartment buildings set up with home/work charging. They should offer huge tax credits to Condo associations and landlords of apartments and parking garages to install level 2 charging.

 

[Mockingbird]

The bottom line is that we have to give credit to Tesla where credit is due. They alone pushed this segment. A decade ago they were laughed at. Now, the big boys are the ones responding. They have to. It's a far better mouse trap and whomever doesn't react will soon be ancient history. This change is already happening and it's going to happen fast. $7.5bil from the .gov is just another excuse to increase the size of .gov and pander to midterm voters. It will have the added bonus of making those who hate EVs hate them even more and give them something to point at.

I can hear it already (because I live in the Midwest and hear it ALL of the time) "EVs are a joke and wouldn't be in existence if tax payers weren't footing the bill to keep them afloat." This handout from the government isn't helping to level the playing field, it's allowing the government to control the EV experience for the masses which could have dangerous implications given how deeply entrenched with the gas/oil lobby our government has been for generations.

I agree with Elon, we can't afford this. We SHOULDN'T afford this and I agree with all of the anti-EV people in saying this support by the tax payer has got to stop. By saying this, I'm not saying it needs to continue for oil/gas either so don't fabricate a strawman by putting words into my mouth.

It was the government (specifically, the Obama administration) that kept Tesla alive.

It is the government that is pushing GM, Ford, and other automakers to make EVs.

If it wasn't for the government, Tesla wouldn't exist and other automakers would keep making ICEVs forever.

 

[Ostrichsak]

The government is not going to be build EV charging networks/charging stations.

The government will be awarding grants to private companies to build EV charging stations. These private companies will be responsible for part of the cost of building EV charging stations.

Also, there is no EV charging network named "Charge America"; at least not in the United States.

Of course Biden isn't going to be out there with a jackhammer building them. Duh. Of course they're rewarding grants to people will. This changes nothing I said. They will do it in a horribly inefficient and wasteful way. They will take your dollar and turn it into a dime towards EV chargers, at best.

I love when I type up a post and someone combs through it with a fine tooth comb looking for one single typo as if that somehow changes what I've said. Of course I meant Electrify America/Charge Point and everyone reading that post understood the overall point.

 

[Ostrichsak]

It was the government (specifically, the Obama administration) that kept Tesla alive.

It is the government that is pushing GM, Ford, and other automakers to make EVs.

If it wasn't for the government, Tesla wouldn't exist and other automakers would keep making ICEVs forever.

If the government hadn't stepped in to keep the "too big to fail" legacy manufacturers from failing (after decades of producing crap nobody wanted along with zero innovation) the Teslas of the world would have filled that void created by their exit.

That's the problem with the government intervening in the free market, picking and choosing winner and losers. That financial collapse completely screwed over the tax payer and did NOTHING to further innovation. It directly rewarded those that innovated just enough to keep afloat which, in turn, kept those who were actually innovating from emerging.

This is the opposite of keeping Tesla alive.

 

[Mockingbird]

Of course Biden isn't going to be out there with a jackhammer building them. Duh. Of course they're rewarding grants to people will. This changes nothing I said. They will do it in a horribly inefficient and wasteful way. They will take your dollar and turn it into a dime towards EV chargers, at best.

So how would you make better use of the money to build public EV charging stations?

I love when I type up a post and someone combs through it with a fine tooth comb looking for one single typo as if that somehow changes what I've said. Of course I meant Charge Point and everyone reading that post understood the overall point.

What is wrong with ChargePoint?

 

[David_Cary]

Not to go to big on one point, but I thought you meant Electrify America not ChargePoint.

I don't think it is appropriate to say that Tesla has done it so we are done. Obviously there are cars out there other than Teslas and there absolutely should not be a monopoly on charging.

The DMV is actually pretty good in my state. It is an interesting point that people who complain that government can't do anything right always point to the DMV. I pretty much click a few things on the website and am done. Don't love going there but had appt for the new ID and it took less than 30 minutes. Obviously, DMV is a state thing and each state varies in its competency.

I am not entirely sure that the federal government doing EV charging is a great idea but it isn't terrible either. If the rest stops have federal limits (I never knew that) then it might be helpful for the federal government to be involved just to get over that hurdle. The land and convenience there is 1/2 the cost.

Not sure how you can give cost estimates so low. How about 50 charging stations at every rest stop and 100 on the eastern seaboard. All with 350 kw CCS. How about that for $5 billion? Sounds good to me.

 

[Mockingbird]

If the government hadn't stepped in to keep the "too big to fail" legacy manufacturers from failing (after decades of producing crap nobody wanted along with zero innovation) the Teslas of the world would have filled that void created by their exit.

That's the problem with the government intervening in the free market, picking and choosing winner and losers. That financial collapse completely screwed over the tax payer and did NOTHING to further innovation. It directly rewarded those that innovated just enough to keep afloat which, in turn, kept those who were actually innovating from emerging.

This is the opposite of keeping Tesla alive.

Wrong again.

The government is the one who is pushing automakers to make EVs.

In the free market, Tesla wouldn't exist and other automakers would be making ICEVs forever.

 

[FastEddieB]

How about 50 charging stations at every rest stop and 100 on the eastern seaboard. All with 350 kw CCS. How about that for $5 billion? Sounds good to me.

I had not thought of it, but Interstate rest areas would be a good place to start. Don’t see a need for 50 or 100 at each right now, but certainly have a plan to get to that point.

We’ve only had the car for a week, and have yet to take a trip requiring charging. Headed north from here to Indiana, it seems like Sheetz truck stops have Superchargers. Where rest areas are few and far between, such private entities with public subsidies could help fill gaps.

 

[phil4791eng]

This is shaping up exactly like any government contract and specification. People don’t want to stop at at a filthy rest stop with one vending machine. People want to charge their car where there are restaurants and convenience stores. If you’ve ever been to Key West and saw the government building with the massive fireplace, then you’d know how out of touch with what’s needed are government contracts and specifications. By the time they are done it will be an Equity contract and all that will matter in the end will be politician talking points. It will be a few levels below car dealership chargers that are never available for a variety of reasons.

 

[Schlesinger183]

Would we like to grow EVs to 50-100% of car sales? The only way: we’d better spent every EV infrastructure dollar to accelerate installing overnight charging for people in apartments, town houses, condos, and on-street parkers. Focus squarely on middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas. This is the ONLY way to expand EV ownership and use. Those of us who live in private homes with garages are all set now - if we’re not already driving EVs, we will be in 1-3 years. And absolutely do NOT waste government money subsidizing highway fast charging - Tesla, Electrify America, and other private market players are building those just fine.

 

[Mockingbird]

Would we like to grow EVs to 50-100% of car sales? The only way: we’d better spent every EV infrastructure dollar to accelerate installing overnight charging for people in apartments, town houses, condos, and on-street parkers. Focus squarely on middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas. This is the ONLY way to expand EV ownership and use. Those of us who live in private homes with garages are all set now - if we’re not already driving EVs, we will be in 1-3 years. And absolutely do NOT waste government money subsidizing highway fast charging - Tesla, Electrify America, and other private market players are building those just fine.

The opposite is true.

Level 2 chargers are cheap enough that people and private businesses can install level 2 chargers on their own.

Conversely, DC fast chargers are so expensive that they need government subsidies.

 

[_Redshift_]

The opposite is true.

Level 2 chargers are cheap enough that people and private businesses can install level 2 chargers on their own.

Conversely, DC fast chargers are so expensive that they need government subsidies.

Moreover, EA is not well built out.

 

[Mockingbird]

Moreover, EA is not well built out.

Well, that's tallking about today.

By the time that the very first of these subsidized fast chargers become operational, Electrify America coverage map probably looks like this:

 

[TunaBug]

If find the idea of subsidies generally off-putting. I don't think government can do it efficiently, nor do I believe government should be a helicopter parent. However, for EV charging I think we're still early enough that government needs to step in with a loss-leader in order to get the ball rolling, and they're good at that.

Would we like to grow EVs to 50-100% of car sales? The only way: we’d better spent every EV infrastructure dollar to accelerate installing overnight charging for people in apartments, town houses, condos, and on-street parkers. Focus squarely on middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas. This is the ONLY way to expand EV ownership and use. Those of us who live in private homes with garages are all set now - if we’re not already driving EVs, we will be in 1-3 years. And absolutely do NOT waste government money subsidizing highway fast charging - Tesla, Electrify America, and other private market players are building those just fine.

I do think that for mass adoption the "middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas" (as you put it) are important and less well served by highway charging. But if your point is that the infrastructure money should go there INSTEAD OF highways, I disagree for a couple of reasons:

First, I think there are multiple waves to mass adoption. The lower income people aren't going to run out and buy a new Tesla or Mach-E or any of the other EVs advertised during the game yesterday in the next four years. We still need for (what's left of) the upper-middle and middle class to buy new EVs, and for them the road trip is important, with in-town charging more likely to be done at home. I don't think we need to worry about the lower 50% of the population adopting EVs for a few years yet. Or, to put this a different way, I think the highway subsidy phase is about building mindshare and public confidence (and why I think we need a loss-leader).

Second, I think the big shortcoming of in-town charging is at-home charging for people that don't own the home. And IMO that's not going to be addressed simply by throwing money at the problem. More likely we'll need legislation telling condo boards, business landlords, and apartment owners that they cannot refuse a request for a L2 charger, similar to the way you cannot refuse a satellite dish. And then maybe make the expense deductible on taxes so that there's a carrot to go along with the stick.

 

[CyberGus]

Would we like to grow EVs to 50-100% of car sales? The only way: we’d better spent every EV infrastructure dollar to accelerate installing overnight charging for people in apartments, town houses, condos, and on-street parkers. Focus squarely on middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas. This is the ONLY way to expand EV ownership and use. Those of us who live in private homes with garages are all set now - if we’re not already driving EVs, we will be in 1-3 years. And absolutely do NOT waste government money subsidizing highway fast charging - Tesla, Electrify America, and other private market players are building those just fine.

Charging availability in multi-family housing is a substantial barrier. Not much the feds can do except offer refunds/rebates to the property owners. Localities should change building codes to require EV charging capability in new construction, but that does nothing for the existing housing.

In an all-EV world, no one will use the 2000+ Interstate rest-stops if there's no charging available. I'd like to see the feds actively encourage the industry to install DCFC at these sites.

 

[Mockingbird]

If find the idea of subsidies generally off-putting. I don't think government can do it efficiently, nor do I believe government should be a helicopter parent. However, for EV charging I think we're still early enough that government needs to step in with a loss-leader in order to get the ball rolling, and they're good at that.



I do think that for mass adoption the "middle and lower income neighborhoods in suburbs, exurbs, farms, and non-downtown urban areas" (as you put it) are important and less well served by highway charging. But if your point is that the infrastructure money should go there INSTEAD OF highways, I disagree for a couple of reasons:

First, I think there are multiple waves to mass adoption. The lower income people aren't going to run out and buy a new Tesla or Mach-E or any of the other EVs advertised during the game yesterday in the next four years. We still need for (what's left of) the upper-middle and middle class to buy new EVs, and for them the road trip is important, with in-town charging more likely to be done at home. I don't think we need to worry about the lower 50% of the population adopting EVs for a few years yet. Or, to put this a different way, I think the highway subsidy phase is about building mindshare and public confidence (and why I think we need a loss-leader).

Second, I think the big shortcoming of in-town charging is at-home charging for people that don't own the home. And IMO that's not going to be addressed simply by throwing money at the problem. More likely we'll need legislation telling condo boards, business landlords, and apartment owners that they cannot refuse a request for a L2 charger, similar to the way you cannot refuse a satellite dish. And then maybe make the expense deductible on taxes so that there's a carrot to go along with the stick.

Those are called "Right to charge" laws.

Some states already have them.

 

[Mockingbird]

Charging availability in multi-family housing is a substantial barrier. Not much the feds can do except offer refunds/rebates to the property owners. Localities should change building codes to require EV charging capability in new construction, but that does nothing for the existing housing.

In an all-EV world, no one will use the 2000+ Interstate rest-stops if there's no charging available. I'd like to see the feds actively encourage the industry to install DCFC at these sites.

"Right to charge" laws can help.

 

[Sophias_dad]

Those are called "Right to charge" laws.

Some states already have them.

I agree those would be good but even where they exist there's a difference between 'cannot refuse' and 'must make reasonable demands to allow them to be put in place. I wouldn't by any means say its frequent, but I can remember several threads saying something roughly to the affect that "the condo will let me install a charger, but they want $15k to do it and expect me to pay $5k per year for increased insurance costs"

 

[Big Dog]

Buddy, there are thousands of people who only use BART, every single weekday to get to work. It’s very similar to New York subway system.

I grew up on teh Bay Area and watched BART get built as my dad was a contractor, bud. But it is NOTHING like the NY City subway.

 

[ThomasD]

How many of these charging stations will be able to charge heavy duty class 7 and 8 Trucks?