What makes plug-in more efficient...

no argument. to me, free means free. if you don't want me using it, put up a sign and enforce it.

what about a range extended bev?

 

Well, again, the argument isn't for enforcing anything, since I think there's approximately zero chance of that working. I've been in several discussions on this topic, and the vast majority of PHEV owners are convinced that a free charger is a public facility for all comers, and hooking up to it is their right, without limit or reservation. I have even gotten arguments from Volt owners that a BEV has no right to unplug a PHEV "just because it needs the charge more", even if that means leaving a BEV with a depleted battery stuck waiting for the PHEV owner to get back.

Given the reality of these attitudes, my argument is more for policymakers - if your purpose is to encourage people to buy BEVs, don't put public money into free chargers, because free chargers don't achieve that purpose. Instead, subsidize more rapid deployment of paid chargers, perhaps with revenue-sharing arrangements to recoup some of the public money over time. These will more often be available for the intended BEV-promoting purpose, i.e., allowing BEVs to operate over longer itineraries.

This argument is specifically regarding subsidizing public chargers for the purpose of encouraging BEV sales. There are other legitimate public purposes for free public chargers, e.g., reducing ICE emissions in dense urban areas. In that case, you don't really care if the vehicle grabbing a free charge could refuel at a gas station - you would rather they didn't, and you're willing to pay for their energy use to keep them driving longer on battery power.

To your second point, for purposes of this discussion, REx BEVs are identical to PHEVs in two relevant attributes:

1. They don't need to use public chargers at all.
2. Paying to use a public charger probably makes no economic sense for them.

Free chargers are a legitimate promotional tool as I've described earlier, and more power (ahem) to the businesses that offer them. But they cannot be regarded as a useful tool for promoting BEV adoption, because they will too often be tied up by PHEVs grabbing a free lunch. Paid chargers are far more reliably useful to BEV owners.

The only enforcement measures I favor are heavy fines and towing for ICEVs parking in charging spots, as that is completely unacceptable. As infrastructure and tech matures, we may also place constraints on how long an EV can sit on a charger after charging is complete, but unless it's something as simple as a timed parking meter model, it would be too complicated today.

 

again, agreed. are there publicly funded free charging stations? not around here, i don't think. whole foods is the only place i ever plug in, and they only have them in the uppity neighborhoods.

 

I have never seen all chargers in use at places that offer them for free, but then again, there aren't that many locations around here.

Free chargers at businesses are there to entice wealthy customers to visit, and the few cents in electricity is a small price to pay to capture that market. It is available first come, first serve. I've only seen them in places that you would only spend 20 minutes at in the first place, such as grocery stores. I did see parking in a casino garage in Vegas that had about 10 spots labeled for EV use, and none were taken. I almost parked there since there were no other spots available on the 10 floors of parking after 20 minutes of driving around, but didn't want to risk getting towed. I parked 6 blocks away in the sun instead.

I would have no problem if someone unplugged after a charge completed on my car; in fact I would prefer it. That said, I would never leave the charger idle for more than a few minutes anyhow. Maybe I could carry a sign to hang on the cord saying it's ok to unplug if the charge is complete.

All that said, EV owners shouldn't regularly be relying on subsidized public L2 charging to make it home.

If you view subsidized public charging as a resource reserved only for those that can't otherwise make it home, then they would almost never get used. The whole point is to encourage EV adoption and attract wealthy customers, not to regularly provide a means of getting them home.

I would bet that desperate EV owners that need a charge to make it home have been blocked by other EVs that didn't need the charge more often than PHEVs. There is simply more EVs on the market compared to PHEVs, and the temptation to utilize a subsidized utility is too enticing.

 

there is one charger in the marriott resort that we stay in, and it's the farthest away from the villa's. i have never seen a car charging, or an ev anywhere on property. they also have a hybrid parking spot in front of each building, but most anyone parks in them.

 

I don't have a plug-in (but considered a Gen II volt before my GEN IV prius).

Another topic of interest related to the tragedy of commons: What about road-use costs, which are currently funded via gas taxes?

Should efficient hybrid vehicles pay more somehow? (I.e.: there was a time when mileage was fairly homogeneous, and a per-gallon tax provided a moderately reasonable proxy for use/consumption of structural resources. So, with a 2016 prius, capable of over 60 MPG, should I be charged an additional road tax to cover the more than 20,000 miles per year of roadway use that I "consume"?

Should consumption be based on vehicle weight, considering that heavier vehicles probably contribute more to road wear?

And, what about those that drive BEVs? Shouldn't they pay their "fair share"?

I don't know. I really don't. But, I imagine that road maintenance costs remain relatively stable, while use fees continue to decline with increasing mileage.

 

Two points:

1. That's not exactly a tragedy of the commons. Assuming BEVs aren't going to go running around tearing up the roads with studded tires just because they don't have to pay for gas, in what sense is their being free of fuel taxes causing them to waste or abuse the roads?

2. Let's worry about that when BEVs reach at least 10% of the fleet. Until then, our real problem is that we don't have enough buyers for alt-fuel vehicles. Additional disincentives are hardly necessary at this point.

 

1. It's not just studded tires that are responsible for road maintenance needs. (If so, there'd be no gas tax in Texas or Arizona).

2. My point in the post was really an observation : per vehicle road maintenance needs remain constant with efficient vehicles while maintenance revenues decline. Said another way: the gas tax proxy no longer remains reasonable. It this becomes an economic externality.

A fiscally responsible municipality is going to have to take action to replace that declining revenue. At first blush, it seems reasonable to assess those fees upon the very vehicles that are using the road.

Frankly, driving around in my 60+ MPG Gen IV, it's to my advantage for it to be via gas tax. However, my point is that with the introduction of low (or no) gas consumption vehicles, the gas tax proxy starts to break down, and skews disproportionately. That is, I'd suggest, a tragedy of the commons.

As I readily admitted, short of assessing every vehicle a mileage-based road access fee, the disproportion will continue until a tipping point.

It's not about incentive or disincentive, but about how the government will find a way to replace the declining revenue in light of (presumably) steady costs.

Admittedly, a bit off topic. And, admittedly, I don't have any answer.

 

I always wonder why taxes have to be many, and varied. Instead, it should be as simple as possible. The state should assess either an income tax, or a sales tax, and not both. It should then collect all the revenue needed to fund all public works through this tax.

Everyone needs roads. Either you are visiting someone, or someone is visiting you. Either you travel to purchase goods, or someone delivers the goods to you. Since we all depend on roads, it should be funded in proportion to income from everyone. We already have taxes that are much less equitable. Consider that property taxes pay for public schools, regardless of how many children you may have. Even if we don't have children, we need young people to continue in the labor market as we exit, and it's preferable that they not be stupid. So, we fund schools.

If we want to discourage fuel consumption, then perhaps some sort of sin tax should be levied, but our infrastructure shouldn't depend on it. A per mile fee might be the next best way to fund infrastructure, but then cheating the odometer would become commonplace.

 

I agree. You raise an interesting point - should the necessary revenue be generated in a singular, general fashion? Or in a per-use fashion?

Generally (in theory) one might imagine that it makes sense to tax those things we want to dis-incentivize. For, example, tax cigarettes, and hopefully dissuade people from smoking. So, the more they smoke, the more they pay. And, maybe tax gasoline, so that people will become conservative in their travel - unnecessary/inefficient travel is wasteful of fossil fuel, and contributes to further road-wear/infrastructure maintenance, so we may want to tax travel to cause people to be mindful of resource consumption.

This goes equally for electricity, perhaps. Maybe the answer is to increase electricity taxes to pay for road use, and that will take into consideration the various BEVs' road use. Of course, this will disincentive BEVs, and minimize their other environmental benefits (if there are any).

But, to tax income can (theoretically) be a bit counter-intuitive: Don't we want people to seek income? Same with Sales tax - don't we want people to spend, to spur that portion of "economic activity" and drive demand, and ultimately employment?

But - the money has to come from somewhere, and if we oversimplify, we can end up with the school situation you mention: where even non-users have to pay (sometimes heartily). Should a non-parent have to pay as much as those that make the choice to be parents? Maybe, since as you rightfully point out - a whole bunch of stupid kids end up as a drag on society & the economy anyway - so it's an investment, and helps everyone.

With the warmer weather, this morning's commute of 30 miles was at a rate of 80MPG in the GEN IV. So, looking at it from a usage perspective, I didn't pay my "fair share" of road use fees this morning.

Not sure that I'm going anywhere here - just thinking aloud and interested in what thought others have on the topic...

 

There are in some locals. We would likely need to take a trip to the West Coast to see them.

This topic has come up elsewhere, but some points to add:

• The federal fuel tax is a flat rate that has not been increased in decades. The cost to maintain roads has outstripped what it collects some time ago due to inflation.
• The fuel efficiency of plain ICE cars have improved, and will continue to do so with CAFE.

Even without hybrids and plug ins, fuel taxes and road maintenance need to be addressed. The number of plug ins and hybrids alone aren't enough to explain budget shortfalls for road infrastructure, and such claims to that effect are just scapegoating. Mileage based fees, collected as part of annual registration, would be the fairest and simplest way to tax for road use.

A fuel tax, or one on imported petroleum products, is still needed in order to keep gasoline at a stable floor price. Promoting fuel conservation isn't just the only reason. It helps the car companies in promoting and developing efficient cars; they won't end up paying CAFE fees, and fighting CAFE, if the public starts buying inefficient cars with a drop in fuel prices. It would also protect the domestic oil industry and jobs, plus thus in the alternate fuel fields.

This will start heading into the politics section, but the entire "tax me more and I'll work less" argument is BS. First, higher income is still higher income even with some more taxes on it. Second, for those that do follow through on the threat, the business will just hire another person if they need too, and in the case it is a business owner, another business will open up or a competitor will expand.

 

good discussion, but let's not be naive about taxes.

 

If I had a phev or bev vehicle I would be paying .29 cents and at that price it will be a long time before I would consider buying one of those vehicles over a hybrid. Like maybe never.

 

but you can go solar?

 

In my case, EV travel is so cheap as to consider it free. Whenever I forget an ingredient for dinner, I don't hesitate to make another trip. It's only 2.5 miles round trip.

 

i don't either. when my wife forgets an ingredient, i plug the car in for her. but that 2.5 miles costs us 15 cents! i could let her use gas for 12.5 cents.

 

Well, at least you know you're saving a tiny amount of money going EV for that short trip, considering the engine burns more fuel to warm up. It's probably close though.

 

good point, especially depending on the time of year, and whether the engine is already warm or not. either way, we go ev whenever possible.

 

I'd have to have my roof redone and my favorite tree cut down, so add roughly 15k to the price of a solar system, and at 74 payback would be a long way off.