Featured Tax Dollars Wasted Building EV Charging Stations in Cold Climates

North Dakota: I-94, I-29
South Dakota: I-90, I-29
Wyoming: I-80, I-90, I-35

I find the low numbers of EVs actually registered in these states not particularly important to this funding allocation. These are still drive-through states hosting major interstate commerce arteries. I believe it is in the national interest that these interstate (even international, for I-29) commerce arteries be well equipped with EV infrastructure even if no locals ever use them, just out-of-staters traveling through.

These states also have some very significant National Parks and other tourism destinations. Warmer-state tourists owning only EVs ought not be locked out or seriously hobbled.

 

Chicken & the egg. You build one quick charger for $20,000 if there's only one (ie car - worst theoretical fake case scenario) that's $20,000 per car. Talk about finding a way to skew the narrative you're trying to push. It's like trying to divide the Hoover Dam cost between the very small amount of population in the south Western States back then. Largest capital outlay is better called Forward thinking.
.

 

Since EVs do lose range in the cold, wouldn't a robust charger network be more important? Some reasons, like high electric rates, against a plug in are independent of the network's presence. There are others that are alleviated or solved by such a network. Wondering if they have argued against EVs cause not everyone can charge at home, I see the author has argued against EVs over the 'dirty' grid, in California.

"Just as the federal government did not provide gas stations and Tesla charging stations, it should not be funding charging stations for EVs."
She might be partially right. I haven't found anything about Tesla getting federal assistance for Superchargers in the past, but they are applying for it now with the opening up of some locations to other brands. They have gotten grants and other assistance from states. Gas stations get assistance with things like the underground tanks and switching to biofuels.

The funding per registered EV metric is misleading. It is no different than past reports on the Volt that loaded all the R&D funding for the project onto just the first couple years of production, and stating GM is losing money per sale. The reason to invest in chargers is to support not just the ones currently in state, but the future ones residents will buy, and also interstate travel. It's an investment in the future.

But then at least one of those states is trying to ban EVs.

The states are responsible for maintaining, and expanding when needed, the Interstates, and they get money from the fed to help with that. Sounds like this is just the same deal. Bet if we divided that federal highway funding by the registered cars in the state, the table would look similar.

I doubt this maintenance will be done by the state indefinitely. Very likely they'll turn to private networks vs installing state owned chargers. Tesla used grants from California to build in rural areas. This is likely how the funding will be used elsewhere. To help a private company build and start operation. The agreements should contain language about an end to public support once the EV population is high enough to support the locations.

 

The tax code can specify performance specs for Federal funded EV chargers:

• Temperature range
• Plugs

Bob Wilson

 

It isn't a waste of taxpayers dollars; it's called planning for the future. Neither the railroads or the interstate highway system waited for peak demand, before they started building. It's not like EV's are going to disappear over the next century; but wait - I did hear rumors that someone was perfecting the Star Trek transporter system. Don't tell Elon, I told you this, shhhhh!!!!

The states in her example has low population density, therefore need to travel greater distances. A PHEV would suit their needs better than a BEV; but this wouldn't support her argument that it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. As for the other argument that BEV are for the rich; prices are already coming down as BEV's become main stream.

 

Yeah BEVs are only for the rich (and this isn’t the cheapest running example)

 

Geeee - it's curious the article/author doesn't seem to allow for any counter-views ... wonder if that's a clue.

2012 Lexus ES
19mpg in the city. Primium gas.
Pass ...

.

 

The trouble relates to reliability and cost, if it could be built impervious to vandalism and cheaply to last a lifetime…

 

Not hardly, Lexus isn’t posted in an Mitsubishi IMIEV forum

https://myimiev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5147

I’ve encountered dozens of private party sales of 1st Gen EVs under $5k

Every vehicle on the road will end up a $1500 beater some day, even Tesla, hence why sky high tax and insurance needs to get fixed asap if we don’t want these vehicles just scrapped.

 

They aren't just for the rich, but for the rich in California

She thinks the current warming is natural, and brings up dirty fuel for electricity when EVs are better than most ICEs cars across the country. In this piece she spent a paragraph talking about dead starter batteries, and linked EVs to the wealthy twice. She's anti-EV, or just against things supported by the left.

Some places are harder to live with a BEV, but some are making it work. None of those states have zero EVs living in them. And people are free to move about the country. Those chargers in Maine may not convince you to get a BEV, but could convince BEV owners to visit and spend money there.

People bitch about the government spending money on roads, electric grid, and mail, but thee things government has to spend money on, because private business won't. The states being used as an example would be in a very state without federal dollars for their infrastructure.

As for the low EV numbers in those states, could there be external dissentives in place, like high registration fees and taxes. Wyoming had a bill submitted to ban them. Wisconsin bans Tesla stores.

It's 2017 data.
Table FE-221 | Highway Statistics 2017 - Policy | Federal Highway Administration
Pretty sure the funds paid in by the state are mostly the federal fuel taxes collected within their borders. The 4 example states in the piece all receive more funds than they pay in.

Gas stations don't last a lifetime. The dispensers need to be kept calibrated, and the tanks replaced.
DC chargers are going in next to businesses, if not a gas station or rest area.

 

We still have mechanical pumps with mechanical numbers in rural areas

If chargers cost a lot to keep up and don’t have a secondary income source with an attendant they likely won’t last.

I’ve already had issues with strings of inop chargers along a thousand mile route, without a PHEV it would have been very painful

 

Well, they need a certain level of plug ins to support them, but then there needs to be chargers for people to consider taking BEVs on trips. That's kind of the reason they need government support. They also need government to ensure the coverage is widespread.

A state is free to opt out; I wouldn't force hydrogen on them, so I won't force chargers. The OP link is just biased and making bad faith arguments for it.

 

Even if (a BIG if) it doesn't make sense for people in cold climates to own EVs and thus the chargers won't get used a lot in by residents in those states...wouldn't those states want to get the EV driving tourists to visit their states during the warmer months?

In any case, we should build the EV chargers since more will be needed in cold climates

Mike

 

The initial premise of the piece had raised my suspicions. EVs lose charge in the cold; no one is arguing otherwise. That makes them impractical; well, it depends, but I'll follow along. So building chargers is a waste of money; . Yes, EV lose range in the cold, but the fix to that is having enough chargers to compensate for that loss. EVs are also impractical for those living in apartments because of the lack of home charging, so we shouldn't spend money on charging solutions for them. That is the reasoning in effect.

That left me more critical of the rest of the piece.

There are EVs on the road now, and there numbers are growing. Public chargers could help increase those numbers, but that is only part of the reason for this spending. The other is to ensure the charger coverage reaches across the country. Leave it to private parties, and they'll only install chargers where they are profitable. Which is what was happening with the electric grid until the federal government starting paying for it in rural areas. Tesla probably has the best network in terms coverage, yet the closest supercharger to you is in Canada.

Looking at EV acceptance levels now is a flaw of the piece. This government program is for the future EVs that will be on the road.

There are several studies and surveys showing that public charging infrastructure is important for EV adoption. There is a lot of US households that could make an EV work with just home charging. Enough to support early growth. Waiting until that segment is saturated before building out the public charging infrastructure means it is too late.

The Federal Highway Trust Fund hasn't met the funding needs of US highways. The fed and states are contributing more from general funds. Comparing the charger fund amount to it should consider that. Then are these funds for chargers aren't allocated for just one year. The numbers supplied in the piece are the total amounts to a state over 5 years. The piece also said $7.5bil for chargers from the law, when the program discussed is $5bil. That $5bil is announcement rounded; it's actually $4.155bil.
Alternative Fuels Data Center: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law - 5-year National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funding by State | Federal Highway Administration

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure how the Fund is distributed is based upon a state's area, or miles of highway within it. North Dakota is a physically bigger state than Maine. Maintaining the longer stretches of highway will cost more. Since the IRA calls for a charger station every 50 miles of highway, following the rules used for the Fund makes sense. Why spend money developing a program when one already exists.

The 1104 charger study results are based on meeting the minimum requirements of the law. A charger station of four 150kW chargers every 50 miles of highway. The $1.3bil is installation only It assumes perfect placement to not have gaps greater than 50 miles. It also admits these may not be enough chargers in high traffic areas. The charge rate is on the slow side for EVs coming out now. It is a bare minimum, and just a starting point.

From the study, "This analysis found that all currently designated EV Alternative Fuel Corridors and non-designated interstates could comply with NEVI guidelines through the strategic addition of 1,104 new charging stations. This would represent an estimated investment of $750 million to $1.3 billion in equipment installation costs. Station planning, operation, maintenance, and reporting would incur additional costs but would likely be covered in part by charging customer payments, private investment, and state and federal funding.
...
This road map focused strictly on the physical and geographic requirements for charging infrastructure build-out outlined in NEVI program guidance. Further analysis should closely examine the equity considerations and local context for individual station planning, specifically in ensuring that NEVI program benefits flow in large part to disadvantaged communities, in alignment with the Justice40 Initiative."

 

Another biased article from a right-wing blog...the headline gives it away.

But getting past the headline, the article's so badly-written I can't figure out if it's complaining about Biden and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (aka the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill - Republicans had a hand in it too), or trying to make some kind of point about how EVs function in cold weather.

This line summed up what a load of the article is:

"Some states may see more EV purchases as a result of more charging stations, but EVs cannot defeat the laws of physics and are unlikely to be popular in cold climates."​

Norway's cold too, and 80% of all new cars sold are EVs. 18,000 charging stations including 5,000 rapid chargers. Ten times the population of (and a slightly bigger area than) Wyoming. Zero people complaining about the waste of taxpayers' money.

Norway – the EV capital of the world

I get that people in the butt-crack of nowhere in Wyoming prefer gas, but the installation of charging points isn't just for them...it's for anyone visiting or passing through their state. If they don't want to use the federal funds and be a part of that...oh well, their loss. Some other state can use the $27million they turned down

 

Hopefully these types of things are pig and a poke to provide a demerit of some type for refusal.

Federal should also get involved in benchmarks of what is reasonable for EVs, PHEVs and hybrid fees banning them in a state with statistically ZERO cars until they meet some sort of benchmarks in terms of plug in modernization

Also hopefully the government taps into the big data of who where when etc to tap into where people go most often (not just EVs) and approach this program frugally over time building out from centralized points every hundred miles gradually filling in the gaps. If they take it moderately slow using a shotgun approach they will collect data and can set reliability and maintenance benchmarks.

To start SOME infrastructure in every state is better than none in most places.

I also hope they start with cheap reliable L2 to get started since not everyone can use l3 and it’s under 1/10 the price and takes minutes to install as opposed to months for l3 due to the grid and substation changes needed.

Carefully choosing the who and where is very important for longevity, sustainability and access in a situation like this.