Proposal to raise federal incentive from $7,500 to $10,000

[edatoakrun]

="adric22"]I would think it might actually be better to spend more federal money on charging stations. The vehicles would become a lot more desirable if there were more places to charge them. Also the range would become less important as would the loss of battery capacity over time.

I realize the government has already spent money on public charging but I'm not to thrilled on the way it has been distributed...

You are correct. There has, IMO, been a gross misallocation of BEV/PHEV subsidies.

The most extreme example of this is California, where I believe that well over $200,000,000 of Federal and State taxpayer subsidies have been expended to encourage the purchase of BEVs/PHEVs and also (often unnecessary) home and public L2 chargers, and not one well designed, correctly located, and dependable DC charge station, is now operational.

Only 1% of that $200,000,000 expenditure could have been used to install a few dozen DC stations installed at strategic highway locations. 10% of that the total subsidy, would have resulted in hundreds of DC stations, and a "developed nation" BEV infrastructure, such as now exists in Japan.

 

[davewill]

I would think it might actually be better to spend more federal money on charging stations. The vehicles would become a lot more desirable if there were more places to charge them. Also the range would become less important as would the loss of battery capacity over time.

I realize the government has already spent money on public charging but I'm not to thrilled on the way it has been distributed. ...

You really have to do both. The problem with concentrating on installing charging is that businesses have to be convinced that there's something in it for them, or they won't install the charging stations, even if they are free. No cars means the charging stations don't get used, and everyone just laughs at the stations collecting dust.

 

[caffeinekid]

Any additional incentive is going to go to the manufacturers as they adjust their MSRPs up, not to end buyers.

+1

And there we have the golden sentence in the thread. I have argued for quite some time that "green" in general is merely a marketing slogan that largely translates to corporate welfare for the likes of GE, Xerox, Ford, et all. Some may say that this is OK so long as the public ends up with the product- EVs, windpower, solar, etc.. The problem is that we do so at such gross inefficiency that it makes this argument...dare I say a non sequitur in logic at face value?

 

[davewill]

Any additional incentive is going to go to the manufacturers as they adjust their MSRPs up, not to end buyers.

... I have argued for quite some time that "green" in general is merely a marketing slogan that largely translates to corporate welfare for the likes of GE, Xerox, Ford, et all. Some may say that this is OK so long as the public ends up with the product- EVs, windpower, solar, etc.. The problem is that we do so at such gross inefficiency that it makes this argument...dare I say a non sequitur in logic at face value?

It depends. If the cars aren't selling at the current price point, then the manufacturer won't actually have room to move the price up. In the case of the LEAF, I'm quite confident that the price wouldn't automatically come down $7500 if the incentive were to evaporate, although an increase in the incentive doesn't really seem to be in order at this point.

 

[thankyouOB]

="adric22"]I would think it might actually be better to spend more federal money on charging stations. The vehicles would become a lot more desirable if there were more places to charge them. Also the range would become less important as would the loss of battery capacity over time.

I realize the government has already spent money on public charging but I'm not to thrilled on the way it has been distributed...

You are correct. There has, IMO, been a gross misallocation of BEV/PHEV subsidies.

The most extreme example of this is California, where I believe that well over $200,000,000 of Federal and State taxpayer subsidies have been expended to encourage the purchase of BEVs/PHEVs and also (often unnecessary) home and public L2 chargers, and not one well designed, correctly located, and dependable DC charge station, is now operational.

Only 1% of that $200,000,000 expenditure could have been used to install a few dozen DC stations installed at strategic highway locations. 10% of that the total subsidy, would have resulted in hundreds of DC stations, and a "developed nation" BEV infrastructure, such as now exists in Japan.

You are working on a wrong premise. it is better to subsidize L2 EVSEs in homes in order to collect the data.
Remember, the major rationale for the EVSE subsidy is about data collection, NOT to make it cheaper to buy.
That is not true for the EV credits and rebates.

You do NOT get data about usage and charging if you only subdidize L3.

 

[edatoakrun]

="adric22"]I would think it might actually be better to spend more federal money on charging stations. The vehicles would become a lot more desirable if there were more places to charge them. Also the range would become less important as would the loss of battery capacity over time.

I realize the government has already spent money on public charging but I'm not to thrilled on the way it has been distributed...

You are correct. There has, IMO, been a gross misallocation of BEV/PHEV subsidies.

The most extreme example of this is California, where I believe that well over $200,000,000 of Federal and State taxpayer subsidies have been expended to encourage the purchase of BEVs/PHEVs and also (often unnecessary) home and public L2 chargers, and not one well designed, correctly located, and dependable DC charge station, is now operational.

Only 1% of that $200,000,000 expenditure could have been used to install a few dozen DC stations installed at strategic highway locations. 10% of that the total subsidy, would have resulted in hundreds of DC stations, and a "developed nation" BEV infrastructure, such as now exists in Japan.

You are working on a wrong premise. it is better to subsidize L2 EVSEs in homes in order to collect the data.
Remember, the major rationale for the EVSE subsidy is about data collection, NOT to make it cheaper to buy.
That is not true for the EV credits and rebates.

You do NOT get data about usage and charging if you only subdidize L3.

Only?

Well, if the entire amount spent in California on BEV/PHEV subsidies, had been spent on fast charging, we probably could have built a nationwide DC charge network, by now.

As to data collection, Since fast charging is IMO, the most likely public charge method likely to be economically viable, the delay in collecting information on Fast-Charger use, has been detrimental to California's future electric infrastructure planning.

As to home charging, the give-away of L2s, is only a small part of the total BEV/PHEV subsidy, but one which itself has the effect of distorting BEV/PHEV purchase decisions (Californians living in most of the State, do not qualify) as well as home charging behavior (many who can and would use L1, use L2, just because they got a free 240V charger).