Best electric vehicle charging incentive policy for Multi Family Dwellings
Email I recently received:
"We have been having in-depth customer interviews with Multi Family Dwelling property owners and managers, and have consistently heard a preference for level 2 charging over level 1."
****
For people who are new to electric vehicle charging, level 2 charging refers to charging an electric vehicle using a 240 volts charger which is faster than a level 1, or 120 volts, charger but is also a lot more expensive to install and maintain.
Here is my reply to them, please share your thoughts, I want to know!
*****
Great to hear from you XY, YX really didn't need to survey anyone for that. If you ask people whether they would prefer to live in a house or a condo, great majority will obviously choose the house. specially if the survey may result in some government (i.e. free) funding :-)
The danger of this process becomes apparent when the government pre-paid service fees expire and the property has to self-fund the on-going maintenance and service fees of the load-balanced high-tech level 2 chargers.
Two possible scenarios often happen at this stage:
1- Property is forced to increase usage fees (to cover cost) which in turn forces drivers to look for alternatives (some of our clients belong to this category).
2- Property often decides to completely abandon the L2 chargers due to the pressure from electric vehicle owners who found (or talked to someone who had) a cheaper alternative solution and don't want to pay for the heavy cost of shared chargers that are unnecessary or unused.
At the end of both of these scenarios, the incentive money is completely wasted. The same amount of funding could have supported 5 times as many people only if level 1 charging was supported; Not even prioritized, just equally incentivized! People often choose a solution that comes with free money (especially from the government) no matter if it’s the best choice or not! This is often caused by the pressure sales people put on them, saying
“government funding like this ends quickly and may never be renewed, you gotta act fast!”.
I'm not saying this to benefit Plugzio, my industry observation above helps the entire electric mobility industry, my sole intention (and in turn my company's intention) is to help accelerate the electric vehicle adoption so our forests can stop burning as fast! I want you to know that level 2 charging is not really my competition, if you care to know, Plugzio's real competition (what keeps me awake at night) is "a regular outlet on a fixed monthly fee".
Abraham Lincoln once said:
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time. But you can never fool all of the people all of the time!"
we believe this stands true with level 2 chargers (especially for home/work charging where over 80% of charging happens). People will eventually realize (as thousands of them already have) that given the amount of time vehicles are parked and the amount of distance people travel (that they must recharge), level 2 charging is not worth the buzz/costs.
This, by the way, is usually the time when an independent reporter does a thorough study on the amount of money a government entity wasted in the name of giving people what they wanted! and the finger pointing (i.e. blaming game) begins!
The best policy for the government is to stay out of the decision making process completely!
The best solution for the government is to stay out of the decision making process completely, provide a funding ceiling for each electric vehicle ready parking space (let’s say $2000 per space and max $4000 for any ‘necessary’ shared electrical panel upgrades) and let the end-users decide if they want to go with level 1 or level 2 based on their personal circumstances or influences. This, by the way, is sometimes referred to as honoring the ‘free market’. Two very important things happen with this policy:
1- You have just pressure tested the people who want a level 2 charger. If a building can’t afford the remaining cost to install level 2 charging beyond the $2000, then they will most probably not be able to sustain the yearly fees.
2- The policy would benefit everyone equally! Policies that involve cost sharing (i.e. subsidy pays for 50% of the cost of the installation) unfairly benefit richer buildings. A building that can raise $10,000 for electric vehicle charging installation, can definitely raise the rest of the 50% and doesn’t need any support. The real problem, is in buildings that can’t even raise $10 for electric vehicle charging, let alone $10,000!
If you have actually read my email this far, I salute you and will leave you with a quote from Henry Ford, adjusted for the 21st century. Henry Ford once said
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" or in our scenario, faster chargers! :-)